Deciding how best to proceed is not about finding the correct technical solution - your decisions will reflect your beliefs, values and assumptions. In the final section of this discussion guide, four broad, value-based approaches are presented as a starting point for your deliberations on what actions you think Canadians should consider in addressing the issue of promoting rights and the rule of law within the current international context.  Accompanying a brief overview for each approach are some arguments in favour and against, which reflect different viewpoints in society on the approach.

These approaches are not exhaustive, definitive or mutually exclusive.  They are meant to stimulate your thinking about the most important steps to take, the choices you are prepared to commit to and why. You are not being asked to pick one approach.
 
Rather, we invite you to use these approaches as a starting point for considering other options or combination of approaches.

Given the challenge to international law and human rights regimes, what should Canada do?  Again ,it's important to keep in mind that this is not about finding the correct technical solution, but rather selecting an approach that reflects your beliefs, values and assumptions.

Approach One

Emphasize strengthening the rule of law and human rights through the reform of existing multilateral organizations.

This approach would see Canada work through existing multilateral, international institutions, especially a revitalized, more effective United Nations. It would also strengthen traditional diplomacy, to advance the existing framework for international law. Priority would be given to reforming multilateral institutions and strengthening their internal capacity.

For over sixty years, the UN has provided the international community with a place to decide issues of global relevance.  It also maintains the current framework for international law and norms of state-to-state interaction.  In addition to these functions, it serves to protect and advance human rights, health, development and cultural issues.  While its effectiveness leaves much to be desired, it continues to offer the best prospects for dealing with international human rights and legal challenges.

Arguments in favour

√  States' trust and willingness to work within multilateral organizations are assets that can be leveraged to create a more positive environment for dialogue and the promotion of international law.

√  Given Canada's middle-power status, our domestic and international rights are best safeguarded by working within the existing international system of law. This is the best route to help us enshrine human rights in international agreements.

√  Acting through pre-existing methods, which are already accepted by the international community is significantly more cost-effective than entering into new institutional arrangements and agreements that have not been proven to deliver results.

Arguments against

× The effectiveness of working through the UN is often compromised by states whose views conflict with Canadian values, making it difficult to reach consensus on how to strengthen and promote rights and the rule of law.

× Structural flaws of the UN – in particular the Security Council and its dominance by a few powerful countries- are exceedingly difficult to resolve. Though the UN has expanded its scope of issues, it is cumbersome and poorly representative of the global south. Look, for example, at its failure to stop genocide in Rwanda, and now at its ineffectiveness in Darfur.

× Relying on organizations, which include states with polarized and conflicting positions severely limits the ability of Canada to promote its values, and may limit our options for action.

Questions

1.    Does Canada have the credibility to be an influential actor at the international level without committing the necessary resources? (For example, Canada does not substantively contribute to UN peacekeeping missions  and its overseas development assistance at 0.3% is still well below its 0.7% of GNI commitment).   

2.    Is the existing multilateral framework the most practical method of strengthening human rights regimes and the rule of law?

3.    As a middle power, can Canada afford not to work through existing multilateral agencies?

4.    If Canada and other countries did not support the UN system, what other processes or institutions would have to be created to address pressing global problems?

Approach Two

Emphasize collaboration with non-state actors to promote human rights and the rule of law through a multi-pronged approach. 

The second approach embraces the reality that we live in a diverse and changing world in which state-to-state relations can no longer be relied on as the exclusive method of strengthening rights and the rule of law.  This approach focuses on public diplomacy, not on traditional state-to-state diplomacy. It emphasizes working with non-state actors like NGOs, businesses, international philanthropists, academics or local governments to create more comprehensive policies rather than relying solely on traditional governmental avenues.

The success of the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, in which Canada played a leading role, was in no small measure due to the persistence and passion of a coalition of NGO-activists.  The treaty was celebrated as a success of international civil society in pressuring the international community to strengthen the rule of law.  Canada would promote this model of working with international civil society to advance human rights and international law

Arguments in favour

√  Working more closely with non-state actors provides for a diversity of approaches to strengthening human rights and the rule of law, each with its own channels and methods of interaction and reach.

√   Non-state actors are involved in developing and implementing international norms, although their roles might be ambiguous. Formally building alliances with non-state actors at the policy design stage helps to clarify their roles, creates accountability and strengthens the policy outcomes.

√   Working with non-governmental organizations and businesses in countries where the government is weak, unable or unwilling to protect the rights of its citizens may be the only effective way of protecting human rights and establishing the rule of law.

Arguments against

×  Formalizing the role of non-state actors in international dialogues and policy making may destabilize or weaken existing formal governance structures, rendering them less able to uphold human rights and the rule of law.

×  Including non-state actors in policy development is like opening a Pandora's Box.  There are a myriad of groups with divergent interests that would demand input and involvement in policy creation.  It would be difficult for the Canadian government to effectively define policy if it had to collaborate with so many non-state actors.

×  Non-state actors' opinions often represent a narrow range of viewpoints.  While these groups make up a component of civil society, not everyone agrees with the opinions they advocate - and they are not accountable to the electorate.

Questions

1.    Do democratic states have the responsibility to seek out and respond to the advice of non-state actors, particularly those that are representative of civil society?  What is the consequence of ignoring these voices?

2.    Is it possible for government to advance human rights and address global problems without the support and involvement of businesses, the philanthropic community, NGOs or other non-state actors?

3.    Does deferring to non-state actors to protect human rights take government off the hook?  Where is the line between governments working with and through non-state actors and governments offloading their responsibilities to set policy to non-state actors who are non-accountable to the electorate?

Approach Three 

Emphasize Canada serving as a role model for the protection of human rights and the rule of law.

Canada would focus its attention domestically, strengthening its own human rights record, particularly in relation to Indigenous People, gender equity and ethnic equality. Key actions would include: committing to a speedy resolution to outstanding Aboriginal land claims disputes, working to remove barriers that inhibit women’s full participation in politics and corporate boards, and commitments to work with ethno-cultural communities to fight discrimination. There is more to be gained by demonstrating our commitment to human rights at home, than by trying to export our values and imposing them on other countries. 

As Canada addresses its own shortcomings, it can serve as a model for other countries, by providing technical skills to countries seeking support in developing and maintaining the rule of law and advancing human rights.

Arguments in favour

√  Canada's contribution to the promotion of human rights will be much greater if we can show the world that we are walking the talk at home-dealing effectively with our own Indigenous peoples and their rights.

√  This approach is practical and realistic and ensures that Canada's contributions and resources are not stretched too thinly.

√  Canada can play a role in providing capacity building assistance to countries who request our support.  This ensures that the countries we work with are in the driver's seat in developing laws that are appropriate to their local conditions.

Arguments against

×  Historically, Canada has been well recognized as a world leader in advocating for human rights and the rule of law. By abandoning this position and focusing our efforts domestically, Canada risks further eroding our profile and contributions on the world stage.

×  By diluting our role as an active advocate and protector of international law and human rights, Canada risks weakening existing international law and international institutions that protect human rights.

×  By supporting countries to develop locally appropriate laws to protect human rights, Canada abandons the notion of universal human rights and enables culturally-specific human rights regimes to flourish.

Questions

1.    To what extent do women and Aboriginal peoples in Canada depend on an international human rights regime and international law to advance their rights domestically?  Would it be in their interests if our government withdrew from advocating for rights and the rule of law on the world stage?

2.    If all countries withdrew from advocating for human rights and the rule of law internationally in favour of focusing on domestic issues, what processes would guide global cooperation?

Approach Four

Emphasize the protection of human rights and the rule of law that advances Canada's domestic interests in the international arena.

Canada would concentrate its resources and efforts in those areas and arenas where it can deliver the greatest benefits to Canada. Canada would choose to intervene when doing so will help further our interests. This would include the creation of laws that promote our security, enhance our economic well-being and protect our environment and resources.

For example, Canada would focus on collaboration with other countries to strengthen existing laws and create new international laws and regulations to: address security threats; enhance global trade; protect arctic sovereignty; protect aquatic environments; reduce green house gas emissions; and limit cross-border pollutants.

Arguments in favour

√  Canadian diplomatic energies are too diffused. By focusing on our interests rather than values, we ensure that we receive an adequate return on our investments and diplomatic efforts.
 
√  By focusing on our areas of domestic strength, Canada can offer its expertise and capacity internationally, for example in developing international norms for financial regulation.

√  Canadians do not have the resources to support an international human rights regime. It’s better to focus on supporting a few countries so that they will be better allies and trading partners.

Arguments against

×  Such an instrumental approach to human rights and international law undermines Canada's long-standing commitment to international humanitarianism and multilateralism.

×  The world is too integrated and Canada is too connected through its citizens and its relationships to ignore its global obligations to promote human rights and the rule of law.

×  By focusing too narrowly on Canadian interests, Canada risks being unable to circumvent crises that may have devastating global impacts.  For example, despite its dismal human rights record and its clear rejection of international law, most of the world turned a blind eye to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan.  It was under the Taliban that Al-Qaeda thrived and was able to plan their attacks on the World Trade Centre.

Questions

1.    If we pursue this approach, will the international community perceive this strategy to be self-serving and lacking in compassion for the world's disadvantaged countries and peoples?  Will our international reputation and credibility be damaged, leading to a diminished voice within multilateral institutions like the WTO and the G8?

2.    By compromising contributions to foreign aid and international obligations in favour of a set of narrowly defined Canadian interests, how might Canada cope with the potential decline of support from the international community when Canada or its citizens require assistance?

3.    Given the high percentage of foreign born Canadians (20%), is this approach one that would fail to be supported by this large and increasingly important group of Canadians?

Conclusion 

So now, it’s your turn.  What do you think?  As we have noted above, the information and the approaches outlined in this discussion guide offer a starting place for your discussions. They are intended to stimulate questions, help you consider options and develop your own views on how to best position Canada in addressing human rights and international law in the current context. 

This issue, like any foreign policy issue, is complex.  The conditions within the international arena are always changing and it is often difficult to navigate the best course for Canada. We can decide not to do anything and get swept up in the current or we can set sail in a direction that we have mapped out and defined.  Imagine you are the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the weekend.  What ideas, insights, questions and options would help you in making decisions about what actions Canada should take?

Join the conversation on International Law and make your voice heard!