Introduction

Human rights mean different things to different people. While I was writing this book in Belgium, two advertising campaigns promoted Freedom of Speech! A mobile phone provider put up billboards along the motorways using the slogan in an attempt to break into a market long dominated by a public operator. A political party of the extreme right launched the second campaign, in an attack on a Court judgment which had condemned organizations associated with it for violations of the law on racism. The party won in the subsequent elections.

This book is not about how human rights can serve the interests of a company or of a racist party. It investigates whether human rights can assist people abandoned by globalization in achieving human dignity.

It is not self-evident that human rights can offer protection in a globalized world. International human rights law developed at a time when states monopolized international relations. The international human rights system was similarly state-orientated. Domestic states carried human rights obligations vis-à-vis their inhabitants, but not vis-à-vis anyone else. The entire system relied on connecting every individual to a responsible state that had the capacity to deliver protection. Other actors, such as companies or international economic organizations, remained out of sight.

In today's globalized world, however, human rights violations often occur as a consequence of the behaviour of a variety of actors. Consider: a fifteen-year old girl, who leaves her own country because she cannot provide for herself or her family, is enlisted in prostitution by a trafficking ring in the country she travels to, is maltreated during a police raid as a prelude to a forcible return to her home country, where the cycle starts all over again. The girl cannot achieve a dignified life because of the cumulative effect of the actions of her home state, the traffickers, and of the country of destination. In order for human rights protection to work, an integrated global response that challenges the behaviour of all perpetrators, and interacts with each of them, is necessary. Focusing on only one actor often brings no improvement at all. Human rights need to adjust to the context of globalization, in much the same way they adjusted earlier to the Holocaust, or to the Iron Curtain. This book approaches human rights as a living instrument, not as texts set in stone.

If time is of the essence, read Chapter 2. Its objective is to contribute to the development of a theory of human rights that responds to the challenges of globalization. Proposed directions for human rights follow a brief review of the different dimensions of globalization.

It is argued that existing state obligations in the field of human rights need to be rethought. Consider: a state decides to privatize the water supply system of its major cities. The privatization does not diminish the state's obligation to provide poor people with access to drinking water. What does change, however, is what the state needs to do in order to guarantee access. The roles of provider and supervisor are different, and this affects the legal techniques through which protection must be ensured. It is essential that the human rights project clarifies what human rights require from the state in these changed circumstances.

Second, in a globalized world, the human rights obligations of states are simply not enough. Mechanisms need to be created that ensure the accountability of other actors for human rights. These actors include influential economic powers whose actions drive people into poverty. The World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund should not be able to declare human rights irrelevant to their work. Companies should not take cover behind the profit motive in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for human rights violations in which they are complicit.

Finally, if human rights are to make a difference, they should focus on empowering those who suffer the worst abuse. The experience of people alienated by the globalization process should inform the direction of the human rights project, rather than the extent to which dominant actors are willing to accommodate aspects of human rights that serve their interests.

Chapters 3 to 5 provide a reality check. Is there any hope that the human rights project will move in the proposed direction? The obstacles are formidable.

Current human rights law shares some of the general weaknesses of international law. The enforcement of compliance is not its greatest strength. Although considerable progress has been achieved over the last fifty years, success remains dependent on the political will of (powerful) governmental and private actors. Governments use the human rights discourse selectively to achieve foreign policy goals, and the legitimacy of human rights as cosmopolitan values shared by all humanity suffers accordingly. Relationships of interdependence apply to the global human rights system in much the same way as they do to other fields of international relations. The relative capacities of actors perpetrating violations and of those requiring justice determine outcomes. In addition, some human rights proponents oppose reform, primarily out of fear for the loss of what has been gained. Torture remains torture, whether the world is globalizing or not, and there is a risk that the acknowledgement of the responsibility of non-state actors makes it easier for states to escape. Why not close one's eyes to the causes of violations, and stick to documenting abuse and demanding justice in each individual case? Human rights advocates may find comfort in the familiarity of the case file approach.

The 11 September 2001 attacks left their mark on human rights, as they did on everything else. The attacks were carefully planned to achieve the highest possible loss of life, and were committed for political gain. They share these characteristics with a number of gross and systematic violations perpetrated by states in the past. In response, anti-terrorism measures went beyond permissible limitations of civil and political rights. War was deemed just even if international law held that it was illegal. International donors discovered a new priority: the strengthening of the capacity of security systems in the perceived countries of origin of terrorists, notwithstanding the dubious human rights reputation of recipient regimes. This book is primarily concerned with economic globalization and its impact on human rights. Nevertheless, many of the proposals on human rights reform in Chapter 2 are also relevant to a human rights response to 11 September and its aftermath.

Consider the global nature of the events: a transnational non-state network perpetrated the attacks. The attacks were arguably planned in one country and executed in another. Private security firms were involved in interrogation practices in the Abu Ghraib prison. The United States held suspected terrorists in secret detention centres in...