There are complex relationships between rights and violent conflict, and between rights and fragile states. There is currently considerable donor interest in this area, but work remains exploratory. Where groups are socially excluded through persistent denial of their rights, evidence suggests this can act as a cause of violent conflict. In turn, conflicts cause denials of all kinds of human rights.
DFID defines fragile states as those where the government cannot or will not deliver core functions to the majority of its people, including the poor. This tends to involve multiple failures to fulfil the state’s internationally defined obligations to protect and promote rights. Many states experiencing violent conflict could be defined as fragile states, compounding the impact on human rights. It is important to note that once violent conflicts begin, humanitarian law applies, and human rights law may be restricted.
Page contents
Rights denials, exclusion and the causes of conflict
Some analyses of the causes of violent conflict point to the role played by exclusion and inequalities. The exclusion of certain groups from economic, social and political life can increase the incentives for these groups to engage in violence. Explanations of the causes of conflict have focused on the role of greed versus grievance. A human rights perspective focuses upon grievances as a driver of conflict. Grievances can become particularly severe where people are – or perceive themselves to be – socially excluded. Social exclusion is therefore a central way of analysing the impact of rights denials.
Paying attention to the rights of minorities is an effective strategy in conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution. It is a particularly useful way of assessing potential conflict in areas where there are high vertical or horizontal inequalities, such as in Sudan, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone.
Attention to human rights, not only in relation to the causes of conflicts, but also as a normative and practical intervention tool can contribute to the aims of conflict transformation. It forces greater emphasis on changing structural conditions, in particular addressing the role of the state, systems of governance and issues of power; and on empowering marginalised groups to challenge the status quo.
Srinivasan, S., 2006, ‘Minority Rights, Early Warning and Conflict Prevention: Lessons from Darfur’, Minority Rights Group International, London
What lessons can we learn from international engagement in the conflict in Darfur? This paper analyses events in the terms of structural and operational conflict prevention. It argues that the catalogue of political and institutional failures before and during the civil war indicates a need to address minority rights issues at every stage of conflict prevention. Institutional improvements in conflict prevention and early warning mechanisms will help avoid repeating the mistakes of Darfur in the future.
Access full text: available online
Parlevliet, M., 2011, ‘Human Rights and Conflict Transformation: Towards a More Integrated Approach’ in ‘Advancing Conflict Transformation: The Berghof Handbook II’, eds. B. Austin, M. Fischer, H.J. Giessmann, Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen/Framington Hills
This chapter explores the notion that human rights violations can be both causes and consequences of violent conflict. It argues that the transformation of violent conflict to sustainable peace requires insights and strategies from both the human rights and the conflict transformation fields. Considering the two in conjunction enhances one’s analysis of the underlying causes, dynamics and manifestations of conflict.
Access full text: available online
Mamdani, M, 2001, ‘Tutsi Power in Rwanda and the Citizenship Crisis in Eastern Congo’, Chapter 8 in When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda , James Currey, Oxford
How can the invasion of Congo by the Rwandan Popular Front (RPF) be understood as an outcome of the citizenship crisis on both sides of the Rwanda-Congo border? This chapter tackles this question and traces the history of the Kinyarwanda-speaking minority in the Kivu region of Congo and their struggle for citizenship rights.
Access partial text online.
Archibald S. and Richards P., 2002, ‘Seeds and Rights: New Approaches to Post-war Agricultural Rehabilitation in Sierra Leone’, Disasters, December, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 356-367(12)
Can more equitable seed distribution contribute to fostering a culture of human rights as well as lead to agricultural rehabilitation? This study assesses seeds-and-tools programmes in 19 villages devastated during the civil war in central Sierra Leone. In these cases the targeting and distribution methods used by aid agencies denied assistance to those people it was intended for, exacerbating grievances and the threat of social disorder. An alternative, more inclusive, rights-based approach to seed distribution could lead to greater social inclusion and facilitate conflict resolution.
Access full text: available online.
Security, rights and development
The lack of personal security for individuals represents a series of human rights denials and violations. At the same time, measures to promote security of people and states must be based in adherence to international human rights standards. A reflection – and key driver – of this approach is the UN Secretary General, who in 2004 began promoting an integrated agenda for international cooperation which combines security, development and human rights, based on arguments about their interdependence, within a the context of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.
United Nations Secretary General, 2004, ‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’, Report of the Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, United Nations, New York
The changes that have taken place in the world since the Millennium Declaration demand that consensus be revitalised on key challenges and priorities. What are these and how can they best be achieved? This report suggests that security, development and human rights must be advanced together, otherwise none will succeed. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) can be met by 2015, but only if all governments dramatically increase their efforts.
Access full text: available online
Domingo, P., & Denney, L. (2012). The politics of practice: Security and justice programming in FCAS – Report from ODI expert meeting on security and justice. London: ODI.
Security and justice programming in fragile and conflict-affected situations often remains technocratic, siloed, and insufficiently attuned to context, despite more nuanced thinking in recent policy documents. How can policy be implemented more effectively? This report summarises discussion at an expert meeting hosted by ODI in November 2012. The report outlines challenges and summarises emerging recommendations. Key issues identified as requiring further thinking in order to improve security and justice outcomes are: organisational features of donors and their implementation processes, the politics of research and evidence, and the content of security and justice work. In addition, interesting new approaches by development agencies are noted.
Access full text: available online
Spangaro, J., Zwi, A., Adogu, C., Ranmuthugala, G., Davies, G.P., & Steinacker, L. (2013). What is the evidence of the impact of initiatives to reduce risk and incidence of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict zones and other humanitarian crises in lowerand middle-income countries? A systematic review. London: Institute of Education, EPPI-Centre.
This review finds that implementation of conflict and crisis related-sexual violence initiatives on the ground remains very limited. It also highlights an acute lack of evaluation of such interventions, leading to insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of any interventions to address or prevent sexual violence in conflict or crisis. However, it notes that strategies appear more effective when they have multiple components, including survivor care and community engagement.
Access full text: available online
Rights in fragile states
Fragile states are defined by DFID as those where the government cannot or will not deliver core functions to the majority of its people, including the poor. This covers a wide range of contexts, but often involves a combination of weak administrative capacity and territorial reach, lack of state control over the use of violence, and the lack of accountability to populations, particularly poor or marginalised people. Therefore high levels of human rights violations or denials are likely, due to the failure of governments to fulfil their international human rights obligations to protect and promote rights. The fragile states agenda is a relatively new one, and little has been written so far on how rights should best be protected. This may be partly because of the wide range of types of fragile state, and the variety of implications for rights.
Stewart, F. and Brown, G., 2009, ‘Fragile States’, CRISE Working Paper no. 51, Centre for Research on Inequality, Security and Ethnicity, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
What constitutes a fragile state and how can the concept be operationalised for development policy? This paper proposes a three-pronged definition of fragility: states may be fragile because they lack authority, fail to provide services or lack legitimacy. Reversing these interrelated dimensions of fragility requires a tailored, comprehensive and long-term approach based on careful contextual analysis.
Access full text: available online
In 2005, DFID supported the ODI’s Rights in Action group to hold a series of seminars to explore the operational value of human rights for poverty reduction. One of the seminars focused on promoting human rights in fragile and conflict environments. The background paper and the meeting report are both available from the ODI website.
The following organisations provide information on rights violations in all states, including states that could be defined as fragile and conflict-affected states: