How can international legal standards for human rights be enforced during intrastate violent conflicts? Can human rights violators be brought to justice after wars have ended without causing more conflict? This research by the Woodrow Wilson Center argues that the risk of intrastate conflict needs to be approached in a more dispassionate, contextualised and multidimensional way. A higher priority should be given to the desire for improved livelihoods and the need for security, instead of instant democracy and civil and political rights.
Many developing countries have been caught in the global conflict between political and economic patrimonialism and greater pluralism. Although most developing and post-Soviet societies have democratised peacefully, new destructive conflicts have arisen over the changes. Violence has occurred where the change from the old system to a more pluralistic system could not be managed through existing or emerging institutions. Differing human rights come into conflict with one another and the discourse of human rights can contribute to violent conflict.
The weakness of the postcolonial and post-Cold War institutions in the countries succumbing to conflict can be traced in part to a precipitous and often chaotic adoption of democratic and economic institutions and policies.
- Many of the states achieved statehood through the unilateral policy decisions of more powerful states.
- Hampered by debt, high oil prices and a lack of competitive exports, they lacked the resources for governing through providing public services to their populations.
- Rather than being failed states, many are unformed nations – they have not developed enforceable laws, constitutionally based institutions, national markets and internalised cultural incentives for cross-societal cooperation.
- Though liberal policies may eventually be beneficial, in the short run the shift toward more political and economic openness has led to violent conflict.
- These countries have not been given the time to develop a liberal state, which is a distinct form of social order and is built up over time through a particular choice of government policies.
The challenge for the international community is to reconcile competing notions of rights as old orders are giving way to new ones, so that the tensions and disputes that arise do not lead to the outbreak of violent conflict but instead lead to peaceful change.
- Outside parties must avoid viewing conflicts as a clash of right versus wrong rather than a clash of competing concepts of rights in a larger global process of modernisation.
- Well-intentioned advocacy for human rights on behalf of a vulnerable group may put that group at greater risk by tempting more powerful forces to react.
- A gradualist yet activist approach to liberalisation is required involving more money behind smart forms of economic and political development.
- Prioritising social and economic rights and the protection of human life may be more effective than promoting full democracy, especially if that means violent upheaval.
- Incentives for evolutionary change are likely to be more effective than forceful intervention.
- Individual countries need to be assessed as to how much conflict they can manage successfully. A standardised approach should be avoided.
