Balancing everyone’s rights

You’ve looked at why global citizenship is important and how we can’t avoid the implications of the interconnected world in our daily lives. You’ve also looked at culture and the competencies required to navigate the diversity of experience that we come into contact with each day. Next, you’ll consider some of the issues and challenges that globalisation creates and the inequities it reveals.

The growing interconnectedness among people, countries, and economies gives us a global dimension to who we are – our identity. And since the mounting global challenges – such as refugee crises, conflicts, climate change – are matters of deep moral and political concern to everyone, our citizenship also has an inescapable global dimension.

Here, Dr Vicky Kapogianni, Lecturer in EU & International Law, explains the complexities of balancing everyone’s rights.

Transcending geographic limitations

As you’ve already discovered, global citizenship is a multifaceted concept. You can’t pin it down to a single institutional framework. In the contemporary world order, it’s about taking democracy beyond the boundaries of the nation state and has the potential to significantly impact things societies currently take for granted, particularly for minorities, vulnerable populations, and those fleeing conflict for survival. Global citizens transcend geographic limitations, operating outside traditional power structures, aiming to uphold human dignity and promote social accountability and international solidarity. To be a global citizen is to be tolerant, inclusive and to recognise diversity and, most importantly, to act in accordance with these principles.

The 2016 Global Citizenship Commission’s report¹ is a reminder of what’s at stake.

• The rights of members of specific groups: the rights of women, the rights of children, of disabled and those related to sexual orientation, and the rights of prisoners.
• The rights of groups: the right to national self-determination (including regional autonomy and subsidiarity), the rights of indigenous peoples, the prohibition of ethnic cleansing, and the rights of peoples prejudiced at the national or communal level by climate change².
• The rights pertaining to crucial concerns affecting: migration³, statelessness, administrative justice, corruption, extreme poverty, deep inequality, healthcare, and the establishment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

The responsibility of the international community is to ensure the rights of individuals and groups are kept in balance with the rights of other individuals and groups so that everyone’s rights are respected. Balance is vital for the establishment of open, equitable, inclusive, and pluralist societies grounded in respect for human rights.

To understand the value of a global mindset, it may be helpful to consider an example of what might happen when these rights become out of balance – an isolationist position.

Isolationism

Isolationism is where a national government isolates their country from the affairs of other nations, tipping the balance of rights towards its own citizens. Isolationism often has consequences for local communities (intended or not) and tangible repercussions internationally. Culturally, isolationism may result in a narrowing of worldviews, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and hindering efforts to foster global understanding and tolerance.

Environmental challenges are a good example, as the refusal of some governments to engage with tackling them in collaboration with other nations exacerbates issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss locally, ultimately impacting both the isolationist country and the global community.

The aftermath of the Brexit referendum provides another poignant illustration, where people’s existing rights and freedoms were lost alongside some of the protections its citizens were afforded under EU law, such as workers’ rights and harmonised standards on goods and services. The UK faced complex challenges in negotiating new trade deals, adversely affecting economic stability and potentially infringing on individuals’ economic rights.

In the realm of national security, isolationism can lead to extremely serious consequences. Leaders like Vladimir Putin showcase isolationist tendencies⁴, as seen in assertive actions such as the annexation of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine. The ongoing war in Ukraine is impacting regional stability and violating the rights of affected populations⁵. Isolationist policies can lead to the alienation of allies, jeopardising the security and human rights of populations in conflict zones as well as the citizens of those countries residing outside the nation’s borders. For example, sanctions such as universities cutting ties with partner institutions have consequences for individuals, regardless of their political position.

Arguably, the pursuit of self-determination, as exemplified by the plight of minority groups seeking autonomy, can become another form of isolationism. Secession, which is the act of becoming independent from a governing country, area or organization, was the form of self-determination exercised by colonised people during the decolonisation process. In Nigeria, the Biafran people have historically sought autonomy, with limited global cooperation in addressing their aspirations. The Biafran War, also known as the Nigerian Civil War, raged from 1967 to 1970. Tensions between the Igbo people in the southeast and the Nigerian government, led by the Hausa-Fulani in the north, boiled over. Igbo desire for self-rule led the southeast to declare independence as Biafra. The war resulted in a brutal conflict with millions of casualties, mostly civilians, from violence and starvation. However, secession may not be the best way of addressing the needs and rights of the indigenous population. Self-determination, whereby autonomy can be recognised within existing territorial arrangements, might be a better way to reconcile the balance of rights between individual, group and state⁶.

Finally, isolationist approaches can hinder collective responses to global health crises, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbating the impact on human rights, especially in vulnerable populations. Recent reports have called for a more joined-up approach to managing global crises which puts human rights and equality at the centre⁷.

These diverse examples demonstrate the wide-ranging consequences of isolationism, emphasising the importance of a balanced approach to national sovereignty when managing local issues, which considers the interconnectedness of nations and upholds human rights and dignity on a global scale.

References

1. Gordon Brown (ed). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World. A report by the Global Citizenship Commission. NYU Global Institute for Advanced Study 2016
2. Meddeb R & Naujoks D. Disappearing Islands: The Fate Of Their Nations And Their People. An article for the Cousteau Society
3. Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants. An article from Amnesty International which helps distinguish between the various terms.
4. Freedman L. Putin’s isolation intensifies. Inside Story August 2023.
5. Ukraine 2023. An Amnesty International Report.
6. Onwubiko J.N. The Biafran Self-Determination Question: Challenges and Prospects. African Journal of International and Comparative Law 31: 104-130. 2023
7. Gostin, L. et al. Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis. The Lancet 401: 154-168. 2023