Ett par intressanta inlagg pa bemarkelsedagen da UDHR firarar 60 ar idag. Inlagg 2 och 3 ar mer Thailandspecifika.
Six decades after affirmation, challenges remain NAVANETHEM PILLAY
Bangkok Post
10 December 2008
Today we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that marked a crucial turning point in human history as the first international agreement setting out freedoms, rights and entitlements for all humanity to claim.
Six decades ago, it affirmed that the force of shared ideas and a common vision of respectful and peaceful coexistence can prevail over brutality, hatred and destruction.
Since then, the world may have changed a great deal, but the recognition of our inherent kinship in rights, of our common claim to a life in dignity, of our right to count and be counted irrespective of our ancestry, gender and colour, status and creed applies to today's realities as much as it did in1948.
And so does the Universal Declaration's emphasis on the inextricable relationship between fundamental freedoms and social justice, and the connection of both these elements with peace and security. By not ranking rights, the Declaration clearly expressed the equal status of political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as their interdependence. It envisaged a world in which every man, woman and child lives in dignity, free from hunger, violence and discrimination, and enjoys the benefits of housing, healthcare, education and opportunity.
An extensive and growing corpus of international law has fleshed out the Universal Declaration's principles, specifying States' obligations in upholding them. They have found an echo in the constitutions and laws of more than 90 countries. Dedicated international, regional and national mechanisms have been put in place to be both the custodians and the monitors of human rights, their promotion and protection. Civil society everywhere exerts vigilance over rights implementation with growing capacity and influence.
There is no doubt, however, that despite all our advances in law and practice, serious implementation gaps remain in protecting people from fear, injustice and inequality. Impunity, armed conflict and authoritarian rule have not been defeated. Regrettably, human rights are at times sidestepped to promote short-sighted security agendas. And lamentably, a trade-off between justice and peace is often erroneously invoked when societies emerge from conflict and combatants return to their communities.
We must take stock of the fact that racism, discrimination and intolerance represent some of the greatest global human rights challenges of our time.
Violence against women is still a daily occurrence in too many countries.
The UN Security Council and international tribunals have clearly established that rape and other forms of sexual violence can amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, or may be regarded as constitutive acts with respect to genocide. Yet such assaults often remain unpunished. The fact is that in too many countries, violence against women and vulnerable groups, such as indigenous people and minorities, is fostered by laws and customs that make them second-class citizens and systematically discriminate against them. This occurs despite strong international standards that protect them and call for their full participation in society. It takes place despite recognition of the critical role that such groups play in building knowledge, enriching a culture with diversity and thus in fostering development, as well as peace and security.
Irrespective of gender, origin or race, communal welfare hinges upon respect and promotion of all rights, freedom and liberty, as well as economic rights, including the right to adequate food, health, housing and education. This is why States should do more and work faster to meet the Millennium Development Goals which are eight globally endorsed objectives addressing many aspects of extreme poverty. They should do so by injecting a human rights perspective into poverty reduction strategies in order to provide a framework of institutions and norms which can help reduce disparities, address the root causes of inequality, and mediate those conflicting claims that inevitably arise through development processes.
Repression and poverty challenge us today just as they did the framers of the Universal Declaration. And daunting new challenges are emerging, such as climate change, the food and financial crises, globalisation, terrorism, and new or resurgent epidemics. The sheer magnitude and the multifaceted aspects of the tasks ahead require collective efforts predicated on the common ground of our human condition and universal acceptance of international law. Yet attacks on the universality of rights continue to stand as barriers to human rights implementation. The truth is that the Universal Declaration was not merely congruent with some customs and foreign to other cultures. It drew its principles from many diverse traditions, and it made them more robust through a uniform codification.
Rights hold the whole world in solidarity and in responsibility. Only by attaining all our universal human rights will we be able to reach the higher standard of life and greater enjoyment of freedom that Eleanor Roosevelt and her co-drafters claimed for us 60 years ago.
Navanethem Pillay is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
_________________________________
EDITORIAL (The Nation)
A long way to go for human rights in Asia
Published on December 10, 2008
Thailand aims to lead Asean in improving protection, but our own record also falls short Today is International Human Rights Day and also the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). When Thailand signed the UNDHR in 1948, it became the boldest country in Asia by acceding to the universal norms that respect human rights. It was the first Asian country to do so. That was a remarkable undertaking, achieved at a time when Thailand, like other countries, had just emerged from the destruction of World War II. Thailand wanted to join the international community as soon as possible. After officially supporting the Japanese against the Allied forces, Thailand wanted to clean up its recent past by quickly embracing the United Nations and other related international activities.
International organisations, including their universal values and shared norms, served as a shield for Thailand against the threat of communism.
Today, a glance at the country's human rights record might lead one to draw the conclusion that progress in this area is still very disappointing.
Authorities concerned are still not willing to work for justice. Abuse and disappearances still continue. The well-known case of human rights lawyer, Somchai Neeraphaijit, still unaccounted for, not to mention other recent disappearances involving minorities in the remote provinces of northern and southern Thailand, are examples of this lack of progress.
It is sad that Thailand, which started out as a well-respected member of the international community, and one that supposedly placed a high value on human rights, has ended up this way. The political crisis of the past six months has added to the general perception around the world that Thailand has no rule of law. Time and again our society could easily have slipped into anarchy. Ordinary people are seen on TV being beaten up because of the colour of their T-shirt. It is thus imperative that the new government accord top priority to human rights protection and improve the country's tarnished international image.
It has been over a decade since the National Commission on Human Rights was set up to protect and promote human rights in Thailand. But the NCHR's performance has been dismal. The commission could have done a better job if had been a stronger and less dogmatic leadership team; one that was more focused on civil and political rights.
One of the problems has been the emphasis on collective rights, or community rights. Obviously these collective rights are pivotal, but to provide sufficient protection in this area is almost impossible under the current circumstances. New legislation and human rights education is urgently needed if such an approach is to continue, as it involves the rural masses. An increase in the violation of individual human rights, especially in southern Thailand, shows that protection of individual rights has failed. The state security apparatus continues to ignore the basic rights guaranteed by the Thai Constitution and international laws.
Thailand's human rights ideal should have served as a model for Asean countries to emulate. But the country's dismal record, as well as its poor political leadership over the years, has literally eaten into the country's reputation and creditability. This also helps to explain why Thailand's repeated call for a more liberal and comprehensive approach to human rights within Asean has failed miserably. Only Indonesia and the Philippines see eye to eye with the Thais.
As the current Asean chair, Thailand has been working hard to produce a good terms of reference for the establishment of an Asean human rights body by the end of next year. It is going to be tough because of the grouping's principle of consensus and the fact that the majority of Asean members still prefer a docile mechanism that pays just enough lip service to the protection of human rights and not much more. They say that human rights protection in Asean should be an evolutionary process. This is the reason it has taken the grouping more than a decade to even establish the idea of setting up a human rights mechanism.
How long will it take before there is real protection of human rights in Asean?
If Thailand really wants to uphold human rights values and standards, our government officials must change their mindset now. It is silly to continue to cite how many international bills of rights we have ratified, because these do not help improve the situation on the ground at all. The efficient enforcement of constitutional rights has been lacking.
For instance, Thailand has courageously ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, but torture practices, especially during detention periods, continue unabated. Therefore, it is futile to talk about human rights protection while these practices go on.
In the field of human rights, action speaks louder than words, and in the case of Thailand, we are hearing a loudspeaker.
______________________
THE THAI CONSTITUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights during times of turmoil
VITIT MUNTARBHORN
December 10 is a special day for at least two reasons. It is Thailand's Constitution Day and also the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the "Magna Carta" (Great Charter) of human rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.
[http://www.bangkokpost.com/101208_News/101208_news04.jpg]
The Democracy Monument in Bangkok... a witness to numerous political upheavals and discarded constitutions.
While some may claim that we should be celebrating the 60th birthday of that seminal document this week, others may prefer to call for its commemoration, given the turmoil surrounding the implementation of human rights in many countries.
Much has been achieved globally and nationally in the six decades since the Universal Declaration. Pursuant to the declaration, the world has concretised human rights standards and related monitoring of their implementation through a variety of human rights treaties. There are now nine UN-backed core human rights treaties covering issues such as civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; racial discrimination; women's rights; child rights; torture; migrant workers; persons with disabilities; and enforced disappearance.
These are complemented by various additional treaties (Protocols) enabling victims to seek redress from the human rights bodies set up by these treaties, such as the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where the local remedies are inadequate.
On another front, the struggle against impunity has led to the rise of various international criminal courts to punish persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, for lack of remedies at the national level. The International Criminal Court is now functioning fully, and there are parallel courts covering various key situations, such as former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Cambodia.
The UN has also adopted the notion of the responsibility to protect (R2P), calling for States to protect their population from various egregious human rights violations, failing which the UN should act more assertively.
In 2007, the UN adopted another key document which adds value to the increasing emphasis on group rights (peoples/communities), in addition to the rights of individuals highlighted by the nine treaties above. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was born, recognising that "indigenous peoples have the right to self determination". A recurrent question is this: who are the indigenous and does the right mentioned enable them to secede (break away from the main State)?
The 2007 Declaration does not define the notion of "indigenous," but generally it is taken to mean the "first peoples" who inhabited the land, for example "Aborigines". It opens the door to self-identification; groups can self-identify as indigenous, and this has bearing on the history and the cultural patterns/identities of the peoples in the country where they are found.
There is also some confusion concerning whether indigenous peoples are the same as "minorities". The answer is that they are not the same; indigenous peoples may be in the majority in a country rather than the minority. The Declaration adds that this instrument does not authorise action leading to the break-up of States.
At the national level, the implementation of human rights in keeping with international standards has been witnessed by the reform of many laws and practices antithetical to human rights. Several countries have abolished laws which previously allowed the State to impose capital punishment on persons under 18 years of age. Many countries have adopted laws to curb violence against women. Numerous human rights institutions, particularly in the form of National Human Rights Commissions and Ombudspersons, have come into existence.
Many States have opened the door to a wide range of human rights actors, including civil society and the media, to become more involved in the promotion and protection of human rights. UN agencies working at the national level are also supposed to mainstream human rights in their work.
Despite the above developments, the world is still witnessing a wide array of violations, often linked with the laxity of implementation, lack of democracy, the spread of violence, and the spectre of war facing several countries.
These are aggravated by development deficits and environmental catastrophes, with global warming casting a great shadow on the human race as a whole.
With regard to Thailand, a welcome fact is that the country is now a party to seven of the core human rights treaties mentioned (with the exception of the treaty on migrant workers' rights and the issue of enforced disappearance). A new publication on the Universal Declaration produced by the UN in cooperation with Thailand's National Human Rights Commission, is being launched this week as a testament to the voices of people in Thailand on how they view human rights and their implementation, particularly from the angle of justice and human dignity.
At the national level, intriguingly the country has already lived through
18 constitutions, with increasing verbal commitment to human rights in the more recent charters. It is worth recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has had a direct impact on Thailand's constitutions from the very start. The section on "rights" in these constitutions has been heavily influenced by the Universal Declaration, although with some key differences.
While the Declaration advocates the notion of "asylum," thus providing an avenue for the rights of refugees, Thailand has not included this notion expressly in its constitutions. Moreover, the section on "rights" in the Thai constitution guarantees the rights of "Thais," rather than the rights of all persons irrespective of national and other origins - the latter being the international premise for non-discrimination, a key human rights principle. However, other laws, such as the Child Protection Act, entrench the notion of non-discrimination in the Thai legal system.
Given that in the past many of the country's constitutions were overturned by coups d'etat, it is often the other laws - such as the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code - which have provided the mainstay, a surer footing, for human rights protection, especially in regard to the administration of justice. Various adjustments to these laws during the past year have improved safeguards for persons affected by the justice system. For instance, women victims are now to be interviewed by trained women law enforcers. The age of criminal responsibility at which young persons will be accountable under the criminal law was recently raised from seven years of age to 10 years of age (although the latter is still too low).
Yet, the crux is the implementation of human rights at the national and local levels, and over the past year, the relationship between human rights and related limitations in times of turmoil has been most volatile.
First, there is the key challenge of the linkage between human rights and democracy. That nexus implies that the rights of the majority must be respected, while not overlooking the rights of minorities. While democracy involves more than the electoral process based on rule by the majority, rule by the majority is internationally the rule and not the exception.
The position adopted by some sectors of society that the majority should be sidelined because they are seen as less educated, from a lower economic stratum and/or from a different geographic area, is contrary to human rights law and international practice.
Second, what is the content of the right to freedom of association/assembly ("to demonstrate") and what are the limits to be imposed in times of turmoil?
While some rights such as the right not to be tortured are absolute and cannot be constrained under any circumstances, other rights, including the right to freedom of association/assembly, can be subjected to various limitations.
The international human rights framework indicates that the right to demonstrate must be exercised peacefully and it can be constrained on the basis of the law (and not arbitrarily), when it is necessary to do so, the limitations being proportional to the risk, to be tested against the backdrop of what is permissible in a democratic society.
These parameters indicate that while people have a right to be on the streets to demonstrate, they are not entitled to take over key facilities, such as airports, which are the lifeline of the local and international communities.
However, if law enforcers are to act against these people, use of force is to be a matter of last resort and it has to be truly necessary and proportional to the circumstances.
Third, there is a variety of state-related security laws which are invoked here in times of turmoil. Do they comply with international standards and do they conflict with human rights?
These laws include the Criminal Code, the Martial Law Act, the National Emergency Decree and the more recent National Security Act. Several of these laws need to be reviewed to ensure their compliance with international standards.
For instance, when a state of emergency is declared, it is necessary for the authorities to report this situation through the UN to the member States of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to ensure transparency and balance. This has not yet been done in the case of this country, even though the state of emergency has been announced on various occasions.
Also those national laws should not and cannot condone in principle or practice breaches of human rights, such as freedom from torture and cruel treatment, and the injunction against abductions ("enforced disappearance").
December 10 thus provides a key opportunity for much needed soul-searching in relation to our values, knowledge-base, attitude and behaviour and our commitment to democracy, peace and human rights. It is not a day for self-congratulation or despair. Rather, it is a moment to reflect and self-reflect not only physically but also spiritually. Perhaps, a moment of respite, even in troubled times.
Vitit Muntarbhorn is a Professor at the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University. He has helped the UN in a variety of capacities, including as an expert, consultant and Special Rapporteur.
![http://www.bangkokpost.com/101208_News/101208_news04.jpg]](http://www.bangkokpost.com/101208_News/101208_news04.jpg%5D){kind=link}