DEFINING THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES AND INDIVIDUALS TO INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY
The past year was characterised by a glaring dichotomy of lowly despair and high-flying hope. The states of Iraq and Syria cease to exist, with the plight of millions of refugees undeniably attesting to this inconvenient truth. Globally a cool down experienced by Asian economies previously considered to be the engines of development around the world have rekindled concerns of another economic crisis, while the strengthening of El Nino with its ensuing extreme weather conditions threatens regions from the Horn of Africa, across South-East Asia, and all the way to southern parts of South America. Yet 2015 was also a year of landmark political achievements and diplomatic breakthroughs. Standing at the forefront are the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (which includes the new Sustainable Development Goals) and the agreement reached at the Paris climate conference(COP21).
In spite of the guiding role we tend to confer on such documents, not to mention the time and effort required to negotiate them, many critics regard them with restraint, rightfully emphasizing their lack of ambition, evident partiality or even both. In response, practitioners and analytics alike remind us that politics remains the art of the possible, and that high-flying commitments are of little worth if states are not able to follow up on them with concrete actions. While it is hard to dismiss either of the two groups’ remarks in their own right, considering them together against the backdrop of contemporary global challenges raises an even more perplexing question – can the realm of global politics in the 21st century accommodate a single set of principles that would guide our developmental efforts at different levels of governance, across issue areas, and in various cultural environments, and if so, which international forum is best suited to define such principles?
At MUNSC Salient we believe that the principle of solidarity has the potential to fill this ideational void. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, noted that the 2030 Agenda compels us to look beyond national boundaries and short-term interests and act in solidarity for the long-term, while describing the COP21 agreement as in fact demonstrating solidarity. Yet solidarity as a concept in an international context is neither as novel nor as abstract as it sometimes seems.
In 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights (institutional predecessor of the Human Rights Council) established the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, who in 2014 presented a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity. The second (and current) HRC Independent Expert, Ms. Virginia Dandan, described the right to solidarity as responding to “our urgent need for change in a world divided by ever deepening disparities /.../ a right that will serve as a potent tool in addressing the structural causes of poverty, inequality and other global challenges that impede the full exercise and enjoyment of all human rights.”
At MUNSC salient 2016 it will be up to the delegates in the UN Human Rights Council to review the above mentioned draft declaration. They will seek to bring it in line with their particular national interests, and in so doing decide whether the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity will either be established as the guiding principle of global relations in the 21st century, or be confined to history books as just another exercise of impotent idealism.
In spite of the guiding role we tend to confer on such documents, not to mention the time and effort required to negotiate them, many critics regard them with restraint, rightfully emphasizing their lack of ambition, evident partiality or even both. In response, practitioners and analytics alike remind us that politics remains the art of the possible, and that high-flying commitments are of little worth if states are not able to follow up on them with concrete actions. While it is hard to dismiss either of the two groups’ remarks in their own right, considering them together against the backdrop of contemporary global challenges raises an even more perplexing question – can the realm of global politics in the 21st century accommodate a single set of principles that would guide our developmental efforts at different levels of governance, across issue areas, and in various cultural environments, and if so, which international forum is best suited to define such principles?
At MUNSC Salient we believe that the principle of solidarity has the potential to fill this ideational void. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, noted that the 2030 Agenda compels us to look beyond national boundaries and short-term interests and act in solidarity for the long-term, while describing the COP21 agreement as in fact demonstrating solidarity. Yet solidarity as a concept in an international context is neither as novel nor as abstract as it sometimes seems.
In 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights (institutional predecessor of the Human Rights Council) established the mandate of the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, who in 2014 presented a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity. The second (and current) HRC Independent Expert, Ms. Virginia Dandan, described the right to solidarity as responding to “our urgent need for change in a world divided by ever deepening disparities /.../ a right that will serve as a potent tool in addressing the structural causes of poverty, inequality and other global challenges that impede the full exercise and enjoyment of all human rights.”
At MUNSC salient 2016 it will be up to the delegates in the UN Human Rights Council to review the above mentioned draft declaration. They will seek to bring it in line with their particular national interests, and in so doing decide whether the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity will either be established as the guiding principle of global relations in the 21st century, or be confined to history books as just another exercise of impotent idealism.