tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post7646484011802549817..comments2024-03-06T10:16:40.696+00:00Comments on PhD studies in human rights: Why Didn’t the Council of Europe get the Nobel?William A. Schabashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17552332133145290879noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4605495417463810012.post-24876265888541023752012-10-15T20:55:47.064+01:002012-10-15T20:55:47.064+01:00Esteemed Prof. Schabas, as much as I respect your ...Esteemed Prof. Schabas, as much as I respect your leading position in this field I see myself disagreeing with your reasoning, not over who should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (a decision which is ultimately political and, in my rather cynical view, has often very little to do with actual contributions to peace) but mainly over who contributed more to the rather unprecedented period of calm in (parts) of this continent.<br />At the heart of the issue is the question: what does actually contribute (more) to peace? The only thing we do seem to be sure of in this notoriously complicated matter is, since the days of Lewis Richardson's Statistics of Deadly Quarrels, that wars happen less when trade is most prolific. Isn't this, then, the very reason why the EU is so successful in keeping war at bay? Not by trying to advocate for peace and its benefits but for constructing the very practical framework that makes peace possible in the first place?<br />The matter of causality seems to be worth considering. Is the improvement of human rights a promoter of peace or is it the other way around? Isn't it the case that compliance to the highest human rights standards is only possible in the fertile grounds of a peaceful society? Attempting to achieve the unwaivering respect that the EChHR deserves in the midst of deeply divided and violent regions is treating the symptoms rather than the disease. The necessity of keeping HR compliance a priority especially during conflicts notwithstanding, it seems like a big stretch to assume that the parties in the, say, South Ossetia conflict will lay down their arms out of their sympathy for the common human decency that underlies HR law. Wouldn't they feel more inclined to do so if a prosperous economic development plan would be offered? Wouldn't then they have the very material means, and the will, to enforce the level of compliance to HR enjoyed by the citizens of Denmark? Would the inhabitants of Belgium retain their high scores if they were caught in the midst of strife?<br />It seems to me that the work of both organizations is very distinct and, without in any way underplaying the importance of the Council of Europe, its work not only has generated more results in the most peaceful areas of the continent (which is, and no coincidence, that where both organizations overlap), I would go as far as stating that it can only fully achieve its objectives after a state of peace has been established. In other words, after the sort of activity undertaken by the European Union. A contributor and advocate the CoE might as well be, but it cannot be a builder. In this sense, and regardless of whether it did it consciously or not, the Nobel Committee has honoured the proven path to peace and given us an opportunity to reflect and reconsider our strategies.<br /><br />Caio Weber Abramo<br />LL.M. candidate, Public International Law, Utrecht UniversityCaiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10676210755834794753noreply@blogger.com