For decades, Canadians have celebrated their role in the international community as promoters of human rights and the rule of law.  This approach to building a "rule-based" world system has been at the heart of Canadian diplomatic efforts.  As a middle-power country, Canada has leveraged its influence on the world stage through alliances and diplomacy to advance human rights, economic well-being, security and global environmental protection.

Some of Canada's most notable contributions to building international law include:

In 1948, Canadian Professor John Humphrey, drafted the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

→  Canadian Diplomat Lester B. Pearson played a lead role in easing tension in the Suez Crisis in 1956 by creating the first peacekeeping mission.

→  In the late 1980s and early 1990s Canada played a leadership in generating global environmental agreements including: the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ; the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks; and, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

→  From 1996 to 1997, Canada played a lead role in negotiating the Ottawa Treaty, currently ratified by 156 countries, to prohibit the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personal landmines.

→  In the late 1990s, Canada contributed significantly to the drafting of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to its ratification process.

→  In 2001, Canada launched an independent commission which developed The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine (R2P), which outlines the responsibility of states to "protect civilian populations facing genocide, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing." 

Although our legacy of supporting international law has been impressive, some would argue that Canada has not backed our international agreements in tangible ways. For example:

→  We did not take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% of our 1990 levels, which was our obligation under the Kyoto Accord. 

→  While new expenditures on the Canadian Armed Forces strengthen Canada's capacity to contribute to the implementation of The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, it is not clear that we have made the political decision to actually do so.

→  We have transferred prisoners over to Afghan authorities knowing that they may be subject to torture. 

→  We have not lived up to our commitment to contributing 0.7% of our Gross National Income (GNI) to foreign aid through Official Development Assistance (ODA) and at 0.33%, are below the OECD average of 0.46%.

Many foreign policy analysts suggest that Canada is a ‘fading power' because it has not adequately invested in foreign policy capabilities and diplomatic posts abroad. Critics argue that Canada has been resting on the legacy of its past ‘positive reputation'. They characterize the Canadian diplomatic corps as lacking the resources needed to properly ensure Canadian social, economic and political interests are protected and advanced internationally. 

Without getting lost in the extensive debates which flow from the journals and books about Canada's foreign policy, it is important to note a fair bit of consensus around one point: some of Canada's policy actions have undermined or challenged existing international laws and agreements (see above list).  Of course Canada is not alone - many other countries have far more serious transgressions. 

Some significant trends that are challenging, or at a minimum changing, international law and human rights regimes include: 

→  The United Nations is no longer the centre point for international collaboration.  Geographically-based, regional organizations such as the African Union, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Organization of American States and the European Union are taking stronger initiatives in promoting their own interests which may not be in line with existing international agreements.  Some states have focused on membership in regional alliances over other global organizations like the United Nations, to achieve their goals, thereby setting precedents which may contribute to the weakening of international legal frameworks established by these organizations. 

→  Policy making related to international law is no longer the exclusive purview of nation states. National governments have less control of their policy agendas (domestic and international) than they once did.  New "non-state" actors (e.g. corporations, non-government organizations, international philanthropists, labour unions) are driving action on the global stage.  These actors are not necessarily interested in waiting for governments to act, nor are they accountable to them. As a result, governments seem to be losing some of their authority in controlling international policy.  The multilateral system, which is state-based system, has not evolved effectively to accommodate these "non-state" actors, who can be both supporters and detractors in developing and implementing international law and human rights.

→  State sanctioned torture continues despite its near-universal condemnation.  Even liberal western democracies such as the United States have challenged the definition of actions which constitute torture. Countries such as Myanmar, Syria, Uzbekistan, China, and Saudi Arabia continue to regularly use torture in law enforcement and intelligence gathering practices.   Today, nearly fifty countries have still refused to sign or ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and remain unbound to its provisions.

→  There are challenges to, and in some cases an erosion of civil liberties in some democracies. Security imperatives (e.g. use of security certificates) are being used to justify actions that can conflict with personal rights and the rule of law.   In some cases freedom of expression is being diminished, and new, ambiguous boundaries limiting dissent and political opposition are being set by some states.

→  The existence of religious fundamentalism or extremism in the North and South and serious conflicts between secular and religious laws are challenging international and domestic legal and human rights norms. For example, in some countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan, cultural or religious practices are used to rationalize human rights abuses of women.

Next section: Future directions