The United States’ “War on Terror” and involvement in Iraq have renewed questions concerning human rights agreements and international treaties. Do nations ever have the right to violate or ignore these agreements? What conditions are seen as justifying a breech? These were the questions addressed in a study by GIPGAP in 2005.
Declaration of Human Rights, France 1789. Image in public domain.
A sample of 518 participants (253 females and 218 males), at least 20 percent of whom were college students, completed the Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Scale (PAIRTAPS), which includes the following item: “Sometimes a country has the right to ignore international treaties or international human rights agreements.”
Participants were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) the extent to which they agreed with the statement, and then to explain the reasoning behind their rating scale score.
Analyses revealed that most participants could be divided into two groups:
- Opposers—i.e., respondents who argued that governments do not have the right to violate or ignore agreements
- Justifiers—i.e., participants who argued governments sometimes do have such a right.
Of the 518 respondents, significantly more opposed violations than justified them, but opposers and justifiers used the same types of arguments to support their positions.
For example, both opposers and justifiers appealed to characteristics of treaties to justify their scores, with opposers arguing that agreements should be respected and justifiers arguing that agreements could be ignored if they were impractical, obsolete, or unjust.
Similarly, both opposers and justifiers emphasized the positive effects and the greater good that would come from adopting their position. For instance, one opposer wrote “These treaties are for the greater good of mankind,” while one justifier wrote “Sometimes you have to ignore your morals for the good of mankind.”
What do you think about these findings? Can you think of other situations where people argue passionately in favor of two opposing positions using the exact same type of argument—e.g., “My way is more moral/more intelligent/more practical, etc. than yours”?
Why might this be? What might be done to help opponents get beyond endless debate?
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology
Note: This post is based on the study “Attitudes toward international treaties and human rights agreements” by Kyleen Hashim and Kathleen Malley-Morrison, published in the journal Peace Psychology, Spring/Summer 2007.
Should governments be allowed to ignore international treaties or international human rights agreements?
This article brings to mind a number of questions that may be addressed by not only looking at psychology, but also sociology and philosophy. More specifically this article looks at what we consider to be good and bad-perhaps looking at the nature vs. nurture debate. Personally I believe that people are inherently selfish; sometimes we may behave out of character and help other people altruistically, but ultimately we behave in a way that will benefit us the most-thus we have developed into reciprocal altruistic beings. An example of people being selfish this is the Prisoners Dilemma, in which people might not cooperate with each other even if it is mutually beneficial.
I think that a problem with the question addressed in the GIPGAP study is that it is all based upon a theoretical action that a person would or should take. I believe when asked if most human beings are supportive of universal human rights, they will immediately respond that they are, but if they are immediately affected by a situation that threatens them or someone close to them, then I feel that all morality and social expectations go out the window. As we saw in the Heinz dilemma, people will sometimes behave very differently when put in certain situations, even steal or kill. I think that in a perfect world, without consequences of our actions, people are inherently good and thus would oppose the statement made in the article above. However, in our society today, any political decision that we make is interpreted differently by each group involved- thus we sometimes make decisions that go against our morals and can sometimes violate international treaties or international human rights agreements purely because of the consequences that arise from not doing so.
In terms of larger international decision-making that involves human rights, groupthink (Irving Janis, 1971) is also something that may come into play when governments make decisions. Just as Janis explained, using the Bay of Pigs and Pearl Harbor as examples, people making decisions in groups are more likely to take more drastic decisions when compared to people making individual decisions even when they have evidence that is contrary to their mission. U.S. authorities received warning signs about the Pearl Harbor attacks but still did nothing. There was also information about the Bay of Pigs that showed that it was going to be a disaster, but yet again it was overlooked. This phenomenon of “groupthink” lies on a few basic principles, namely the diffusion of responsibility, high group cohesiveness, and also because when these factors are combined, individuals are less likely to bring up counter points or evidence against the main group.
Overall, I think that people need to understand the sociological perspective that everything is socially constructed and that any action I take will be interpreted differently by someone else (because we have not shared exactly the same life experiences). Erving Goffman’s books, Symbolic Interactionism and The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life address the bigger theme of social constructionism. When one can understand that everyone has different perceptions of life and everything in it, then one will be able to realize that one can’t say what is collectively normal and therefore what is unusual for everyone in the world. Not everyone in the world will have the same beliefs about violating human rights. So basically: who are you to judge anyone else?
One of the first things that I immediately thought about when reading this was about how people interpret certain things. For example, many people follow the commandments and laws of religion, for example Christianity. Many say the basis of these laws is the golden rule, and all else is an elaboration of that. The way I see it, because agreements should be respected according to opposers, they would take the commandments and all that is a biblical law without any interpretation. While this can help them to lead a good life by loving others, not killing, stealing, committing adultery, etc., it can also seem quite silly. For example, there are rules about sacrifice, farming, what one can and cannot eating, etc. Much of these laws cannot be taken literally because they are simply too outdated and irrelevant to today’s society. I think that the same thing can happen, and that is the reason that some justifiers will agree.
With that being said however, I think there are some rules and laws that are timeless. The ten commandments and above all, the golden rule of treating others how you with to be treated is what comes to mind as the most important rule to live by. Though some agreements are obsolete or unjust, there is still some truth behind the core values and commandments. So if some international treaty is obsolete and no longer applicable, it would be acceptable to break it. However, if it is viewed as unjust, I think perhaps that is a bit trickier. What could be considered unjust to one group may be considered completely just to another group, which is why a third party to mediate and pay close attention to the actions of both groups is very important.
The fact that both opposers and justifiers emphasized the positive effects of the greater good is not surprising. It is only natural for humans to want to feel good about themselves and believe they are doing the right thing. That is what these two groups are doing. The are legitimizing their actions and convincing themselves that they are acting in a moral manner. For example, terrorists have been convinced or have convinced themselves that what they are doing is moral and just. However, most everybody else sees terrorist actions as immoral and unjust.
I think in most cases, we can use universal law, general universal standards and expectations to agree on what is generally just and moral. Though there will always be a blurry line here or there, having such standards set in stone will create much less argument and disagreement. To further such laws and standards, the world would absolutely need to be educated according to these standards, starting with societies, but especially focusing on young children. It must be a universal effort.
Pingback: To combat moral disgrace (Engaging Bradley Manning, Part 2) | Engaging Peace