Can diplomacy advance human rights?

Rashmin Sagoo

A warm welcome to members and friends of Chatham House. For any fans of the Netflix series, The Diplomat, we are indeed in the real Chatham House, and we will be discussing diplomacy today, in particular the question, “Can Diplomacy Advance Human Rights?” Chatham House has been convening on the big issues of international law and policy for over 100 years. Thank you for joining us today to help us continue this tradition.

The discussion today is on the record and is being recorded. Please do tweet, and hashtags and handles will be provided. We have a stellar line-up of speakers today, both in Chatham House and online, and I shall introduce them shortly. And we have firstly, David Griffiths, who’s our Associate Fellow of the International Law Programme here at Chatham House, welcome, Catalina Devandas, who is online, actually, today, Former Special Rapporteur for Disability, and Executive Director of Disability Rights Advocacy Fund, Ian Duddy, the Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, and here in Chatham House, Kristina Arriaga, Trustee of the Oversight Board at Meta. Welcome to you all.

So, we are all here today with our interest in human rights, in multilateralism and indeed, this year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as 70 years ago, the European Convention of Human Rights came into force. However, as many of us know, we are living in a period of great polarisation in this arena, with issues such as – that both states and practitioners are grappling, from global protest movements, vaccine and equity, climate and environmental crises, conflicts throughout the world, from Ukraine to Sudan, US-China rivalry, and certainly closer to home here in London and the UK, issues concerning migration and threats to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, that’s quite a lot. There’s a lot for us to discuss here today, and our experts, with their current roles and previous roles, are perfectly placed to guide us through some of these themes and challenges, and hopefully, perhaps some solutions.

I’ll first introduce you to David Griffiths, who, David, you’ve recently produced a report on human rights diplomacy, yes, right there. I have a copy here, too, and I wondered if you could perhaps tell us a little bit about the emerging themes from the report and perhaps some of the recommendations.

David Griffiths

Yes, thanks.

Rashmin Sagoo

And also, sorry, what is human rights diplomacy? Just…

David Griffiths

What is human rights diplomacy?

Rashmin Sagoo

…so we’re on all the same page.

David Griffiths

Actually, that was where I started, as well. Thank you, Rashmin, and it’s a real pleasure to be here to see all of you and to be part of this event. It’s a – quite a big topic to take on at a time when so many states in the world are doing some crazy things, and as Rashmin said, the time that we’re living through is one of great complexity and enormous and seemingly intractable challenges. So, in the midst of that, there is a question, really, as we approach the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, about what the human rights framework, the human rights system, brings to bear on the morass of challenges that we see in the world today, and what is the space for states to take action within that?

And the concept of human rights diplomacy, which is what we are discussing today, is, in some sense, a rather paradoxical one, because on the one hand, you have the human rights system, which is a rigid system of agreed norms and standards, which states have developed and elaborated in great detail over decades and are bound by, and the discipline of diplomacy is really about – it’s a much more fluid idea. It’s a sense of trying to be pragmatic and to find solutions and to work within political space. So, human rights and diplomacy, on the face of it, are not easy bedfellows, and yet there is something essential about diplomacy to the practice of human rights. Human rights is a state by – a state-to-state system in which the ability of states to speak to each other and to advocate to each other is really an integral part.

So, I just wanted, if I may, Rashmin, to reflect on the report, which I hope you all have a chance to see, and to draw out two risks and an opportunity that really struck me through the process of preparing this report. The first is – the first risk, I think, is that we’re at a time when states are suffocated by great power politics, and there is an enormous risk that they submit to the inevitability of polarisation. Of course, the human rights system has a long history of polarisation between the economic and social rights side on the one hand, and the civil and political rights on the other, which came to be, sort of, mapped onto the divisions in the Cold War and have endured ever since.

The United States has still not ratified the convention on economic and social rights. And today, that polarisation takes the form, really, of the dichotomy between the US and China. And in some sense, you know, while the US champions an agenda of human rights that’s closely linked with democracy and the promotion of freedom and so forth, the Chinese discourse, on the other hand, is picking up old, longstanding ideas from parts of the Global South about the relationship between human rights and development. And so we have these two, sort of, rival discourses of human rights now, human rights as democracy, if you like, and human rights as development. And, you know, in order to make progress on human rights through the multilateral system, states are in a difficult position trying to navigate two very different concepts, two diff – very different languages. I think there’s a lot more we can say about that.

The second risk that I wanted to highlight is around cynicism as a debilitating force within human rights diplomacy, and I think, within the human rights field more generally. There are, as Rashmin highlighted, plenty of reasons for gloom, and it is really not difficult to find sceptics and cynics, a narrative of decline and failure has set in around human rights.

I just wanted to share three quotes that I heard during the course of the conversations leading to this report. One person said, “Everybody sticks to their ideological positions now. There is no real conversation.” Another said how difficult it was to “gain support for an initiative as constructive as developing this – the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment from states who are inherently suspicious of anything new.” A third said how human rights for many governments was purely a matter of reputation management. “There’s a huge risk that expectations of the human rights system have really hit rock bottom, and the lack of creativity and investment in initiatives to build human rights.”

But I want to push back, and I hope we can push back, this afternoon as we discuss this, on this cynicism, and, you know, I’ve become aware, through this and more broadly, of several initiatives where we see people putting real hope and faith in the human rights system. And one such group are a bunch of law students from the Pacific Islands, South Pacific, who have called for the International Court of Justice to give an advisory ruling based on human rights law, about the obligations of states in regard to climate change.

And this is an issue which is of existential significance to the Pacific Island students. Their countries are buffeted by cyclones which take years to recover from, and life is becoming increasingly implausible for them. And the students from Vanuatu and a number of Pacific Island countries have really seen what the human rights system has to offer and put faith in that, seeing the laws and the norms that exist, that are litigable, that are concrete and strong, and, you know, a retreat into the safe space of cynicism is, I think, a real betrayal of that faith.

Rashmin Sagoo

That’s an important point, David. Do you want to finish off a last point before I…?

David Griffiths

Let’s – sorry I’m…

Rashmin Sagoo

Perhaps, ‘cause there’s so much there.

David Griffiths

Too much to say.

Rashmin Sagoo

But I’d really like…

David Griffiths

Let’s move on.

Rashmin Sagoo

…to bring in Catalina and Ian first, and then onto Kristina. Catalina, from your perspective, from your current position, but also as Former Special Rapporteur on Disability, your reflections, please, on, you know, why does human rights diplomacy matter at times like these?

Catalina Devandas

Well, thank you very much…

Rashmin Sagoo

And perhaps…

Catalina Devandas

…first of…

Rashmin Sagoo

…any reflections on what David said.

Catalina Devandas

Well, thanks a lot for the invitation and for the possibility to react to these comments, and indeed, I would like to start by reacting to something that David said, and thank you, David, very much, for the excellent report that you prepared. But one of the main topics is that the human rights system as a whole was created to bring those solutions, right? Diplomacy is a tool that we use, but in principle, if you think of the how and why human rights were adopted as a framework was because – to find solutions for all the atrocities that happened during the Second World War.

And so, we are not only thinking about diplomacy as the way of finding solutions, but the human rights system as the way to bring solutions, to bring better conditions of life for everybody, and even happiness, if I can be a little bit corny. The challenges, indeed the cynicism, that we are facing, because of the failures of the institutional responses, at national level and multilateral level, what we are seeing is this disconnection from not only conservative forces that are opposing human rights and depending on which – as David said, which part of the rights, right, either civil and political, or economic, social and cultural in this false divide that has been created since the beginning of our conversation in human rights.

But it is also interesting for me to see that more progressive forces, new movements, are also disconnecting and finding that the human rights framework is not giving them the responses that they want. They are rebranding, we are moving to a social justice discussion. So we are going back to the social movement discussions, but mostly as a complaint that the infrastructure and the system, the human rights system, is not bringing the solutions that we need.

We have, of course, and you mentioned that we are facing increases – increasing levels of inequality, we have not response in adequate manner to the migration challenge, to the climate challenge, to the food security issues and discussions that have become more important now that we have the situation in Ukraine. We had the caveat also showing us how ill-prepared we were for a human rights-based response to our health emergency of that level.

So what we are seeing is, indeed, that disconnection and that disconnection coming from both parts of the equation and people feeling less engaged, and of course, as a result of all this situation, what we are seeing is a backlash and the implications of the lack of adherence to human rights, with more neglect, more people left behind, people feeling that only resorting to magical responses, they will find solutions. So, we go to fade, we go to nationalism, to security discourses, we’re seeing the growth in populism, and it’s becoming a challenge for countries, like my own country, Costa Rica, where we thought we had a stronger institutional responses that would prevent that kind of situation to happen.

But I think that one important reflection, and with that I will end, because I know we have to move on and have more reflections on this, is that as Diplomats, or former Diplomats, we have none – and I think the UN system and the multilateral system as a whole, we have not been evolving at the pace that the social movements are evolving, and our responses have become a little bit outdated. So, we have to reframe and rethink how we need to increase our flexibility and how we need to reshape the responses, because the multilateral system is no longer the guiding light that is setting the standards. The standards are coming – are created, and sometimes they don’t even want to be part of the UN discussions anymore, right? And so, we have to be mindful of how to make those connections again, and I stop now because I think it’s a lot to digest.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you…

Catalina Devandas

Thanks.

Rashmin Sagoo

…Catalina. No, you’ve given us so much interesting material to, kind of, discuss further, and I particularly like how you were really thinking through what some of the solutions might be and what we all have to do to, kind of, shift the dialogue a little bit and find some of the solutions. And perhaps if others on the panel, and perhaps in the audience later also have thoughts, we can think about those, how to practically implement some of what you’re saying.

Ian, I’m going to come over to you and then to Kristina.

Ian Duddy

Well, thanks, and thanks very much for inviting me to come along. I mean, this is a huge, sort of, PhD topic in itself, but I’ll just give some very brief comments.

So, I started my diplomatic career in the year 2000, as a UK Diplomat, and I would say that was a time of, sort of, high optimism, in some ways, well, particularly living in the West, the collapse of the Soviet Union, rise of China. And I think I’m not alone in saying that when I started in the Foreign Office in 2000, there was a, sort of, perception that, as a country becomes progressively wealthier, richer, lifts people out of poverty, then there’ll be this, sort of, inexorable move towards democracy and human rights being respected. If you like, that Western model of “Countries get richer, better developed, and then there’s greater respect for human rights.”

And, you know, that – I’m paraphrasing, but that model has really broken down, and China has been able to show an alternative model, which, let’s face it, is very attractive to some states and to some political leaders, that you can lift people out of poverty, millions of people out of poverty, become an economic superpower, and that enables you to become a political and military power and still contain – still maintain a strong hold on your population.

And the other reflection I would have is that I agree with David’s analysis that there’s tended to be a focus, particularly in Western states and Western diplomacy on civil and political rights, and I was part of that when I was a British Diplomat. And I think some of the tension that we see now and this polarised dynamic, particularly in – on human rights in the international institutions is because there has been a lack of acknowledgement, a respect for economic, social and cultural rights. And I’m now in a new role in Scotland, leading a National Human Rights Institution, but even in the UK, if you were to ask, and we’ve done some, you know, work and modelling on this and some consultation, local Scottish people, what matters to them on human rights. It is economic, social, cultural rights, it is access to health, education, housing. These are things that really matter, and I think in some ways, Western states and Diplomats have ignored that, to their peril.

I think the other thing I would say about the, sort of, polarised dynamic we have at the moment, I’ll paraphrase that, sort of, you know, US-China, is that the Global South have felt ignored, and they hate having to choose between these two dynamics. And so, my experience as a – in a pre – as a previous British Ambassador, going along and asking a country in the Global South to support us on UN Security Council resolutions, and it was, basically, seen as China, Russia, versus UK, US, France, they hate having to choose. They hate having to be forced into that choice, and sometimes, it can come at a real economic cost, as well. China is not just a major client and customer for many countries in the Global South, it’s also a major investor, and that is a big difference in the last 20 to 30 years.

That said, I’m still quite hopeful. I still think the multilateral architecture is needed, it’s necessary. If we didn’t have it, we’d invent – we’d have to invent some form of it, but I do agree with Catalina, that at the moment, it is not working sufficiently for states, and therefore, you are getting solutions proposed outside of these institutions because of this impasse that we have. There’s a lot more I could say, but I will just keep my remarks very brief to start off with. Thanks.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thanks, Ian, ‘cause I really want to come on to Kristina now, because Kristina, you’ve got such an interesting background, and you’re – but you bring a different background, and including from the Oversight Board at Meta. So please, your reflections in this opening session.

Kristina Arriaga

Thank you very much, and I’ll start with a disclaimer. Even though I sit as a Trustee on the Oversight Board at Meta, I’m speaking here for myself. I spent 25 years as – in – as a Diplomat. I was part of the US delegation to what was called then the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and more recently, I was a Commissioner for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, as well as a representative to the Office of Secure Incorporation in Europe. So, I just wanted to make sure I didn’t get in trouble with the Meta people.

Rashmin Sagoo

Of course.

Kristina Arriaga

So, it – the – I wanted to make three points. First of all, absolutely read this fantastic report. It’s a concise summary of many complex issues. As an American, I do disagree with some of the points, but we can duke it out in the greenroom afterwards.

Rashmin Sagoo

Very interesting, yeah.

Kristina Arriaga

Yeah, but…

Rashmin Sagoo

Yeah, very civilised here.

Kristina Arriaga

…one of the most important parts of the report, and something that is – for the human rights community, is vital, particularly nowadays, human rights is not a Western construct, it isn’t. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by a Leb – mostly drafted by a Lebanese man, Charles Malik, with enormous contributions from Latin America. It was a Black woman from the Dominican Republic that very few people know her name, her last name was Bernardino, she contributed to the discourse on women’s rights. It was a woman from India that you mentioned in your report who ensured that it – the prelude includes men and women. I mean, it was revolutionary in 1947 that anyone would dare to say men don’t represent women. I mean, think about it, how innovative that was.

There was a Cuban, very little is known about him because it was a very short period of time in Cuba where there was democracy, his name is Guy Pérez-Cisneros, who was one of the delegates who contributed to the conversation about Article 18 about the freedom of religion. But most interesting, I think, and most forgotten, is the participation of the Chinese delegate of the Vice Chair of the Human Rights Commission, whose name was P. C. Chang, and it was him that contributed greatly to Article 1 of the declaration, where he said that, according to an ancient Philosopher, Mencius, that there had to be a “two-man mindedness” or sympathy for others, and that there had to be a “heart-mind combination in order to foster respect for human rights.”

And this brings me to a second threat. The first threat is that human rights is a Western concept. The second threat to human right is the idea that everything is a right. And I understand the dichotomy. I mean, if you don’t have a house, and you don’t have food, and you don’t have healthcare, yeah, religious freedom is nowhere – not way up there. I mean, you want to feed your family, you want to have a, kind of – but is everything a right? What happens is, with this new rhetoric of rights, is that we become more self-centred, and the human rights – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was about our relationship with each other, not only about what we as individual humans want and think that we deserve. And that kind of weight on the human rights process doesn’t yield any more justice. More rights do not yield more justice. What yields justice is how we relate to each other, and when – and how we treat each other.

And the final point I wanted to make, and it’s both a depressing one, but also an uplifting one, and that is that even though the system has enormous cracks in it, I mean, right now, we have Russia sitting as – heading the Security Council, right, it also has enormous benefits for individuals. In 25 years, I saw people like the young people sitting here, fight to get people out of prison and fight in – to get people out of places where they were being tortured, and they triumphed by merely bringing their case to light.

And the one person I want to talk to you about as I finish is Vladimir Kara-Murza. This is a British citizen who is – has been sentenced to 25 years in Russia for advocating for human rights. If you don’t know him, look him up. It is shameful that the UK Government, this is a UK citizen, is not out there demanding his release even more forcefully than they’re doing now. We have to press our states to ensure that they remember that human rights are about humans and that there are individuals who are in prison right now because we have not lifted their stories and we have not said their names. Thank you.

Rashmin Sagoo

Kristina, thank you so much for that important reminder, and the other name to remember, as you mentioned, was Bernardino, so know…

Kristina Arriaga

Yes.

Rashmin Sagoo

…her name, also. I would – in a moment, I’m going to open up for questions, in – both here in Chatham House, but also for those of you online. Please do bring in your questions through the question and answer function in the Zoom feed. For in-person guests, please raise your hands if you have a question. No comments, please, just for reasons of time, so that we can get as many questions answered as possible. Please do stay seated and a mic will find its way magically to you by our brilliant colleagues here at Chatham House, and please, when you have a question, please give your name and your affiliation so that we know who you are.

Whilst the questions come in, I just wondered, colleague – our speaker colleagues, are – is there – are they any reflections you’d like to make on one another’s comments? I mean, I have a series of questions in my own mind, but, David, did you want to – were there particular thoughts, for example, that – well, first of all, Ian, I was just thinking of the points you mentioned in terms of the challenges states are facing right now.

I mean, what we – what I’ve observed is that there has been the, sort of, casual drip-feeding of ideas, of breaking international law and international norms that have been carefully devised over, you know, many, many decades, and that can seep into public consciousness to a point where people become somewhat numb to these ideas, including on really important human rights. And I just wondered, from your perspective, from the – in Scotland, you know, your thoughts on – of course, it’s only natural, governments are going to be courting domestic audiences, you know, we can’t divorce the politics from all of this, but there are implications for their international leadership and their soft power, and their own foreign policy objectives. I mean, that’s not perhaps just for you, but Catalina, others, I’m sure will have thoughts, also, but if you wanted to kick off the discussion on that, you’re most welcome.

Ian Duddy

I’m very happy to, and I’m very happy to exercise my newfound freedom of expression. It’s – I think, you know, this is – comes to the crux of why the multilateral system sometimes doesn’t work out or is seen to fail or states are accused of hypocrisy, because all governments face hard choices sometimes. I can give you an explicit example of that. Previously, having worked in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban takeover, there was a real difficult choice for some Western governments, including the UK, about humanitarian access and offering humanitarian aid, while also trying to ensure that human rights were respected. And you can’t, sometimes, do both at the same time, and, you know, these are the difficult choices that governments face.

That said, I think there is something very powerful about being seen to practice what you preach, so this debate has focused, or has focused so far, on the, sort of, United Nations. Not to sound too parochial, but in a UK context, when you have a UK Government that talks about stepping away from the European Convention on Human Rights, something that’s been standing for 70 years and which the British helped design, then how can you really advocate to other states about a rules-based approach when the US shows ambivalence, too? The Human Rights Council steps away, comes back, steps away, comes back. Again, what does that say about leadership?

No country has a perfect record on human rights, and sometimes that means that you have to take some criticism on the chin, and that’s very difficult, but I would say that a bit more humility from some of the P5 and others would go a long way to reinforcing the multilateral institutions, and also building bridges with the Global South, so not ignoring the demands of the Global South. And there’s some real challenging issues there around colonialism, racism and dealing with that legacy that, you know, some countries have, sort of, parked to one side and hoped would be ignored, and I don’t think they can be any longer.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, Ian. I’m going to others – other panellists in a moment, but first, I’d like to see if there’s any questions from our audience. The lady over there in the third row, with the red cardigan, please.

Nicole Piché

Hello. Thank you for your presentations. I work in the UK Parliament on Human Rights. I’m just wondering how we can counter this very attractive model that’s being pedalled about the social contract…

Rashmin Sagoo

Sorry, can I…

Nicole Piché

…that…

Rashmin Sagoo

…just ask your name and your…

Nicole Piché

Yeah, sorry.

Rashmin Sagoo

…affili…?

Nicole Piché

It’s Nicole Piché…

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you.

Nicole Piché

…and I work for the Parliamentary Human Rights Group. This idea of social contract, that a government will provide the economic benefits to their populations, but in exchange for that, the government remains in control of the political space. I mean, that’s an idea that’s very prevalent in China and that’s being touted around, say, Africa, in particular. And in relation to that, how can we make a bridge between political and economic rights? They’re very much in silos at the moment, and I think we need to be doing something to bring them together so we can appeal more to the Global South. Thanks.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you very much. One more in the room and then, I’ll take one online, as well, and I’m going to group them together. I saw this gentleman first, please, the mic.

Ahmed Shahid

Thank you. Ahmed Shahid, Essex University. David, fantastic paper, thanks for the presentation. I have a question about the overall framework of human rights diplomacy. You’re right, human rights are state-centric, so is diplomacy, but 25 years ago, at the Vienna World Conference, the two strands of human rights, civic – civil rights and economic rights came together, and something else really was also created in NHRIs, National Human Rights Institutions and called up amongst us to develop those. So, with that, wasn’t it a transformation the way, you know, the system worked? Of course, the polarisation matters, a shift – a system shift also matters, but today, is it also not important to talk about civic space constraints that our countries are facing and how that also impacts upon the way that adversity works?

Also mindful that the gatekeeping role of foreign ministries, Diplomats from foreign ministries, has diminished. Now we have far more useful engagement by other ministries, also means the role of domestic audience has become more important in foreign policy, therefore constraining what Diplomats can do. Can you relate to that in terms of how you foresee moving forward? Thank you.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you very much, and just one more question. I’m going to bunch them together, in the interest of time. I was going to take it online, and that’s from Aryan Sanghrajka. Aryan, would you like to unmute to say your question yourself [pause]? And in the mea – otherwise, I will read it out, and Aryan is a Migration and Youth and Children’s Platform and CFSC member. “What is the place of people on the peripheries, notably youth, to engage with human rights diplomacy in a meaningful way? What do states and international organisations need to do more of to include people on the peripheries in this diplomatic space?”

So, I’m going to first of all, go to Catalina online, as I know, Catalina, you might have to leave us five minutes earlier, how to bridge political and economic rights – how to bridge the gap on political and economic rights. The framework question David may want to come back onto, and the increasing world of domestic foreign policy. Take your pick, there’s going to be a few themes coming out here.

Catalina Devandas

Well, thank you, and I think someone comment that we need a half a day discussion. I think we need a whole retreat to be able to cover all these questions. But one of – one important thing is that we invented the – and I agree with Ian, if there wasn’t a UN, we had to invent it, right? But we invented the system because we wanted to have a space in which we could talk to people that thought – or had a completely different view, right? We are not – we didn’t invent multilateralism to talk to the ones that were converted, or close to us, right? We invented it to be together, discussing from a very different point of view.

With the – I think that the divide between rights is actually a very false divide, and I said that from a culture, a Latin American culture, where we see that with clarity, I think, and there is no way – and I also agree with Ian, is no way in which we are going to enjoy rights if we don’t have the foundations. And we can use it with education, we can use it with support, I think in the case of persons with disabilities, and you were saying, like, you know, “How do we relate to each other?” Is – that’s the use of human rights, but to relate to each other, there are some basic foundations that we need to have, and it comes clearer and clearer to mind that without education, without health, without social security, you cannot access the rest of the rights.

So, I think that the divide is false and we had fallen in these two extremes of the narrative, and that is creating a polarisation that was mentioned, but not only that, is the middle ground states are disengaging from the conversation, right? And I think that is the biggest challenge, and Ian, you pointed out that, we are – you know, we want to avoid penalties, from taking one side or the other side, and penalties might vary from losing political support to one or our national initiatives in the multilateral forum, or other kind of measures that could have economic impact, etc., right?

But we are also seeing that – and right now, the question is now what is the initiative, but who is behind the initiative, right? Whatever we’re going to discuss to advance a human rights agenda, it’s not important what is the agenda. What it’s important is who is promoting this, who is the co-sponsor of this initiative? And depending of who is this co-sponsor, I know if I can support, if I cannot, if I will have to abstain, and this is becoming ridiculous.

And I think that one of the things – again, Ian, you talk about humility, but I think that the ide – the role of bridgebuilders in the Global South is fundamental, and we have to invest in the capacity of missions from certain countries that can bring these nuances, manage initiatives, lead negotiations, and then try to take the conversation to a middle ground where we won’t be in one extreme or the other extreme, but we will be able to find some connections in the conversation.

Otherwise, at this point, what I’m feeling is that, you – well, coming from countries that are traditionally, you know, in the – we have a strong trajectory of human rights compliance and also, very strong social development programmes, we are lost in this – lost in translation, and we need to have more spaces and safer spaces in which we can interact and lead processes. And I think – I want to be hopeful, because I do think that there are ways – I think that the quest – the answer to your initial question is that yes, diplomacy can advance human rights. We must advance human rights and continue to do that.

And examples like Costa Rica, together with other four – small states leading the resolution that ended up in the recognition of the right to a healthy environment. And I know that’s going to create the question, “Oh my God, what is a right and what is not a right?” but I do believe that is that kind of basic right that should be across that we need to recognise for everybody to bring people better conditions of life. This is something that brings me hope, that we are transforming, we are responding to the demands of people in the ground, of movements, and it’s possible, but it was possible because it was led by states that were in the middle ground. So, I don’t know if that, you know, advanced a little bit the responses, but I know, I mean, I have many other things to say, but it’s impossible to pack it all in two minutes. Thank you.

Rashmin Sagoo

That’s wonderful. No, thank you, Catalina, and really the – really well heard that – you know, one of the lessons from COVID and the pandemic that we’ve all lived through is that we are all connected, so – and that seems to be a running theme through some of the comments you’ve made. David, did you want to take on the – some of the initial questions that came in from the audience?

David Griffiths

Yes, absolutely. I first wanted to second Catalina’s point, that really, we need to have a retreat to discuss all these questions…

Rashmin Sagoo

Anyone who would be happy…

David Griffiths

…in a bit more detail, so…

Rashmin Sagoo

…for an adjournment, please, on us, if you can arrange that.

David Griffiths

Anyone who wants to – anyone who’s in – please, let’s do that. No, I mean, I – you know, there’s so many angles on all of this. I think this question about, you know, can – how can we bridge political civil rights and economic and social rights? It’s – that’s an interesting question which I think speaks to a very prevalent mindset in human rights diplomacy now. It’s a very western way of looking at the world, right, that these things are somehow disconnected.

There’s a luxurious element to be able to separate out your civil and political rights from your economic and social rights, and actually, I think there’s a growing awareness in the human rights world that that bifurcation of the two rights, which, you know, happened from the beginning, but was really put in stone in 1966, when it took the form of two different covenants, that has not served the human rights project well at all. And it’s time that we undo that, and we start thinking in a holistic way again.

And I think, you know, looking to the future of human rights, I – my sense is that, you know, human rights has made it to 75 now. If it’s going to make it to 100, human rights needs to be about integrating with the grand global challenges, with other big systems and existential threats that we see in the world. It’s about what human rights has to say to climate, it’s about what human rights has to say to inequality, to the legacies of colonialism, to the exponential growth of technology and its encroachment in our life in unprecedented ways.

And really, the question is what is the human rights system going to say to these big themes? And that is far bigger than this old, tired question of economic and social rights versus civil and political rights, and, you know, there are many threats in that. And I think if we take climate, for example, you know, there is a clear list through the process so far of which specific rights are clearly and directly impacted by climate change now. But in the long run, really, the impact of climate change on human rights is like the climate science itself, it will have effects that are impossible to predict. It will change the entire arena in which all of our rights play out.

And so, you know, we see ahead of us the need, I think, for a much more ambitious, much more global, much more integrated human rights agenda, and within that, there just is no space for states to pursue narrow, small interests. You know, the field is open to the states who want to show leadership, and as Catalina said, it’s the small states in the middle which are doing that, and the report has a chapter on that, and I think that’s where the hope comes from. It’s the way that powerful – less powerful countries are really looking to achieve something through the human rights system.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thanks, David. I’m going to take a couple more questions from the floor. I think I saw one, Schona Jolly, King’s Counsel, in the black polo neck in the middle.

Schona Jolly, KC

Thank you very much for the very interesting comments. I have so many questions, I’m trying to think about just one, and the just one I want to ask you is about human rights in the context of trade treaties, because one of the – I mean, just looking at the parochial example of the UK and thinking about how the narrative is shrinking – well, how the narrative on the international law is – it – frankly, completely hypocritical. So on the one hand, we say international law is – we can break it in a limited and specific way, or we can withdraw from the European Convention, and on the other hand, we’re, sort of, demanding the use of international law in all sorts of other contexts.

But it strikes me that when you talk to Diplomats around the world, British Diplomats and other Diplomats around the world, where they are really in favour of human rights, one issue that comes up time and time and time again is trade. And so, I wondered whether any of the panellists had a view on how effective human rights clauses within treaties, trade treaties, can be, and if not in trade treaties, then, can states do more on, for example, business human rights initiatives like supply chains to try to take a practical angle on international law within national legal systems?

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, Schona. How effective are human rights clauses in trade treaties? I imagine, also, Schona, in times of crisis, in particular, given what we’ve all been through the past few years. And then, also, on business in human rights, and I have – haven’t been intentionally ignoring this side of the room. Please could we have the mic here on the front row?

James Goodsell

James Goodsell, member of Chatham House, also practicing Lawyer in London. The question is quite interesting about the human rights and diplomacy. The question I want to ask, Part B – A, actually, is a human right selective in their implementation round the world? In England, for example, or UK, for that matter, if there is a breach of human rights, we have the court to deal with them. However, when you take it abroad into international law, the abuse of any person’s right, for example you mention in Russia, I want to mention it’s probably thousands of detainees are in Palestine Israeli jails without any right, without any access to Lawyers. So, unless or until it’s international law, there is a court to deal with it, not International Criminal Court because International Criminal Court is selective. It only…

Rashmin Sagoo

So, sorry…

James Goodsell

…applies…

Rashmin Sagoo

…your question, just so that…

James Goodsell

The question is here.

Rashmin Sagoo

…we get to – yes.

James Goodsell

Yeah, in relation to…

Rashmin Sagoo

Please.

James Goodsell

…international criminal law as well as the countries. Now, internally, we said about criminal law deals with it, but abroad, there’s no such thing to implement them, as I mentioned for Israel, the Palestinian detainees. What do you say about them?

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, and on the right-hand side of you, just there, please.

David Wardrop

David Wardrop, Chair of the Westminster United Nations Association. I wrote a play, “How the Universal Declaration Was Won,” and so, Chang and Malik and these other characters appear in that, but it might be performed later this year. My question is generated by this – by the panel. The Universal Declaration has had its day. It’s been replaced by a more important document, which is relevant, and makes the bridge that the lady over there spoke about, it’s the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Everything is in that. Let’s not get hung up by the 1948 document, we have a new one.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, no question, but any que – any further questions? This here on the front row, please.

Alicia

Thank you, Alicia [Vrampitaz – 48:55] from the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you.

Alicia

We’ve spoken a lot about the disillusionment that comes from the failure of the human rights system, and the panellists have spoken about that from a enforcement perspective or a failure of states, for instance, to fulfil economic, social, cultural rights. But a word that I have not heard yet in this panel is accountability, and the international human rights system is built with those checks and balances from states to states to hold each other accountable. And this lack of accountability, which one of the commenters has spoken about, can be selectively applied at times, has further contributed to the disillusionment with the multilateral human rights system, furthering polarisation, and looking more to diplomacy to navigate some of these current issues. Is the accountability system that exists within the human rights multilateral system still usable as a way forward, or has that gone too far in our polarisation that diplomacy is now the best tool moving forward? Thank you very much.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you very much. Right, I’m going to keep that bunch for now, conscious of time. So, we’ve got questions about trade and human rights, about business and human rights, the selectivity of human rights in an international application, the SDGs were referenced, and also accountability, which I know Ian is – has some thoughts on. Kristina, however, should I come to you first just ‘cause you haven’t…

Kristina Arriaga

We do…

Rashmin Sagoo

…had a chance yet…

Kristina Arriaga

We do need a…

Rashmin Sagoo

Pick and choo – yeah.

Kristina Arriaga

…retreat. We do need a retreat, but I would like to ask a fundamental question, and I act – also wanted to talk to that young student who’s saying, “Is there a role?” right.

Rashmin Sagoo

Yes, please.

Kristina Arriaga

So, a fundamental question to consider when you’re thinking about these issues, is what – where do human rights come from? If we’re born with human rights, if they come with us, what is the role of the government? I would argue that if the state doesn’t give me the rights, the state cannot take them away. So the role of governments is to protect our rights, not to give them to us, right? That’s a very basic idea.

And then around this, you have all these issues of accountability, diplomacy, how do we think about rights? How do we figure out what the role of the government is? Absolutely everyone should have housing and healthcare and human dignity and access to education. Are those human rights that the human rights system has to deal with? Yes? No? I love that we live in a free country and we can have this discussion, because both of us know people that live in countries where that discussion would end us in jail, right, and I love that young people want to get involved.

So, to the young people that say, “Ah, this is such a huge problem and such a huge system,” no, it was one person who changes the world. If you look at the 1948 Declaration, or the Sustainable Development, bureaucracies are incredibly difficult to navigate. That’s why this report is amazing, right, because it’s this one person who writes this report and pushes the ball forward. Get involved. Politics are local, not – I mean, the US is a very powerful country, but things happen in places like Costa Rica, things happen in places like schools and universities. Be involved in your community.

One final point is the antidote to cynicism is something that the Moral Psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, calls ‘elevation’. When we see other people doing good things, and this is why we – the original drafters of the Declaration got together – when you see people doing acts of generosity and kindness that inspires and elevates us, and is the antidote to the cynicism, so be involved. If you want a short, concise and beautiful accounting of how the Declaration was drafted, I cannot recommend enough the book by Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New. It’s inspiring, it talks about all the people we talked about, and it weaves into the ideas in David’s report.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, Kristina. Catalina, do you want to mention anything, ‘cause I know you have to rush off and then I’ll come to Ian.

Catalina Devandas

Yes, thank you, I was actually writing in the chat because I have to leave, but I just want to reflect briefly to the question on the trade agreements. I believe that the clauses on human rights are fundamental in the trade agreements and are making a difference, still not the difference that we would like to see. But also, that the importance of having human rights based approaches to trade was challenged during the COVID pandemic. And the discussions that we had at WTO around not only the trips, but also around initiatives like the C-TAP that was about sharing licences, not even getting to patterns.

I think that that was, first of all, a sign of the failures of our capacity as a multilateral system to respond in a rapid way to the demands, and then, also a magnificent link of why social and economic rights and civil and political rights are linked. Like, we could not have supported the right to life without having access to health, so I think that the divide, I would insist, is not there and wasn’t there in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And with that, I end, and I would like to thank you for this space, and I hope that we have more spaces to continue this conversation because there is so many things that we have to cover, and thanks for the invitation.

Rashmin Sagoo

It’s a great pleasure to have you, all the best for the rest of your day. Thank you, Catalina. Ian, I’m going to come to you. There are a couple more questions coming in, but I’m very concerned about time. So, please, do – your thoughts, perhaps, on the accountability question that came up.

Ian Duddy

Sure, I’ll be very quick.

Rashmin Sagoo

And also, Global South leaders – if I may, very quickly, on Global South leadership, which has come up both in the chat and in the room, including from the perspective of children and how – and their engagement.

Ian Duddy

Sure. Actually, I just want to say literally 30 seconds on the human rights clauses in trade treaties, ‘cause that’s something I previously worked on. Do they work? I think the evidence on that is mixed. It – I think it really depends, the devil is in the detail, on whether those clauses have real teeth, and whether they’ll be implemented or – and used, and the evidence on that is mixed so far, I think. However, I think they’re going to – that’s a debate that’s going to become more critical in the years ahead, as states move towards trade treaties and pressure builds to include human rights clauses.

I think on accountability, I mean, very quickly, again, massive subject. The International Criminal Court, it’s not perfect, it’s flawed. There is no international Police force to go around and pick up suspects, so you’re dependent on a Security Council Resolution or on states voluntarily handing over individuals. So, I think, as David put very nicely in his report, it’s usually for the vanquished, the defeated, and not necessarily for the biggest human rights abuser or violator. That said, it’s better than nothing, and access to justice is flawed at every level, in every country. In the UK, in Scotland, your access to justice depends on your ability to pay, let’s be honest about that. So, accountability is really tricky.

I think there are some interesting areas there around sanctions and states like the UK developing sanction regimes in response to a lack of accountability or lack of progress of the international criminal courts. However, I think the next step is agreeing some form of framework for individual states who are devising sanction regimes, so that there’s greater transparency and consistency in that process.

And lastly, I just wanted to say on the, sort of, Global South, and it’s really picking up one of Catalina’s earlier comments around the importance of regional leadership in order to bridge that divide, and I am very in agreement with Kristina around the power of civil society and including individuals to make substantive change. I think at the state level, we often – and particularly Western states, often think about regime change in terms of human rights, and I’m sure right now, there is a conversation going on in Geneva about the need for a special session on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council because governments need to be seen to do something. However, I – my takeaway comment is that if Western states purely see the Human Rights Council as a vehicle for regime change, then we are not going to bridge that Global South divide.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, Ian. Just some final remarks from David and Kristina here in the room, and if I may ask, also, when you’re – when you offer your comments, to give us an idea of whether you think there’s any hope for multilateralism and the international human rights system over the coming ten years. David, perhaps you can go first, ‘cause I know you wanted to respond to Ian.

David Griffiths

Well, actually just to a couple of questions.

Rashmin Sagoo

Oh, to a couple of questions.

David Griffiths

But, yeah…

Rashmin Sagoo

Go ahead.

David Griffiths

…I’m happy to do that. Yeah, I mean, you know, the question that came up around selective implementation of human rights, yes, very – and that’s entirely – everybody knows that and that’s a big problem, and that, in a sense, is what we’re looking to discuss.

I hadn’t really heard the SDGs, as useful and important as they are, framed as a replacement for the UDHR, and I think, you know, while there’s much of value in the SDGs, they speak to the moment, and they do that very important thing of, kind of, bringing together different frameworks. The problem is that they are timebound, and as the lady in the front said, the big difference is around ‘accountability’. The SDGs are a mark your own homework framework, and they’re one which expires in a few years’ time and will be replaced by something new.

But there is something about the human rights framework which has been elaborated over 75 years, and sure, our attitudes have changed, the standards themselves have evolved, new challenges have to be met, and so on. But there is something precious in that, and that ability to seek accountability, as difficult as that is at the international level, it translates into real possibilities at the domestic and the regional level, as well, right? So, yes, that question of how states hold each other accountable through the multilateral system is a tormented and difficult one for the human rights system, but human rights standards in national constitutions, in national law, give people plenty of recourse against the abuse of power by states.

And we see, too, the importance of the climate movement, looking to the human rights system to provide a firm foundation for litigation. You know, there is an enormous body of law that is there to be used, and I think looking at it through that perspective, we see just how precious the human rights system is.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thanks, David, and Kristina, final remarks from you.

Kristina Arriaga

The multilateral system, does it work?

Rashmin Sagoo

And what – your hopes for the future, over the next ten years, for international human rights and multilateralism.

Kristina Arriaga

It’s an imperfect system, but it’s a little bit like our family, right? We all have the eccentric uncle and the cousin who may be in jail, or whate – I mean, I have one in jail, so it’s – I’m not accusing, but it’s what we have, right, it’s our family. The only place where our nations are able to meet and talk to each other, and we absolutely, absolutely need to continue engaging in the system.

I have tremendous hope for the next ten years, because with the creation of the internet, with the creation of social media platforms, for the first time, human rights groups that were operating in silos can transcend the geographical and physical boundaries and countries and talk to each other. And I have great faith in people, and I have great faith in human rights defenders, and absolutely, I think we’re going to – our next generation is going to be much better off, ten years from now, that – what we may think now.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thank you, Kristina, and Ian, we’ve got one minute, if you want to give your reflections on if there’s hope from your perspective for multilateralism and international human rights for the next ten years and beyond.

Ian Duddy

Okay, one very brief comment, which was I think a gentleman in the audience was questioning the value of the Universal Declaration. I think it still has relevance 75 years on. I think if we were trying to renegotiate the Universal Declaration now, we wouldn’t get as strong a document, so I have hope, keep it, maintain it, and it provides the bedrock for the wider international system.

Rashmin Sagoo

Thanks, Ian. I think what today’s shown us is just how important diplomacy is to keep the dialogue going on these important human rights issues, and to bring people, ideas and places together and connected. It just really leaves me to say – I just have to say thank you to all our speakers, online and at Chatham House, to our brilliant organisers, and also all of you who’ve attended and given up your time today, online and in person. Thank you [applause].