In 2003, Joan Fitzpatrick, human rights activist and Professor of Law at Washington University, wrote shortly before her death the article under review in which she scrutinized thoroughly with “her razor-sharp analysis, clear vision and deeply principled approach” (The Guardian 2003) how the fragile rule of law which is central to the protection of human rights suffered after the 9/11 attacks.
The 9/11 attacks gave the United States a pretext to declare an open-ended war on terrorism which vaguely identified terrorists but imposed heavy burdens on Arabs and Muslims whose assets were frozen in connection with terrorism, who were subjected to irregular rendition, discriminated against based on their nationality, arrested, interrogated, placed …show more content…
Second, the USA by exercising its hegemony has led an aggressive campaign against the International Criminal Court. It set itself above the law and marginalized the role of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Third, by viewing itself as the defender of liberties it give itself exceptionalism. Fourth, Europe remained more neutral and took a leadership role in preserving human rights principles. Fifth, with the war on terrorism, the UN bodies became increasingly polarized especially in relation with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. And sixth, repressive states cooperated with the USA while silencing criticism on human rights abuses.
I agree with Fitzpatrick’s meticulous analysis however I wonder if other states didn’t play a role in this war.
Word count: 400 words (without references).
References
Fitzpatrick, J. 2003. Speaking law to power: The war against terrorism and human rights. European Journal of International Law 14 (2), pp. 241-264. [online]. Available at: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/241.abstract [accessed: Monday November 14, 2016]
The Guardian. 2003. Joan Fitzpatrick: Human rights lawyer and activist, she fought for refugee rights. The Guardian 23 May 2003 [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/may/23/guardianobituaries [accessed: Monday November 14,
The 9/11 attacks gave the United States a pretext to declare an open-ended war on terrorism which vaguely identified terrorists but imposed heavy burdens on Arabs and Muslims whose assets were frozen in connection with terrorism, who were subjected to irregular rendition, discriminated against based on their nationality, arrested, interrogated, placed …show more content…
Second, the USA by exercising its hegemony has led an aggressive campaign against the International Criminal Court. It set itself above the law and marginalized the role of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Third, by viewing itself as the defender of liberties it give itself exceptionalism. Fourth, Europe remained more neutral and took a leadership role in preserving human rights principles. Fifth, with the war on terrorism, the UN bodies became increasingly polarized especially in relation with the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. And sixth, repressive states cooperated with the USA while silencing criticism on human rights abuses.
I agree with Fitzpatrick’s meticulous analysis however I wonder if other states didn’t play a role in this war.
Word count: 400 words (without references).
References
Fitzpatrick, J. 2003. Speaking law to power: The war against terrorism and human rights. European Journal of International Law 14 (2), pp. 241-264. [online]. Available at: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/2/241.abstract [accessed: Monday November 14, 2016]
The Guardian. 2003. Joan Fitzpatrick: Human rights lawyer and activist, she fought for refugee rights. The Guardian 23 May 2003 [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/may/23/guardianobituaries [accessed: Monday November 14,