When we consider human rights in Europe (The case against human rights, 4 December), we are concerned with the existing and constantly developing jurisprudence through the living instrument of the European convention on human rights. As with the improvement in safety standards in all walks of life, we can see the benefits of its application; it is statistically determinable. As a human rights lawyer, I have lived through the changes, and I have seen the safety, security and sense of justice it has brought to many people, including some of my clients, and including myself as a member of a long-suffering persecuted race, the Jews.
The fundamental aspects of European human rights law that, for me, appropriately manage the balance between the two opposing positions are that the European court of human rights is completely independent of political institutions and that it has no mechanism to enforce judgments. Interestingly enough as regards the latter, while governments may strongly disagree with its judgments, in most cases they comply with them, albeit on occasions grudgingly and doing the minimum. Importantly, it also requires aspiring members of the EU, such as Turkey, to demonstrate their commitment to the fundamental principles of human rights.
Of course, it is not perfect, particularly in the grey areas where collective morality is still developing and there are strong arguments on opposing sides. But it is a robust system that has proved its worth in Europe. There is still torture and extrajudicial killings by individual states on occasions, whether of their own citizens or others in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But there is little disagreement today that torture and extrajudicial killings are culpable.
The problem with the global environment is that the United Nations is constrained by vetoing countries whose financial, political or strategic interests are inevitably at odds with each other. There is also constant political bargaining going on behind the scenes to influence its investigations, decisions and outcomes. So Russia will veto anything concerning the Syrian conflict and the US will veto anything concerning the Palestine-Israel conflict. Morality gives way to the interests of powerful countries and corporations – and it has always been thus. Until there is the political will to give the UN independence, it will continue to undertake vital work in the field of conflict, but be limited to clearing up the destruction and chaos and unable to prevent or minimise damage.
Robert Sherman
Leeds
• Is Professor Eric Posner really arguing against human rights and aspirations after the Holocaust and genocide of last century? One might argue that development economics, which he obviously believes in, will only lead to an increase in global warming and will therefore be a threat to everyone’s right to life (article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights).
He emphasises the failures in dealing with human rights violations, but why the surprise? Tackling a global phenomenon such as war crimes and genocide is never going to be easy. But we all need hope and that is what the universal declaration of human rights gave us after the horrors of the second world war.
Can we now hear from the Guardian an argument for human rights ?
Mary Jean Bowles (social worker)
London
• Eric Posner makes a compelling case that, in terms of concrete deliverables, international human rights law has largely failed. But it is, nevertheless, the core, formal, global expression of two very welcome and not at all hubristic ideals: the notion that, prima facie, individuals have equal intrinsic worth and that their interests are best served by their participation in the exercise and legal regulation of public and private power. This particular genie is out of the historical bottle and, though we may agree with Posner that a humbler approach is overdue, it would be a big mistake to try to put it back.
Steven Greer
Professor of human rights, University of Bristol Law School
• I was struck by the sentence “Westerners bear a responsibility to help poorer people living in foreign countries.” Given that that concept is a right and a proper thing, why are there so many poor people in our own areas?
John Dunn
Yeovil, Somerset
• The notorious blasphemy law in Pakistan is mainly used to settle scores and punish and torture the weakest members of society (Report, 5 December). The UK government should not sit on the fence, and should demand its repeal. The Pakistani ruling elite and party officials have invested billions of pounds of dubious origin in the UK. Our government is well aware of these investments and should hit them where it hurts by questioning the source of these funds – and, while the investigations are in progress, demand the repeal of the blasphemy law in Pakistan.
Naseem Khawaja
Yateley, Hampshire
• This article was amended on 8 December 2014 to correct the headline. The previous version said: “The EU’s robust human rights system has proved its worth”.
.jpg?w=600)
