After World War II, there was hope that core principles of international law and human rights would become universal, but increasingly these standards have suffered from selective application and propagandistic manipulation, causing aloss of credibility in these keyprecepts, as Lawrence Davidson notes. <\/p>\n
By Lawrence Davidson <\/p>\n
The traditional criterion for state legitimacy was very simple. If a state and its government could hold and govern territory, it was legitimate, at least in the eyes of other governments. The form of government and its behavior did not matter in this definition Stalins USSR, Mussolinis Italy, Hitlers Germany these regimes held territory and ruled as surely as did the ones in Britain, France and the United States. And, in each others official eyes, one state was as legitimate as the next. <\/p>\n
This outlook began to change in 1945. Just before and then during World War II, fascist behavior in general and Nazi behavior in particular was so shocking that many post-war governments became convinced that state legitimacy required well-defined codes of national behavior enshrined in international law. <\/p>\n
President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush (with First Lady Michelle Obama and former First Lady Laura Bush) walk to a White House event on May 31, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy) <\/p>\n
Therefore, right after the war, human rights became a recognized standard by which to judge states and their governments. This new standard, which was implied in the Nuremberg trials, was soon articulated in such documents as the International Declaration of Human Rights and endorsed by the United Nations. It was simultaneously reinforced by a worldwide process of decolonization that focused the international community on issues of human rights, particularly as they touched on the practice of racism and apartheid. <\/p>\n
Most importantly, this process led growing segments of civil society to support human rights law as a standard by which to judge state legitimacy. In one case, pressure from civil society worldwide was applied on apartheid South Africa throughout the 1970s and 1980s with sufficient force to help change not only the nature of that countrys government, but its national culture and therefore the character of the state itself. By 1994, South Africa was no longer an apartheid state. <\/p>\n
New Attack on Human Rights <\/p>\n
Recently things have not gone so well. There has been a tendency for the lessons learned about the importance of human rights to fade with time, particularly from the institutional memories of state bureaucracies. The proclivity of all state apparatuses to behave in a Machiavellian way has reasserted itself, particularly in the foreign policies of Western democratic states and their subsequent alliances with all manner of horrid right-wing dictatorships the world over. <\/p>\n
This complicity with oppressive regimes produced inevitable anti-Western sentiment culminating in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Subsequently the United States declared a war on terror, and this effort seems to excuse everything that the U.S. government has done, from indefinite detention and torture to assassinations and invasions. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here: After World War II, there was hope that core principles of international law and human rights would become universal, but increasingly these standards have suffered from selective application and propagandistic manipulation, causing aloss of credibility in these keyprecepts, as Lawrence Davidson notes. By Lawrence Davidson The traditional criterion for state legitimacy was very simple. If a state and its government could hold and govern territory, it was legitimate, at least in the eyes of other governments. Continue reading
\nEroding Principles of Human Rights<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"