FAILED STANDARDS

In any Western university teaching human rights, the introductory courses begin with the philosophical concepts beneath these rights. Future professionals, many of whom will then become active within the UN, governments, human rights organisations and NGOs around the world, must learn one thing: there is a universal set of values that underpin international human rights norms and laws. And human rights are the inalienable property of all human beings without distinction of any kind. At the same time, the universalism of human rights is explained through the prism of liberalism, in which an individual is the ultimate and supreme reality.

The humanity came to this understanding back in 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by resolution 217 A (III) of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in Paris. The introduction of any textbook on human rights states that the declaration was influenced by "the violence and horrors of the Second World War, which must not happen again".

The Declaration enshrines fundamental civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. Its preamble begins by the words "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family," followed by thirty articles detailing these rights. A number of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have expanded international law in this area. These include the Conventions on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), on the Rights of the Child (1989), on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) and others.

Old problems

Despite the good intentions, since the adoption of the UDHR, the life of mankind has become neither better, nor more rational and moral. Fortunately, we do not have the Third World War yet (although it depends on how you look at it), but all the horrors of 1939-1945 are periodically repeated in different parts of the world to this day.

Although human rights are considered a universal phenomenon, all peoples, nations and different communities sometimes have very different ideas of what their rights mean, where they begin and where they end. Many politicians, political scientists and scholars believe that the liberal international order, which is the foundation of the modern human rights system, is in crisis. Undoubtedly, in recent decades human rights have been often used not as a goal in and of itself, but as a political, geopolitical and economical tool. The reason lies in the very concept of these rights, which inherently stand above nation states. As a result, the same universal standards can easily make the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of nation states and its own foundations become too vague, open to various manipulations, with their ultimate goal being way too far from the ideas set out in the UDHR. This has often been used by Western countries, which have virtually monopolised all the international organisations and used force to materialise humanitarian intervention. Therefore, it is no uncommon to see the phrase "double standards" used in the context of human rights.

Thus, we can state that attempts to introduce democracy and human rights into international relations have largely failed. A quick analysis of the articles by major Western experts in this field show that Western countries increasingly refer to the world order based on rules (basically Western rules) rather than to international laws (being supposedly a brainchild of all peoples and countries of the world).

Remarkably, the US, which actually positions itself as a world leader, a global defender of human rights, hardly fulfils this role. Take, for example, the death penalty, which still exists in this country. America is still suffering from racial and migration issues. The US is not a party to a number of important multilateral international treaties that form an integral part of contemporary law. It is social and economic rights that are the most unpopular in the West. Many Western professors are much more willing to talk about women's rights to abortion or sexual minorities than about the effects of unemployment on the actual observance of human rights.

New challenges

In today's world, the concept of human rights is being challenged in new ways. For example, the development of various digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) poses a serious threat. These include the violation of rights such as privacy, liberty and security, equality and freedom of expression. In addition, AI is already having an impact on social and economic rights.

Another current and upcoming challenge is climate change. It is already clear that humankind is facing the issue of global climate disorder than global warming. And no one can give an answer as to how the approved principles of the UDHR might be interpreted under the new conditions, given that the climate change directly or indirectly impedes the realisation of all human rights, including the right to life, housing, water and sanitation, food, health, development, personal security and an adequate standard of living.

What happens if there are huge numbers of climate refugees? Or how are we supposed to fight against greenhouse gas emissions? Indeed, why should less developed countries now follow this agenda and hinder their development, thereby jeopardising their economic well-being and social development? Especially since Western countries have gained all their wealth through the merciless exploitation of natural and human resources over many decades. There is no adequate answer to these questions.

The UN in the same league...

The permanent crisis of global confidence in the UN deserves mentioning here as well.  Undoubtedly, the organisation has long failed to fulfil its function as the global guarantor and regulator of the balance of interests. The current escalation in the Middle East seriously undermines the reputation of this international structure, confirming its inability not only to resolve conflicts, but even to smooth their course in any way. What was created with the best of intentions by nations still reeling from the horrors of the Second World War is now, in the twenty-first century, a farce at best.

Today, the UN Security Council (UNSC) is completely blocked thanks to the confrontation between Russia and the West, as well as the rivalry between China and the US. It is clear that the UNSC should be expanded. But who else deserves the right to be part of it? Can the EU choose a single country to represent its interests in the UN? What about Africa? Islamic countries? No one has any reason to trust each other.

The UNGA constantly adopts resolutions. But Azerbaijan knows very well that they solve absolutely nothing and have no influence on anything. Adopted by a majority of votes, these decisions are merely a bunch of recommendations, which are usually ignored.

Perhaps the crisis of the UN is a result of the crisis of global diplomacy, which is increasingly failing in such a dynamic world. Where discussions on social networks are running hundreds of times faster than in the high offices of foreign ministries and embassies around the world. Clearly, the countries interested in resolving their issues perform better acting locally rather than through a cumbersome international structure.

Some may argue that the UN fulfils an important humanitarian function. But this is far from reality. It is true that official documents set noble goals supported by some funding. For example, in 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted 17 goals. In October 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres proposed the 2024 UN programme budget for the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly. In doing so, he noted the importance of the organisation and the challenges the international community is facing "on all fronts" today.  The budget totals $3.3b. It's quite a large amount of money to make little difference. Because the organisation is mainly concerned with consequences, not their causes. It's like a doctor treating only symptoms instead of diagnosing them.

What kind of innovations and ecosystem conservation can we talk about if, according to various estimates, about 4 billion (and possibly more) of the Earth's population do not have access to sewerage and the ability to cope with their natural needs in a more or less civilised way. When about a billion people respond to the call of nature just wherever they can, in open air. And it is not merely about inconvenience. Lack of normal toilets leads to the spread of deadly diseases, raises the problem of lack of personal boundaries and security, especially among girls and women who suffer from this problem the most. But who thinks about all the sources of women's rights violations? Neither investment, nor research, nor international solidarity can solve the problem.

But every year on November 19, the UN celebrates the World Toilet Day and holds a special summit. There is even the World Toilet Organisation.

While the UN has been working on equalising the rights of men and women, a third gender has already appeared in many countries, which now also needs to be equalised, but with its own nuances. Including in terms of toilets - a serious reason for another report. Why not?

So are universal human rights and the UN bankrupt ideas? No, it is more about the failed, misguided realisation of these ideas. There is nothing wrong with them. And mankind has yet to come up with anything better. Therefore, the struggle for human rights and the operation of the UN should probably be regarded as unfinished projects. After all, in the historical perspective, 70-80 years is a negligible amount of time.