Amnesty International And Human Rights Watch: The High Priests Of International Law (Updated)

In Living Law, International Law, and Meddling Snobs, Yaacov Lozowick writes about international law--and those who presume to dictate what it should be:

There are the dry words in the rule book, there are interpretations, different ways of applying them, external considerations which turn out not to be so external after all, and so on. Lawyers may not be a popular species, but they've got their uses. If it was enough simply to legislate a law and then live by it, the world might be simpler but it's hard to see how it would be better (sigh).

This is one reason why the entire industry of international-law-punditry is ridiculous.
The idea that some dames and fellows sitting in air-conditioned offices in London, say, or New York or Paris, can pontificate on the legality of actions being taken in faraway lands, is laughable - or should be.

What makes it even worse is that those dames and fellows are peddling a Weltanschauung, not some hypothetical pure law. This is inevitable, of course, since legal systems reflect the incremental and aggregate positions of the society they come from, not some objective truth. Don't get me wrong on this: I'm a firm believer in objective truth, in the cases it can be determined, but laws aren't about it, they're about organizing society. The International Law Brigades, however, don't accept that. According to them, there's a credo of sanctified principles by which all human society is obliged to live, and their job is to admonish and rebuke the delinquents, from their seat high above the fray, so high it can't be contaminated by nasty things such as reality, political compromise, accommodation of contradictory needs, or anything contaminating like all that.

To illustrate his point, Lozowick gives the example of a case in Spain where the government is discussing whether or not to ban full-face veils. After a brief discussion of the various issues involved, he quotes from the Amnesty International website:

Amnesty International has called on law-makers in the Spanish region of Catalonia not to adopt a motion on Wednesday in favour of banning women from wearing the full-face veil in public buildings and spaces.

After discussing the issues of discrimination and the like, at the end of the article, Amnesty International does address the problem of security:

Under international human rights law, restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and religion may only be imposed where necessary for the preservation of public order, security or morals or the protection of the rights of others.

Amnesty International does not believe that wide-ranging bans on the wearing of full-face veils have been shown to be necessary or proportionate to achieve any of these goals and that considerations of security or public safety would justify banning the wearing of full-face veils anywhere in public, or in all public buildings.

"Legitimate security concerns can be met by targeted restrictions on the complete covering of the face in well-defined high risk locations. Individuals may also be required to reveal their faces when objectively necessary, for instance for identity checks," said John Dalhuisen [Amnesty International's expert on discrimination in Europe].

Amnesty International's bottom line is not law but their "belief" that such bans do not help. Spain is the 3rd country to consider the ban--Belgium approved it in April and France is planning on implementing it in July.

Just what factual experience is Amnesty International basing themselves on?
Is AI seriously suggesting profiling particular areas for the ban--how will that go over?
Have they investigated whether these women would be willing to subject themselves to identity checks?

No matter: it is not a matter of law, it is a matter of belief--and groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch serve as the High Priests.

UPDATE: Check out the monograph by Asher Fredman for NGO Monitor entitled Precision-guided or Indiscriminate? NGO Reporting on Compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict, where he expands on the point made by Lozowick:

International human rights NGOs are playing an increasingly influential role in shaping the policies of states and international institutions. Decision-makers, media and the public frequently turn to NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for perspective on international events. Yet despite the growing importance of these NGOs, few scholars have subjected the content of their reports to critical scrutiny.

This monograph analyzes the output of two of the most powerful NGOs, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, regarding the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza and southern Israel. Their factual and legal claims, particularly relating to Israel's use of White Phosphorus and UAVs, are considered in light of military sources, state doctrine, and the academic literature.

The analysis demonstrates that many of the factual claims made by the NGOs are contradicted by military sources, weapons experts, and media reports. From the legal perspective it is shown that their presentation of key aspects of international law is inaccurate or incomplete. This suggests that these NGOs should carefully evaluate their areas of competency, and take steps to ensure that ideological biases do not affect their work. Policy- and opinion-makers should carefully examine NGO reports before allowing them to influence their positions. [emphasis added]

You can read the executive summary here.
You can access the PDF of the full report here.

Technorati Tag: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.