Gabriel Thomas R. Garcia Dr. Belen Tangco, Ph.D.

Diplomacy and Protocol

Human Rights Diplomacy

“The smugglers had promised Abdullah Kurdi a motorboat for the trip from Turkey to
Greece, a step on the way to a new life in Canada. Instead, they showed up with a 15-
foot rubber raft that flipped in high waves, dumping Mr. Kurdi, his wife and their two
small sons into the sea. Mr. Kurdi tried to keep the boys, Aylan and Ghalib, afloat, but
one died as he pushed the other to his wife, Rehan, pleading, “Just keep his head
above the water!”

Only Mr. Kurdi, 40, survived”

-Anne Barnard and Karam Shoumali, 2015

The pictures of the casualties streaming from the Syrian Refugee Crisis that had
shocked and appalled the world, only highlights the humanitarian tragedy that has so
often followed the volatility and violence occurring in the Middle East. In another level
however, the refugee crisis and the ensuing political fall-out on how the world responds
to almost six million Syrians fleeing war makes a compelling case for the diplomacy of
human rights. For Vogelgesang (1979) foreign policy is chiefly and most importantly,
about people- whether it be expediting their emigration from war torn areas or warding
off violent conflict and creating a space where peace is not only the interruption of
conflict but also the backdrop upon which common people find their lives in. This makes
it a compatible instrument for promoting human rights. Whether in the form of the
European Union threatening to revoke the Philippines’ trade benefits due to the extra
judicial killings in the country’s war on drugs (Chiu, 2020) or the U.S blocking arms
sales in Saudi Arabia because of its involvement in Yemen that has only exacerbated
the humanitarian crisis in the area (Held, 2019)- the incorporation of human rights in
foreign policy is an important but often unacknowledged feature of modern diplomacy .
 More and more efforts to promote human rights join the issues of individual
welfare and international negotiation much like counter terrorism and trade (Shattuck,
2000). In doing so, they bear upon the most fundamental factors foreign policy: what are
the means and ends of modern diplomacy, what difference can or should great powers
like the United States make, and at what cost or benefit to whom? Stress on human
rights in foreign policy particularly U.S foreign policy provides a microcosm for concerns
of another magnitude. The diplomacy of human rights touches on such perennial
tensions of traditional diplomacy as the alleged conflict between power and morality. At
the same time, it encompasses such so-called "new global issues" as economic
development and terrorism. The diplomacy of human rights is as timeless as the appeal
of the Declaration of Independence and as timely as the latest arrest of a political
dissident (Vogelgesang, 1979). And, it is likely to continue to raise questions that
require vigilant interest and responses. These issues have, of course clear implications
for the victims of violations of human rights. However, they have a less obvious, but no
less important, significance for the related course of East-West and North-South
relations and in global diplomacy in general. This paper aims to look closer on the finer
dimensions of human rights diplomacy as more and more, the treatment of human
rights is part of the continuing redefinition of national priorities in the modern age. Lastly,
this paper explores the seeming contradiction of pursuing the universality of human
rights in a world of self-serving, anarchic configuration of states. It should be noted
however, that this paper is centered chiefly on the perspective of American foreign
policy in the pursuit of human rights diplomacy.

The International Human Rights Problem

The uneven and sometimes harsh response of various countries to the Syrian
Refugee Crisis and the displacement, violence, trafficking and tragic loss of life is just
an encapsulation of the global human rights problem. When former U.S Congressman
Donald Fraser, the person responsible for centering congressional attention on human
rights, said that "There is a worldwide growing abuse of human rights, with violations of
international standards so widespread that we are, indeed, facing a global human rights
crisis (1977)” is, oddly enough, eerily applicable during this modern time despite the
growing acceptance of norms and attitudes towards human rights. However, as recent
as 2018, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch wrote “There is no more
daunting challenge for the human rights movement than trying to spare civilians from
the litany of abuses associated with the raging conflicts of our time, those that are
claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and causing millions to flee
across international borders. Where there once was outrage and demands for action,
complacency has set in… Atrocities the world had promised to end are the new normal”
(Bolopion, 2018). This is particularly troubling as degradation of human rights is both
one of the chief causes and also an exacerbating factors to the global decline of
democracy. As seen in Freedom House’s annual report (2019) the world has been
experiencing it’s thirteenth consecutive year of decline in global freedom. The reversal
is seen in some variation or another in dozens of countries in every region, extending to
long-standing democracies like the United States to traditionally consolidated
authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. The overall losses are still shallow
compared with the gains of the late 20th century, but the pattern is consistent and
ominous-democracy is in retreat and human rights is a common casualty.

Additionally, there are other violations that occur but are no less dramatic and
with less coverage that are no less important and devastating. According to the United
Nations (2015) around ten percent of the global population is living in extreme poverty
and struggling to fulfil the most basic needs like health, education, access to water and
sanitation, to name a few. Their numbers also show that there are 122 women aged 25
to 34 living in poverty for every 100 men of the same age group, and more than 160
million children are at risk of continuing to live in extreme poverty by 2030. These
numbers have slightly improved over the decades since 2000 where at the time there
were over one billion who people lived below what the United Nations calls the
"absolute poverty line."

As a response, many national leaders rationalize political repression, in the

name of economic progress (Harrijivan & Weerdesteijin, 2020). Though, at the same
time, they deny the majority of their citizens even the basic economic rights spelled out
in the standards are clearly stated in the International Bill of Rights of the United
Nations. That includes the UN Charter; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights; and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The consequence of human rights violations -
whether in death arbitrarily decreed or in a minimal living standard arbitrarily denied- is
a rash of reaction that spills over national borders. This spells volatility and instability in
their respective regions. The universality of human rights issues clearly transcends
national boundaries. As a famous example, secret police can and do follow those
marked for death from one country to another like when Chile's secret police struck in
downtown Washington, D.C. It was in broad daylight during 1976 and in a gangland-
style political execution, they blew up a car carrying Chile's former ambassador to the
United States and his American aide (Walker, 2011).

Though there is nothing new about man's inhumanity to man like that old Latin
proverb homo homini lupus that man is a wolf to man, what is new however is the
known scale of violations and the visibility these violations take form. Modern
communications-whether through nightly television coverage of U.S protests against
racism (Peksen, Peterson , & Drury , 2014) or videos of the pro-democracy movements
in Hong Kong circulated in social media (Runnacles, 2014) shine a glaring spotlight on
once invisible victims of repression. For Goel & Tripathi (2010), this visibility can also be
attributed to the various international institutions, together with the worldwide network
operated by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), that found their roots after the
horrors of World War II who work tirelessly to expose previously ignored cases of
brutality.

For Vogelgesang (1979) there is a revolution of rising expectations among

victims of violations that coincides with a revelation of the decreasing capacity by
governments to deal with them. However, this revolution is now fueled by the increasing
power of citizens to pressure their governments to act through digital media. The jailing
of Russian opposition leaders (Gonzales, 2019) and the killings of indigenous tribal
leaders in Brazil (Reeves, 2020) illustrate the crisis of governance that pervades both
countries regardless of development. Governments, without easy recourse to relief and
with little inclination to reform that might jeopardize vested interests, threatens to
worsen the global human rights problem. In the foreseeable future, the repertoire of
repression may expand to include such new techniques and new levels of suffering.

Human Rights Diplomacy: Moving Forward

As is politics being the art of the possible, the implementation of international

human rights standards can be pursued by a range of means. These include legal
redress, technical assistance, political pressure and non-governmental advocacy
(Vincent, 1989) . Another such means which has not received much attention is the
undertaking of human rights diplomacy. While traditional diplomacy is associated with
the pursuit of national interests by states in their foreign policy, for O’ Flaherty, Kedzia,
Muller & Ulrich (2011) human rights diplomacy is the specific utilization of diplomatic
negotiation and persuasion for the stated purpose of promoting and protecting human
rights in an international level. Oftentimes, this involves a strategy of engagement with a
range of actors whose goals and interests concerning human rights may be different.
Accordingly, human rights diplomacy aims at both persuading counterparts to introduce
measures to advance the implementation of human rights and dissuading them from
taking action that is contrary to human rights. This entails an active and ongoing effort to
not just end war- the most serious escalation of conflict that presents the most obvious
detriment to human rights- but also an equally arduous effort to promote the conditions
that sustain peace and make war avoidable.

This idea is very similar to the structural theories present in democratic peace
theory that supposedly formed the intellectual underpinnings of the neoconservative
movement that has deeply permeated in George W. Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle
East. Neoconservatives contend 1) that expanding democracy will enlarge the zone of
peace that would eventually overcome the threats of civilizational war, global terrorism
and rogue states; 2) that democracy ought to be understood structurally and rather than
culturally and morally; and 3) building democratic structures is also possible in
civilizations whose cultures and moralities are incompatible with those of the democratic
the West. Promoting democracy, they argue creates the space for peace, prosperity
and for the purposes of this discussion, a space for the protection and promotion of
human rights. With regards to the neoconservative foreign policy, Ish-Shalom (2008),
succinctly points out, “criticism can be levelled at the futile effort of democratizing at
bayonet point”. Though Sadam Hussein’s Iraq was truly despotic and brutal, a genuine
application of human rights diplomacy cannot be implemented by force, or in this case
through wars, invasions and occupation.

This is but one misapplication of human rights diplomacy. In recent years many
cases, in particular in inter-state interaction, an element of reciprocity becomes almost
necessary. Turkey’s non-admission to the economically beneficial markets of the E.U
due to its appalling human rights record is notable example. Europe will expand its
access in the Middle East and in return, Turkey will undoubtably achieve a long
standing economic and strategic goal (Yesilada, 2002). It seems simply transactional at
first, however, the EU’s insistence on the improvement of Turkey’s human rights
situation is a rebuke that all actors in the international arena are only interested in their
own goals.

Misapplication of Human Rights Diplomacy

Increasingly, today’s human rights diplomacy can involve a range of actors, not
limited to ‘classic’ diplomats such as representatives of states and inter-governmental
organizations Among them are also non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other
representatives of civil society, national human rights institutions (NHRIs), academic
institutions, human rights experts, parliamentarians, religious groups, and even
business (O' Flaherty, Kedzia, Muller, & Ulrich, 2011). In the analysis of human rights
diplomacy, it is important to acknowledge that while most actors engage in this pursuit
in good faith with the general aim in one way or another to advance the cause of human
rights, there are also a variety of ways in which human rights diplomacy can be
misused. ‘Bad’ human rights diplomacy—human rights counter-diplomacy, as it were—
assumes a variety of familiar forms: first, engaging in diplomatic action with the intention
to undermine established human rights standards. China comes to mind in this regard.
According to Human Rights Watch (2017) even as it engages with UN human rights
institutions, China has worked consistently and often aggressively to silence criticism of
its human rights record before UN bodies and has taken actions aimed at weakening
some of the central mechanisms available in those institutions to advance rights.
Because of its growing international influence, the stakes of such interventions go
beyond how China’s own human rights record is addressed at the UN and pose a
longer-term challenge to the integrity of the system as a whole.

Another counter diplomacy tactic employed by some states is the use of

diplomatic channels to attempt to deflect criticism of their human rights record. For
Saudi Arabia, hosting the annual G-20 Summit where the gathering of many of the
world’s largest economies to discuss first and foremost, economic issues would be
integral in assuring wary countries and investors alike that maybe skittish in dealing with
the country’s involvement in the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the grisly killing of
Jamal Khashoggi, not to mention the already heavy-handed repressive system
(Hubbard, 2020). For Human Right’s (2020) its merely “image laundering”. Such
events were only meant to obfuscate and counteract negative scrutiny of the Saudi
government’s human rights violations and undermine efforts to hold Saudi officials
accountable. The country’s new Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s creation of an
entertainment industry has been adopted alongside advancements for women and
youth. While extensive and important, these changes have also helped obscure a
dramatic curtailing in civil and political rights since his rise to power in 2017.

Lastly, the instrumentalization of human rights by some actors to achieve foreign

policy goals not related to the promotion and protection of human rights is one of the
most blatant counter diplomacy techniques out there. Perhaps the most brazen of these
efforts were seen in the ill-conceived war on Iraq. For many of its critics, they note that
though the Bush Administration may have framed the entire effort as part of thwarting
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program and liberating the country from a brutal
dictatorship, the policies couldn’t be helped but labelled as “imperialistic, paternalistic,
destabilizing crusades, as cynical demagogy masking self-aggrandizing interests, and
unlawful mongering” according Ish-Shalom (2008). Though wrongheaded, the U.S foray
into the war was partly driven from the September 11 terrorist attacks. More and more,
terrorism, or at least the threat of it has been used as a justification for curtailing many
civil and political rights, not to mention that many national governments use it as a cover
domestic power grabs like that of Russia (Sinai, 2015) and the Philippines (Sajor, 2020);
for military adventurism like those undertook by Great Britain () and for states
rehabilitating who are rehabilitating their image but not overhauling their repressive
policies both domestically and abroad.

Human Rights Diplomacy: What Sets It Apart

Human rights diplomacy may overlap with other forms of diplomacy in trait and
spirit. After all, this kind of diplomacy is often thought to be the same as humanitarian
diplomacy. This is a misconception. Even though both do exhibit the same
characteristics, and both may be used often interchangeably in some cases,
humanitarian diplomacy is defined more as an emergency policy, involving humanitarian
actors in for example negotiating access to vulnerable populations or combating a
culture of impunity in armed conflicts where widespread violations of human rights and
humanitarian law occur. Human rights diplomacy by contrast has a long-term aim to
develop and change laws, policies, practices and systems to ensure the lasting
implementation of human rights (O' Flaherty, Kedzia, Muller, & Ulrich, 2011). It is a long-
standing in the practice of states and inter-governmental organizations. However, it has
come a long way since its earlier conceptions. Its form has developed considerably in
the period since the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, and the
number of actors involved has increased significantly. There has been a proliferation of
diplomatic initiatives at the multilateral, regional and bilateral level, with the aim to
promote the implementation of human rights. Above all, the post of United Nations (UN)
High Commissioner for Human Rights was established and mandated to carry out a
number of functions including some of a diplomatic character. Regional organisations,
such as the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organisation for Security and Co-
operation in Europe (OSCE) have established similar high-level posts. In addition,
specific human rights-related responsibilities were either attached to or assumed by
more generally mandated office-holders such as the UN Secretary-General and
commissioners of the European Commission. Experts associated with the UN human
rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC),
similarly, now regularly carry out certain functions of human rights diplomacy. At the
national level, a number of states have appointed human rights ambassadors, and
NHRIs play an ever more active and diversified role in the promotion and protection of
human rights.

Against this background, a clearer image appears that reveals a range of key
functions, actors and dimensions related to human rights. This enables observers to
locate with specificity human rights diplomacy in relation to other forms of human rights
advocacy and practice. The first key point to keep in mind is that there are two general
modes of engagement associated with human rights diplomacy. First is the legal side
where human rights law functions as generally the accepted operative norm and that
the actors in this regards are occupied with the all-important task for practitioners to
apply the law correctly. This is typically a matter of exercising technical legal
competence. The chief actors in this regard are lawyers and judges involved in trying
human rights cases at court. they may be the most obvious example of practitioners
who operate on the premise of a functional human rights law paradigm (University of
Nottingham, 2009). Additionally, legislators aslo play a crucial role in drafting laws in
conformity with established human rights standards and policy makers tasked with
devising wider social policies in a similar fashion. This is not to mention the thousands
of human rights monitors, fact finders and independent experts tasked with assessing
human rights compliance and identifying general patterns of violation as an integral
dimension in human rights work on the premise of it being the operative norm. The UN
special procedures mandate-holders are particularly important in this regard, and the
same can be said of the independent experts associated with UN and regional treaty
monitoring bodies, as their express mandate is to form an assessment of whether
human rights standards, which have been endorsed by state parties, are in fact being
observed. One could point to numerous other relevant examples, the essential point
being according to Forsythe (2011) that in a context where international human rights
law is becoming progressively consolidated, it is a primary obligation for the
international community and states to ensure its implementation in practice.
 Accordingly, human rights work be it on a diplomatic level or on the ground level
takes on the character of exercising technical competence, juridical or otherwise. This is
increasingly becoming more and more evident in academe as the emergence of
numerous human rights master’s programs and specialized training courses in all parts
of the world testifies to the intensity of this general trend. It may here be relevant to note
that some of the abovementioned examples do involve a contestation of norms. This is
notably true of legal proceedings, which by their very nature are litigious, but also
applies to aspects of human rights monitoring and programming. The important point,
however, is that what is being contested is how to correctly apply the operative legal
norm in a given situation, not whether it is valid or how it should be defined. It is in other
words not the norm itself that is being questioned, but rather its application and practical
implications (O' Flaherty, Kedzia, Muller, & Ulrich, 2011).

However, in situations where the central focus of interaction is on the

contestation of human rights per se, such conditions brings into play a different set of
characteristic practices. These are practices that typically aim at legitimizing human
rights (Pagels, 1979), raising popular awareness (Heinze & Freedman, 2018), rallying
support, advocating a more radical or more consistent application of human rights
(Messer, 1997), and addressing complexities in the interrelation between human rights
and other legitimate priorities. In this regard actors enter into dialogue or dispute with
the implicit and/or explicit aim to dismiss or defend the validity of human rights as a key
reference and source of guidance in international relations. From the side of human
rights advocacy, the overriding objective, is to enlarge the sphere in which human rights
function as operative norm, i.e., carve out additional space for the technical application
of human rights law as described above. It may be suggested that the skills required to
accomplish this aim are predominantly of a strategic rather than technical nature, even if
legal competence remains essential at this level of practice as well. Human rights
diplomacy belongs in the latter general context. In a background note prepared for the
Venice Workshop, O’Flaherty (2009) invoked a classical conception of diplomacy as
‘the art of persuasion in international affairs’ and went on to suggest that human rights
diplomacy ‘refers to the use of the range of persuasive negotiation-based diplomatic
tools available to states and intergovernmental organizations for the specific purpose of
promoting and protecting human rights. This is an accurate description, albeit perhaps
subject to expansion with regard to the applicable group of practitioners. Interestingly,
the emphasis on persuasion and negotiation, as logically such modes of interaction
imply an element of resistance. They are, in other words, only relevant in an underlying
context of contestation, which, as we have seen, remains a salient feature of
international human rights discourse.

Other forms of human rights practice that in a fundamental sense involve

contestation include public campaigning, political action, political dialogue and dispute
(either in a parliamentary context or directly targeting public opinion), and much
scholarly work related to human rights. In order to pinpoint the specificity of human
rights diplomacy in relation to these various other modes of practice, it will be helpful to
examine a few additional characteristic features of diplomacy.

Human Rights Diplomacy: Open for All

The discussions above have, in so far, only delved into how great powers
integrate human rights in their foreign policy considerations. Seen more closely as
Aodha (2011) notes, such discussions are reflections of the Anglo or European centric
perspectives that have dominated mainstream diplomatic thinking. What gets less
coverage though, and sometimes even less academic attention is on how small states
use the tools of human rights diplomacy, their track records and what are the
advantages and disadvantages of small states working on human rights issues.

Upon a general review of pre-existing literature, definitions of what constitutes a

small state appear to be arbitrary in nature. Possible quantitative definitions include land
area, gross national product, per capita income or population size. The Commonwealth
Secretariat (2011) offers a definition for small states as countries with a population of
1.5 million or less. For the purposes of paper, population is they key metric used in
designating which countries are considered to be small states. However, it is proposed
that the focus should be on states with a population of less than ten million people.
While at the upper end of what might reasonably be considered small this will allow for a
wider canvass as, on current estimations, there are one hundred ninety-two countries in
the world of and it is show that one hundred eight of which have populations below this
threshold. Here again, the ubiquity of the nature of human rights present multiple
options for a working definition of human rights diplomacy.

A rather broad approach considers that all humanitarian work could be classified
to be under human rights diplomacy. By this measure, a number of relatively small
states play a very important role. This may take the form of overseas development
assistance; certain forms of military intervention and other foreign policy interactions
could be said to offer opportunities for the advancement of a state’s human rights
diplomacy goals. It could also be argued that work on climate change where, as Kothari
(2014) argues, countries like that of Maldives have taken a progressive stance could be
described as human rights diplomacy. Again, mediation or peace talks
facilitation/honest broker activity can in some senses be described as human rights
work, for example that undertaken by Norway in respect of the Oslo Middle East
accords, on the Sudanese Comprehensive Peace Agreement and in relation to peace
efforts in Sri Lanka (Aodha, 2011).However, for present purposes human rights
diplomacy is taken to mean the advancement by states, through their foreign policy, of
what have been described as ‘internationally agreed values, standards or rules
regulating the conduct of states towards their own citizens and non-citizens’. In this
context according to Beahr & Castermans-Holleman (2004) the main arena where
states will have to contend in is through multilateral diplomacy in the United Nations.

Now, all states, large or small, have access to at least some of the well-
established tools for advancing human rights foreign policy goals. Viewing the toolbox
through the specific example of Ireland is instructive and will be discussed further
below. These tools can include public diplomacy, policy partnerships, outreach
programs, demarches, human rights guidelines, dialogues and resolutions. Smaller
states may be limited in what they can do either by an absence of resources or by
restrictions on their freedom of political maneuver. It may be that their very size assists
in effective engagement. Some relative advantages and disadvantages of small states
are set out below.

Small State Advantages in Pursuing Human Rights Diplomacy

 Smaller states enjoy some or all of the advantages referred to in the following
passage in terms of prioritizing human rights diplomacy if that is what they choose to do.
Many smaller states are neutral or non-aligned and thus can be seen to have greater
credibility for their activities across regional and other groupings, especially at the UN
(Jwee, 2015). Several states have a history of having to work alongside dominant
neighbors which can also build a capacity to work well with a wide range of competing
ideologies or perspectives from other states. Finland, Ireland and Austria might all be
said to fall into this category. Regional integration, for example, in Europe through the
European Union (EU), can also afford smaller states the opportunity for a larger role in
global affairs. However, it also runs the risk that larger states within a regional grouping
can stymie the natural instincts of smaller ones. The corollary is that smaller states can
sometimes hide behind the reluctance of larger regional partners to engage in human
rights questions.

According to Aoda (2011), it is worth noting that of the four thematic sets of
human rights foreign policy guidelines adopted by the European Union over the past
two decades, small states have been prominent either at the outset in having these
adopted or subsequently in contributing to their more effective implementation. These
separate sets of key guidelines focus on Human Rights Defenders, Torture, the Death
Penalty and Children in Armed Conflict. Essentially these guidelines request EU
member states, and the Union acting collectively, to highlight the issues covered by
them in relevant foreign policy contexts. As in other aspects of foreign policy, decision-
making loops in smaller national systems and foreign ministries on human rights
questions can involve fewer players and thus policy initiatives and innovation can be
easier to achieve. Opportunities for informal policy progression are also probably
greater in smaller systems.

In addition, in smaller states links between national administrations and civil

society can be closer and consequently political lobbying of government can be more
effective. Karnikova (2012) cites as an example the work accomplished by Frontline, an
international human rights nongovernmental organization (NGO) based in Ireland, which
successfully lobbied the Irish EU Presidency in 2004 to pursue adoption by member
states of Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders. In this regard the NGO concerned
enjoyed considerable access, including at ministerial level, to make their case. While
the range of means available to states to develop and maintain a profile on human
rights is wide, smaller countries may find it easier to adapt their foreign ministries to
human rights foreign policy goals. Again, Ireland is a case in point. Three significant
structural changes followed the publication of its first White Paper on foreign policy in
1996. These three innovations were the creation of a Human Rights Unit within the
Department of Foreign Affairs, the establishment of an NGO Standing Committee on
Human Rights chaired by the Department and the convening of an annual open and
participative public Forum on Human Rights. Proceedings from the latter reveal
discussion of a broad range of issues by a wide variety of participants.

It is also important to note here that the range of foreign and economic interests
of smaller states can often be more limited thus sometimes allowing for a less inhibited
focus on human rights. Smaller states can also prompt and/or collaborate on reflective
writing or discussion involving a multiplicity of stakeholders on key or evolving thematic
human rights issues. One leading example of the latter is the work done by Switzerland
on human rights and business. Switzerland has also been actively involved in
developments aimed at renewing the international human rights machinery. This work
has encompassed supporting important publications on the UN human rights
architecture, including an impressive work on the first year of the UN Human Rights
Council (HRC). Switzerland—working in tandem with Norway—has also cooperated
with the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to support a series
of important gatherings on the HRC at the FCO-supported conference facility of Wilton
Park.

The U.N Human Rights Council with its less confrontational universal periodic
review system for country review offer some positive aspects for smaller states.
particularly it gives smaller states the space and opportunity to question the polices of
larger and oftentimes developed states. This occurs regardless even if the respective
states may be on friendly terms particularly when it comes to their domestic human
rights situation. Repeatedly, Ireland has had the opportunity to ask questions during a
range of UPR sessions including those of larger countries with whom it has traditionally
had good relations. This form of diplomacy is particularly attractive in two fronts. First, it
assists in drawing attention to specific human rights gaps. Secondly, it is less
confrontational and antagonizing than traditional methods. This is true not only in
relation to UPR itself but also in respect of the greater importance of side-events and
other means of highlighting human rights issues afforded directly or indirectly by the
new structures. It is worth noting in this context that of the forty-seven member states of
the UN HRC listed for 2010–2011, fifteen are states with a population of less than ten
million people (Aodha, 2011).

Finally, smaller states have a range of other means available to them to highlight
human rights issues. Again, a clear example of this has been the manner in which
Ireland has sought to raise its profile in other significant ways consistent with its
traditional foreign policy values. Its profile was greatly enhanced when former President
Mary Robinson assumed the role of United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights in 1997. Doyle and Connolly have noted other examples of Irish activism
indicated by the state’s election to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) for the period 1997–1999 and 2003–2005 and the election of an Irish Judge to
the International Criminal Court in 2003.14 Ireland also used its period on the Security
Council in 2001–2002 to promote human rights.15 Ireland is a member of the cross-
regional group of states known as the Human Security Network (HSN) and chaired the
group in 2008–2009. The HSN is often described as the nexus of human rights,
humanitarian action and disarmament. Ireland will seek election to the United Nations
Human Rights Council in 2012 and meanwhile continues an activist role as an observer
on the Council—and elsewhere—with regard to human rights defenders and other
issues such as treaty body strengthening.

Disadvantages of Small States

Being a small state does have its setback though. As Baehr and Castermans-Holleman
(2004) points out, ‘small states usually exert limited influence in international politics
while major powers may have dominant influence’. Small states tend to be limited in
terms of clout, territory, wealth and almost certainly, possess a lack military strength. In
general, the opposite can be said both of the current major players and of the emerging
dominant players of recent years. As has been pointed out with regard to larger states,
in the end ‘they have the power to use force’. Aside from the threat of military strength
smaller states also often lack the economic and other soft power that might assist in
advancing human rights foreign policy. However, this is not universally the case and can
depend on various other factors like resource availability. One example wherein small
states can exert significant influence is seen in Switzerland and Norway. Both countries
have been very effective in particular in terms of multilateral engagement on human
rights (Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015).

Another significant area where human rights diplomacy by small states have not
traditionally been active in is with regards rto resolutions condemning the rights records
of individual states (Aodha, 2011). At the now defunct UN CHR few small states took
the lead on country resolutions. One exception was Denmark which sponsored an
unsuccessful draft resolution on China in the 1990s and found this to be a bruising
experience. Another exception is Switzerland which worked on resolutions at CHR in
relation to Nepal but this can be distinguished from the Danish example in that the
Nepalese authorities assented to engagement on the draft resolution. The tendency for
smaller countries has, in fact, often been to involve themselves on somewhat less
contentious issues. The work done by Ireland on the human rights of persons with
disabilities in Geneva in the early years of the last decade is a case in point or, more
recently, its focus on human rights defenders. Other notable examples include Austria’s
work on internally displaced persons (Kuzmany, 2018) or Portugal’s efforts in respect of
economic and social rights (Coutinho & Picarra, 2019). It is not that these examples are
entirely uncontroversial. In fact, in some respects they are highly political but they tend
not to expose their proponents to quite the same degree of exposure as a ‘finger-
pointing’ country resolution might occasion. Finally, one issue worth touching on in the
multilateral context is that the new increase in the meeting time of the HRC has to some
extent favored larger delegations, and has led to smaller states in the EU and in other
regional contexts (e.g. Africa) relying on the analysis and leadership offered by the
larger entities. This has been one of the factors in the disappointing tendency for ‘bloc
dynamics’ to persist.
The “Impossible” Diplomacy and Human Rights

In 2017 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al
Hussein gave a speech at the U.S Institute of Peace in Washington D. C titled The
Impossible Diplomacy of Human Rights. In the beginning, Al Hussein painted a bleak
picture of the current world order where institutions are collapsing, humanitarian actors
are overwhelmed, violence has become pervasive and is now spilling over their national
borders and the already volatile situation is oftentimes worsened by natural calamity.
With this as the background of his speech, he asks the question “Is the already
impossible job of human rights diplomacy becoming futile?” It is a fair question to ask.
As discussed above human rights are oftentimes sidelined to other seemingly more
pressing issues like trade, terrorism, inter-state disputes and conflicts. For the U.N
Commissioner, it is paradoxical that at a time when the world should display more
collective action and responsibility, the global response was seemingly to turn inward.
As noted by Galston (2018) in recent years the world saw the rise of illiberal, ultra-
nationalistic populist parties and candidates gain power in not only developing countries
but also in industrialized and consolidated democracies in Europe and in Northern
America. These groups as Al Hussein notes responded to today’s challenges with not
only illiberalism, but also with policies deeply tinged with chauvinism, protectionism,
isolationism and unilateralism in exchange for political expediency. For Mechitishvili
(2020) it is no surprise then that the rise of Europe’s populists coincided during the
height of the Migrant Crisis in Europe. There is some electoral gain to be made by
stoking fears in the electorate against some outside group. Naturally, with liberalism
under assault so too does human rights. The problem only worsens as when human
rights loses its domestic appeal, so too is the appetite of national leaders to pursue it
abroad as part of their larger diplomatic targets. If hostility, suspicion and disdain for the
outsider and vulnerable are rewarded electorally, what then could be the remedy?
Rather optimistically, Al-Hussein reminds his audience that day that though the populist
forces of today are powerful and have overseen some of the most significant changes in
the global landscape, too often they do not represent the majority despite their
ambitious claims. Specifically, electorates are not one hundred percent entrenched in a
given political system. There is after-all a winnable middle of moderates. This crucial
even with regards to human rights diplomacy. The idea of promoting value and policies
that are rooted in human rights remain generally popular and may prove to be an
antidote for the partisanship that has too often stymied modern politics. So as answer to
the question of whether or not human rights has become impossible or futile, Al Hussein
answers it with a resound “No”. The achievements of the human rights movement have
always faced considerable opposition and daunting challenges, however it is worth then
remembering that its victories are won in increments albeit painstakingly slow at times.
As echoed by Martin Luther King Jr “the moral arc of history is long, but it bends
towards justice”.

Conclusion

It seems that no matter the era, the human rights situation appears to be grim. In
the 1940’s and 50’s the world war grappling with the horrors of World War II. In the 60’s
and 70’ the world had to contend with decolonization and the conflicts brought about by
the Cold War. In the 80’s and 90’s the world had faced the Soviet Union’s and
democratic tide swept through former communist regimes. By the beginning of the new
century, wars were no longer at a state level, though some outbreak of inter-state
violence do occur. The world saw the rise of non-state actors like terrorist groups and
violent separatists. In each and every period, countless people were killed, displaced, or
made to endure the horrors of the aftermath of war. In the spaces of relative peace that
punctuate great turmoil and human catastrophe, the world commits itself to prevent the
atrocities of yesteryear. Though not every-time successful, there have been significant
and steady gains in making this happen. As discussed above, human rights diplomacy
concerns itself in this area as means of using diplomacy in the cessation of violent
conflict but also in the arduous task of creating space upon which human rights and
other democratic values may thrive and normalize itself in the greater population. Unlike
humanitarian diplomacy wherein states act together to immediately respond to human
devastation, human rights diplomacy is a broader framework upon which states commit
themselves in that includes a wide range of varying actors working together to track,
monitor, evaluate, report instances that of human rights violations so that national
governments may incorporate them in their domestic policy and foreign policy.

At its core, human rights diplomacy is achieving foreign policy goals that reflect
deep seated values that places an importance on human life. Though human rights
counter-diplomacy is a serious concern by bad actors in the global arena, as discussed
above, even small states can enact significant measures that advance human rights. All
in all, human rights diplomacy remains an important tool to be used by states in an
international arena of self-serving interest and a worsening human rights record.

References
Aodha, E. M. (2011). Human Rights Diplomacy of Small States. In M. O' Flaherty, Z. Kedzia, A. Muller, &
G. Ulrich , Human Rights Diplomacy: Contemporary Perspectives (p. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers).
87-95: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Baehr, P., & Castermans-Holleman, M. (2004). The Role of Human Rights in Foreign Policy. New York:
Boston.

Barnard, A., & Shoumali, K. (2015, September 3). Image of Drowned Syrian, Aylan Kurdi, 3, Brings
Migrant Crisis Into Focus. Retrieved from nytimes.com:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/world/europe/syria-boy-drowning.html

Bolopion, P. (2018, December 10). Atrocities as the New Normal: Time to Re-energize the Never Again
Movement. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/12/10/atrocities-new-normal

Chiu, P. D. (2020, September 19). EU Parliament threatens to revoke PH trade perks. Retrieved from
https://globalnation.inquirer.net/: https://globalnation.inquirer.net/191001/eu-parliament-
threatens-to-revoke-ph-trade-perks

Coutinho, F. P., & Picarra, N. (2019). Portugal: The Impact of European Integration and the Economic
Crisis on the Identity of the Constitution. National Constitutions in European and Global
Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law., 6-19.

Forsythe, D. (2011). Human Rights Diplomacy in the Modern World. APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper,
1-16.

Fraser, D. (1977). Freedom and Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy, 140-156.

Galston, W. (2018). The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy. New York: The Brookings Institute.
Goel , V., & Tripathi, M. (2010). The Role of NGO's in the Enforcement of Human Rights. The Indian
Journal of Political Science, 769-793.

Gonzales, R. (2019, July 29). Putin Opposition Leader Jailed Again After Suspected Poisoning. Retrieved
from www.npr.org: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/29/746401239/putin-opposition-leader-
jailed-again-after-suspected-poisoning

Harrijivan, M., & Weerdesteijin, M. (2020). To Appease or to Repress: How Dictators Use Economic
Dynamics to Increase their Regime Longevity. Crime, Law and Social Change, 315-338.

Heinze, E., & Freedman, R. (2018). Public awareness of human rights: distortions in the mass media.
African Journalism Studies, 85-104.

Held, A. (2019, June 20). In Rare Rebuke To Trump, Senate Votes To Block Saudi Arms Sales. Retrieved
from https://www.npr.org/: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734437874/in-rare-rebuke-to-
trump-senate-votes-to-block-saudi-arms-sales

Hubbard, B. (2020, December 8). Saudi Arabia and Human Rights Activists Fight Over Kingdom’s Image
at G-20. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/21/world/middleeast/saudi-human-rights-G20.html

Human Rights Watch. (2017, September 5). The Costs of International Advocacy: China's Interference in
the United Nations Human Rights Mechanisms. Retrieved from www.hrw.org:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/09/05/costs-international-advocacy/chinas-interference-
united-nations-human-rights

Human Rights Watch. (2020, October 2). Saudi Arabia: ‘Image Laundering’ Conceals Abuses. Retrieved
from www.hrw.org: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/02/saudi-arabia-image-laundering-
conceals-abuses

Ish-Shalom, P. (2008). The Civilization of Clashes": Misapplying the Democratic Peace in the Middle East.
Political Science Quarterly, 533-554.

Jwee, F. K. (2015, September 7). Confessions of a Small State on Human Rights. Retrieved from
https://www.universal-rights.org/: https://www.universal-rights.org/blog/confessions-of-a-
small-state-on-human-rights/

Karnikova, A. (2012). Do They Actually Matter? The Impact of NGOs on the European Instrument for
Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR). Institute of International Relations, 83-109.

Kothari, U. (2014). Political discourses of climate change and migration: resettlement policies in the
Maldives. The Geographical Journal, 130-140.

Kuzmany, B. (2018). Changes and Continuities in Austria's Coping with Refugee Crises over Three
Centuries. Journal of Austrian-American History, 116-141.

Mechitishvili, N. (2020). Rise of Populist Parties in the Era of Migration Crisis. In O. Abergunrin, & S.
Abidde, African Migrants and the Refugee Crisis (pp. 175-186). Boston: Springer.

Messer, E. (1997). Pluralist Approaches to Human Rights. Journal of Anthropological Research, 293-317.
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015). Opportunities for All: Huma Rights in Norways Foreign
Policy and Development Cooperation. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

O' Flaherty, M., Kedzia, Z., Muller, A., & Ulrich, G. (2011). Human Rights Diplomacy: Contemporary
Perspectives. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Pagels, E. (1979). Human Rights: Legitimizing a Recent Concept. American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 57-62.

Peksen, D., Peterson , T., & Drury , C. (2014). Media-driven Humanitarianism? News Media Coverage of
Human Rights Abuses and the Use of Economic Sanctions. International Studies Quarterly, 855-
866.

Reeves, P. (2020, September 10). Defender Of Amazon Tribes Killed In Brazil. Retrieved from
www.npr.org: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911612808/defender-of-amazon-tribes-killed-
in-brazil

Runnacles, J. (2014, October 8). The Role of Social Media in the Hong Kong Protests. Retrieved from
https://www.diplomaticourier.com/: https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/the-role-of-
social-media-in-the-hong-kong-protests

Sajor, L. (2020, July 8). Philippines' Anti Terror Bill; Repression and Resistance. Retrieved from
https://afsee.atlanticfellows.org/: https://afsee.atlanticfellows.org/blog/2020/leanne-sajor-
philippines-terror-law

Shattuck, J. (2000). Diplomacy with a Cause: Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy. In S. Power , & G.
Allison , Relaing Human Rights (pp. 265-289). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sinai, J. (2015). The Terrorist Threats Against Russia and its Counterterrorism Response Measures.
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, 95-102.

University of Nottingham. (2009). High-Level Workshop on Human Rights Diplomacy. Venice: European
Inter University Center for Human Rights and Democratization.

Vincent, R. (1989). Human Rights Diplomacy. London : Palgrave Macmillan.

Vogelgesang, S. (1979). Diplomacy of Human Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 216-245.

Walker, V. (2011). At the End of Influence: The Letelier Assassination, Human Rights, and Rethinking
Intervention in US-Latin American Relations. Journal of Contemporary History, 109-135.

Yesilada, B. (2002). Turkey's Candidacy for EU Membership. Middlle East Journal, 94-111.