Introduction
This report critically analyzes the dynamics and outcomes that emerged from the simulation exercise on negotiating an enhanced international human rights treaty and compliance regime. The simulation experience will be evaluated through the lens of key theoretical concepts and debates from the assigned course readings on international human rights regimes and the liberal international order. Particular focus will be given to examining the processes of establishing universal norms, the intersection of national and global interests, challenges of implementation and compliance, and the underlying tensions between liberal universalism and cultural relativism.
The introduction of the “All Human Rights for All” ideology at the United Nations propelled a new era of global policymaking aimed at comprehensively promoting and protecting the full scope of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights worldwide (Thérien & Joly, 2014). This simulation modeled the complexities of translating such an ambitious ideological vision into concrete international legal instruments and institutional architectures agreeable to the diverse interests of states. While tangible progress was achieved, the negotiations highlighted the obstacles and philosophical conflicts inherent in pursuing universally binding human rights standards across the pluralistic international society.
Body Section
Norm Building and Implementation Challenges
According to Jack Donnelly, the modern international human rights regime is constructed upon “systems of norms and decision-making procedures accepted by states and other international actors as binding in a particular issue area” (2013). The simulation experience directly modeled this very process of intense deliberations and hard-fought compromises required to establish which substantive rights and compliance mechanisms would be codified as legitimate norms in the draft treaty text.
While considerable consensus emerged around core civil and political rights like freedom from torture, slavery, and arbitrary detention, the negotiations became more fractious over economic, social, and cultural rights provisions. This aligns with Donnelly’s observations that economic rights face more significant contention as they “are seen as threatening traditional state sovereignty” over national policy domains like fiscal and labor regulations (2013). Developing states in the simulation voiced concerns that such rights could unjustly influence their economic self-determination, given disparities in development levels compared to wealthier nations.
This highlighted a key challenge in practice for the “All Human Rights for All” ideology – achieving the aspirational “indivisibility” and “universality” of all rights as advocated by Thérien and Joly (2014). While the rhetoric promoting the equal importance and applicability of all rights catalogs proved straightforward, the simulation showed that operationalizing these principles through specific treaty obligations remained contentious between national interests and cultures.
Furthermore, disagreements persisted over the draft compliance mechanisms, such as the proposed international human rights court’s authority and the intrusiveness of monitoring provisions. While the intention was to uphold treaty norms robustly, pragmatic doubts were raised about domestic management capacities and resources to implement such a robust system universally (von Stein, 2017). Concerns over impingements on state sovereignty complicated achieving a thick consensus around giving teeth to enforcement.
Ultimately, while lofty norms were agreed upon through arduous negotiation, the simulation foreshadowed the “well-known fact” bemoaned by Thérien and Joly (2014) that implementing human rights “lags far behind UN ideals” due to stubborn national interests. This reflected David Petrasek’s analysis that high rates of treaty ratification often mask the harsh reality that “human rights are violated constantly by governments” who publicly endorse norms they have no intention of fully implementing domestically (2019).
Norm Diffusion and Compliance Debates. Even beyond the initial negotiation process, major theoretical questions linger around effectively socializing states and inducing compliance with the newly established international human rights norms and institutions. The constructivist approach examined by Jana von Stein focuses on pathways like persuasion, acculturation over time, and management of state capacities as potential mechanisms for norm diffusion (2017).
While difficult to fully simulate, aspects of these dynamics arguably manifested during the heated negotiations as different parties vigorously tried to persuade others of their positions and reconcile national perspectives into common principles. However, the adversarial nature of the process, with states steadfastly guarding interests like sovereignty, also stymied transformative socialization towards an overarching “global public policy” vision (Thérien & Joly, 2014).
To incentivize future compliance, the proposed treaty drafts incorporated tools like public benchmarking of states’ human rights performance to engage reputational concerns. As von Stein analyzes, reputation emerges as a key facilitating factor for adherence to norms, with states carefully weighing the costs and benefits of being branded as “bad” or “good” international citizens (2017). While complex enforcement options like sanctions were briefly discussed, reputational incentive structures and the promotion of professional capacity-building assistance also featured as potentially fruitful alternatives in line with constructivist theory.
This is linked to David Petrasek’s more optimistic perspective that despite seeming paralysis, “global human rights institutions and mechanisms continue to expand in number and scope, as does international law in this area” (2019). Though imperfect, the substantive treaty provisions negotiated in the simulation exercise exemplified an overarching trajectory of normative and institutional fortification in line with Petrasek’s observations about resilient liberal international order.
Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism. A more profound philosophical tension undergirding the human rights debates emanated from the fundamental frictions between Western liberal notions of universal, individualistic rights and culturally relativistic demands by some parties to recognize national/civilizational specificity and traditions.
This dynamic reflected Rebecca Adler-Nissen and Ayşe Zarakol’s critique of the liberal international order’s failure to properly “recognize” the diversity of perspectives and historical grievances outside Western ideological prisms (2021, p. 615). Animated arguments arose about whose values and conceptions of rights should take precedence, reflecting residual skepticism of a perceived “cosmopolitan liberal elite” detached from local contexts trying to dictate a new global normative order (2021).
For instance, self-determination became a flashpoint, with some non-Western states asserting the importance of collective cultural rights over strict individualistic liberal frameworks. This tapped into deep-rooted concerns about “cultural relativism,” challenged by Thérien and Joly’s reading of the universality principle as necessarily “rejecting” cultural particularism (2014). At the same time, fears of oppressive communitarianism and rights abuses in the name of cultural tradition motivated Western parties’ defense of individualistically conceived rights regimes.
While much of Jack Donnelly’s work aimed to validate human rights’ universalistic philosophical foundations, he also acknowledged the relevance of some cultural particularisms playing “an important role in the historical processes that led to international human rights norms” (2013). David Petrasek went further, asserting that “the notion of human rights as handed down quasi-immaculately from the Judeo-Christian West… does not bear up to a careful study of the facts” (2019). Instead, he highlighted essential pioneering contributions on rights from the “Global South.”
Such scholarly interventions resonated with the simulation experience. It was genuinely forging an international human rights order acceptable to all required grappling with diverse cultural viewpoints, histories, and civilizational narratives that cannot be erased unilaterally. While shared universal baselines seemed attainable on core issues like bodily integrity, striking pragmatic balances between liberal universalism and engaging cultural concerns emerged as a recurring flashpoint that imperiled thick normative consensus at times.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this simulation exercise provided a rich exploration of the complexities and obstacles in constructing a robust international human rights architecture, complete with clearly codified norms and robust institutional enforcement mechanisms. While tangible regime-building progress was achieved through intense negotiations, the analysis also highlighted several key theoretical insights from the course readings that manifested during the process: First, establishing universal human rights precepts is complicated by the divergent national interests and philosophical fault lines around state sovereignty, capacity limitations, and development cultural contexts. While shared norms can catalyze rhetorical consensus initially, implementing those principles through specific binding obligations and mechanisms proves more divisive across diverse domestic realities.
Second, even if negotiated legal and organizational frameworks take shape, questions persist about the most effective long-term strategies for facilitating norm diffusion, socialization, and genuine compliance pull. Strategic combinations of incentives, capacity-building, persuasion, and leverage over reputational concerns emerge as potential tools. Still, they may need more than a singular solution, given factors like entrenched cultural relativism worldwide. Third, fundamental tensions between liberal individualistic universalism and cultural particularism underlie many of the substantive and procedural flashpoints witnessed during the simulation. Reconciling these cosmovisions remains a central challenge as the liberal international order continues evolving and previously marginalized worldviews demand greater recognition. Ultimately, the obstacles witnessed during this microcosm of the global human rights regime’s inner workings reinforce the disconnect between oft-celebrated UN ideals, the harsher realities of patchy regime implementation, and the persistence of abuses worldwide. Yet the simulation’s overall trajectory of forging common principles, however imperfect, also pointed towards Petrasek’s optimism about steady liberal institutionalization in this space. Progress may be fragile and incomplete, but the iterative cycle of norm construction, contentions, and revisitation continues in humanity’s stubbornly persisting quest to advance universal human dignity.
References
Adler-Nissen, R., & Zarakol, A. (2020). Struggles for Recognition: The Liberal International Order and the Merger of Its Discontents. International Organization, 75(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000454
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. In Google Books. Cornell University Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Y7liDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Donnelly
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The End of Liberal International Order? International Affairs, 94(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix241
Petrasek, D. (2019). Not dead yet: Human rights in an illiberal world order. International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, 74(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702019827642
Thérien, J.-P., & Joly, P. (2014). “All Human Rights for All”: The United Nations and Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era. Human Rights Quarterly, 36(2), 373–396. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24518059
von Stein, J. (2010). Compliance With International Law. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.55
write