Human suffering should carry the judgement over international interventions in dictatorships. They can not depend on whether the dictatorships are an oil-rich country such as Libya or a poor country like Syria. This was settled by a panel of international experts at the Faculty of law.
Human rights are a part of international law and leave no room for the western world’s capriciousness. This is what was established at a seminar discussion after the waves of revolts in the Middle East.
“We must find ways for how we can react as an international community for human rights against brutal crimes against humanity, and stop being selective – for how can we unite around an internatinal intervention in Libya but not in Syria?” asks Hanna Ziadeh, who is a historian at the Danish Institute for Human Rights in Copenhagen.
State’s natural resources shouldn’t determine
Hanna Ziadeh agrues that the political game would rather attend to special interests than human worth:
“The western world needs to find methods that justify intentions with consideration of human suffering. It shouldn’t be the state’s natural resources that determine whether NATO will send their force in order to rescue oppressed people.”
Focus on human rights
“We need to intervene, but not on grounds of undertakings focusing on the states’ own interests, but because the crimes against human rights are of such magnitude that they weigh more heavily than state sovereignty,” Ziadeh said.
The discussion was held at the Faculty of Law last Tuesday. It was the closing event of the spring forum of Jus Humanis, a newly established independent human rights organization.
Jus Humanis was founded by former students of the Master Programme on International Human Rights Law and guest researchers.
Translation: Samantha Sunne
