 |
Questions
and answers
Is the drive to promote fundamental principles
and humanitarian values something new?
In a changing world, the International Federation must be clear
about the values underpinning its action. Indeed, former assumptions
are shifting, whether in terms of the decline of the State and the
body politic or the simultaneous affirmation of international society
and private transnational organizations. The “crises” calling for
humanitarian intervention have changed as well. Natural disasters
are no longer quite as “natural” as in the past, and man’s responsibility
is increasingly marked and remarked on; by the same token, the “classic”
wars of yesteryear have given way to guerrilla wars, internal wars
and civil wars over which international law often holds no sway.
The humanitarian community is becoming aware of the effects and
perverse repercussions of its action. It is therefore endeavouring
to find an ethical meaning for its intervention. In the framework
of that search, the International Federation has a duty to position
itself clearly in terms of the specific question of human rights.
That, at any rate, is what is brought to light in Learning from
the Nineties, Evaluation Report and in World Disaster Report 2003.
The former speaks of the regret felt, both within and outside the
Federation, at the latter’s reluctance to speak out on major issues
such as human rights. The latter juxtaposes the moral dilemmas confronting
the Federation against the attitude the organization should adopt
in the face of obvious human rights violations.
back to top
What are the ties
/ bridges / points of juncture between humanitarian values and human
rights?
The two notions are obviously very similar semantically. Thus, when
we speak of humanitarian values such as “the protection of health”,
“the protection of life” and “respect for the human being”, we hark
back to fundamental rights such as “the right to health”, “the right
to life” and “respect for human dignity”. In addition, in his statement
to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (March 2003), the
President of the International Federation apparently asserted (or
at least encouraged) the connection between the two concepts when
he reaffirmed the importance the organization attaches to the human
rights ideal. However, a degree of caution must be exercised when
blurring the distinction between the two concepts, the scope of
the law being especially broad. Humanitarian values and human rights
nevertheless seem to meet on two key concepts on which the two value
systems are based and towards which they aim: peace and human dignity.
back to top
What is the definition of the “dignity” from which
both humanitarian values and human rights stem?
“Dignity” is a complex notion that lies at the crossroads between
religion, philosophy and law. It truly entered the law only after
the Second World War, and even more recently the discourse of the
International Federation (formally in 1991). , if the International
Federation acts to protect human dignity, it would seem appropriate
for it to act to promote human rights. NB: To date the International
Federation has never officially defined the concept of human dignity.
back to top
Why must the International Federation clearly
define its position on human rights?
Because human rights are a source of doubt and confusion in the
minds of countless Red Cross and Red Crescent staff and volunteers
(see in particular the results of the survey conducted on the subject
during the European Cooperation Meeting in 2003, a meeting of young
youth leaders from Europe and Central Asia).
back to top
What are human rights?
For the Red Cross and Red Crescent, it is above all paramount to
distinguish between human rights law and international humanitarian
law. Human rights law aims essentially to establish and maintain
democracy and the rule of law. It establishes ordinary law, which
is applicable at all times and tends to be developed in peace time.
It differs from international humanitarian law, which is traditionally
promoted by the ICRC, even though the two branches of international
public law have a common core of “intangible rights”. Human rights
are governed by numerous international and regional treaties. Some
legal scholars deplore this wealth of instruments, in particular
because of the danger that “false human rights” will be recognized
(rights which, in their view, are more wishes and hopes than true
rights: the right to peace, the right to sustainable development,
the right to a healthy environment, the right to respect for mankind’s
shared heritage).
back to top
Are human rights
universal?
In the past and still today, human rights have been the object of
widespread criticism. They have nevertheless stayed the course,
strengthened by the failure of certain alternative schools of thought.
The liberal (in the French sense of the word) individualistic concept
of human rights recognizes that every human being has a number of
basic natural rights stemming from human nature; it therefore considers
human rights a universal concept.
back to top
Would direct and
explicit action by the International Federation in the field of
human rights be compatible with the Movement’s Fundamental Principles?
A political interpretation of human rights could be contrary to
the ideological neutrality the organization is bound to observe.
The individualistic concept of human rights is in fact an invitation
to shed certain traditions and adopt new principles of organization,
such as democracy. It must be remembered that while the link between
human rights and democracy is neither obvious nor absolute, in any
democracy power is nevertheless limited when it affects the rights
of the person. By the same token, human rights can be perceived
as contrary to the Movement’s philosophical and ideological neutrality.
The International Federation, which has 181 member National Societies,
encompasses many philosophical and religious models. It must take
care to carry out tasks “which rally virtually unanimous support”.
In the current context, the religion that raises human rights issues
most acutely is Islam. While an interpretation of the Koran based
on the spirit of the text is absolutely compatible with human rights,
the same does not hold true for the interpretation proffered by
traditionalists, and even an unofficial commitment in the field
of human rights by National Societies working under regimes that
make this interpretation of Islam takes on special significance.
back to top
Would the International
Federation be overstepping its mandate if it were to act in the
field of human rights?
In this respect, all the stakeholders must pool their strengths
in order to make respect for human rights a paramount objective.
Even if the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are auxiliaries
to the public authorities of the State in which they act, it is
their duty to take action to promote human rights. In the same way,
the activities of States, human rights NGOs and the National Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies are complementary, the latter being
able to do promotional work (they cannot denounce violations). The
stakes, the absolute value of human rights goes beyond the question
of any competition between the different players involved.
back to top
|
 |
 |
|
