A number of scientific experiments showed that altruistic mice live longer than egotistical mice1. Why selfless mice exist is not clear, but it is quite evident what altruistic states do – they assist weak states, help to settle conflicts in distant regions, look after the rights of foreign citizens, give shelter to refugees and ask for nothing in return. Why do states start to think all of a sudden not only about their own interests? A. Brysk, professor at the University of California at Irvin, and the author of a few publications on human rights, tried to answer this question in her book “Global Good Samaritans.”
The author assumes that states are not so much guided by altruism and the willingness to help their neighbors. Helping others and ensuring their rights fall into the paradigm of foreign policy of the countries that have the most active stand in the sphere of human rights.
Most states that are not indifferent to how human rights and freedoms are assured outside their borders have a few features. Presumably, these are developed countries that have enough financial and other resources and a fairly high level of civic culture. “Good Samaritans” are usually democracies with a stable domestic situation and developed civil society. They are quite often active participants in international relations from among the so-called “middle powers”, powers of medium caliber.
However, there are no rules without exceptions. The most blatant example is the USA that not only has a controversial reputation in the field of human rights protection but also hampers the creation of global international legal mechanisms which could challenge Washington’s existing legal immunity. Neither do such developed countries as Japan or Israel have a perfect reputation in human rights protection at the international and regional levels.
The study takes Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Costa Rica and the Republic of South Africa as an example of policy based on human rights and its justifications in terms of the national interest. A. Brysk pays particular attention to the reasons why one country or another is highly active in humanitarian aspects, to staffing and structural support of policy. She separately analyses the activities of interstate networks and associations addressing the subject of human rights (OSCE, Democratic Club, Human Security Network).
What is characteristic is that the EU is not mentioned in this context. At the same time, the author points out that the European Union, as an organization known for its activities aimed at the protection of human rights, blurs the prerogatives of certain states in this field. The EU is in many cases that precise level at which the Union’s small states can expect their policy to be implemented. In that case, the delegation of powers to the supranational level deprives the states of practical opportunities to influence the way the policy they initiated is pursued (p. 123). The tough stance adopted by Sweden, for example, as to universal protection of human rights may considerably falter at the EU level.
Specific cases show that “Good Samaritans” may differ widely. For instance, human rights policy of Costa Rica results from outward projection of its own democracy despite the relatively small size of the state itself and its economy. The contribution made by this state to the key initiatives and organizations for the protection of human rights absolutely mismatches its size, finances and strength (p. 96). The author explains that not only historical political culture accounts for that but also the conscious decision taken by the leaders of the country to follow this strategy.
A. Brysk says that it is hard to understand why this small, though prosperous, state provides humanitarian assistance perhaps on a larger scale than any other developed country and is a pioneer in many fields of the protection of human rights. Energetic government and democratic principles deeply ingrained in public conscience do not fully explain the reasons for such policy.
Canada is an ideal example as it does not only help refugees but also provides resources and raises awareness of the population in other countries, which in the long term has a far more significant influence on the human rights situation. Canada has also made a substantial contribution to the development of legal mechanisms encouraging the establishment of an international regime of human rights and development of international organizations, including the International Criminal Court.
A. Brysk overturns a few stereotypes about states advocating human rights. Firstly, it is not altogether necessary that within the country the human rights will be protected as ardently as in the international arena. There are examples to the contrary when a state is actively defending human rights abroad while neglecting the rights of its own citizens. Secondly, Protestant culture that is often cited as the reason for the active human rights position of Sweden, for example, and considerable financial and structural possibilities are also not the necessary precondition for human rights policy.
However, the values that Western states like to refer to in their foreign activities are still essential. A. Brysk believes that the first description of these values was set out by Immanuel Kant. In today’s world they include protection of human dignity and physical security, elections, supremacy of law, civil liberties, gender equality, rights of children, right to food and healthcare, collective and cultural rights. Such principles could be traditional or imported (like in Japan, for instance). Just as a person who holds certain values and sticks to certain principles will pass them on to other people with whom he/she communicates, states also transmit their values. Moreover, it is important to have in place open and influential civil society, opportunities for staffing support of policy, special structures of the executive branch. The fields for the introduction of these values are as follows: multi-track diplomacy, bilateral relations, humanitarian assistance, promotion of peace and provision of shelter to refugees.
By protecting refugees or helping to settle conflicts, states, or rather their citizens, demonstrate their national identity. This is a national interest but in a broader sense. Such states living by “new” concepts of this kind seek to create a better world by means of investing into shared future and their own security. Thus, altruistic states like the mice in experiments also benefit from their conduct in international relations.
Active human rights policy does not prevent states from pursuing at the same time other interests, for example economic ones. The sale of weapons and sanctions on the ground of human rights violation in relation to one and the same country is a usual practice.
Among the possible weak points of the paper one could mention the following. A. Brysk tries to avoid such sensitive and controversial issues as humanitarian intervention. Neither does she say anything about how non-liberal democracy and human rights correlate; she only mentions in passing that democratic governance is typical of all “Good Samaritans”, and that human rights in the form described in the monograph are not embraced worldwide and some may regard them as inculcation of western values. Nor does she mention the danger of turning human rights into global ideology: what will happen if everybody decides to become an altruist? Can fidelity to principle in foreign policy harm the state that exercises this fidelity?
A. Brysk does not hesitate to criticize the USA stressing that a lack of developed civic self-consciousness in society and the feeling, blown out of proportions, of superiority of one’s own country and individualism as the key features of national identity resulted in such American policy that gives grounds for the rest of the world to regard Washington as all but the main enemy of human rights.
The monograph pays little attention to the analysis of the international context, though it points out the trends in international relations which do not promote the protection of human rights, namely lower civic engagement worldwide, concern over security threats, terrorism in particular, urge to seal one’s own borders against refugees and migrants.
Despite all the criticism, this monograph is among the first to consider human rights of individual states as part of the interrelated international system of the protection of human rights. A. Brysk is confident that the development of this system is not far off – after all the demand for human rights exceeds the supply (p. 220). Nevertheless, meanwhile the Kantian cosmopolitan world order remains the ideal of the theorists of international relations. It is to them that this monograph is recommended in the first place.
Anna Zackharchenko
Note
1 See, e.g.: Claudia Rutte, Michael Taborsky. Generalized reciprocity in rats. Department of Behavioral Ecology, Institute of Zoology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland. PLos Biology, July 2007. (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/ 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050196)
