Bribery and Human Rights

International human rights law sounded very attractive to me. Throughout the 1L year, I viewed the field as a chance to work in exotic locales and challenge exploitive and unjust governments. It has therefore come as a surprise that my uninformed desire to pursue this type of career has been almost completely eliminated in the course of a little more than a month working for a foreign NGO. I can attribute much of this sudden disillusionment to my own impatience and pessimism, and I’m still inspired by the value of the work and the dedication of many of those in the field. But the system, whereby international organizations advocate and exert pressure on governments, seems deeply flawed. The vast amounts of resources that pour into the international human rights movement could be used more efficiently.

Ineffective Advocacy from Abroad

My month of June was spent writing a report encouraging the Nepalese legislature to pass a bill criminalizing torture; presently, victims of torture in Nepal can only file civil suits. The report closely followed the framework and technique of past lobbying efforts by international organizations, specifically the UN institutions that focus on torture. Its basic premise was to point out to the government and media that since Nepal has ratified the Convention Against Torture, domestic law must conform to that instrument. I made the argument to the best of my ability, but I felt throughout that it was an impotent effort. I began to think of my report as the equivalent of saying to a hardened businessman: “We have a contract that is unenforceable. You need to abide by its terms, or else you will be a bad person.”

Of course, no one was expecting that my report, one in a long line of appeals to the government, would magically persuade the legislature. Also, the costs of writing and translating the report were relatively low. But my output was very similar to work consistently produced by UN bodies and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Their reports will note the many problems with the legal and political system of a country and recommend solutions based on their expertise. The effectiveness of this type of advocacy – demanding that a government change its ways based on treaty obligations or appeals to natural rights – is very questionable.

Not Worthless, but Not Enough

One might argue that these publications promote transparency and bring abuses of power to light. But domestic organizations, with their connections and knowledge of the local media, are already well equipped to achieve these ends (except in countries where the government silences all dissent - in such places, international organizations are of the most value). It seems unlikely that many Nepalese citizens are poring through the latest Human Rights Watch report to get their news about their own country. International exposure is a more likely result of such advocacy, but what does this actually achieve? Despite the many organizations and individuals who have raised their voices against the genocide in Sudan, the dynamics of international relations have allowed that tragedy to proceed. The lobbying for legal change conducted by international organizations cannot succeed without the consent of the local government or, on rare occasions, massive pressure exerted by influential countries throughout the world.

It will always be very important for domestic human rights organizations to protest and attempt to influence the actions of their governments. It is also desirable that experienced and well-funded international organizations aid this process and draw worldwide attention to grave abuses. However, organizations with budgets of tens of millions of dollars might be able to achieve more tangible results if they focused more on giving direct incentives to governments. Their current way of operating is by no means totally ineffective. It just has a limited capacity for success.

Throw Money at the Problem

Money is the root of all evil, but it can also be used as a tool to achieve positive transformations in the world. When a group of people believes that certain legal reforms are needed in the US, for example, they start a movement, find a group of like-minded donors, and then buy the politicians whose votes are necessary for any change to take place. The international human rights movement appears to implement the first two steps of this process while neglecting the third. Why would an organization like Human Rights Watch (which has an excellent understanding of the realities of politics in countries throughout the world) fail to use its funds to directly influence politicians?

There are a few potential answers to this question. The most obvious is that bribery is illegal and especially hypocritical if employed as a strategy by an organization seeking to maintain the moral high ground. An argument could also be made that, even if an organization was willing to take this tenuous step, their donors would never support these tactics. But while these contentions have some merit, they don’t refute the fact that offering legal financial support or illegal bribes to politicians is an effective way to foment change. Non-profits in the US, such as the ACLU, are barred as corporations from making campaign contributions. The influence that powerful organizations can wield over governments is well known.

These problems with my proposed strategy raise broader questions. Is it possible to do the wrong thing for the right reason? Certainly, unless one believes that there are no shades of gray between the blacks and whites of this world. Would the negative externalities caused by buying politicians outweigh the benefits of increased protections of human rights? Possibly, but governments influence the politics and laws of foreign countries all the time and let the dust settle wherever it chooses. Perhaps international human rights organizations have a moral duty to stay aloof from these unsavory practices. Or perhaps they should see their duty differently. Maybe the individuals responsible for setting the policies of these organizations should be obliged to spend their donors’ money in the most effective way possible. When I’ve proposed this idea to individuals in the field of human rights, they’ve dismissed it as preposterous, but I doubt that the head of company seeking to influence a government would view the strategy so dismissively.