I have a right to | 成人快手 World Service

Dan Damon - English Programmes

Reporter's Story

Presenter Dan Damon writes on how he and producers David Edmonds and Ed Butler approached the making of "I have a right..." series on the state of the world's human rights.

Changing Times

How to track the debate around human rights and international law after September 11?

There were enough people telling me that things were changing - either for the worse with thousands of detentions without trial, or for the better, with the United States at last taking a bold lead in the fight against those extremists to whom human rights mean little.

But how to measure and explain to our global audience what those changes would mean to them in their everyday lives, to their governments and to their families' security?

A Series of Essential Guides

We divided the series into three parts.

So, the first programme, looks at how military action by the US and its allies has led to complaints that international law on human rights has been ignored or broken.

The second investigates how differently democracies have treated citizens and non-citizens in civil law after September 11.

The third monitors the use of the 'war on terror' by some countries to deal with internal dissent. The third programme also sets up the case for a summit to meet challenges to international law that can be said to be the most dramatic since World War II, when so much of the law now operating was written down.

Guiding Principles

We chose two guiding principles for the programmes: firstly to concentrate on the law and lawyers, secondly to face up to the complexities of the post-September 11 situation.

I wanted to give lawyers a voice because of my own central act of faith about international law: that it is founded on a documented history of cases, treaties and customs, and all governments know that in the end it is in their own interests to respect some if not all of that history.

It is tempting to adapt Mahatma Ghandi's words, who when asked what he thought about British civilisation said he thought it would be a good thing, to describe international law.

Often it doesn't look much like law and doesn't seem to work terribly well internationally.

But that's also something to do with the way journalists report the world. After the crises have passed and the startling pictures faded, legal actions begin and rules are written that are rarely covered in the mainstream media. The detailed working out of relations between states is rarely dramatic.

The UN system, with its committees and commissions and working groups, is hard to explain in sound bites. That makes it easy for us journalists to report the UN and international law as a failure whenever conflict starts.

In fact, treaties like the covenant on civil and political rights do protect people and save lives.

Long and slow cases in the international court of justice do defuse conflicts over resources before they start. There are ugly failures too: when the UN shows weakness in the face of genocide in Rwanda or resolutions on the Middle East.

The Influence of International Law

But after September 11, the US president has been to the UN more than before. Camp commandants in Guantanamo Bay talk about their responsibilities to the Geneva Conventions.

International law may not be able to punish many people in the world. It does have influence on the vast majority of them.

Complexity was important to this series. Early on, the producers and I reached the conclusion that a debate was needed at the highest level to ensure the outcome of this period of change and challenge to international law is positive for world peace.

Contributing to the Debate

We wanted this series, which is part of 成人快手 World Service Education to be a contribution to the debate.

This was not to be simply a reporting job on the anger and fear, or belligerence and blundering of one group or another. Bombing errors and dubious imprisonments were part of the evidence, but they did not make the series.

It's purpose was to weigh the evidence, measure the behaviour of states and individuals against the standards of humanitarian law, and then decide whether the law should develop in the light of a new global pattern of violence, and if so, how.

At the start, I mentioned the need for an international summit on humanitarian law. This is an idea that many of the senior lawyers in the programme have endorsed.

They are already taking part in rounds of learned conferences and seminars, discussing the way the world has changed and how the rules must adapt.

We hope one of our future tasks will be to report on an official, global conference. Unlike at the end of the Second World War, such a summit should not wait for the guns to fall silent.

We are told we may never really know when the end comes, anyway. And wouldn't a reinvigoration of the global initiative to put the rule of law at the heart of relations between states, and relations of citizens with states, be one of the most effective weapons in such a war?

To give just two examples out of many: would the conflict in the Middle East persist if confronted by a truly international scrutiny of human rights rules and treaty law?

Wouldn't US power in South Asia be more effective and less resented if it was founded on a new international treaty on foreign military intervention for police actions?

The declarations and covenants of the 20th century followed victory, although were not written entirely by the victors.

In the 21st century, since victory over a clandestine foe will be difficult if not impossible to measure, the treaties could be much more important while the war is underway.

	Other Producers: Bengali Burmese French for Africa Indonesian Pashto Persian Portuguese for Africa Sinhala Somali Uzbek External Sites: The 成人快手 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites		Dan Damon - English Programmes Reporter's Story Presenter Dan Damon writes on how he and producers David Edmonds and Ed Butler approached the making of "I have a right..." series on the state of the world's human rights. Changing Times How to track the debate around human rights and international law after September 11? There were enough people telling me that things were changing - either for the worse with thousands of detentions without trial, or for the better, with the United States at last taking a bold lead in the fight against those extremists to whom human rights mean little. But how to measure and explain to our global audience what those changes would mean to them in their everyday lives, to their governments and to their families' security? A Series of Essential Guides We divided the series into three parts. So, the first programme, looks at how military action by the US and its allies has led to complaints that international law on human rights has been ignored or broken. The second investigates how differently democracies have treated citizens and non-citizens in civil law after September 11. The third monitors the use of the 'war on terror' by some countries to deal with internal dissent. The third programme also sets up the case for a summit to meet challenges to international law that can be said to be the most dramatic since World War II, when so much of the law now operating was written down. Guiding Principles We chose two guiding principles for the programmes: firstly to concentrate on the law and lawyers, secondly to face up to the complexities of the post-September 11 situation. I wanted to give lawyers a voice because of my own central act of faith about international law: that it is founded on a documented history of cases, treaties and customs, and all governments know that in the end it is in their own interests to respect some if not all of that history. It is tempting to adapt Mahatma Ghandi's words, who when asked what he thought about British civilisation said he thought it would be a good thing, to describe international law. Often it doesn't look much like law and doesn't seem to work terribly well internationally. But that's also something to do with the way journalists report the world. After the crises have passed and the startling pictures faded, legal actions begin and rules are written that are rarely covered in the mainstream media. The detailed working out of relations between states is rarely dramatic. The UN system, with its committees and commissions and working groups, is hard to explain in sound bites. That makes it easy for us journalists to report the UN and international law as a failure whenever conflict starts. In fact, treaties like the covenant on civil and political rights do protect people and save lives. Long and slow cases in the international court of justice do defuse conflicts over resources before they start. There are ugly failures too: when the UN shows weakness in the face of genocide in Rwanda or resolutions on the Middle East. The Influence of International Law But after September 11, the US president has been to the UN more than before. Camp commandants in Guantanamo Bay talk about their responsibilities to the Geneva Conventions. International law may not be able to punish many people in the world. It does have influence on the vast majority of them. Complexity was important to this series. Early on, the producers and I reached the conclusion that a debate was needed at the highest level to ensure the outcome of this period of change and challenge to international law is positive for world peace. Contributing to the Debate We wanted this series, which is part of 成人快手 World Service Education to be a contribution to the debate. This was not to be simply a reporting job on the anger and fear, or belligerence and blundering of one group or another. Bombing errors and dubious imprisonments were part of the evidence, but they did not make the series. It's purpose was to weigh the evidence, measure the behaviour of states and individuals against the standards of humanitarian law, and then decide whether the law should develop in the light of a new global pattern of violence, and if so, how. At the start, I mentioned the need for an international summit on humanitarian law. This is an idea that many of the senior lawyers in the programme have endorsed. They are already taking part in rounds of learned conferences and seminars, discussing the way the world has changed and how the rules must adapt. We hope one of our future tasks will be to report on an official, global conference. Unlike at the end of the Second World War, such a summit should not wait for the guns to fall silent. We are told we may never really know when the end comes, anyway. And wouldn't a reinvigoration of the global initiative to put the rule of law at the heart of relations between states, and relations of citizens with states, be one of the most effective weapons in such a war? To give just two examples out of many: would the conflict in the Middle East persist if confronted by a truly international scrutiny of human rights rules and treaty law? Wouldn't US power in South Asia be more effective and less resented if it was founded on a new international treaty on foreign military intervention for police actions? The declarations and covenants of the 20th century followed victory, although were not written entirely by the victors. In the 21st century, since victory over a clandestine foe will be difficult if not impossible to measure, the treaties could be much more important while the war is underway.