Human Rights Intergovernmental Organizations: An Analysis Report
Human Rights Intergovernmental Organizations Explained
An Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) is archetypal of political globalism—“...that subset of globalism that refers to ideas and information about power and governance” (Keohane & Nye, 2000, p. 5). These organizations are supranational, and operate in the public sector. Moreover, a human rights intergovernmental organization has the structural features previously described as well as the function of protecting individual liberties on an international scale. I narrowed my research to this embodiment of globalism because I am passionate about politics and the preservation of human rights. There are several intergovernmental organizations that focus either primarily or subsidiarily on human rights, including multiple branches stemming from the root organization: the United Nations. This report will focus on the popularity and scrutiny of: the United Nations Human Rights Council, due to its spotlight on the subject; the European Court of Human Rights, due to its prominence in the European region of the globe; and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, due to its authority as the first human rights organization in the Southeast Asian region of the planet.
Database Search Findings
In researching the regional popularity, as well as newspaper and web-based publication frequency, the database LexisNexis was used through the University at Albany-SUNY database search engine. Using this tool I found that during the time period of 1 January 2015 - 1 July 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Council had 562 total results: 372 from newspaper sources; 30 web-based publications; 179 results from North America; 155 results from Europe; 62 results from Africa; 406 results from Asia; and 17 results from the Oceania region. What is most interesting about these results is that the highest quantity comes from Asian sources. This finding will be extrapolated soon. Furthermore, the university library database (separate from LexisNexis) produced: 665,211 news results; 2,732 audio results; and 26 video results.
On the European Court of Human Rights, LexisNexis produced a total of 2112 results: 1656 from newspaper sources; 215 web-based publications; 269 results from North America; 1562 results from Europe; 46 results from Africa; 472 results from Asia; and 27 results from the Oceania region. I was surprised to see such a high number of results from Asia, being that this intergovernmental organization only serves European nations. Additionally, the university library database produced: 565,969 news results; 1,045 audio results; and 18 video results.
When researching the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, LexisNexis produced the shockingly low number of 19 total results: 13 newspaper sources; 2 web-based publications; 0 results from North America; 1 result from Europe; 0 Results from Africa; 14 results from Asia; and 1 result from the Oceania region. I was taken aback to learn that the United Nations Human Rights Council and the European Court of Human Rights both had more publications from the Asian region than the international organization that was specifically established to function in Southeast Asia. This may be due to regional participation in human rights studies that occur on a global scale, an example being for the United Nations as a root organization. Also, the university library database produced: 3,197 news results; 0 audio results; and 0 video results. These numbers are notably low.
Google Search Findings
To broaden the perspective of the popularity of these public sector, supranational organizations, I took their names to the Google search engine. When “Human Rights Intergovernmental Organizations” was searched, 11,300,000 results were produced in 1.50 seconds. Comparatively, “United Nations Human Rights Council” (unitalicized in the search bar) returned 53,400,000 results in 0.75 seconds. It is interesting to note how a more narrowed search produced more results in a shortened period of time. Furthermore, “European Court of Human Rights” returned 65,000,000 results in 0.78 seconds. Finally, “ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights” produced a disappointing 336,000 results in 0.64 seconds.
It is important to recognize that theEuropean Court of Human Rights returned the most search results both on Google and LexisNexis. This may be due to the impact of its work having a high concentration in the region of Europe, and not on a global scale. Additionally, the organization views its work as more of an institutional concern in comparison to the Southeast Asian region, which will be discussed further in the next section. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was the least popular organization of the three in both searches, leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council in the middle.
Are Intergovernmental Organizations Legitimate?
A motif in scholarly works on the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights is a questioning of the organization’s legitimacy. This is because the organization was founded as a result of a United Nations conference on human rights. “The Foreign Ministers agreed that ASEAN should coordinate a common approach on human rights and actively participate and contribute to the application, promotion and protection of human rights (aichr.org, 2012, about). Deborah Basham-Jones cites lecturer at the College of Law at the Australian National University, Hitoshi Nasu “...there are already institutional foundations, and maturing, structured institutional mechanisms, that facilitate regional integration and dialogue on human rights...The communicative aspect of institutions is arguably more significant...in looking at institutional developments in the Asia-Pacific region” (Basham-Jones, 2012, p. 15). Some hold that having intergovernmental dialogue on human rights concerns and how to address them is more important than the establishment of regional-based organizations that report to larger networks, such as the United Nations. The significance of communication on human rights provides insight as to why there are many contributions from the Asian region to the discourse on the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Questioning the legitimacy of intergovernmental organizations is a general commonality, as it is not always clear how to hold the organization accountable, as well as whom to hold the organization accountable to (Keohane & Nye, 2005, p. 14). In discussing the approach of the European Court of Human Rights and its ability to prosecute human rights violators, Grover (2010) is cited by Sebastian Răduleţu: “Others have argued that the Court has only a limited function in this domain, even sometimes constituting a ‘pathway to impunity for international crimes.’” (Răduleţu, 2015, p. 451).
The United Nations Human Rights Council has also faced scrutiny since its creation in 2006. In fact, the supranational organization was developed to replace the pre-existing United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which was deemed to be inefficient. One matter that has continued to exist after the production of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the difficulty to separate home-state interests from the work of the intergovernmental body. “The Human Rights Council has not proved immune to being infected by politics. Multilateral organizations promote and enable cooperation among states; yet they are also avenues along which states pursue their interests” (Rivilin, 2008, 347).
Moreover, the skepticism of intergovernmental organizations’ legitimacy is likely to be a major contributor the unpopularity of the three central bodies of discussion in this report. This is especially seen in the case of social media attention, as that is where individuals deliberately pull information flows on selected topics, as supposed to having information pushed on them via television or radio.
Social Media Attention
Lastly, I researched what the online social presence is for each of the organizations. The United Nations has an account on Twitter specifically on the topic of human rights, but not mentioning the United Nations Human Rights Council in its handle—@UNHumanRights. This account has 1.69 million followers. Its Facebook page was the only one of the three that had a star rating—3.1/5. Furthermore, the page has 189,245 “likes”. The organization’s Youtube account has 705 subscribers.
The European Court of Human Rights has a specific Twitter handle—@EHCR_Press, with 16 thousand followers. Additionally, the organization has 17,794 likes and 17,748 Followers on Facebook. On Youtube, the organization has 2,635 subscribers.
The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights does not have a specific Twitter handle, however, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations does have a handle—@ASEAN, with 69.5 thousand followers. On Facebook, the specific human rights organization has an embarrassing 74 likes and 74 followers. Additionally, the organization does not have a Youtube account. However, its inaugural ceremony has been uploaded by on an independent account, and only has 892 views.
The overall popularity trend is slightly different for these organizations when it comes to social media. This is likely to be due to the fact that not each organization has a specific account for its focus on human rights for each platform. However, generally speaking, the United Nations Human Rights Council is the most popular on Twitter and Facebook. The European Court of Human Rights was the most popular on Youtube. Finally, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was overall the least popular, besides being in the middle on Twitter.
As previously mentioned, it is likely that heavy scrutiny by the public is the reason that these organizations have an overall low social media presence. The United Nations as a whole is not viewed favorably in the United States. Actually, the Trump Administration has floated the idea of leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council to the public. Gallup conducted a poll in February, 2017, finding that 37% of Americans think that the U.N. as a whole is doing a “Good job”. Additionally, 60% believe the U.N. is doing a “Poor job”, and 3% hold “No opinion” (www.gallup.com, 2017, united-nations).
Conclusion
The United Nations Human Rights Council is between the European Court of Human Rights and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights in terms of popularity on LexisNexis, the University at Albany-SUNY’s database, and the Google search engine, with the European Court of Human Rights being in the lead. The United Nations Human Rights Council and the European Court of Human Rights rival each other in popularity via visual and audio mediums, when the Commission’s Youtubepopularity is brought into consideration. However, the European Court of Human Rights maintains the upper hand. The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was considerably less popular in every aspect, except for being in the middle in terms of Twitter followers, and operating in the region with the most LexisNexis Results. Finally, all organizations have a basis to be scrutinized on their legitimacy, as it is the nature of intergovernmental organizations.
References
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J.S. 2005. “Governance in a Globalizing World”. Chapter 1.
AICHR. ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. 2017. Reference
Link: http://aichr.org/about/.
Basham-Jones, D. 2012. ASEAN’s Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: A Pale
Shadow of What it Could Have Been. Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the
Law. 10.1163/138819012X13323234710026
Răduleţu, S. 2015. National Prosecutions as the Main Remedy in Cases of Massive Human
Rights Violations: An Assessment of the Approach of the European Court of Human
Rights. International Journal of Transitional Justice. doi: 10.1093/ijtj/ijv024.
Rivilin, B. 2008. The United Nations Human Rights Council: A U.S. Foreign Policy Dilemma.
American Foreign Policy Interests. DOI: 10.1080/10803920802435427.
Gallup. 2017. Poll. United Nations. Do You Think the United Nations is Doing a Good Job or
Poor Job in Trying to Solve Problems it Has to Face? Reference Link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116347/united-nations.aspx