Guyana’s engagement with international Human Rights law

This is an edited version of a talk given by Dr Arif Bulkan at a Public Commemorative Lecture held on November 21, 2018 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in collaboration with the University of Guyana, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dr, Bulkan teaches Constitutional Law, Commonwealth Caribbean Human Rights Law, International Human Rights Law and Law and Legal Systems in the LLB programme at UWI, St. Augustine Campus. In June 2018, he was elected as the first Guyanese to sit on the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Today is Human Rights Day, marking the date, 70 years ago on December 10, 1948, that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Human Rights have not always had the same legal and normative force as they do today, but the values and standards espoused by this concept have deep roots in the philosophy, culture and religion of almost every major society. Within the last century, however, and in the immediate aftermath of the apocalyptic horrors of the Second World War, human rights protection came to assume a hitherto unprecedented role in the moral and political order of the international community. And the centrepiece of that movement lay in the UDHR.

Although a non-binding declaration, its significance should not be underestimated. It was revolutionary for its time, when states conducted both internal and external relations on the premise of their sovereignty. This is evidenced by such atrocities as trafficking in humans or piracy which flourished openly, and without legal consequences. Now for the first time was an acknowledgement agreed upon that within their borders there were standards which they could not violate – standards which were conceptualised and predicated on the basis of human dignity. This concept of human rights as imposing obligations, which was subscribed to by 48 nations then and now by the majority of the globe, ushered in the end of claims by states that they could do as they pleased to their own citizens.

The UDHR consists of a preamble and 30 articles. Articles 1 and 2 state that all human beings ‘are born equal in dignity and rights’ and are “entitled to enjoy all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. It sets out a wide range of human rights and freedoms to be protected, covering both civil and political rights and freedoms as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The UDHR stipulates that rights may only be limited by law and for the purposes either of respecting the rights and freedoms of others or “meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

The UDHR paved the way for two binding covenants, which altogether make up what is sometimes referred to as the ‘International Bill of Rights’ – these are the International Covenants of Civil and Political Rights and of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966; and all three instruments endorse the entitlement of everyone to these rights and freedoms without distinction of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Since then, a number of other major multilateral treaties have been negotiated under the auspices of the UN to protect certain specific groups such as women, children, migrant workers and persons with disabilities, as well as to lay down prohibitions against racial discrimination, torture and the appalling practice of enforced disappearances. Altogether, this network of conventions represents a significant limitation on the powers of states – they are not simply aspirational documents, but agreements which impose binding obligations. More radically, they confer upon individuals – historically never the subject of international law – rights against the state, in some cases backed by processes and procedures to make claims and seek redress.

The criticism often raised at this point is that all this seems completely at odds at with modern realities. Jeremy Bentham, who is considered to be the father of utilitarianism, famously described the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man as ‘nonsense upon stilts.’ That was the same Declaration which influenced numerous other charters, including the UDHR and its successors. Bentham’s critique has been equally enduring. Essentially, Bentham’s argument was that in the absence of a positive framework, rights talk is just that – talk, imaginary rights, poetry perhaps, but certainly not law. Yet, given the brutality and inhumanity of our history (indigenous slaughter, African slavery and Indian indentureship), we in Guyana (and the Caribbean) especially should never underestimate or dismiss the importance of an enforceable regime of rights and freedoms. Indeed, principles of human rights – such as the right to self-determination – lent support to the decolonization movement. And since independence, when bills of rights were included in all Caribbean constitutions, their importance has been steadily growing. A rich body of public law jurisprudence has emerged, demonstrating