Law in Contemporary Society

View   r4  >  r3  ...
WalkerNewellThirdPaper 4 - 05 Jul 2009 - Main.DianaSidakis
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="TWikiGuestThirdPaper"
After reading Daniel Margolskee's first paper a week ago, I realized that my third paper covers almost the exact same ground. Therefore, I've written a new one to replace it, on a totally different topic.
Line: 27 to 27
 There are a few potential answers to this question. The most obvious is that bribery is illegal and especially hypocritical if employed as a strategy by an organization seeking to maintain the moral high ground. An argument could also be made that, even if an organization was willing to take this tenuous step, their donors would never support these tactics. But while these contentions have some merit, they don’t refute the fact that offering legal financial support or illegal bribes to politicians is an effective way to foment change. Non-profits in the US, such as the ACLU, are barred as corporations from making campaign contributions. The influence that powerful organizations can wield over governments is well known.

These problems with my proposed strategy raise broader questions. Is it possible to do the wrong thing for the right reason? Certainly, unless one believes that there are no shades of gray between the blacks and whites of this world. Would the negative externalities caused by buying politicians outweigh the benefits of increased protections of human rights? Possibly, but governments influence the politics and laws of foreign countries all the time and let the dust settle wherever it chooses. Perhaps international human rights organizations have a moral duty to stay aloof from these unsavory practices. Or perhaps they should see their duty differently. Maybe the individuals responsible for setting the policies of these organizations should be obliged to spend their donors’ money in the most effective way possible. When I’ve proposed this idea to individuals in the field of human rights, they’ve dismissed it as preposterous, but I doubt that the head of company seeking to influence a government would view the strategy so dismissively.

Added:
>
>

Response from another perspective

I enjoyed your essay. I came to law school because I want to do human rights work. After getting a Master’s degree in anthropology and interning at a few NGOs I realized that unless I wanted a career in research, activism, or administration, a law degree would be necessary to stay in the field. I have had similar frustrations to you on the inefficiencies of NGOs. However, I have come to different conclusions from these frustrations.

Before this summer, I had a similar view of the advocacy reports published by the likes of Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. I wasn’t sure what purpose these well-researched reports served beyond a moral tug at the sleeve of an unresponsive government.

This summer I have seen these reports put to a different use: to corroborate the claims of refugees. Refugee determinations are made by the UNHCR or the evaluating government on the basis of country of origin information. The work of NGOs (like AI, HRW, International Crisis Group, or domestic organizations) can make or break an application.

If a Sudanese refugee can point to an Amnesty appeal publicizing the arrest of protestors on a certain date, and match his arrest to that date, his application will almost certainly be granted. In more tenuous cases, if a Kurdish Iranian woman can cite a Human Rights Watch report about honor killings in the north west of Iran and the lack of state protection against these killings, her application is more likely to be granted. For the asylum claims I have seen, there is often very little in the way of evidence besides the applicant’s testimony and whatever relevant NGO or government reports exist. The credibility of the applicant often determines the claim. If I can find a report from an NGO that supports a claim, it is not overdramatic to say it could change a life. For this, my view of these reports has dramatically changed. If your report to the Nepalese government is published or made available online in a source like RefWorld? (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain), your report may be cited by someone preparing a refugee claim. A Nepali who says he has been tortured can cite a report like yours to demonstrate that the Nepalese government has failed to conform to the UN treaty it signed and the UNHCR will be more sympathetic to his claim.

Of course, even this defense of NGO-advocacy eventually hits a wall. I think about something Prof. Moglen said during class that pissed me off at the time. I will paraphrase because I forget the details. We were talking about how many people we could help if we tried, or how many people we should help if possible. One hundred? One thousand? One hundred thousand? What number would be sufficient? No number seemed high enough to balance the moral inequality.

Naively, I thought the answer was simple: one. If I could help one person, that has meaning and is sufficient. But after working on half a dozen claims this summer, I have a different answer. The number is not the point: it is the system. The six people I might have helped are irrelevant. The legal aid office I am working at is fighting an avalanche with a handful of broken shovels. There is no way they could adequately assist all the refugees who need legal help, let alone all the illegal migrants who face a miserable life in Turkey and in their countries of origin and yet have no valid claims as refugees. At a certain point, the work becomes more than helping individual refugee applicants, but creating pressure within and outside the system for change.

How can change be created? Well, advocacy reports again are a start. UNICEF was not aware of the treatment of minor refugees in Turkey until an NGO’s report brought it to their attention. On the other hand, like you say, money has the last word, especially in places like Turkey where bribery and corruption are more prevalent. A human rights professor at LSE told us to quit his class and study arbitration instead. If we really cared about changing the world, he said, we were better off making a lot of money and then using it to create the change we wished.

He said it ironically (I hope), but I still disagree with the premise and hate that view of human nature. Like buying off a politician, creating the ends you wish by disregarding the means only perpetuates the inequality of that system. So the question becomes changing the system… and I do not YET know how that can be done as a citizen, a human, or a lawyer. For now, I want to learn how these systems work and help in whatever limited way I can with an eye towards the future.

I hope your experiences this summer do not turn you off from international human rights work. At the very least, I hope your paper generates more responses and some creative thought on what we can do, not only to find greater satisfaction in our own work, but in the broader scheme of helping those less fortunate. -- DianaSidakis - 05 Jul 2009

 \ No newline at end of file

Revision 4r4 - 05 Jul 2009 - 12:14:24 - DianaSidakis
Revision 3r3 - 01 Jul 2009 - 09:15:34 - WalkerNewell
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM