Declaring Rights in a Diverse World
JA Morrison | LSE
Simulation 3
22 February 2021
Want to use this material in your own course? Consult this page.
Background
In our previous simulations, we impersonated states. Obviously, states have been–and remain–the central actors in international relations. Traditionally, individual agents who seek to shape the global system have done so through states–particularly through the most powerful states. Indeed, even very powerful non-state actors like the East India Company generally worked in close collaboration with recognised sovereign entities.
In the wake of the world wars, however, agents have increasingly used non-state actors and organisations to reshape–and redefine–global politics. We have seen this most clearly in the women’s rights and decolonisation movements. But there are many other entities and mechanisms through which non-state actors exert influence: religious communities; environmental movements; labour organisations; and transnational advocacy networks–among others.
In this simulation, we will impersonate several of these prominent groups. Substantively, we will consider the domain of human rights.
The act of “declaring rights” has a long and fascinating history. In some sense, it goes back as far as written history. Consider the Melians’ declarations of their rights when confronted by Athens in the Peloponnesian War. (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book V, Ch XVII: http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.5.fifth.html) In the modern age, the Glorious Revolution brought the English Declaration of Rights in 1688. This was emulated a century later in the US Bill of Rights. These principles were enshrined following the French Revolution in the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789. In contrast to the English and American declarations, the French declaration crucially casts these rights in universal terms–as granted to all persons, the world over.
This trajectory reached its apogee two centuries’ later in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. This achievement turned on the ambition–and leadership–of Eleanor Roosevelt, the chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights. She was joined in her cause by John Humphrey, a Canadian professor of law and the UN Secretariat’s Human Rights Director; Charles Habib Malik, a philosopher and diplomat from Lebanon; and Chang Peng-chun, a playwright, philosopher, and diplomat from China.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf https://www.britannica.com/topic/Universal-Declaration-of-Human-Rights
Precisely because of its ambition and import, however, the UDHR has been subject to continuing debate and contestation.
There is, of course, the problem of enforcement. It is one thing to declare rights and quite another to ensure that they are protected–and enjoyed–as a substantive matter. The 1993 Bangkok NGO Declaration on Human Rights is often interpreted as an “Eastern” response to the particular “Western” values enshrined in the UDHR. In some ways, it is even more ambitious in its claims to universality; but it also buttressed the rights of communities to self-determination and non-interference. This has been used to defend sovereignty, even against claims of oppression. In contrast, the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has insisted that the recognition of human rights must come with a corollary responsibility of states and organisations to see those rights respected. In this view, sovereignty ought to be subordinated to human rights.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/170675 https://www.globalr2p.org/what-is-r2p/
Beyond the familiar dilemma of rights versus sovereignty, there remains the timeless challenge of defining the rights in the first place. Empirically, we observe both cross-temporal and cross-sectional variation in the views advanced on just what rights are essential and universal. To name a few, there are the obvious disagreements between those who would enshrine “a woman’s right to choose” and those who would enshrine “the rights of the unborn.” These questions extend to right of individuals to dispose of their property as they wish–by, say, burning it–versus the rights of the “unborn” generations who will have to deal with the environmental costs of such actions.
This broaches the limits of the modern, Western approach to rights, rooted as it is in Lockean concepts of “property.” (Locke, after all, provided the political-philosophical justification for the Glorious Revolution, the theoretical basis for the English Bill of Rights, and the economic rationale for the revolutionary metallic monetary system that followed.). Yet, even in economic matters, there is disagreement. A person sell his or her body parts? Can a person sell him or herself into bondage? Can a woman sell the labour of her labour–i.e. gestating a pregnancy and delivering a child as a surrogate for hire? And what of the increasingly important rights of privacy, software freedom, and “intellectual property”? Who owns and controls your data? Who owns and controls the software that powers the global economy? Who owns the pharmaceutical recipes that mean the difference between life and death, between pandemic and normalcy?
Preparation
As usual, I deliberately minimise the preparatory work for our simulations. Prior to the simulation, all students need do is to sign up for a country role on the course moodle.
Previously, we read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a part of the assigned reading. Students may wish to re-read that text prior to the simulation:
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
A version, with the original text alongside simplified renderings, is available here: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ABCannexesen.pdf
For those who are keen, the links throughout provide some background, context, and further reading. They also may prove useful during the simulation itself.
Scenario
Imagine the following scenario…
The United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has called a special congress to reconsider the UN Declaration of Human Rights. High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet Jeria (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/HighCommissioner.aspx) launched the ambitious agenda, citing the “urgent necessity of bringing these timeless truths into direct conversation with the challenges of the twenty-first century.” As a part of this, she has invited a panoply of prominent non-governmental organisations to participate formally in the Congress. These organisations do not need to be told just how special an opportunity this will be. After all, many of them consult and lobby the UN; but this is a chance to actively draft the vital text itself.
High Commissioner Jeria’s call has been almost universally hailed–albeit for different reasons. Some are eager to see the declaration address the current challenges of the pandemic and climate change. Others consider this a chance to “finally ‘decolonise’ the ‘Western-centric’ system of ‘universal’ human rights.” And yet others want to advance the timeless cause of protecting the rights of women, workers, oppressed minorities, and the world’s poorest people.
Given your experience studying the Great Thinkers and Pivotal Leaders that have shaped the global order, you have been called in to serve as a special advisor to one of several key entities/organisations. Your job is to help them: (1) craft several new articles for the new declaration; and (2) build a coalition with other groups in support of those articles.
What new rights will be advanced? What old rights will be defended? And what old rights will be deprecated?
Simulation Structure
Each “actor” will be played by a team of two students. Students will register in advance via Moodle.
Each actor’s objective is to maximise his or her preferences, whatever preferences those might be, however they are (re)formed. To do so, actors will not merely develop and employ their own strategies but must also adapt those strategies to the actions of the other actors in the system. Thus, each actors’ success will depend on: (1) the interests pursued; (2) his or her inherent capacity to achieve those interests; and (3) his or her ability to work strategically in an anarchic environment.
Schedule
- 1000 introduction.
- 1005 drafting: team discussion and drafting of 2-3 articles per actor.
- 1035 presentation: each actor presents their articles (3 minutes per actor).
- 1100 coalition-building: actors negotiate over their vote allocations.
- 1120 voting: votes are submitted to moderator.
- 1125 voting deadline.
- 1127 results announced.
Drafting
Working as a team, draft between two and three new articles–i.e. statements of human rights. Bear in mind the interests and preferences of your actor.
The moodle has a wiki page for each actor. You should put your text there so that other actors can review it.
The moodle’s wiki also has a copy of the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You may want to work from that text itself, essentially proposing a change/revision to the existing articles. Or you may want to simply emulate the style of that document.
Presentation
Everyone will be able to access the other actors’ articles via the moodle wiki. But this presentation element will allow actors to introduce their articles and to begin drawing support for them. Each team will have only 3 minutes to present their articles.
Teams are strongly encouraged to consider the potential affinities between their priorities and objectives and those of other groups. This will power the negotiations in the next phase.
Coalition-Building
Unfortunately, the UN does not have unlimited time or bandwidth. Ultimately, just setting the agenda–just determining the terms of debate and consideration–is a crucial and challenging process. This portion of the simulation reflects this reality.
Actors will negotiate (via breakout rooms) however they like. They will have 30 votes to swap, dedicate, and expend as they see fit.
Voting
Each team/actor has a maximum of 30 votes to distribute. The votes can be distributed however the team determines. That can mean: 30 votes for just a single proposal; 10 votes across three proposals; 24 for one resolution, 3 for another, and 3 for a third; just 10 votes for a single proposal; etc.
BUT…teams may NOT vote for their own resolutions. Any such self-votes will be ignored and thus wasted.
The moderator will total the votes for each resolution. A secret rubric will be used to determine which resolutions meet the minimum threshold. Participants will be informed of the results at the end of the simulation.
Each team/actor should enter their votes in the following spreadsheet (in the column for their actor) at the appointed time. Participants are asked to avoid changing their votes based on the votes of others. (Due to social distancing, we cannot easily vote blindly.) This means that all voting will be done (essentially) simultaneously–i.e. without knowledge of how other actors are voting.
Actor Roles and Key Concerns
The Bishop of Rome
http://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/22/pope-francis-same-sex-unions-surprise-gay-people
Key Issues
- climate change.
- public health.
- rights of the unborn (anti-abortion).
- rights and recognition of LGBTQ people.
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
https://www.oic-oci.org/home/?lan=en
- Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (1990): http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html
Key Issues
- defend sharia law.
- preserve traditional Muslim values.
- plight of the Uyghurs.
International Alliance for Women
https://www.womenalliance.org/what-is-iaw/ https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/karore.aspx
Key Issues
- rights of women and girls.
- public health.
- workers’ rights.
- peace and security.
- rights and recognition of LGBTQ people.
International Labour Organisation
https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--en/index.htm
Key Issues
- workers’ rights.
- sustainable development.
- broadening access to education, knowledge, and skills.
Greenpeace
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about-greenpeace/
Key Issues
- climate change.
- sustainable development.
- sharing the burden of environmental adjustments fairly.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/
Key Issues
- public health.
- rights of women and girls.
- steer research and development into addressing the challenges that affect the poorest people in the world.
The Free Software Foundation
https://www.fsf.org/about/ https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2015/fall/privacy-who-needs-it https://www.fsf.org/news/free-software-foundation-statement-on-prism-revelations
Key Issues
- the right to privacy, particularly for those in oppressed communities.
- cyber-security.
- broadening access to education, knowledge, and skills.
- right to repair; reducing e-waste and environmental impact of “planned obsolesence.”