Week 6 Discussion

1.By tying its formulation to particular ethical traditions, how does Justificatory minimalism suppose it will avoid unnecessary obstacles?

2.Why do Skeptics find the New Human Rights Mandate has not lived up to its “Mandate?’

3.In “Why did Annan Fail,” which of the explanations (you can chose more than one), contributed most to the lack of success in negotiating a cease fire?

answer only 1 of the 3 questions

300 words.

+ INFORMATION 

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/1208/Kofi-Annan-Despite-flaws-UN-Human-Rights-Council-can-bring-progress

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/why-did-kofi-fail/325137/

STUDENTS EXAMPLES

Skeptics say that the New Human Rights Mandate did not live up to its mandate and that we should get rid of it in its entirety. These critics explain that it did not lead to the fundamental changes that this mandate promised would occur. Some of these critics have even advocated that western and democratic states should leave the council and instead look to help progress human rights in some other forum. There is also a strong belief that by not allowing authoritarian states to be elected as members, the whole effectiveness of the council is largely diminished. Skeptics also argue that the amount of money and effort being put into this is not worth the small incremental progress. Those who do not agree with the skeptics and their idea of removing the new human rights mandate do concur that the council is not living up to its promises or its full potential, however, they believe that with time it will. These people also disagree with skeptics because they believe that this mandate has allowed many members of the council to break free from regional stigmas and work together with leaders from all around the world in order to advance human rights.  

References: 

“Kofi Annan: Despite Flaws, UN Human Rights Council Can Bring Progress.” The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor, 8 Dec. 2011, www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/1208/Kofi-Annan-Despite-flaws-UN-Human-Rights-Council-can-bring-progress. 

——–

3.In “Why did Annan Fail,” which of the explanations (you can chose more than one), contributed most to the lack of success in negotiating a cease fire?

Unfortunately, Syria’s ongoing civil war has been one of the most conflicting wars due to the various domestic sides, foreign allies and outside groups involved. In “Why did Annan Fail”, I believe that one of the main reasons the ceasefire was unsuccessful was Bashar al Asad’s failure to implement Annan’s peace plan. Assad continued ordering attacks against rebel-held towns and villages, sadly these attacks impacted millions of civilians, destroyed thousands of homes and left millions of refugees worldwide. Furthermore, I also believe that the involvement of powerful countries, especially the veto ones, further complicates matters. These countries were primarily concerned with their economic and military ties with Syria despite the number of civilian deaths. As of 2016, the United Nations estimated a total of 400,000 deaths since the war started in 2011. 

—–

3.) Annan’s proposed cease-fire for Syria’s Civil War was a failure, thanks to a conglomeration of the proposed explanations in the article. However, the reasons behind the conflict and the deeply invested interests of major world powers in the strategically important Syrian nation stands out as holding the greatest share of culpability. Russia’s interest in the region is particularly noteworthy given Syria’s coast with the Mediterranean. The preservation of Syria’s regime and resources without concession is of utmost concern to Russia, so any commitment on the side of Assad and his allies weren’t genuine. The same can be said about American and western Europe’s foreign policy. The United Kingdom, France & the United States had invested weapons and funds into Syrian rebels in order to further their chances of deposing Assad and contain Russia’s influence in the Middle East & Mediterranean. The distribution of those investments into a variety of disorganized rebel factions who occasionally fell to infighting or opposing other western-funded groups is indicative of the west’s priorities in Syria as containment of Russian influence before anything else. Were they to fully commit to Annan’s ceasefire plans or end the war, Russia would continue to maintain a strategic advantage in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean. In other words, all major parties in the Syrian Civil War had no intent to stop fighting.

—–

2.Why do Skeptics find the New Human Rights Mandate has not lived up to its “Mandate?’

The new Human Rights Mandate is a commission to start protecting all human rights. Established in 2000, the council put a lot of effort to start promoting implementation of the UN, introduce new strategies to better protect human rights, report, coordinate, and integrate. “We will not solve our problems in isolation. To be sustainable and effective, solutions to complex global issues – like climate change, global inequalities, the mass movement of people, transboundary conflicts or epidemics – must be cooperative” (Michelle Bachelet). There are skeptics because so much money and resources have gone into the investigation, reporting, and education in other countries with little outcome. With the effort and energy being given the change is not great enough. 

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/AnnualAppeal2020.pdf (Links to an external site.)

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/srhrdefenders/pages/mandate.aspx