By Chang Jian
The concept of human rights has already become the shared value of the majority of countries in the international community. However, realization of human rights is decided not only by lofty ideals but also pragmatic values. That is, can human rights be used for solving major issues of society?With regard to the pragmatic value of human rights, the relationship between human rights and defusing public disputes is one of the questions debated by academic researchers and practitioners. Their focus is whether human rights protection helps indefusing public disputes.
I.The domestic and international debate on the relationship between human rights protection and defusing public disputes
1.International research
Research conducted in foreign countries on the relationship between human rights protection and defusing public disputes already has decades of history. In “Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective,” Michelle Parlevlietanalyzed the debate between researchers of human rights protection and researchers concerned with defusing public disputes and divided the development of the debate into three stages.
The early research on the relationship between human rights and defusing conflicts focused on discrepancies between human rights activists and those involved in defusing conflicts and the stressful relationship between them when they worked at the same time in the same place. The discourse during this stage was contradictory and confrontational. Pauline Baker and Kent Arnold categorized the controversies between the two fields into four aspects.
Tablet 1：Discrepancies between human rights and defusing conflicts1
Researchers of this stage argued that consultation should be pursued as a means ofdefusing public disputes and ending violent conflict. However, human rights protection is primarily concerned with the ethical dimension of conflicts, which requires not only the pursuit of justice but also agreements compatible with human rights standards. Such requirements might restrict possibilities for defusing conflicts or complicate that process. Other researchers believed that the timeframe and focus of the two fields are contradictory. The work of defusing conflicts puts mostenergy into short-term solutionsand addressingrash actions that lead to conflicts and is aimed at ending violence as soon as possible. Human rights protection work underscores long-term solutions targeted at the genesis of conflicts and exploresdemocratic stability. It should be noted that the time period that researchers studied was when crises were going on. Intervention was focused on conflict settlement and peace was taken to mean “negative peace” or eliminating violence.
Debates in the second stage were mainly about the complementaritybetween human rights protection and defusing conflicts. More and more of those involved in defusing conflicts acknowledged that the end of violence is not the only goal in settling conflicts. They realized that human rights protection and defusing conflicts share common goals, such as restricting the abuse of power and the establishment of a stable and peaceful society on the basis of legality, fairness and democracy. Authors of representative literature for this stage mainly include Wilhelm Kaufmann, George Bisharat, Bernie Sanders, Michelle Parlevliet and Ellen Lutz. These scholars acknowledgedthe possible stressful relationship between human rights protection and defusing conflicts. The main discourse at this stage concerned complementarity and coordination, but not competition and contradiction. They advocatedmore cooperation, more mutual learning from each other and more cross-fertilization.
In the debate at this stage, researchersemphasized that violent conflict in generalwill cause infringement of human rights, but infringement of human rights can also lead to violent conflict. Regarding infringement of human rights as a cause of conflict, the time coveredby the debate was extended from the time of the crises to before and after the crises. Defusing conflicts was more important than conflict settlement and the goal was also transformed from the previous goal ofnegative peace to positive peace. They acknowledged that realization of lasting peace requires integration of human rights protection into the peace process. Human rights protection was the common basis for cooperation between parties in conflicts.
The most challenging question at this stage was how to satisfy the demands of justice while ending violence. In the previous stage, the answer to this question was one or the other. In this stage, scholarshad more discussions regarding compromises between justice and peace, or the balance between short-term and long-term goals. Some believed that timing was quite important, saying under circumstances when peace was urgently needed, not finding out who was responsible for rights infringement might benefit the general cause of justice. Time was on the side of the people who pursued justice. Something politically impossible might be possible in the future.
With the international community and various countries paying more attention to human rights, there came the third stage of debate. Compared to the previous two stages, the relationship between human rights protection and defusing conflict, whether contradictory or complementary, was not the focal point anymore. The complementarity of the two was regarded as the starting point for related research. Major topics included: 1) human rights and peace treaties; 2) justice in transformation; and 3) the role of human rights activists in conflict settlement and peace building.
The first topic concerned human rights clauses in peace treaties and how those clauses should be drafted. Scholars argued whether inclusion of those clauses would affect human rights protection in the settlement period and afterwards. With regard to implementation of peace treaties, many clauses were general and abstract, which meant that during implementation additional discussions were required to solve problems related to the meaning of specific treaty clauses. Analyses of different peace processes showed that inclusion of human rights protection was not an impediment to peace treaties. Sometimes the treaties served as leverage to encourage discussions of human rights and helped build confidence and trust between the two parties to the conflict. In the process of reaching treaties, human rights could promote the process, forming a type of common language, which each side could use to deal with their basic demands. A human rights framework could be used to design peace processes, with different topics of negotiation being arranged according to different timetables. Therefore, the absolute demand for stopping violence could be coordinated with practical measures related to reform and accountability. Stopping violence was usually the theme of initial negotiations, such as truces. Practical measures were sought for realizing more comprehensive treaties. In this way, justice and peace might not be mutually exclusive choices, but instead a management issue:How can one stop violence while keeping all possibilities on the table for the future?
The second issue related to justice in transformation is how can a society deal with massive human rights infringement in its recent history. Research on this topic has been extensive. The consensus reached by scholars is that dealing with past violenceis animportant part of building sustained peace. In a societythat hasexperienced excessive violence, justice in transformation should be included in the agenda of social debate. Individuals have the right to know the fate or truth of missing people, as well as get information about other infringements on human rights. People responsible for the violencemust be punished. However, scholars disagree with each other on how to push forward justice in transformation in an effective, appropriate and legitimate way and how to combine all these measures in a given situation.
The third topic concernsthe role of human rights activists in conflict settlement and peace building. Scholars mainly discussed the role of United Nations organizations, government officials involved with human rights and nongovernmental organizations in alleviating violence and promoting peace talks.
The review of the three stages of debateregarding the relationship between human rights protection anddefusing conflict shows the obvious transformation ofscholars’ understanding from an inherentlystressful relationship to a complementary relationship. Many scholars realized that promotion of human rights protection was vitally important to long-term social stability and development. There can be no peace without justice. The lack of justice is frequently the reason for a lack of peace.Of course, differences still exist between conflict solution and human rights protection in terms of priorities and methods. As Parlevliet pointed out, the relationship between the two should be better understood as challenges to be dealt with, rather than absolute and unsurmountable contradictions. People need to study more about how to more effectively integrate defusing conflict with human rights protection.
2.Domestic research
Defusing public conflict has not long been studied as a specialized area in China. Therefore, academic literature on the relationship between human rights protection anddefusing public conflict is quite limited. Nonetheless, thereis a lot of literature and research papers on human rights and social harmony, human rights, stability maintenance and social dispute settlement as well as the relationship between human rights and the response to mass incidents, which might be regarded as the Chinese expression regarding this theme.
On the relationship between human rights protection and social harmony and stability, many scholars believe that the two depend on each other, are mutually conditional and promote each other. GaoTeng said in “Analysis on the Relationship BetweenHuman Rights and Social Stability Based on Hot Issues in Society,”“Social stability is a precondition for guaranteeing human rights, whereas human rights protection might strengthen and enhance social stability and development.”2 Shao Wenhong said, “Safeguarding stability is a key condition for addressing complicated contradictions and maintaining national security, and a primary precondition for protecting and ensuring human rights. Fully respecting and ensuring human rights might effectively mobilize initiative and creativity among all sectors of the society, enhance factors for harmony to the greatest possible degree, reduce disharmony to the greatest possible degree, and enhance social harmony and stability.”3 Lin Zhe said, “The basis for social stability is respecting and ensuring human rights. The purpose of stability is to better respect and ensure human rights. Human rights protection is a social stability value orientation; it requires respecting and ensuring human rights in everyday work and life. Social stability is achieved where human rights are respected and ensured.”4 Hu Zhongming said, “Social stability is a primary guarantee for human rights. Only social stability can ensure people’s rights to existence and development. Meanwhile, only if basic human rights are ensured can social stability be achieved.”5
On the relationship between human rights protection and stability maintenance and social dispute settlement, scholars argue that the two, while being interdependent and inseparable, are also contradictory. Zhang Jingyue and Zhang Binfeng said, “Respecting and ensuring human rights is the basis for maintaining stability, which is the means for realizing human rights protection. The two are interdependent and inseparable. Stability maintenance should be conducted on the basis of ensuring the individual rights of citizens. Otherwise, stability maintenance will lose its basis. The goal of maintaining social stability is to ensure human rights, stabilize popular feelings and realize sustained development between human beings and the society. If the concept of maintaining stability is correct, the method and design of stability maintenance will be sound and stability maintenance will operate well, and stability maintenance and human rights protection will be harmonious and unified. However, the abovementioned is only a hypothesis and an aspiration. There is a long way to go for society to achieve all the goals mentioned above.”They further said, “Respecting and ensuring human rights are the primary value pursuits of stability maintenance, which is the means for realizing the civil rights of citizens. Respecting and ensuring human rights require innovation in maintaining stability.”6 Ma Hui and CaiShufang said, “Ensuring human rights and maintaining stability, which enhance each other and develop dialectically, are inseparable. Further developing human rights requires the wise handling of the relationship between ensuring rights and maintaining stability, both of which should be legalized and operate under the legal framework. Thus, long-term stability of the country may be achieved and the rights of the people ensured.”7
On human rights protection and dealing with mass incidents, many scholars believe that human rights protection should be strengthened in the process of dealing with mass incidents. Liu Zhiqiang said, “Mass incidents are political and legal issues that should be resolved by rights relief efforts. The rule of law, human rights protection and social harmony are closely connected. Whether or not citizens’ rights are fully protected and whether or not they receive redress is an important indicator of a society operating according to the rule of law. Only if, under conditions of tolerance and equality, a society persists in the concept of human rights protection and uses the standards of the rule of law to provide redress when rights have been infringed can we guarantee the construction of a harmonious society.”8 Jian Min and Hu Shu’e said, “There are too many limitations on human rights and a lack of human rights protection during mass incidents.”They specifically analyzed procedures for human rights protection during mass incidents, such as before, during and after the incidents.9
Generally speaking, domestic scholars argue that the two are interdependent as well as contradictory. They generally believe that infringement on human rights results in social instability and various mass incidents, underlining that the government should respect and ensure human rights to a greater degree when dealing with mass incidents.
II.Active Role of Human Rights Protection in Solving Public Disputes
Human rights protection and defusing public disputes are not contradictory. As two different types of work, they overlap with each other in their scope and goals.
Human rights protection enhances the defusing of public disputes mainly in three aspects.
First, some large-scale, sustained and intense public conflicts often originate from infringements on human rights. Therefore, preventing the violation of human rights would remove the root cause of such public conflicts. Human rights, as the rights to which human beings are entitled, seek to satisfy people’s basic demand forsurvival, development and dignity, such as the fundamental rights to life, property, daily necessities, social insurance and health; the rights to individual freedom, freedom from torture, justice and relief; the rights to family and marriage; the rights to nondiscrimination and privacy; the rights to work, education and various freedoms and political activities. Without the basic satisfaction of such needs, public conflicts might occur. With full protection for such demands and thus basic human rights, public conflicts might be eliminated at the very root.
Second, in the process of defusing public conflicts, protection of human rights could most easily become the common ground for all parties and thus the basis for reconciliation of all parties concerned in the conflict. In the market economy, society strives for overall development by encouragingthe individual pursuit of prosperity. When each individual pursues his or her maximum interest, there will be conflicts of interest. In defusing conflict, it is necessary to find common ground among all parties to the conflict that will serve as the base line forthe activities and behavior of all parties. This will cause all parties’ advocacy to be restricted. Protection of human rights means satisfaction of the basic needs of each individual and the “base line” should be the common ground reached by all parties. If human rights protection is ignored by any individual, protection of his or her basic rights might accordingly be in danger. The base line is to respect and ensure the basic human rights of all parties concerned in the conflict, and to restrict the interest claims ofall parties, thus helping to lay a basis for dispute settlements.
Third, human rights protection helpstransform public conflicts, provides positive conditions for solving conflicts and lays a solid foundation for long-lasting stability. Experience in defusing conflicts proves that intransigence among various parties in public conflicts is rooted in severe imbalance in the social system, structure and culture, which lead to “structural violence” and “cultural violence.”If such systems, structures and culture are not transformed, public conflict mayrecur and sometimes develop into large-scale, sustained and even intense conflict. Considering this, researchers, on the basis of conflict solution theories, developed in the 1990s a conflict transformation theory that focused on transforming situations, structures, regulations, matters and parties, in order to defuse conflicts. From the conflict transformation perspective, the more fundamental function of human rights protection in solving conflicts became apparent. Parlevlietpointed out that in conflict transformation, human rights – as regulations, structural systems, relationships and processes – will have an important effect. Legislation on human rights would regulate all parties in conflicts and any solution to the conflict should be within the standardized framework of human rights legislation. Social resources should be allocated based on the principle of protecting human rights equally. The structure of governance and the mode of power should ensure equal satisfaction for each individual. The dignity of each individual should be acknowledged and people should be asked to respect each other. Noindividualshould infringe on another’s human rights in order to realize his or her own rights. Citizens are entitled to rights and the state must assume itsresponsibility. Respecting and ensuring human rights is the basic responsibility of the state. In the conflict transformation process, basic values and principles of human rights, such as dignity, participation, tolerance, protection of marginalized people and minors, and accountability should be pursued.10
III.Coordination Between Human Rights Protection and Defusing Public Conflicts
Human rights protection and defusing public conflicts involve different perspectives for analysis and work. Although the two in general promoteeach other, at the same time they also contradict each other. The disparities and contradictions are as follows:
First, there is a disparity between principle and flexibility. Human rights, embodiedas concrete and clear ethics and legal principles, arealways guided by principles. Meanwhile, defusing conflicts is result-oriented. Flexibility should be adopted in solving conflicts in order to persuade the parties involved in the conflict to concede, reconcile and reach an accord between them. The disparity between principle and flexibility makes human rights protectors and conflict solvers contradict each other in planning their work or choosing their strategies.
Second, there is a disparity between respective goals. The goal of human rights protectors is to help people whose human rights have been infringed upon and punish human rights violators. The goal of conflicts solvers is to help reach reconciliation among all parties concerned in the conflict, without specifying who is right and who is wrong, help build mutual trust, and encourage all parties concerned to find a resolution that might be acceptable to all parties. Therefore, in certain stages of solving conflicts, excessive emphasis on punishing human rights violators might do harm to building cooperation and trust, and consequently damage smooth reconciliation.
Third, there is a disparity between choices. Human rights protection requires practices that are advocated by human rights protection, and these may not sufficiently defuse conflicts. The methods used by those who defuse conflicts are sometimes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable to human rights protectors. Thus, human rights protectors and conflict solvers make quite different judgments about the very same practices. How to effectively coordinate their work should be further studied.
Case studies show that coordination between human rights protection and defusing public conflicts is quite different in different cases. However, some common coordination principles can be summarized.
First, the basic principles ofhuman rights protection and the flexible strategy for defusing public disputes should be combined. The principle of human rights protection has a certain universality, but concrete conditions should be well considered in different conflict situations. Expansion and escalation of conflict would further infringe on human rights. Therefore, avoiding the extension, expansion and escalation of conflict is the primary goal of protecting human rights. At that time, advocacy of concrete human rights demands and modes of expression should be subject to strategies for defusing public conflicts.
Second, overall requirements for human rights protection should be divided into different stages. In the preventive stage, equal expression and fair participation should be emphasized, with a focus on equal protection of individual rights. In the crisis management stage, efforts should be made to curb infringements on human rights. In the conflict solution stage, the rights of all parties concerned should be respected equally. In the post-conflict stage, construction of a system for protecting human rights should be emphasized.
Third, the spirit of human rights should permeate the process of defusing public conflicts; it should be regarded as a restriction, not an impediment, to the selection of tools and methods for defusing conflicts. Different tools and methods may be employed to solve public conflicts, including conflict control, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judgments and implementation. Human rights protection does not restrict employment of such tools and methods. However, respecting and ensuring human rights are a “marginal constraint”11 in using those tools, and restrict the boundaries for using those tools.
Reviewing the history of human rights development in the world, we can see that every step in enhancing human rights goes together with defusing social conflict. Every stage of improvement of human rights protection leads to a new stage of stable social development. In contemporary China, a time when social conflicts often occur, the organic combination of human rights protection and defusing public conflict would greatly enhance the long-term stability of the society.
(The author is deputy director of the Human Rights Research Center at Nankai University, and vice dean and professor at the Zhou Enlai School of Government Management at Nankai University.)
1.Pauline Baker, Conflict Resolution Versus Democratic Governance: Divergent Paths to Peace? In: Chester Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall (eds.), Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to International Conflict, Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1996, pp. 37-50. Kent Arnold, Exploring the Relationship between Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, in: ROEUM (National Institute for Dispute Resolution), 1998, 36 (December), pp. 1-5.
2.GaoTeng, “Analysis on the Relationship BetweenHuman Rights and Social Stability Based on Hot Issues in Society”.
3.Shao Wenhong, “Safeguarding Social Stability and Ensuring Human Rights in Line with Law – in Commemoration of the 60thAnniversary oftheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,” Dong Yunhu, Chen Zhengong, eds., Development, Safety, Human Rights, China International Press, 2009, p. 161.
4.Lin Zhe, “Respecting andEnsuringHuman Rights is the Basis for Stability,”Legal Daily, Jan. 25, 2010.
5.Hu Zhongming,“On Deng Xiaoping’s Views on Human Rights and China’s Social Stability,”Journalof the Party School of CPC Shanxi Provincial Committee, vol. 5, 2004.
6.Zhang Jingyue, Zhang Binfeng,“On Human Rights Protection in Innovative Management of Keeping Stability”.
7.Ma Hui, CaiShufang,“On Human Rights Protection in Keeping Stability,”Social Sciences (New Theories Edition), vol. 3, 2012.
8.Liu Zhiqiang, “Human Rights Protection and Social Harmony Construction, from Mass Incidents Perspective,”Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Sciences Edition), vol. 3, 2006.
9.Jian Min, Hu Shu’e,“Human Rights Protection in Mass Incidents”.
10.Michelle Parlevliet,Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective，Berghof Conflict Research: Berghof Handbook Dialogue No.9, June 2010.
11.Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, 1974, He Huaihong, trans., Chinese Social Sciences Press, 1991, p. 42.
