A "Global Magna Carta?"

The most recent issue of Foreign Policy entitled, "21 Solutions to Save the World," features, you guessed it, 21 articles discussing global issues ranging from malnutrition to anti-Americanism (I highly recommend it to everyone). The article that I found most pertinent to our class discussion, "A Global Magna Carta," underscores the global double standard when it comes to engaging rogue and failed states and repressive regimes. The author, Russian democratic activist Garry Kasparov, declares the UN outdated and ill-equipped to win today's "global war," which he deems a "war about the value of human life." Consequently, he advocates the creation of a new organization based on a so-called "global Magna Carta, a declaration of inalienable human rights that all member nations must recognize."

Kasparov calls on wealthy nations that highly value democracy and human life to coalesce and adopt a staunch multilateral policy against states that sponsor terror and oppress their people. In order to fight the "global war," this united front should use its strongest weapon, wealth, "to provide real leadership by example as well as concrete incentives to respect human rights." In his concluding remarks, he cites Winston Churchill's 1946 speech declaring that the "UN must be a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words."

If the author were in our class, he would have hesitated before making such a bold suggestion and acknowleged the quagmires inherent in creating a universal declaration of human rights. It seems that in today's increasingly interdependent and complicated world creating such a document would be even more difficult than it was in 1948. It is not merely serendipitous that the UNUDHR remains the cornerstone of international human rights norms, for it was, and still is, the most successful multilateral effort to establish a framework for protecting human rights. Though it would be nice to imagine that the US and its wealthy, democratic counterparts could align their rhetoric with their actions, national interest, sovereignty, and geopolitical strategies render this merely a utopian vision. Is it plausible that in the future there might be mechanisms by which to truly enforce a universally binding international code of human rights? As demonstrated by the fact that we have been debating it all semester, I know there is no answer to this question, but I had to posit it once again before we part ways. Much to my dismay, the realist within me emerges in my response: doubtful.

Note: References to our class and its discussions refer to Jerry Fowler's ORDER/DISORDER Gould Seminar on human rights; this post was originally published on our class blog.