Go Back
SPEECH BY THE HON. DR. JOE BORG, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AT THE GRADUATION CEREMONY AND INAUGURATION OF THE MASTER OF ARTS COURSES I AND II IN HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATISATION - FOUNDATION FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VALLETTA. 16 NOVEMBER 2001
pr1721
16/11/2001
16/11/2001
| Honourable Rector, | Graduands, Newcomers to the course, Ladies and Gentlemen, |
| It is with great pleasure that I am here to address | this august gathering on this occasion of dual importance. This course, the Mediterranean Masters in Human Rights and Democratisation, opened its doors to its first students on 9 October 2000, just a little over a year ago. It is an important undertaking that took shape as a joint initiative of the University of Malta's Faculty of Laws and the Foundation of International Studies. It is also an undertaking that has proved itself after one year of operation to have been both worthy and deserving of the combined efforts that have gone into it. These efforts have come on the part of the various partner institutions, the course management team and more importantly, you the students, without whom no such course would have been possible. |
| For those of you present today, who graduate from | this programme, I offer my sincerest congratulations. I understand that the course has been both intense and varied in its interdisciplinary approach to these two very crucial areas of human concern. As a former student myself I appreciate the long road you have taken to get to where you are today, as I recall those long hours of reading, conducting research and writing endless papers. |
| For those of you embarking on this programme today, I | offer you my heartiest wishes for an informative, formative and successful outcome. I am sure you will have the time to truly develop a deeper understanding of issues such as the rights of each and every one of us, the frameworks within which these human rights have been formed and are found today, and of course, other things that can be done to bring full rights to all citizens around the world. In this context, I wish you every success and hope that you will find these new insights and knowledge useful back home in your own countries. |
| Human rights is a concept that has been constantly | evolving throughout human history. One of the first examples of a codification of laws that contain references to individual rights is the tablet of Hammurabi. This tablet, which was created by the Sumerian king Hammurabi about 4,000 years ago, contains a system of approximately 282 laws which in no small way created the precedent for a legal system. This code protected people from arbitrary persecution and punishment. However, it was, unsurprisingly, relatively simple by today's terms as it held no protection on the then more abstract ideas such as race, religion, beliefs, and individual freedoms. |
| It was in ancient Greece that the concept of human | rights began to take on greater meaning than the prevention of arbitrary persecution. Human rights became synonymous with natural rights, rights that spring from natural law. According to the Greek tradition of Socrates and Plato, natural law is law that reflects the natural order of the universe. |
| This idea of natural rights continued in ancient | Rome, where the Roman jurist Ulpian believed that natural rights belonged to every person, whether they were a Roman citizen or not. Despite this seemingly comprehensive principle, there are fundamental differences between the natural rights of the past and human rights today. For example, it was seen as perfectly natural to keep slaves then, whereas today such a practice is certainly considered to go counter to the ideas of freedom and equality that we currently associate with human rights. |
| In the Middle Ages and later the Renaissance, the | decline in the power of the Church led society to place more emphasis on the individual, which in turn caused a shift away from feudal and monarchist societies, allowing individual expression to flourish in turn. |
| Up to this point nearly all pre-modern societies had | seen rulers as obliged to govern wisely and for the common good. This mandate, however, arose from divine commandment, natural law, tradition, or contingent political arrangements. It did not rest on the rights, or entitlement, of all human beings to be ruled justly. People were thought to benefit from the political obligations of rulers, but had no natural or human rights that could be exercised against unjust rulers. |
| Human rights entered the mainstream of political | theory and practice in 17th-century Europe. Thomas Hobbes saw the law as being very vague and open to too many differences of interpretation. He proposed therefore a positive law, whereby instead of human rights being absolute, they could be given, taken away, and modified by a society to suit its needs. In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, published in the wake of Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688, the first fully developed theory of natural rights was published. |
| Locke's theory begins with a pre-social state of | nature in which equal individuals have natural rights to their lives, liberties and estates. In the absence of government, however, these rights are of little value. They are almost impossible to protect by individual action and disputes over rights are themselves a powerful cause of conflict. Therefore, people form societies, and societies establish governments, to enable themselves to enjoy their natural rights. |
| Government, according to Locke, is thus based on a | social contract between rulers and the ruled. Citizens are obliged to obey only if the government protects their human rights, which come morally prior to and above the claims and interests of the government. Government is legitimate to the extent that it systematically protects and furthers the enjoyment of the human rights of its citizens. It is here that the concept of democracy as we know it today enters the picture. |
| Whereas the term democracy was used relatively | liberally prior to this date in its original meaning as 'rule of the people' - whoever it was that was considered to be 'the people' - following Hobbes' and Locke's assumption of equal rights for all citizens, democracy took on a stronger shade of meaning along the same lines that we use today. |
| With the significant widening of the franchise in | western regimes in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, democracy in its fuller meaning as 'majority rule' began to emerge. The difference with democracy as it was understood in Athenian times, was that when democracy was 're-invented' in the eighteenth century, it was indirect. Whereas in ancient Greece, members of decision-taking bodies were directly selected by lot rather than by election and citizens were very actively involved in governance, in the eighteenth century, voters elected representatives who took decisions for which they were answerable only at the next election. There was, thus, some dissension as to how ‘democratic’ this system was. In fact, Rousseau argued that this was no democracy at all, stating that: "The people of England think they are free. They are gravely mistaken. They are free only during the election of Members of Parliament." |
| Other theorists of democracy saw an added tension | between democracy and liberty which stemmed from the very principle of 'majority rule'. If the majority voted to invade the minority's rights this could be considered tyrannical. This view prompted Madison to propose the divisions of power, both among the branches of government and between the different levels of government. These divisions of power are currently a feature of the US Constitution and indeed, other forms of government around the world. |
| The debate on democracy and its validity as a system | of governance continues. |
| However, it has, by and large, been accepted, at | least in the western world, as the system best able to guarantee the individual freedoms and rights of citizens within a particular state. The two notions of human rights and democratisation - the process of becoming a democracy - have thus over the passage of time become woven into one, where giving the vote to all individuals is seen to be the same as giving the right to all citizens to choose their own government, and ultimately, their own destiny. |
| Many of the great political struggles of the past two | centuries revolved around expanding the recognised subjects of human rights. Efforts to extend the right to vote beyond a small, propertied elite provoked intense controversy in most European countries in the 19th century. The claims of working men for fair wages, for the right to organise themselves, and for safe and humane working conditions led to often violent political conflict. Ending the systematic denial of human rights inherent in colonialism was a major global political issue during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. And struggles to eliminate discrimination based on race and gender have been prominent in many countries over the past 30 years. |
| In each case, the essence of every argument was that | all of us are human beings. As such, we are entitled to the same basic rights and to equal concern and respect from the state. And in each case, acceptance of such arguments has led to radical social and political changes. |
| In the past two decades, the revolutionary force of | the demand for human rights has become unusually clear. Across the globe, regimes that had cynically manipulated the language of human rights have been brought down by a citizenry that insisted on taking human rights seriously. A significant cause of the collapse of the Soviet empire was the growing unwillingness of Communist-bloc citizens to accept the systematic denial of internationally recognised human rights. In South and Central America, repressive military governments fell throughout the 1980s. In Asia and Africa, liberalisation and democratisation have been more irregular but nevertheless real, and in some countries such as South Korea and South Africa quite striking. |
| The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was itself | created following the Holocaust during World War II. The sheer scale of the atrocities committed by the Nazis through the enslavement and annihilation of Jews in Europe caused the world to cry out for justice. The Holocaust changed the worldview on human rights. Prior to the war, human rights were initially considered a "domestic concern"; they were to be enforced by only the governments of individual countries. This view shifted during the war, as human rights were then considered a "universal concern"; they were to be a concern for every person. By the end of the war, the world as a whole felt the need for the security of 'inalienable human rights'. |
| The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out | just such a list. It is however, much more than simply a treaty. The Declaration describes how the rights in it are to represent "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations". These rights include the right to life, the right to not be tortured or enslaved, and to not be unfairly persecuted. The Declaration also grants freedom of thought, expression, and religion. The cultural rights laid out include the right to marriage, education, employment, food, and shelter. |
| The Declaration was only a resolution adopted by the | General Assembly, and so, in the legal sense, it is a non-binding document. In spite of this, since its adoption, it has grown to become a major factor in international law. In fact, many of the rights in the Declaration formed the groundwork for many regional human rights documents, such as the European Convention of Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, and the Helsinki Accords. |
| The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came into | existence on December 10, 1948. Following a gruelling debate, the President of the General Assembly called for a vote to decide the fate of the Declaration. Fifty-eight member states of the United Nations participated in the vote. Forty-eight voted for the adoption of the Declaration, eight countries abstained, and two were not present. The countries that abstained included Poland, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and South Africa. Today, most of the nations that then abstained, have seen the regimes that prevented a vote in favour, subsequently crumble. |
| This did not necessarily happen without much | suffering and many years of struggle in between. However I believe all would agree that the changes that have been wrought, have been quite substantial. As the world has witnessed, the spread of human rights is neither natural nor inevitable. Regression is possible. But the lesson of the recent past would seem to be that wherever people are given the chance to choose, they choose internationally recognised human rights. And whatever the shortcomings of current practice, we live in a world in which fewer governments than ever before seem ready or able to deny their people that choice. |
| After eighteen years, it was decided that the rights | in the Declaration were to be separated into two distinct covenants: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The two covenants were adopted in 1966, and have since been ratified by over 130 countries. Through this separation of the Declaration, the rights it enshrines have become, to some extent, better enforceable. |
| Yet, simultaneously, the creation of two human rights | treaties as opposed to the original one has in other ways, also made enforcement that much more complicated than originally envisioned. There are two separate processes for implementing the human rights for each of the two covenants. Both processes can at times be less effective than one would wish, and they are often criticised since many still feel that human rights is a domestic concern and not one that should be dealt with on the international stage. |
| With respect to the International Covenant on | Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the difficulty with enforcing these rights is largely due to the fact that the covenant only encourages states to do the best they can in providing those rights. Article 2 of the Covenant declares that a state only has to recognise these economic, social, and cultural rights ‘up to the maximum of its available resources’. Since the covenant uses the financial state of a country to gauge its ability to provide the right, a democratic nation may argue that its capital could be better spent on other areas instead of the economic, social and cultural rights of its people. Consequently, a state that should provide more of these rights can simply point to the covenant and argue that its money can be used in other and more important ways. |
| In addition, the enforcement mechanism under the | Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has limited potency. States are required to submit reports every six years on the progress they have taken to achieve such rights. States are also allowed to describe reasons for the shortcomings. If there is a valid reason why the rights were not provided properly, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can help the state by arranging for financial assistance from other international organisations. However, the committee has had a problem with states failing to even submit a report. Some of those submitted are written for the sole purpose of fulfilling the report obligation; they lack candour and do not provide an insightful view into the state of human rights in their respective states. Other reasons for lack of monitoring and enforcement include the ambiguousness of the duties in the Covenant, and that non-governmental organisations tend not to dwell upon violations of the economic, social, and cultural rights. |
| Though abuses still occur in various parts of the | world today with respect to economic, social and cultural rights, the second covenant has had a rather better track record in the field of civil and political rights. As required by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all states must send a report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee every five years detailing the domestic laws that protect civil and political rights. States are also required to describe the domestic provisions that either enhance or inhibit an individual's rights. |
| The Human Rights Committee then sends a report to the | UN General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council based on the state reports of that year. Because the Human Rights Committee's report is accessible by the international community, states with poor human rights records can be pressured into improving their attitude towards civil and political rights. |
| In conclusion, human rights are, literally, the | rights that one has simply because one is human. This deceptively simple idea has profound social and political consequences. Because they rest on nothing more than the fact of being human, these rights are universal, equal and inalienable. They are also held by all, universally. One can no more lose these rights than one can stop being a human being - no matter how inhuman the treatment one may suffer. One is entitled to human rights and is empowered by them. |
| Human rights provide a framework for political | organisation and a standard of political legitimacy. Where they are systematically denied, claims of human rights may be positively revolutionary. Even in societies where human rights are generally well respected, they provide constant and healthy pressure on governments to meet their standards. |
| Returning now to the importance of this course in the | contiued promulgation of awareness and action with respect to these rights, it is of particular significance that this course is entitled the Mediterranean Master’s Programme in Human Rights and Democratisation because by the very nature of this programme, we can see a concrete manifestation of how the Euro-Mediterranean Process has been put to work in a region of great significance to Malta. It is also worthy of note that the fundamentals of the human rights that we abide by today find their origins in the Mediterranean. |
| This region, with all its promise and problems, has | been on the agenda of the international community for a number of years. Malta had taken on a particularly active role in promoting the interests of this region since the mid-seventies. It was not, however, until 1995 that the Mediterranean agenda truly came to the fore with the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Process. |
| The birth of this process was significant for a | number of reasons. Firstly, it was an expression of that principle laid down in the then CSCE Madrid Conference that stability and security in Europe and the Mediterranean were mutually reinforcing. The Process was therefore launched with the participation of all the members of the European Union and twelve partners in the Mediterranean. |
| Secondly, it was significant due to the fact that the | Barcelona process is extremely wide-ranging both in participation and in nature. With the demise of the Cold War it was recognized that security and stability were not based solely on military considerations but comprised a wider gamut of concerns and issues. Thus the Euro-Med Proceess had to complement political dialogue with a dialogue on the economic, social and human levels. The promotion of human rights and democratisation is thus one of the more fundamental cornerstones in the Barcelona Process. For it is an issue which affects all sectors of society - governments, non-government organizations and the ordinary man in the street. It is an issue which is of concern to all societies and peoples in the Euro-Mediterranean space. |
| Given the varied and far-reaching backgrounds that | you come from, in addition to those of the partner organisations that form part of this endeavour, this programme stands as testament to the principles that not only form the basis of the Barcelona Process, but indeed those of society at large. I therefore would like to commend this initiative and augur you all every success in achieving the goals that this programme has set out to achieve. |
| Whether you have just completed this course or are | about to embark on it, I would like to extend to you my warmest congratulations. |
Thank you for your attention.
Share this Press Release
Other Press Releases:
PR261926
STQARRIJA MILL-UFFIĊĊJU TAL-PRIM MINISTRU “Sodisfatt bil-qbil bejn il-mexx...
PR261925EN
PRESS RELEASE BY THE MINISTRY FOR EUROPEAN FUNDS, SOCIAL DIALOGUE AND CONSU...
