Fariola, Lea Gabrielle M.

2L-702

In the New York Times Opinion Pages’ Room for Debate tackling on the topic on whether or not
“Have Human Rights Treaties Failed”, two personalities – Kenneth Roth, a former federal prosecutor and
executive director of Human Rights Watch and Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law
school – have went on head to head as to why they think such treaties have failed or have been
effective. Posner thinks that Human Rights treaties are too ambitious and ambiguous and that despite
countries having signed to them, extrajudicial methods and other activities not abiding by those treaties
still occur. He thinks that the notion that the implementation of more treaties is the solution to human
rights problems is wrong and that what he would love for countries to pursue, instead, is to allow
foreign relations in order to promote economic development. To this, Roth argued that those who
promote Human Rights Treaties do not necessarily promote that more of it be passed; rather what they
are trying to accomplish is to enforce the existing ones. He also thinks that the statement about foreign
aid for economic development be thought of instead of human rights treaties would lead to an
unaccountable government and pervasive corruption. Another point raised by Posner is that a lot of
countries cannot afford the rights included therein in such treaties. He thinks that cleaning up the
system that a nation has is too costly. However, Roth thinks that even if human rights would include in it
costs, it should never be abandoned just because of such reason. People should continue to hold their
governments accountable and that it should push it to always respect such rights. However, Posner still
critics the effectiveness of such treaties mainly because such are vague and that they cannot provide
guidelines to countries but Roth counters it and states that he believes that treaties are effective even
when the courts are weak. This belief is anchored on the opinion that the treaties codify the views of the
public as to how their government are supposed to behave.

I find viable points in the two speakers; however, I am inclining to believe in Roth’s arguments.
Trying to speak as a citizen in a country such as the Philippines, I agree with Posner that the rights
afforded for in Human Rights Treaties are expensive. Even in the ways that we try to avoid corruption is
expensive; for example, for positions – public or private - who are prone or is much more likely to be
corrupt, a huge salary is provided in order to minimize the risk. However, I would still cling on the
argument of Roth that even if it would cost the government fortune in order to apply such treaties, such
must not be abandoned. The people must hold their governments accountable to enforce the human
rights treaties that they deserve. Because, how would the cost saving in this specific area affect the
country in the long-run? Yes, the country may have saved a certain sum of money, but it will still lead to
an unaccountable government and an environment that is welcoming to corruption. I also think that
Posner is kind of being hasty when he said that those who are pushing for Human Rights Treaties are
also pushing that more it be made. Roth was right in countering that they are pushing for more but are
trying to enforce existing ones. This has always been my belief in whatever laws are being tackled.
Proper implementation and not creation more laws will always be the key. Just like in environmental
laws, the laws about human rights are well-crafted. The problem lies in its implementation. Thus, the
view should not be in the abandonment of Human Rights Treaties because you think they are
ineffective; however, the view must instead lie on the thought the it must be properly applied in order
for it to be effective. Also, I kind of agree to the thought that Human Rights Treaties are vague but only
because I believe that all laws are vague that is why we still have to interpret and that is where
jurisprudence comes in. Although laws are vague, when compared to a lawless society, codifying the
rights that people think they deserve is actually giving them a more distinct force to cling on.