The subject of human rights has received significant focus since its inception almost 50 years ago. This essentially came at the height when numerous atrocities were being committed upon the innocent humans, which was then having an impact on the sanctity of human life. This prompted the formulation of policy initiatives from key participating nations with an aim of offering a lasting solution to the impending human rights issue, which eventually led to the establishment of the human right commission. The author brings into life the status quo of the impending human rights dilemma in the setting of Congo. Jost (1998) remarks, “The U.N’s critiques of human rights practices in Congo have not stopped the killings or had any noticeable effect on Kabila’s policies.”
In essence, the individuals being blamed in the progression of the human rights problem are United Nations and other key advocacy groups. These are amid significant strategies, which have been formulated with an aim of solving the problem. Jost (1998) observes that “Despite those accomplishments, human rights advocates acknowledge that the U.N. and advocacy groups have often been powerless to prevent the most blatant instances of human rights violations or to ensure compliance from governments that profess commitments to human rights.” This essentially leads to the identification of the major concern leading to the status quo seen in most countries, which is the lack of implementation of an efficient framework that will enable compliance to the ratified Human Rights proposal by the participating countries. Therefore, this results in the shift of blames by viewing the duty of compliance as being centered on one party. Stone (1988) objects “Inducements might be applied when the cause of the problem is understood as intentional-the effect of intended consequences of purposeful action” (p.216). This produces the notion that in as much as the proposed solutions appear as being practical, the lack of involvement during the actual formulation of the policies produces significant challenges after their ratification as reliable international law instruments.
The major hindrance in the attainment of the human rights policy objectives is the potential lack of an overseeing authority chosen by the governing bodies, which are the United Nations and advocacy groups. This is effectively demonstrated by the series of genocides committed in Rwanda and Bosnia under the very watchful eyes of the international community (Jost, 1998). This shows the lack of a proactive approach towards the addressing of arising human rights problems in the modern day human society, which puts in jeopardy the efforts being made to bring some of the atrocities to an end. According to Roth, “Human rights principles are broadly accepted, but the human rights are nonetheless violated widely” (Jost, 1998). Therefore, this results in a situation of double standards being condoned by parties to the ratified conventions.
Moreover, major milestones have already been achieved in the attainment of policy initiatives; however, there is a major lack in terms of commitment in terms of the proposed strategies. Stone identifies this as an inextricable aspect of social measurement (Stone, 1988). For instance, the Universal Declaration was a major milestone, nevertheless the declaration was not binding as it took two decades to draft the critical rights covenants such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (Jost, 1998). As a result, this produces a structural failure in the policy framework, while on the other hand the overseeing authorities, in this case, the United Nations, are unwilling to admit the real reasons citing social reasons, which produces an escapist nature.