I do believe that Inayatullah’s argument is valid when he said that all nation states will not be equal when it comes to the distribution of economic wealth. No matter how much aid one country is able to provide to another, that amount of money will never be enough to have the distribution of economic wealth be globally equal. In order to be economically stable, a country must allocate its resources efficiently and be able to stand economically strong without the continued assistance of other countries. As we discussed in class, at the beginning of the 20th century human rights had not been as a significant issue in international politics as it is today. In fact, during the last twenty years, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 157 states have ratified their stance on human rights in areas such as economic, social, and cultural rights of people. If Inayatullah’s argument it is also important to take into account the different perspectives theorists would hold towards the “human right of wealth” . A realist for example would view the right to wealth much differently than perhaps a society such as the United States would view the “rights” of people today.
A realist would disagree that states would even have the freedom of human rights. Realist thinking would assume that international policy outcomes are solely determined by the distribution of power capabilities among the states. A state that is able to become materially stronger would achieve economic wealth. The inequality of economic of success amongst states is unavoidable.
However, I feel the truth behind Inayatullah's argument is when he describes the self-determination and dignity that comes from the independence of the sovereign states having their own right to wealth. In addressing the struggle to achieve economic wealth of third world countries he claims that there is nothing much the international society as a whole can do for these struggling countries. In the end it is up to the each country itself to create its own wealth. The states that have liberated themselves from the ground up have “their own right to wealth”.
Even though wealth should be taken into a consideration as a right that will be unequal in other areas of the developing world, this does not pertain to all human rights. The human rights issue deserves attention in world politics today because it has become a dominant frame work for many political struggles within and across national boundaries.
Its alternative logic is based on individual well-being which slowly transforms the state-centric view of international relations to the claim that violations of rights are a shared global concern.
It is my hope that rather than allowing ourselves to be constrained to the debates over which theorist perspective is correct, we should take the human rights argument into greater consideration. If the world were to ever function competitively as a global economic power, we first need to use whatever resources of justice, equality, and in some cases financial assistance, to help us better explain and continue to resolve the cause of economic repression in the world.
Sources
Inayatullah Naeem, State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pgs. 50-80. Fair use determination for Fall 2010.
I agree that the issue of human right has become a key aspect in world politics, but the central piece that was very difficult for me to grasp, and still have not grasped, is what is the human right? The terms and the way human rights are stated allows a lot of room to be interpreted differently. What one state may consider to be a appropriate level for meeting one human right (for convenience, let's say education), another state may consider it to be inadequate. Because of this discrepancy, it is difficult to pin down what exactly a human right is. So, I would ask, what exactly is a human right, and is there a "absolute" human right value?
ReplyDelete