20100513 Comparative Asian Legal Systems
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Outline of today:
The controversy on Asian human rights (or, confrontation between the West and the East (or the Northand the South?) about the application of international human rights) had reached a peak at the World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. Especially, leaders of Singapore, Malaysia andIndonesia which are considered as typical developmental authoritarian regimes, as well as China
expressed harsh criticisms against the "Western human rights." Even though these opinions lacked
sufficient scientific theory, given the apparent difference of existence of law and rights between Asiaand the West, it might significant to reexamine the controversy. On the other hand, the political change
in Asian region aftermath also influenced to human rights situation in the region. In 2007, ASEAN states
adapted the "ASEAN Charter" that also referred to the establishment of a "ASEAN human rights body"(para.14). Then, the member states adopted the "Terms of Reference of ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights" in 2009.
In order to discuss the human rights controversy expressed on international instruments, wewill compare the three relevant instruments, those are (a) Vienna declaration and action plan, (b) finaldeclaration of the Bangkok preparatory regional meeting for the Vienna conference (BangkokDeclaration) that can be said the "official statement on Asian human rights, and (c) the terms ofreference of the ASEAN intergovernmental commission on human rights.
Questions for today:- What arguments about international human rights are there between western countries and SE Asiancountries? And how these difference of opinion are compromised on international human rights
instruments?
- How does political change in Asia between 1990s-2000s affect the change of Asian human rights
controversy? Or not affected?
1．International human rights in Indonesia(1) ASEAN countries and international human rights treaties
By third wave of democratization to the Southeast Asia after the end of the Cold war, and the dramatic
political change triggered by the Asian financial crisis, the situation of human rights protection of theSoutheast Asian countries greatly changed. By the end 1993, only Cambodia, the Phillipines andVietnam were signatories of the International Covenant on civil and political rights. However, Thai in
1996, Laos in 2000, and Indonesia in 2006 and newly independent Timor Leste in 2003 joined to theCovenant (Laos does not ratify it yet). Whereas, Malaysia and Singapore, and the Myanmar under themilitary dictatership is not join either of human rights treaties. (see Table)(2) Change of ASEAN's attitude toward international human rights
Marks (1998: 460) -- "the expansion of the international community of states and the decline ofEuropean hegemony (both economically and ideologically)
Maznah (2002: 246)
1990-93: The beginning of Difference. In the post-Cold War era, "Asian values" were first asserted topromote Asian capitalism and the efficacy of the developmental state. In terms of major markers, there
existed an official position to distance the ASEAN stance from that found in the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights through the 1993 Bangkok Governmental Declaration on Human Rights.
1993-97: A period of great contestation and reassessment. At this time, an active debate was waged
between the relativist and the universalist schools of human rights. There was an assertion of Asian andIslamic paradigms as credible counterweights to Western and liberal systems.
1997-2001: The outbreak of the 1997 Asian financial crisis exposed the vulnerability of the "Asianvalues" school, providing a boost for the proponents of human rights universalism, witnessed by theoutbreak of democratization movements in Indonesia and Thailand. In Malaysia, the formation of its
national human rights commission was largely prodded by this public sentiment.
2001: The beginning of Doubts. A discourse on "safety and security" following the 11 September 2001
fallout overtook that of "freedom and rights", causing many ASEAN governments to retreat from thehitherto "thawing" receptivity to a human rights commitment.
>> and then?
2．International Human Rights Instruments(1) Vienna declaration and action plan:
All human rights are (a) universal, (b) indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international
community must (c) treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, andwith the same emphasis. While the (d) significance of national and regional particularities and (e)various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the (f) duty of States,
regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights andfundamental freedoms.
points:universality--> (a)particularity--> (d) (e)"human rights" -- paraphrasing "civilization"? (Donnelly 1998)?
Maznah (2002: 246) "In some ASEAN countries, citizenship rights are not of equal worth. Inequality interms of gender, ethnicity, and religion is still an uncontested legal provision, making human rights
advocacy impossible without prior societal restructuring at its most basic but politically taxing level, so
as to elicit a minimal premise for human rights acceptance."
interdependency -->(b)What is the context of "interdependency" ?

--> priority rank of human rights

Way of protection and promotion. Responsibility of state and international society --> (f)Criticism against the "double standard" --> (c)(2) Bangkok Declaration
What are the Asian governments attitude for issues above mentioned?
(3) Term of reference of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights--> significant change of the principle of non-interference.
What changed from the Bangkok Declaration and What remained?
- about the universality of human rights.
- about the responsibility of sovereign state.