Human Rights
Human rights came to the fore as an international concern and justification for war during the 35-nation Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe [CSCE] in 1973. The Soviet Union came hoping for recognition of its western boundary.
The NATO nations came hoping for concessions on security and human rights. Twentieth century events had proved that states were undependable guarantors of human rights.4The resulting Helsinki Accords (1973) begin with the participating states declaring "their determination to respect and put into practice…human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief” and “the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination” [emphasis added]. The phrasing and lack of any enforcement mechanism makes clear this was a platitude rather than an obligation, but it did begin to breach the Westphalian principles (Chapter 16) that had excluded treatment of one’s own nationals as justification for international intervention. Follow-up conferences publicized progress in ways that increased expectations. CSCE became the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE], which now has bureaus for Democratic and Human Rights in Warsaw, Conflict Prevention in Vienna, Minorities in the Hague, and a Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in Geneva. They are becoming increasing active particularly in ethnic and racial conflict. Many United Nations Peacekeeping efforts protect human rights as well as prevent the renewal of conflict (Chapter 16).
US Catholic bishops in 1993 declared a duty of intervention in cases of human rights violations regardless of sovereignty. Some religious leaders made the peculiar argument that the United States should intervene only if its own national interests are not advanced, while specifically freeing all other nations from that restriction. This double standard distorts the principle of right intention, demanding selflessness of the United States alone. Instances of countries going to war simply to protect the rights of those in other countries are hard to name while cases of refusing to do so, such as Rwanda and Sudan, seem common. They sometimes do provide an excuse for action when other factors are in play.