Expanding Rights and Expanding Powers: Assessing and Contextualizing Human Rights Abuses in an Emerging Multipolar World

By Anthea Rose

Abstract

Since the fall of the Soviet Union to the Ukrainian crisis, the world order has been characterized as a unipolar one, wherein the United States monopolized power. A facet of world order acutely affected by this monopoly of administering justice and world dominance is within human rights practices–– a primary interest of this paper. As unipolarity becomes stretched thin, challenged in a geopolitical context by newly empowered contestants asserting individuality from international hegemonic structures, it is necessary to consider the protection and violation of  ‘universal’ human rights and their implementation in a multiplicity of spheres–– including international enforcement, domestic monitoring, and the continuing effects of historical human rights abuses within enacted systems. The redistribution of world powers demands an expansion of the conceptualization of human rights to better define and safeguard rights protections in a transformed political landscape of the international and domestic hemisphere. This paper examines the interconnectedness of world polarity- its impact on human rights abuses, the geopolitical climate and its responsiveness to competing states. Using an interdisciplinary approach, this essay will demonstrate the potential of multipolarity in lessening human rights abuses.

________________

Keywords: human rights, multipolarity, unipolarity, social rights, globalism

  _____________

Defining Human Rights

Traditional Approaches to Human Rights

As both paradigm and practice, human rights are implemented within a delicate definition of their purpose and protections. Human rights are indicative of the relationship between an individual and the state, determining patterns of governance and punishment.

Human rights can be loosely defined as a right due to an individual or collective social enclave regardless of positionality, and are enforced by the state in the event of interpersonal challenges to these rights. However, this definition is paradoxical in nature: as both the enforcer and provider of human rights, the state has no extrinsic source of motivation to secure the rights of those under its power. This imbalance of power and responsibility, both tied to an authoritarian practice of control over the concept of universality, results in a largely performative division placed between the punitive and benevolent abilities of the state in addressing the rights of individuals. Both in practice and in a theoretical paradigm, human rights are intrinsically connected to the language that defines the parameters of their execution–– a language that draws sharp boundaries between different approaches to advocacy in the face of human rights injustice (Simpson 2017). The current system utilized to identify and address violations of human rights also possesses marked limitations in distributing the mechanics of agency.

Codified by the state into a paradigm of ‘best practice’, human rights operate as a system of philosophical performance. As a primary abuser of human rights, the state defines both the measures to which it is willing to observe individual protections on the basis of social contractual obligation, and to what degree it faces collective culpability for lackadaisical consequences for these omissions (Trujillo 2012). The language of monolithic defense- positioning the state as the only entity capable of securing justice- permits for a cycle of abuse regarding power and the pillars of justice (Simpson 2017). This blatant contradiction in establishing effective mechanics of justice-seeking severely limits the resources and social ability that informal systems of justice (those not conducted directly by the state) hold in relation to the abuses they hope to address (Simpson 2017). With this defective correlation limiting the ability for self-advocacy in defining and defining rights, the concept of modern human rights being connected to institutions of justice becomes increasingly slim.

Alternatively, instead of being defined through the state and its tenuous role of enforcement, human rights can be interpreted via the entitlements of the affected population. By addressing conflicts of social equity, human rights can be considered to be a social institution, a mechanism of differentiation formulated via human development as a form of self-regulation (Verschraegen 2002). The tasks of differentiation and self-regulation posed upon social institutions mirror the difficulty of manufacturing accountability for the state–– as both the transgressor and the benefactor of establishing norms, an invocation of power is still required to manufacture the pressure for adherence to self-established standards. This collectivist self-application of human rights is only conceptually based, however: as a legal practice, human rights still offers sole authority towards the state without a companionate social ability to manufacture accountability for this higher power (Trujillo 2012). The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a mountebank of accountability, lacked the ability to invoke a higher authority upon state actors (Trujilo 2012). In light of contemporary selective ignorance of adhering to human rights standards in the United States’ approach to the War on Terrorism, it is apparent that these institution-driven definitions are dysfunctional in the proposed role of self-regulating facets of humanitarian justice.

Human rights, a paradigm that seeks to define the protections and freedoms of every individual or social enclave, is reliant on a source of accountability to ensure adherence to established standards. For the purpose of assessing the current relationship between human rights and their institutional enactment, this essay will be using an amended definition of human rights that seeks to emphasize the elastic and independent nature of these standards without the explicit endorsement of the state as a means of securing legitimacy. Ideally, a functional definition of human rights describes an interdependent series of social, economic, and cultural insights and actions that utilize resources and authority across social institutions to address identified lapses in equity.

Positions of Power Within Human Rights Paradigms

Applying the definition of human rights as a form of interaction between aspects of societal components significantly increases the possibilities of reconstruing forms of accountability regarding the protection of rights. In previously discussed definitions and applications of the concept of human rights, a singular named entity holds responsibility for both naming and enforcing rights. In order to address the unidimensional possibilities that a singularly entitled entity holds in creating sustainable rights, systems theory offers greater insight into the expansive possibilities of the familiar judicial philosophy of ‘checks and balances’.

Human rights are defined via systems thinking–– a framework that is dependent on recognizing that all aspects of a process are inextricable from one another. Within systems thinking, a conflict is connected to a series of passive and active processes that allow for the primary disparity to continue to fester. Because all processes are linked through a series of theoretical inputs and cultural outputs, it is necessary to address the parent cause of a process before a conflict can be resolved. For example, a social inequity cannot be observed without an expectation to which the scenario should adhere to–– a framework that dictates perceptions of concepts such as injustice, entitlement, and morality. Systems thinking uses interactional patterns and their produced factors as a continual feedback loop. Envisioning the interconnected nature of these elements underlines a viable practice for addressing the power differential associated with defining human rights outside of systems thinking–– in a transactional pattern that is comprised of internally-fueled interactional patterns, no external factors can be extricated from the feedback loop to assert dominance over the factors of the system.

Systems thinking and its distinct convergence of internal and external factors reflects the need for a consolidation of power that is present within defining human rights. Human rights possesses specific jargon that distinguishes a course of action in securing rights to be transformed from an individual’s assertion of agency to a systemically secured practice (Verschraegen 2002). The nature of these patterns of interaction allows for human rights to resonate across distinctive barriers (culture, state actors, fiscal influences, etc.) as applicable to all humankind equally (Verschraegen 2002). Globalization and a modern world further demands recognizing the interconnected nature of human rights and their enforcement at a qualitatively ‘equal’ level while also reflecting the need for pliable applications.

The concept of modernity holds its roots in coloniality and imperialist prospects as a methodology in enforcing the protection of societal norms (Mignolo 2016). When human rights violations are recognized on a global scale, particularly within the power differential of the world order established by the wealth of states, this system of determining what qualifies as a human rights abuse is largely dependent on the construct of Eurocentrism–– an epistemic frame of reference that allowed for Europe to develop as a superior enclave in dictating international relations (Mignolo 2016). With international relations as a key pillar in interpreting global interactions between countries, Eurocentric authorship indicates the desire for modernity as a tool misappropriated to disregard human rights. The issuance of language, execution, and observation of human rights are all heavily impacted by this consistent entitlement of a single voice within purportedly ‘international’ relations.

Modern Imagination and Protecting Rights

Bound within the rhetorical declaration of human rights via legal framework and the limiting factors of Western dominance on their conceptualization, the current definition and subsequent implementation of human rights is a rather narrow field. Within a globalized and highly connected world dependent on human progression, several areas of humanity’s continued model of innovation are not adequately protected within the current vision of human rights.

One such area of consideration that possesses the difficulty of defining the limits of human rights legislation is the territory of cyberspace. The United Nations (UN) Human Rights council asserts that individuals are entitled to equal protection of their rights both online and offline, a stance supported internationally in similar pageantry to the UDHR in terms of standardizing considered human rights protections (Rona, Aarons 2016). With a conceptual approach to the recursive responsibilities of states to observe and protect these rights, cyberspace also allows for the potential of new and unrealized abuses in surveillance and relative control of Internet freedoms (Rona, Aarons 2016). An evolving definition of human rights must be equipped for the task of protecting rights in cyberspace in a spatial and a personal model of advocacy.

The current framing of human rights is primarily focused on the liberties and the protections offered to the individual–– in addressing climate change, the individual is increasingly powerless through the actions of larger actors such as states, international endeavors, and NGOs (nongovernmental organizations). Current human rights practices have not been effectively used to resolve enduring environmental consequences–– positions of power, especially those in the dynamics between the global North and South, serve as a point of contention in ratifying action to combat climate change (Voss 2020). As contemporary human rights do not fully realize interconnected conflicts, to address climate change beyond the barriers of global North and South it is vital to expand the definition of universal securities beyond a human (personified or individualized) right.

To fully encapsulate these new arenas of rights, the definition of human rights requires significant modification. Within the two covenants of the UN pertaining to human rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the obligations and implementations that state actors levy towards maintaining standards of socially-centered rights are heavily emphasized (Mishra 2005). Using a socially-focused lens is advantageous for the expansion of human rights concerns in largely uncharted social territories connected to a globalizing interpretation of international relations, especially in addressing the global repercussions of Western capitalism (Mishra 2005). In assessing the impact of a multipolar world on occurrences of human rights abuses, the broader construction of human rights as a facet of social enclaves -and therefore social rights- allows for a more exact identification of newly developing vulnerable areas of human rights abuses.

 The Unipolar World Order

Establishing a New Order

Immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, affiliated countries grappled with the loss of a major world power. The explosive political upset eradicated a major opposition to the sprawling influence of American international operations. Unchecked in power and influence on a growing scale, the United States asserted its unique position–– subsequently creating a unipolar world order.

The unchallenged position that the United States enjoyed following the resolution of the Cold War allowed the purchasing power of the face of the ‘free world’ to have no opposition. The U.S. no longer had to compete with the Soviet Union to ‘sponsor’ allied countries as the only entity powerful enough to offer militaristic and economic support to any country of interest. This space inhabited in the absence of the Soviet Union served as a demonstration of soft power (influencing other states to share similar goals via incentivizing cooperation), and quickly bloomed into the hard power of economic applications such as sanctions and armed interventions–– a methodology that the United States utilized in place of traditional diplomacy (Smith 2002). With an established precedent to secure self-beneficial interests and diplomacy through the weight of fiscal enforcement, a unipolar world centering the United States allowed for the weight of the American dollar to substitute for any political or moralistic reasoning in international relations or enforcement.

 Beginning a Powerful Transition

Within a unipolar world order, American dominance of international relations dictated the nature of global collaborative enforcement. Although this balance of authority remained intact, challenges to the singular portrait of power also became apparent in response to areas of American ineptitude. This emerging new framework is partially reliant on the stagnant nature of globalization under the thumb of United States influence.

As a conflict directly challenging an American image, the War on Terrorism serves to highlight the state’s imbalance of hard and soft power. The conflict upset political theorems regarding United States international relations–– rather than return to a state of isolationism to build domestic interests in an increasingly diverse nation, military dominance allowed for the justification of extending an ultimate power to a generalized enemy (Smith 2002). With religious and cultural narratives pinned to the definition of terrorism and terrorists, the Bush administration’s response to September 11th allowed for the United States to again take on the face of a growing liberal zone in a parallel to the war against communism.

Although the War on Terrorism, similar to the Cold War, utilizes an ideological axis to define conflict, it is not a uniquely bipolar conflict. Rather than featuring satellite countries dependent on two large state actors to dictate further involvement, the development of an ‘axis of terror’ in the form of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea saw individual states assert their sovereignty in declaring a combatant in the United States (Smith 2002). In order to maintain a true universal grasp of power, the United States must rely on methodologies beyond militaristic might to enforce and influence changes in policy and international relations to its benefit–– a change that has not yet been reflected in the countries’ approach to international relations.

Assessing Human Rights Abuses Under the Unipolar World Order

Linking American Involvement

Within American control under the unipolar world order, human rights abuses possessed outstanding similarities. Notably, atrocities and their consequences directly stemmed from the positionality of United States policies and surveillance–– a pattern that allowed for a myopic approach to securing justice for human rights abuses. Although by no means an exhaustive list of human rights violations linked to American actions, two instances are examined in detail.

In continuing to examine the effects of September 11th and the War on Terrorism on international relations within an American unipolar order, it is crucial to include human rights associated with the conflict. In establishing a legal gray area utilized to perpetrate the institutionalization of torture, both international and US law became cherry-picked to allow for an unconstitutional extension of the authority of the President to zealously combat purported Middle Eastern terrorism (Gordon 2006). The horrific nature of welding human rights abuses as a valid implementation of justice also resulted in the normalization of torture as a valid way to confront problematized populations (Gordon 2006). As a secretive aspect of waging war, the status of the eternal prisoner also has grave repercussions on the nature of penal enforcement levied towards enemies of domestic uniformity (Gordon 2006). In both domestic and international implementations, the American institutionalization of torture has resulted in the rampant abuse of human rights.

In addition to compromising the definition of justice in acts of warfare, the American government also ignores international human rights standards in domestic policy enactments. This is especially apparent in the securitization of the Southern border of the United States. Under the Trump administration, American immigration policy possessed an anti-immigrant approach to safeguarding domestic interests and adopted a zero-tolerance policy beginning in April 2018 (Pineo 2020). The number of individuals crossing the Southern border of the United States skyrocketed in 2021–– partially in response to an anticipated shift in immigration policy following the election of Biden, but also as an outstanding effect of the CoVid-19 epidemic in lesser-developed countries.

Within this immigration spike, a historically targeted demographic of asylum seekers faced outstanding ill-treatment in the processes of seeking refuge. Haitian asylum seekers experience the most discrimination within the United States immigration system, a status grounded in anti-Blackness and the nation’s history regarding race relations (Amnesty International 2022). As American immigration officials detain individuals for extended periods of time in exceedingly poor conditions and prevent their access to tools of justice, a specific class of asylum seeker is exposed to higher rates of ill-treatment in clear discriminatory measures (Amnesty International 2022). Because ill-treatment does not possess an exact legal definition, the United States government denied responsibility in violating these human rights through the use of a legal quagmire–– similar tactics utilized in institutionalizing torture via the War on Terror. This pattern of thwarting culpability directly threatens the effectiveness of defining human rights if the concept of human rights is to be regarded as a self-regulatory system of social institutions.

Neglecting Addressing Human Rights Offenses

In addition to directly perpetrating violations of human rights throughout the course of its position as a unipolar power, the United States also faced the political responsibility regarding action in the face of international crises of human rights. Notably, American discretion in responding to egregious offenses demonstrated an unreliable commitment to preserving a purportedly international concept of human rights. This unreliability and reluctant action within international crises of human rights is analyzed through the Darfur genocide.

The systematic killing of the Darfuri people within Western Sudan was declared to be the first genocide of the 21st century by the United States as an extension of the international construct America adopted dubbed the “responsibility to protect” (Mayroz 2019). However, this recognition was not as adequately backed by intervention as United States military and economic dominance was predisposed to suggest–– direct American intervention in the Darfur genocide remained remarkably slim.

The 110th Congress discussed enacting stronger consequences and interventions upon the Sudanese government after the passage of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act (DPPA) two years earlier in 2005 (Uscinski, Rocca, Sanchez, et al. 2009) (Darfur: A “Plan B” to Stop Genocide? 2007). The Congress acknowledged the limitations of unilateral sanctions in enacting change, stressing that the ability to perform effective sanctions had worn thin, but demonstrated clear reluctance to perform more intensive and direct measures (Darfur: A “Plan B” to Stop Genocide? 2007). The “responsibility to protect” is proven extremely flimsy with this inaction;  providing extremely selective interventions as opposed to seeking state accountability against Sudan demonstrates a transactional approach to preventing human rights abuses, and not ‘responsible’ interventions (Mayroz 2019). Approaching a human rights crisis within the framework of transactional benefits cements an American unwillingness to exercise unipolar dominance in a universally benevolent manner.

As a universally acknowledged dire state of human rights, cases of genocide serves as strong evidence of the pervasive nature of faulty American judgement in recognizing and responding to human rights violations in a humanitarian manner–– recognizing a crisis affecting a population regardless of the domestic benefits or detriments associated with this status. Using this criterion, which aligns with the definition of human rights necessary to assess violations beyond nation-state borders, it is clear that the United States fails to uphold this standard of enshrining and protecting human rights on a global scale.

The Multipolar World Order

The Resurgence of Multipolarity

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the unraveling of the powerful structure of allegiance to communism that was provided during the Cold War, the international influence of the United States was matched and challenged in the context of a bipolar world. Although several countries possessed more agency within the greater rhetoric of democracy against communism, the structure this dichotomy created was uniformly bipolar–– only two states were contemporaries in power or spheres of influence. In reshaping economic influence and asserting power through the conflict in Ukraine, multiple countries are now able to challenge the monopoly of international relations previously held by the United States.

Within the unipolarity established by the United States, the rhetoric of the dominant state has been reliant on international American superiority as an abundantly wealthy and powerful nation. In comparison to this unchallenged allure of liberty following the Cold War, a uniquely branded United States approach to democracy faces significant challenges–– the United States is barely recognizable as a democracy under its own criterion (Islam Societies Review Weekly 2022). American democracy has developed to become uniquely unstable in the international theater.

Russia as a Primary Power

With a vestigial place of power as the Soviet Union, Russia’s actions in the conflict of Ukraine marks a distinct attempt to claim world power as a response to American dominance. Russia stands to gain a foothold in international relations as a primary challenger to world unipolarity under the United States–– this challenge and the resulting multipolar world order is primarily ensured from a Russian vantage via its position within the European political structure.

Russia holds a singular position as a world power through its ties to both the Western and Eastern world. In a Russian interpretation of modern international relations, the liberal internationalism championed by the United States has resulted in the detachment of rational liberalism to become fascism (Abbas 2022). Russia’s conceptualization of the developing world order directly challenges the weakening nature of American monopoly, advocating for greater checks and balances within a loosely conceptualized unipolar world order (Chebankova 2017). Placing emphasis on an unexplored envisioning of international relations allows for Russia to cite its relevance in a new world order through establishing boundaries of power that had been cited as lacking under the authority of the United States.

When considering Russia within the structure of multipolarity, it would be a great oversight to not address the state’s approach towards human rights. Russia’s enduring critique of a unipolar world order surrounds the nebulous nature of unipolarity–– particularly as a legal state that redefines international relations to allow the United States to be more deeply involved in global affairs (Chebankova 2017). However, the country exposes significant hypocrisy via legal avoidance of observing the rights of citizens in an internationally concordant manner (Oleg Sentsov and Russia 2017). In stripping citizenship from individuals accused of terrorism, or standing in opposition to the Russian invasion of Crimea, the justice system of Russia is able to operate in an unmatched manner and utilize its monopoly of legislation to stifle any responses to the authoritarian practice (Oleg Sentsov and Russia 2017). Within this case, Russia’s approach to both recognizing and violating human rights hold great relevance in envisioning the relationship between human rights abuses and the distribution of power within a multipolar world order.

Reshaping Economic and Political Terrain

Within a unipolar world, international relations are marked by the dominant country’s modus operandi. Through the lens of United States dominance, globalization declaratively impacts the connectivity and the responsiveness of nations in creating alliances and managing economic diplomacy. As fiscal hemispheres shift along the boundaries created by declining American influence, other nations possess greater purchasing power in a direct correlation to the effectiveness of maintaining independence in authority.

When viewing the struggle of sovereignty and testing pliable definitions of the power of a state, the world’s economic development is privileged within the narrowing scope of the world economy (Mishra 2005). Thus, the correlation between a state’s ability to act independently within the world market and its ability to protect its own interests and broader independence are linked as a demonstration of power. In exercising this power in alliances regarding the conflict in Ukraine, nations have placed their diplomatic support for a resulting multiplicity of state actors to foster new economic alliances. This pluralistic mirroring of the role the United States holds as a passive interlocutor in third-party conflicts emphasizes that the conflict will undoubtedly result in a multipolar world order.

Emerging multipolarity also allows for the expansion of conditions of sovereignty. The European Union, as a historical ally to the unipolar United States, has a key position in redefining its relationship and alliances within the world order through independent means–– its approach of pooled sovereignty allows for an expansion of a socioeconomic contract for each individual country of the collective to compete against international contemporaries for its own interests (O’Sullivan 2021). An additional aspect of this pooled sovereignty establishes more power for the individual states as legal persons by deepening the connection between nations and their concept of individuality (O’Sullivan 2021). The creation of a fusion political state draws a stark contrast to the American-pioneered concept of sovereignty as isolationist interests and underlines the unique nature of state actors within a multipolar world order.

Human Rights in a Multipolar World Order

Globalization and Responses to Multipolarity

The contemporary world enacts systems thinking–– while characterized under the unipolar moment, nations cannot be extricated from the influence of one another in socioeconomic or political hemispheres. Systems thinkers, or those who recognize the positive feedback loop of social focus within international relations, utilize the framework of systems thinking to define and produce the dependent state of a contemporary world order. As individual nations assert their dissidence or allegiance regarding tenets of the unipolar moment, this jockeying underlines the degree to which countries are intertwined with their foreign counterparts. Similarly, multipolarity relies on an interconnected exercise of sovereignty and the consistent political pressure of asserting power over the minutiae to demand awareness of a system’s participants. In addressing the abuses of human rights, the reactivity of multipolarity and globalizing influences offers space for a compelling concept of enforcement–– an economy of accountability.

The economic ramifications of a multipolar world order creates a foundation for both expansion and reform of power and sovereignty. In conceptualizing human rights as social rights, the consideration of the availability of resources within a country directly impacts the type of interventions that a state is able to provide (Mishra 2005). In the context of a unipolar world order with the United States as the dominant shaping force of international relations, this balance of resources and the fiscal potential of nations can be viewed through the American definition and application of globalization–– asserting control over nations through purchasing power to obtain a satisfactory result. Within the multipolar world order, especially in light of de-westernizing and the growing importance of other alliances and collaborators, this singular approach to the systemic relationship between wealth and effectiveness in securing favorable outcomes on an international scale cannot be said to remain unchallenged.

Economic sanctions first became directed from an angle of necessity in order to maintain footing in Western-favorable states during the Cold War and have continued to maintain contemporary importance as a diplomatic method in the face of Russian noncompliance with international criminal law (Oleg Sentsov and Russia 2017). The United States notably favors the use of sanctions as a method of reacting to the violation of human rights, and considers sanctions to be the first course of action towards a transgressive country (Darfur: A “Plan B” to Stop Genocide? 2007).  The weakening dominance of the American dollar in ensuring effective sanctions, threatened by the powerful match of allied workarounds for nations such as Russia and Iran, renders utilizing hard power to ensure international compliance with American-defined standards of human rights increasingly flimsy (Chebankova 2016)(Smith 2002). With new state actors rising to equal influence as American hard power, the internal strength of United States democracy is not sufficient enough to maintain an argument of superiority or to define compliance on a global scale (Islam Societies Review Weekly 2022). Thus, under multipolarity, the waning effectiveness of sanctions within an American-defined scope of globalization will not be an efficient model to enact consequences on states that are violators of human rights.

Sanctions are also markedly less effective within a multipolar order of pooled sovereignty and newly envisioned alliances. In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the South Korean government hesitated to enact their own economic sanctions on the country for risk of affecting the ability for transnational commerce between the two states in fiscally assured depreciation (Rinna 2023). Russia’s alliances with Iran and China prevented sanctions from other world powers such as America and Japan from being wholly effective in limiting military engagement, effectively rendering the eventual sanctions of South Korea and the ensuing economic repercussions to be moot (Rinna 2023). As international debt skyrockets in response to the CoVid-19 pandemic, viewing the economic ability of states to intervene in human rights violations to be limited to sanctions creates a stagnant model of social growth in response (O’Sullivan 2021). The waning of sanctions as a means of levying hard power in an international context dictates the necessity for a different approach to international commerce.

The multipolar world order is largely defined by degrees of interdependence–– reauthoring alliances and favored economic practices allows for a deeper analysis of the relative strengths of sovereignty. As the classical definition of human rights implies, invoking human rights is intended to be a doctrine of self-regulation to hold individual state actors responsible for the duties and obligations of their citizens (Verschraegen 2002). Under a multipolar world order, as unchallenged authority becomes matched by other world players, diplomacy and mutually beneficial settlements are necessary as opposed to the brute force of sanctions and other more intrusive methods of ensuring control in foreign states (Walt 2023). The United States and other world actors may still be able to enjoy the purchasing power established by globalization, but this economic leverage is dependent on the nature of a state’s relationship with sovereignty.

Creating an economy of accountability is an intuitive aspect of state competition. In envisioning human rights through multipolarity, there are significant implications for international human rights law. Unipolarity negatively impacted both the United States and countries within its interest–– particularly in fracturing governmental practices via regime changes internationally and in the domestic sector (Walt 2023) (Islam Societies Review Weekly 2022). Coalitions possess economic weight capable of matching the neoliberal dominance of the United States, as proven by the rising fiscal prospects of the EU (Smith 2002). Alliances grounded in ideological coordination, as opposed to pure political consonance, also stand as a viable international cooperative to accrue influence (Abbas 2022). Thus, recognition of multiple methods of constructing multipolar powers creates a venue to explore international relations and international human rights law with the intent to defend and validate these approaches to governance without neglecting the protections of human rights.

Current international human rights law frames a Western-led precedent that all states hold the “responsibility to protect”–– especially in an international sphere (Trujillo 2012). An inability to address human rights violations in the domestic sphere as a world power indicates a failure to protect, an established feature of a failed state (Trujillo 2012). To preserve the sovereignty of the state, a nation violating human rights on a domestic sphere must be prepared to address the violation or surrender some control to its competitors. Within this exchange of power, preserving domestic and international interests, an economic structure is outlined in a legal hemisphere–– an economy of accountability.

 Applying a Broader Definition of Human Rights

As the framework of international relations becomes more elastic in the face of an unprecedented structure of authority across the world, it is both appropriate and crucial to apply an equally nascent understanding of human rights to a multipolar world. With both a transformative definition of human rights that better represents the need for expansive protections and an increasingly more balanced potential for identifying injustice, abuses of human rights stand to diminish significantly.

Within a modern world, the social function of human rights equates the framework of human rights as capable of preserving social rights–– a dichotomy that dictates new arenas in which human rights can be violated. States have a limited responsibility for the domestic use or inhabiting of cyberspace as well as a responsibility to recognize the need for international cooperation in enforcing protections for human rights in an entity without nationality (Rona, Aarons 2016). Climate change also requires the efforts of multiple nations to combat beyond domestic efforts–– particularly when tensions between the global North and South underline a process of accountability regarding globally impactful responses to posed threats of human rights (Voss 2020). As states become increasingly forced to employ matters of diplomacy as opposed to brute force within the international sphere, multinational concerns of human rights gain relevance as uniquely requiring cooperation and multipolar attention to define, legitimize, and address accordingly.

A multipolar world will be decidedly lopsided, with each individual state in a position of power being considerably weaker than in a unipolar moment (Walt 2023) (O’Sullivan 2021). Although this removes the ability for a state to practice a similar rhetoric to the United States, exercising its position to ensure compliance to a unidimensional standard, it does offer the potential for states to ratify international definitions of human rights and the limitations of the concept of multipolarity in a manner that preserves the sovereignty of states–– therefore offering more stability within world order (Chebankova 2017). When considered with the importance placed on collaboration regarding new dimensions of human rights violations, the strengthened model of international relations coupled with an economy of accountability indicates that a new conceptualization of human rights provides the opportunity for the rapid growth and strength of responses to human rights abuses within a multipolar world order.

Conclusion

Defining human rights beyond nation-state borders, including expanding the definition of human rights to include more theoretical spaces such as cybernetics and environmental protections, strengthens the viable application of an intersection between social rights and the modern legal depiction of human rights. Unipolarity, or the recognition of a single state as enjoying uninhibited power within international relations, reflects several of the most glaring faults of a current unidimensional approach to defining human rights–– chiefly, that a unipolar world order under the United States saw a tepid response to human rights crises and overt perpetration of other abuses through a monolithic model of power without a system of accountability. Multipolarity, in recognizing the authority of several state actors as able to be matched and contested in the international theater, renavigates multinational interests and economic stratagems. Coupled with a new definition of human rights, multipolarity holds great potential for lessening abuses of human rights through establishing an economy of accountability–– an economically and diplomatically conscious balance of authority that prompts a state to respond reflexively towards instances of violations that stand to threaten the world order.

References

Abbas, S. R. (2022). Russia’s Eurasian union dream: a way forwards towards multipolar world order. Journal of Global Faultlines, 9(1), 33-43. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48676221.

Amnesty International. (2022, September 22). USA: “They did not treat us like people”: Race and migration-related torture and other ill-treatment of Haitians seeking safety in the USA. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/amr36/5973/2022/en/?utm_source=annual_report&utm_medium=epub&utm_campaign=2021.

Chebankova, E. (2017). Russia’s idea of the multipolar world order: origins and main dimensions. Post-Soviet Affairs, 33(3), 217-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1060586X.2017.1293394.

Darfur: a “plan b” to stop genocide?: Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 110th Congress. (2007). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110shrg39936/pdf/CHRG-110shrg39936.pdf.

Gordon, A. F. (2006). Abu Ghraib: imprisonment and the war on terror. Race & Class, 48(1), 42-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396806066646.

Islam Societies Review Weekly. (2023, March 20). Replicating US State Department practices, China’s Foreign Ministry issues a report on “The State of Democracy in the United States: 2022”. https://weekly.islamicsocietiesreview.org/2023/03/replicating-us-state-department.html.

Mayroz, E. (2019). Reluctant interveners: America’s failed responses to genocide from Bosnia to Darfur. Rutgers University Press.

Mignolo, W. D. (2016). The making and closing of Eurocentric international law. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, 36(1), 182-195. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/615060.

Mishra, R. (2005). Social rights as human rights- globalizing social protection. International Social Work, 48(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/002087280504870.

Oleg Sentsov and Russia’s human rights violations against Ukrainian citizens: Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 115th Congress. (2017). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115jhrg26681/pdf/CHRG-115jhrg26681.pdf.

O’Sullivan, M. (2021). Globalization dies and gives way to a multipolar world order. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 17(3), 641-651. Retrieved July 3, 2023, from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/usthomlj17&div=33&id=&page=.

Pineo, R. (2020). Immigration crisis: the United States under President Donald J. Trump. Journal of Developing Societies, 36(1), 7-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X19896905.

Rinna, A.V. (2023). The Russia-South Korea relationship after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance. Asia Policy, 18(1), 95-113. doi:10.1353/asp.2023.0009.

Rona, G., Aarons, L. (2016). State responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights obligations in cyberspace (Publication No. 503)[Faculty research paper, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law]. SSRN.

Simpson, G. (2017). From the normative to the transformative: Defining and promoting justice and human rights as part of violent conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Journal of HUman Rights Practice, 9(3), 379-400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hux030.

Smith, S. (2002). The end of the unipolar moment? September 11th and the future of world order. International Relations, 16(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117802016002001.

Trujillo, I. (2012). Human rights and changes to the international legal system. In J. Ballesteros, E. F. Ruiz-Gálvez, P. Talavera (Eds.), Globalization and human rights: Challenges and answers from a European perspective (pp. 141-155). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4020-4_6.

Uscinski, J., Rocca, M. S., Sanchez, G. R., Brenden, M. (2009). Congress and foreign policy: congressional action on the Darfur genocide. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(3), 489-496. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090799.

Verschraegen, G. (2002). Human rights and modern society: a sociological analysis from the perspective of systems theory. Journal of Law and Society, 29(2), 258-281.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00218.

Voss, M. J. (2020). Contesting human rights and climate change at the UN Human Rights Council. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 11(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2020.01.01.

Walt, S. M. America is too scared of the multipolar world. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/07/america-is-too-scared-of-the-multipolar-world/.