To what extent does Statelessness deprive people of Human Rights?

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Franklin, 1775).

In an era defined by rapid transformation and unprecedented challenges; the time has come for human rights principles to evolve alongside the shifting tides of post-capitalistic rumbles and to explore the foundational frameworks of the unavailing progress. With this comes a request, a space for the discourse of the next generation of scholars. For in an idealistic vision of human rights research, collaboration supersedes intrusion, apologies replace indifference, acknowledgment precedes denial, and advocacy champions altruism. While a pessimistic tide may prevail within this discipline, stagnation is not an option - it's time for proactive measures to steer human rights discourse towards progressive action. As researchers, we inherit a privilege, access to resources, platforms, and influence. This in itself carries a profound responsibility. It is incumbent upon us to wield this privilege thoughtfully and purposefully, leveraging our positions to amplify marginalised voices, challenge injustices, and drive meaningful change in the pursuit of a more equitable and just world. Thus, within this essay I will attempt to puncture the myth of United Nations (UN) protectionism and argue that the assumptions within the essay question are not only Eurocentric but holds an unnecessary place for liberal institutionalism, enveloped with American exceptionalism based on violations committed in the West. In examining liberalism within the framework of the UN, it becomes apparent that while liberalism has achieved significant initial successes, it also poses inherent dangers that have led to a reluctance to embrace its principles wholeheartedly. Through the lens of four distinct schools of thought and within a Weberian context, liberalism emerges as a paradoxical force; a passive murderer that, while advocating for individual freedoms and rights, often perpetuates systemic injustices and inequalities. By delving into the foundational concepts of natural law espoused by thinkers such as Grotius and Locke, this essay aims to demonstrate how liberalism has effectively stunted the potential of the UN, rendering the issue of statelessness divorced from the fundamental rights of the individual. This will be further explored with empirical cases such as the persecution of the Kurdish community, Polands uneasy history and the UN interventions with Sudan. As well as, investigating the state violations committed by America, and the other five countries in the security council whom all have committed human rights violations to provide a case for UN  serving as an extension of the collective power wielded by its member states, acting as both a forum for diplomatic engagement and a mechanism for advancing national interests on a global stage. Concluding with a nuanced analysis, this essay will contextualise the evolving landscape of state power within the backdrop of economic instability exacerbated by the influence of big tech corporations. Drawing upon Varoufakis's concept of "technofeudalism" and Mason's exploration of financialization, we will navigate the intricate interplay between state sovereignty, economic structures, and the ascendant power of tech giants. In doing so, we will illuminate the challenges posed by the consolidation of wealth and influence in the hands of a few, reshaping traditional notions of governance and statehood in an era characterised by unprecedented technological disruption and economic volatility. Our world is changing and with that, so must our Human Rights.

When embarking on an exploration of the impact of statelessness on human rights, it is essential to commence by unraveling the two fundamental pillars: the essence of human rights and the intrinsic link between rights and states. As the famous proverb goes, "the beginning is a very good place to start," and indeed, this analysis begins with dissecting the multifaceted concept of human rights. Human rights, to ‘ordinary’ people, often embody implicit social obligations intertwined with daily life, (yet media narratives can distort these perceptions). For human rights lawyers, they represent a structured list of legal principles, while for others, they reside somewhere in the spectrum between societal norms and legal constructs, reflecting nuanced interpretations and personal values.  Essentially, although aiming to be universal, even within the same discipline, there are differencing of interpretations. This including, the origin of Human rights, as according to some, ‘it has become a standard scholarly assumption that the concept of ‘human rights’ was invented or discovered in the period… [of] Enlightenment’. (De Bolla, 2014 Pg.22) However, established names such as Grotius would have argued comparatively; illustrated within Grotius’ seminal works, ‘De Jure Belli ac Pacis’(Grotius, 1625). A book which has laid the fathering principles of international law, advocating for war proportionality and just war theory nearly a century before the era of Enlightenment. The divergent interpretations of human rights stem not only from variations in defining their essence but also from the fragmentation inherent in how we approach their study. For instance, a contribution to the conversation indicates scholars have four schools in which they reason with human rights. Dembour 2010, argued that the four schools of thought are, natural, deliberate, protests and discourse: all wielding a different power.  The natural law school posits that rights are inherent to human nature and discoverable through reason. The discourse ethics school emphasises moral dialogue and consensus-building, while the deliberative democracy school focuses on democratic deliberation and public reasoning. In contrast, the protest school challenges established norms and institutions through grassroots activism and collective action, advocating for social change and justice from the bottom-up. While various interpretations and contextual differences in the study of human rights can, and quite often enrich scholarly discourse and drive reform; challenges emerge when international institutions, or perhaps better phrased, institution; prioritise one particular school of thought (natural) while advocating for a political ideology that aligns with another school entirely (discourse). This becomes particularly problematic when applying universality. Of course, pertaining to the United Nations, where their drive for universality collides with a liberal determinism advocating for American exceptionalism and Western interventionism. This is not an original idea as many human right activists have been attempting to illustrate the paradox for some time. In fact, it does not take one too long to read discourse such as, ‘the jurisprudence of human rights is deeply troubled’ (Rouse, 1971), and, ‘It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague’ (Finnis, 2015). In all, Human Rights have failed because Liberalism has succeeded. This examination is pertinent to the central question of the essay; as it is crucial to elucidate the fundamental concept of human rights and understanding that the nexus between rights and states is often undeniable, underscored by the institutional framework provided by entities such as the United Nations. However, if the argument takes a critical stance on the effectiveness and legitimacy of the UN, it prompts a critical inquiry: Can individuals genuinely assert their rights in the absence of a robust international body to uphold and enforce them? We now must examine the establishment of the UN and the roots of Liberalism.  

To begin, Liberalism is a political and philosophical ideology that emphasises individual freedom, equality, and rights as fundamental values. It advocates for limited government intervention in the economy and society to allow for maximum personal liberty and autonomy. Within itself there are a number of contradictions, found when acknowledging liberal morals versus its collaborative stance with neoliberalism. Neoliberalism being a main contributor to the financialisation of people and societies pacification- though I digress. Liberalism first emerged in the Enlightenment era and has since persisted to become a cornerstone of Eurocentric values. Immanuel Wallerstein argues that the disciplinary structures of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are integral components of centrist liberalism's cultural framework. This framework, originating in the nineteenth century following the revolutionary upheavals of the time, serves to establish a post-revolutionary ideological balance between conservatism, liberalism, and socialism that persists in contemporary society. The significance lies in the fact, ‘liberalism disciplinary categories were also applied to institutions, such as the research university, which were reconfigured to endorse its mode of govern-mentality’, (Barnard, 2022. Pg. 59); for example, the UN. For context, the establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945 was profoundly influenced by liberal ideas and principles prevalent at the time. Emerging in the aftermath of World War II, the UN was conceived as a response to the failures of the League of Nations and the devastation wrought by global conflict. Liberal leaders and intellectuals played key roles in shaping the UN's founding documents, such as the UN Charter, which enshrines principles of collective security, international cooperation, and respect for human rights. The liberal influences at the time emphasised the importance of multilateralism, diplomacy, and the rule of law as essential tools for maintaining peace and promoting global stability in the post-war era. The UN, therefore, can be seen as a liberalist mechanism, profoundly discussed in Hale’s (1984) ‘Liberalism Against Itself’. As whilst the text tends to focus primarily on the internal contradictions within the liberal tradition, discussed above, its insights can be applied to critiques of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN). For instance, the UN's commitment to promoting human rights and democracy worldwide can sometimes conflict with its respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs; a tension that reflects broader debates within liberalism about the balance between individual rights and collective interests. The UN’s neglect of the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in upholding liberal morals on the global stage. Despite the pact's noble goals of renouncing war as a means of resolving disputes, the UN's failure to effectively enforce its principles highlights the complexities and limitations of achieving lasting peace through liberal diplomatic agreements alone. By drawing on the themes of internal conflict and ideological tension explored in "Liberalism Against Itself," one can analyse and critique the UN's effectiveness, legitimacy, and ability to address global challenges in a coherent and consistent manner; and with over 250 armed conflicts since the UN’s emergence… It doesn’t take a statistician to acknowledge the stagnant progress. To argue that the UN is ineffective and thus the correlation between belonging to a state and having rights becomes void; there will now be a discussion on empirical examples; one in which is almost always used when arguing for the UN- the Kurdish- I will now attempt to do the contrary.

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness and legitimacy of the UN, the foundational premise that states possess rights while those outside of statehood are devoid of rights must be reexamined. In addition to this, the ambiguous law surrounding what posits a state, makes it increasingly difficult to establish definitive lines between conceptual boundaries and concrete markers. Furthermore, we must hold a place for the emerging debates for boarder abolition and to keep this in the forefront of our minds as we discuss the characteristics of a sovereign state and the consequences of being stateless.  In fact, the vague interpretations of the law have led to researchers arguing ‘for an expanded definition off the international laws of stateless person’ (Bloom, 2021). This is in addition to the accepted de jure (officially recognised) and highly contested de facto (practically experienced) definitions of statelessness; there is a compelling case for introducing a third category: the "socially stateless" individuals. The underrepresentation of ethnic nations within UN law highlights a paradox inherent in the organisation’s approach. While the UN endeavours to uphold principles of natural law, its strict adherence to common law often excludes or marginalises indigenous communities and ethnic nations operating outside of conventional legal frameworks. This discrepancy undermines the UN's efforts to promote justice and inclusivity on a global scale, as it fails to adequately recognise and protect the rights of diverse cultural groups and communities. This is summarised within, ‘it simply means that indigenous sovereignty...cannot be based on common law and state decisis’ (Latif, 2016). The UN leaves minimal room for governance over sovereignty; peculiar with the UN was set up to deter authoritative totalitarianism.

Thus, the ongoing persecution of the Kurdish community can be attributed more to the United Nations’ failure than to the Kurds’ inability to attain sovereign statehood. The history of the Kurds is marked by a persistent struggle for autonomy and self-determination, rooted in their aspiration to establish a unified Kurdish homeland, often referred to as Greater Kurdistan. This vision encompasses Kurdish-majority regions in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, where Kurds have faced centuries of oppression, marginalisation, and denial of their cultural and political rights. The UN and other international organisations have historically been reluctant to pressure states such as Syria. There has been a failure to address the treatment of the Kurdish and a continuation of political and economic relations despite the government's failure to adhere to international agreements. This exemplifies a discrepancy between international legislation, such as the 1954 UN Convention, and its practical implementation. As the ineffectiveness of international laws becomes apparent, other countries have similarly utilised legal mechanisms to deny citizenship rights to specific ethnic minority communities. For instance, approximately 100,000 Kurds living in Lebanon remain without Lebanese citizenship today. However, despite facing significant challenges and resistance from regional powers, Kurdish nationalist movements have continued to advocate for the realisation of Greater Kurdistan, seeking recognition, sovereignty, and the right to govern themselves within their ancestral lands; all without the backing of the UN. Here I shall draw upon the heartland theory (Mackiner, 1904) to suggest no international institution, can prevent nor stop war in a geographically vulnerable country and that grassroots organisations such as the Kurdistan Democratic Party are far more effective in the governance of nations providing rights.  The Heartland Theory suggests that controlling the “heartland” of Eurasia, an area stretching from Eastern Europe to Central Asia, would confer geopolitical dominance due to its strategic location and resources. This theory is relevant to Kurdistan, as the Kurds inhabit a region strategically positioned in the heart of the Middle East, coveted by regional powers and superpowers alike. A rose between two thorns. It’s paramount to understand geopolitical motivations for war and conflicts does not discriminate sovereign states as Polands uneasy history exemplifies. For instance, Poland became a battleground between Germany and the Soviet Union during World War II, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact effectively agreeing to divide Poland and control its strategic heartland. Given that this occurred before the establishment of the United Nations, it is imperative to examine a contemporary case example wherein the UN intervened and granted statehood in attempt to mitigate conflict, only to witness its subsequent failure.

 Sudan’s history is marked by decades of internal conflicts, ethnic tensions, and human rights abuses, culminating in the secession of South Sudan in 2011 after a prolonged civil war. The UN intervened to address the humanitarian crisis and facilitate the peace process, ultimately leading to the referendum that granted South Sudan independence. In other words, the desired outcome of the Kurds. However, as theoretically argued earlier, in practicality the UN does not have a big enough reach within their framework to provide adequate safety. This is illustrated in the devastating genocide still occurring in South Sudan despite its title as an autonomous state. In fact, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as well as the UN Children’s fund (UNICEF) and the Worlds Food Programme (WFP) all said, ‘they were facing a shortfall of more than $400m which was affecting their work.’ (UNICEF, 2016); and all have reported that they ‘have not reached their desired funding level for the year’ (UN, 2017). The deficiency of resources within the UN becomes increasingly concerning when considering situations like South Sudan, where ‘tens of thousands of people sought protection at the military bases of the United Nations peacekeeping Mission’ (UN, 2013). Insufficient resources hinder the UN’s ability to effectively provide essential services, security, and support to displaced populations and conflict-affected areas, exacerbating humanitarian crises and impeding peacekeeping efforts. Therefore, through the analysis of the Kurdish diaspora, Poland’s historical struggles, the Heartland Theory, and UN intervention in Sudan, one can ascertain the inefficiency of the UN in safeguarding states, thereby challenging the premise of the essay question.

As a petelutmet, the erosion of human rights credibility within the UN is starkly evident through the repeated transgressions of the five permanent Security Council members. The UN Security Council serves as a key instrument within the UN; comprising fifteen member states, it includes five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), each possessing the authority to veto significant resolutions. While I’ll provide a brief overview of the main human rights violations perpetrated by the five permanent members, it’s important to note that this list won’t be exhaustive. This essay aims to highlight the prevalence of such violations, emphasising that they are far from isolated incidents but rather a systemic issue within the framework of the UN Security Council. However, due to the scope of this essay, the list will not cover every instance but will serve to illustrate the broader pattern of behaviour. However, we will delve into the influence of American exceptionalism, critically examining the notion that the United States is the founder of human rights, putting this assertion to the test within the context of contemporary human rights discourse. Digressing, the credit of the security council is tarnished via; China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims, the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war and its actions in the Suez Canal crisis, as well as its provision of weapons to Saudi Arabia used in Yemen, France’s historical decolonisation processes, and Russia’s treatment of Chechen Muslims serve as prominent examples. These instances not only highlight the severity of human rights abuses but also underscore the need for a critical examination of the role played by the Security Council members in upholding international human rights standards. In my personal view, this can be attributed to the lucid liberal frameworks promoted by the United States and American exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is this peculiar concept that America has a unique role to play in international affairs based on the American revolution practised upon democratic republic principles. American exceptionalism has a broad influence encompassing, ‘Political Freedom: The belief that the United States provides a unique level of political freedom and democracy, distinguishing it from other nations. Economic Opportunity: The idea that America offers unparalleled opportunities for economic success and upward mobility, often associated with the "American Dream”. As well as Moral Superiority: The conviction that the United States holds a special moral responsibility to promote liberty, democracy, and human rights globally, often framed as a beacon of light or a city upon a hill’ (Ignatieff, 2005, Pg.3) America’s dogmatic approach to exceptionalism is also evident in the practice of endorsing international human rights conventions but subsequently failing to adhere to their stipulations. While the United States' track record of treaty compliance is not necessarily worse than that of other democratic nations, its exceptional political significance magnifies the impact of its noncompliance compared to less powerful states. Instances of noncompliance include neglecting to notify UN human rights bodies when deviating from treaty standards, declining cooperation with UN human rights rapporteurs seeking access to US facilities and refusing to halt executions in line with the Vienna Treaty on Consular Obligations. Furthermore, the unruly War on Terror involving Guantanamo Bay and the dismissal of responsibility by Governance as well as the media failing to be a watchdog illustrates the separation between reality and exceptionalism deep rooted in americas foreign affairs. To demonstrate, as the Abu Ghraib images brought the torture debate into daylight, the Bush administration's official stance remained that America does not engage in torture. In fact, it was noted that there was an ‘avoidance of the t-word by officials in the Bush administration who at most spoke of abuse and ‘humiliation’ (Susan Sontag, 2004). These international violations are not stand alone and can be witnessed even within their domestic policies. Policies in which illustrate the liberal pacification of reform. For instance, the Death penalty, according to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) titled “Right to Life,” it states that every human being has the inherent right to life and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life. This article prohibits the use of the death penalty, except for the most serious crimes and under strict legal procedures. However, America the nation of liberties, ‘entered a reservation to the ICCPR that allows it to use capital punishment to the extent permitted under the U.S. Constitution. But for this reservation, the United States would be in violation of all of the above conditions of Article 6.’ (Human Rights Watch, 1993). In sum, the UN’s ability to protect states, and thus citizens rights, is tarnished at fault of the Security council violations and American Exceptionalism.  

In preceding discussions, I have disregarded the role of states’ autonomous vehicles, such as constitutions, judicial systems, and legislation, in safeguarding the rights of their citizens. However, as we now attempt to delve into the discourse, we should consider emerging concepts like technofeudalism, as proposed by Varoufakis (2023). Technofuedlaism became known when scholars such as Mason (2016) introduced the new era of our socioeconomic system, post-capitalism. These two notions attempt to explain the potential and downfall of shared ownership, automation and decentralised networks. They offer a metaphorical diagram of new power structures in which technology and data are concentrated in the hands of a few. The emergence of post-capitalism and technofeudalism presents potential challenges to the power of the state, as both concepts propose alternative economic and governance models. In post-capitalism, the rise of shared ownership and decentralised networks may erode the state's authority over economic affairs, while technofeudalism's concentration of technology and data in the hands of a few powerful entities could undermine the state's ability to regulate effectively, ultimately leading to a shift in power dynamics away from traditional governmental institutions.  Either way the tide suggests decreasing state authority and therefore decreased state protection. While this may appear futuristic and irrelevant to some, it is already unfolding, demanding immediate attention if we are to effectively safeguard human rights. In China, Alibaba, founded by Jack Ma, has grown into one of the world’s largest e-commerce and technology companies, wielding considerable economic and social influence. However, its rapid expansion and dominance in various sectors have raised concerns about its relationship with the Chinese government and its impact on state power. Alibaba’s success has challenged traditional state-controlled industries and disrupted established economic models, leading to tensions with regulatory authorities. In recent years, the Chinese government has taken steps to rein in the influence of tech giants like Alibaba through regulatory measures aimed at curbing monopolistic practices, protecting consumer rights, and ensuring data security. However, with the regulatory measures negatively impacting on China’s economy many had to be redacted. Within this there are four key assumptions to draw upon, the first two being, ‘Big-tech firms are circumventing the State’s overreach, as is evident in many countries (for example WhatsApp [Meta] violating the Indian government’s regulative guidelines); (2) the State is becoming dependent on Big-tech (US’ failure to regulate Apple, Amazon due to its reliance on the growth, expansion, and power of its big-tech), other than the widely studied trend, wherein tech firms were dependent on the State for development and expansion’ (Shrivastava, 2023, Pg.48). The latter two being the state’s exhaustive efforts to limit the power of big tech and the pacification and resurgence of the enterprises. Thus, a systematic examination of big tech and state control indiocvates a power transition harming the states ability, autonomous from the UN, to protect citizen rights.

Barnard, P. and Shapiro, S., 2022. Un-Noveling Brown: Liberalism and Its Literary Discontents. Early American Literature [online], 57 (2), 549–554. Available from: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/860129 [Accessed 29 Mar 2024].

Bloom, T. and Kingston, L. N., eds. 2021. Introduction: Opening a conversation about statelessness, governance, and the problem of citizenship. In: Statelessness, governance, and the problem of citizenship [online]. Manchester University Press. Available from: https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781526156426/9781526156426.00006.xml [Accessed 30 Mar 2024].

De Bolla, P., 2014. On the conceptual incoherence of universal human rights. Critical Quarterly [online], 56 (4), 17–28. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/criq.12158 [Accessed 29 Mar 2024].

Dembour, Marie-Bénédicte. “What Are Human Rights? Four Schools of Thought.” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40390000. Accessed 30 Mar. 2024.

Finnis, J., 2015. Grounding Human Rights in Natural Law. The American Journal of Jurisprudence [online], 60 (2), 199–225. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ajj/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ajj/auv013 [Accessed 30 Mar 2024].

Grotius ., 1925. Transactions of the Grotius Society. Volume 10. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1925. pp. xxi, 188. 7s. 6d. net. American Journal of International Law [online], 19 (4), 842–843. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0002930000770540/type/journal_article [Accessed 29 Mar 2024].

Hagemann, A., 2024. The Power of Practices: UN Peacekeeping Detention in South Sudan. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding [online], 18 (1), 19–42. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17502977.2023.2300253 [Accessed 1 Apr 2024].

Ignatieff, Michael. “Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights.” Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 1–26, http://www.jstor.org.sussex.idm.oclc.org/stable/j.ctt7skx6.3. Accessed 3 Apr. 2024. 

Tas, Latif. "How International Law Impacts on Statelessness and Citizenship: The Case of Kurdish Nationalism, Conflict and Peace." International Journal of Law in Context 12, no. 1 (03, 2016): 42-62, https://sussex.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-international-law-impacts-on-statelessness/docview/1767379285/se-2 (accessed March 30, 2024).

Mackinder, H. J., 1904. The Geographical Pivot of History. The Geographical Journal[online], 23 (4), 421. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1775498?origin=crossref [Accessed 9 Apr 2024].

Moyn, S., 2023. Liberalism against itself: Cold War intellectuals and the making of our times. New Haven London: Yale University Press.

Nacos, B. L. and Bloch-Elkon, Y., 2018. US Media and Post-9/11 Human Rights Violations in the Name of Counterterrorism. Human Rights Review [online], 19 (2), 193–210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-018-0498-2 [Accessed 3 Apr 2024].

Shrivastava, M., 2023. Emerging Dynamics Between the Chinese State and Big-Tech: The Case of Alibaba. Strategic Analysis [online], 47 (1), 19–29. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09700161.2023.2181424 [Accessed 4 Apr 2024].

Anon., 2016. SOUTH SUDAN - SUDAN: UN Refugee Warning. Africa Research Bulletin: Economic, Financial and Technical Series [online], 53 (4), 21237B-21238C. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6346.2016.07033.x [Accessed 1 Apr 2024].

Anon., 2017. South Sudan – UN Appeal. Africa Research Bulletin: Economic, Financial and Technical Series [online], 54 (4). Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6346.2017.07661.x [Accessed 1 Apr 2024].

Varoufakis, Y., 2023. Technofeudalism: what killed capitalism. London: The Bodley Head