Can violence be a means of defending Human Rights?

Group 4: Can violence be a means of defending Human Rights?

In recent years we’ve seen several examples of leaders trying to excuse the use of violence by saying it’s necessary to defend human rights. That was the case with the NATO interventions in Kosovo, the US attack on Iraq and the Egyptian emergency laws. But is violence, which in essense is opposed to human rights, a legitimate means to protect the very same rights?

It has always been debatable whether the use of violence is appropriate in the fight for human rights; some people say that if you run out of peaceful approaches, force is the shortest way of achieving enforcement of human rights. Yet the contradictory nature of this argument makes it less convincing. It is against the human nature to be forced to think in a certain way. Furthermore, violence brings violence. An eye for an eye and soon the whole world will be blind. This illustrates the unfruitful reality of using violence as a means for securing human rights. But how then, can human rights be spread and enforced?

Essentially, the question needs to be divided between how to spread human rights and how to make sure these are enforced. The former should be through convincing arguments and good examples. We need to explain why human rights benefit us all. The latter must happen through cultural and political pressure. In the case of Mohandas Gandhi we’ve experienced an example of how it’s possible through non-violent resistance to be successful in securing the enforcement of human rights.

This illustrates the need of a division between violence and power. While violence, due to its contradictory nature and the consequences thereof, is an undesired means of securing human rights, power can be used to achieve this goal. Power can be understood both in terms of knowledge and intellectual capabilities as well as political power. These instruments can and should be used to secure human rights as they both lie within the human rights themselves. Human rights is a universal package. Just choosing to enforce the rights that suit you is not a viable option. Other people will most likely have other priorities and in the end this approach means that none of the rights will be enforced.

So to answer the original question, whether violence is a legitimate means to protect human rights, the answer is: Probably not. Using power, both knowledge-based and political, is much more fruitful if your objective is to secure a continued enforcement of human rights.