Abstract: The issue of rights is truly crucial for the future of international law. Their fruitful application requires the solution of five strategic and preliminary questions. . The first concerns the need to prevent rights themselves, and especially the so-called civil and political ones, from being brandished as a propaganda weapon to support the superiority of a given system over another. The second question, which is intimately linked to the one just stated, concerns the need to ensure that the catalogue of rights set out and the specific characteristics of each of them are not affected by culturally unilateral approaches but instead reflect in the best possible way the profoundly multicultural nature that the international legal system is acquiring after several centuries of exasperated Eurocentrism. The third question then derives from the conditioning exercised by the dominant economic system, which primarily affects the so-called economic, social and cultural rights, but are obviously reflected in all rights, given the undeniable unity of the concept and the existence of multiple links between those of this kind and the others. The fourth question concerns the necessary distinction to be made between fundamental rights and property rights, which cannot be placed on the same plan. The fifth question consists in the very close connection between rights of one or the other kind. International cooperation, sixth question, is of primordial importance in order to satisfy global human rights, since a concerted approach among different States is necessary in order to cope with the many challenges of globalization. Therefore, seventh question, the present climate of war at global level represents an unprecedented threat to human rights, because the crisis focused on the Ukrainian conflict puts in danger the very survival of the human species, but also because it interrupts the necessary cooperation at global level for the satisfaction of human rights, delineating the passage to a model based on different international communities distinct and in struggle among themselves. The main achievement of international law in recent years has been the affirmation of unity between human rights of various kinds accomplished by the Vienna Conference in 1993, overcoming the previous discrepancy between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. Our task is today that of going forward on this path, posing global human rights, in all their multifaceted dimensions, as the content of the new multipolar government of the international society.

 

1. The issue of rights is truly crucial for the future of international law. In effect, the entire problematic nature of the validity of international law is measured on this issue. Given that today everyone talks about human rights and yet never before have those rights been violated in so many countries of the world.

 

Human rights were enunciated in a unified way by the Universal Declaration of 1948 and were subsequently the subject of conventional sources dedicated specifically to more or less broad sectors of the issue. Their fruitful application requires the solution of five strategic and preliminary questions.

 

2. The first concerns the need to prevent rights themselves, and especially the so-called civil and political ones, from being brandished as a propaganda weapon to support the superiority of a given system over another. Historical experience demonstrates how the application of human rights has been favored by the existence of convergences within the international community, such as that which occurred on the occasion of the Agreements adopted at the Helsinki Conference on security and cooperation in Europe 1975. Conversely, however, the existence of deep fault lines of division and rupture within the international community has favored and continues to favor a deeply unsatisfactory selection among rights, according to their geopolitical and strategic suitability for the interests of this or that that. In this sense, there has been talk of constant perversion of rights and freedoms in the international order.

 

3. The second question, which is intimately linked to the one just stated, concerns the need to ensure that the catalogue of rights set out and the specific characteristics of each of them are not affected by culturally unilateral approaches but instead reflect in the best possible way the profoundly multicultural nature that the international legal system is acquiring after several centuries of exasperated Eurocentrism. We must therefore be extremely careful not to impose on the rest of the world our own models, which are undoubtedly in crisis today, and instead to strive to develop institutions and practices which actually meet the requirement of universality, taking into account the fact that the deepening between the issue in question and the different value systems present on the planet represents an unavoidable step in this direction, allowing at the same time an enrichment of the notion from a cultural point of view and an indispensable support for the effective application of the related regulations in the various existing situations. The third question then derives from the conditioning exercised by the dominant economic system, which primarily affects the so-called economic, social and cultural rights, but are obviously reflected in all rights, given the undeniable unity of the concept and the existence of multiple links between those of this kind and the others. The constraints in question also relate mainly to the redistribution of income between the various social sectors and the availability of public funds to promote the concrete satisfaction of rights. 

 

The fourth question concerns the necessary distinction to be made between fundamental rights and property rights, which cannot be placed on the same plan. This distinction appears necessary because the powers exercised by the so-called market constitute a formidable obstacle to the realization of rights. In this sense, we have to acknowledge the existence of a fundamental contradiction between the neoliberal ideology on one side and the realization of human rights on the other. The role of the State cannot be superseded but has to be reinforced, exactly the opposite of what is happening in the Western countries.

 

The fifth question consists in the very close connection between rights of one or the other kind: without the right to life and political rights there are no economic rights, in the form of freedom of association, and, conversely, without the social right to education or health there can be no political rights. But the examples could be many.

 

International cooperation, sixth question, is of primordial importance in order to satisfy global human rights, since a concerted approach among different States is necessary in order to cope with the many challenges of globalization. Environment, control of violence, control of finance, struggle against organized criminality and corruption, taxation/redistribution and many other issues require coordination and common action among the different States.

 

Therefore, seventh question, the present climate of war at global level represents an unprecedented threat to human rights, because the crisis focused on the Ukrainian conflict puts in danger the very survival of the human species, but also because it interrupts the necessary cooperation at global level for the satisfaction of human rights, delineating the passage to a model based on different international communities distinct and in struggle among themselves. It is hence necessary to support the attempts to find a diplomatic and political solution to this conflict, like that promoted by the Chinese government, taking into consideration the rights of all peoples involved to self-determination and those of all States involved to their security.

 

The main achievement of international law in recent years has been the affirmation of unity between human rights of various kinds accomplished by the Vienna Conference in 1993, overcoming the previous discrepancy between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. In this sense, the Vienna Declaration of 1993 proclaimed, in art. 1, the fundamental unity of all human rights[ “5. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.]. This acquisition depends, on the level of anthropological reflection, on the recognition of the existence of a fundamental unity of human needs and aspirations, which makes impracticable any claim to divide the human personality into a multiplicity of aspects and dimensions, but also has its roots in the historical process and in overcoming the ideological division between East and West, which saw the countries belonging to the socialist bloc prioritize economic, social and cultural human rights and those of the Western bloc stand as champions of civil and political human rights. It was actually a largely fictitious opposition and due more than anything else to propaganda and "marketing" reasons of the respective system, in a competition for which the reasons have ceased, despite even recent attempts to resurrect them, always for propaganda purposes. Our task is today that of going forward on this path, posing global human rights, in all their multifaceted dimensions, as the content of the new multipolar government of the international society.

 

(Fabio Marcelli, lawyer, president of the Center for Research and Elaboration on Democracy, former Director of the Institute for International Legal Studies of the National Research Council, Rome)