Asbjørn Eide

Arms Transfer and Third World Militarization

ment establishment. It has become commonplace to note that more than 400,000 persons are involved in weapons research and development. The overwhelming majority of these are found in the United States and in the Soviet Union. It is in these centers of military research and development that the definition of what is a ’modern’ weapon system is made. But the governments of the Third World, though unable to invent ’modern’ weapons, are also spellbound by those weapons even if their needs may be entirely different. Another aspect of the present situation is the militarization of politics. This includes the many military coups in the Third World. Such military intervention is the most dramatic aspect of the social and political ills which accompany arms transfers. Military take-over of political power makes coercion the central element of the political systems inside Third World countries. It eliminates political processes aimed at reciprocal adaption and social change, and replaces these with brute repression of opposition. Even to Third World regimes where the military has not (yet) intervened, the military apparatus represents a grave potential danger to the civilian government, as President Allende of Chile was undoubtedly well aware. The demands of the military have to be satisfied by civilian regimes; and these demands include the requirement that the economic system and the direction of the technological development serve the needs of the military. The use of violence against the domestic population, such a prominent feature of the role of military in the Third World, is an outgrowth of counterinsurgency strategies developed in the West a decade or two ago. A combination of a vast training program for officers from the Third World, and the pushing of weapons sales, was the substance of this policy. The harvest is now being reaped in Brazil, Chile, and many other Latin American countries, but also in other parts of the world. Weapons supply has also been pushed by the Soviet Union with

Dynamics of Human Rights and the Role of the Educator

account by the educator. (By ’educator’ is here understood not only those who teach others, but also those who educate themselves or are being educated by others). Initially, I shall refer to the system of human rights as it now exists on the international level. I shall here concentrate on the system at the level of the United Nations, which is supposed to be universally valid. Those human rights which have been adopted at the United Nations form a system; they are indivisible and interdependent. This has repeatedly been stated by the Human Rights Commission and by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The core of this system of norms is the Universal Declaration adopted in 1948 and the two Covenants adopted in 1966, one concerning social, economic and cultural rights, the other concerning civil and political rights. The exist, however, many other international conventions and declarations claiming to have universal scope of application, and there are a number of regional instruments. The main elements which can be found in these international instruments are the following:

Globalizing Human Rights Education

development must be the major concern of the present generation. When the United Nations, in adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, formulated the humanistic aspirations contained therein and claimed that they were universal in nature, a process was started to obtain respect, protection and fulfillment of those rights. The ultimate goal was expressed in Article 28 of the Declaration: ’Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized’ .

Peace, Human Rights and Development: Their Interrelationship

end, it has become apparent that this will become one of the most dangerous and crucial decades in the history of mankind. The realization of these goals is therefore more urgent than at any previous time, but it may be said in general terms that the urgency is differently perceived in different parts of the world, as the following brief survey indicates. Peace is felt as the most urgent need in Europe and in the Middle East (West Asia). Europe is facing an unprecedented military build-up and is moving rapidly towards a situation in which nuclear war is becoming probable. European territory West and East is increasingly being infested with nuclear armaments and other military preparations, as the superpowers seem bent on making it the battlefield for the most destructive conflict in

Choosing the Path to Development: National Options and International Regulations - The Impact for Human Rights

1. The challenge There is a wide consensus that the present international economic order is unjust. Its negative impact on the possibility of realizing human rights is a widely shared concern. But when we want to look at the impact of economic affairs on human rights, we face serious conceptual and methodological problems. There are different ’experts’ studying affairs at the international and the national

Internal Conflicts under International Law Focus on Ethnic Conflict, Minority Rights and Human Rights

as determined by the power relations of the parties. Is it possible to respond from the outside? This, I submit, depends on the means used in response, and on the purpose sought. Friendly persuasion will always be permissible; pressure based on the threat of some kind of sanctions may be more doubtful ; and coercion will be permissible only under certain very rare circumstances, as will be shown later. The purpose of the response is of key importance. Promotion of self-interest by the responding actor, or propagation of a particular ideology or system, is of low legitimacy; promotion and protection of shared values which are globally recognised, is of high legitimacy. The application of this point will be further discussed below.

Human Rights: The Universal Platform and Third World Action

*Asbjørn Eide is Director, Human Rights Institute, Oslo (Norway); he was previously member of the UN Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities. 1. Humanitarianism and hulnati rights I understand ’humanitarianism’ as a pragmatic, result-oriented attitude of solidarity with human beings in need. It is pragmatic rather than ideological; it is result-oriented rather than theoretical, and it is solidarity with human beings in need of support rather than an alignment with other likeminded interest groups in political struggle. The concern with human rights, if taken in the most complete sense, is a concern with the dignity of every human being, a dignity based on personal freedom and possibility for the satisfaction of needs. Often, the concern with human rights is too narrow in scope; it only focuses on personal freedom, without a concern also for the possibility of different people, in different situations and parts of the world, to use their freedom.

The Right to Peace

So be it. Still the relationship can bear some further analysis, in order to clarify the conditions for harmonization of what have in the past frequently been contradictory goals. Both peace and human rights have become prominent symbolic values in the conduct of politics, both internationally and nationally. The two concepts have become the very core of justifications given by political leaders for much of the policies presently pursued. This is undoubtedly in response to strong desires shared by wide segments of the public that these values be implemented. Most governments, however, are subjected to other demands as well, or are themselves agents of interest groups with priorities different from those of peace and human rights. It would be naive to assume that the rhetorics of

Human Rights and Non-Intervention in the All-European System

tween Participating States. Among those principles, ten in number, principle VII deals with the ’Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief’.* It stresses that these rights and freedoms ’derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development’. Yet on the other hand, we find principle VI, postulating ’Non-intervention in internal affairs’.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, COUNTERINSURGENCY, AND HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT

even though legal constraints have not been obtained beyond the declaration contained in the UN General Assembly resolution 1653 of 1961, in which the Assembly declared that ’the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the United Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations’. Neither have the partial arms control agreements such as the Partial Test Ban Treaty of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty halted the spread and development of nuclear arms.