Theme

Forum 2000 (October 14 - 17, 2001), the fifth annual Prague Forum conference, was devoted to the theme of human rights and conflicting interpretations which are behind most of the contemporary conflicts around the world.

Day 1: Human Rights from the Perspective of Different Cultures

Are human rights universal or is the concept of human rights a Western one that is problematic to apply to other cultures that are also creating today's world? It is indisputable that the very idea of human rights is connected with the heritage of the American and French revolutions and therefore also with the concept of civic freedoms and with two centuries of development of the modern democratic state. Those two centuries transformed the face of the world. They were both creative and destructive. European, or Euro Atlantic, civilization was the first in world history that repeatedly made universal claims, both for its religion and for the idea of constant progress and growth with all the responsibilities arising from this. However, at the same time it caused serious harm to a number of nations and cultures, especially at the time of colonial expansion. Paradoxically, at a time when it seemed that it had learnt from its mistakes, the question of whether the concept of universal human rights is merely a hidden instrument of "Western Imperialism" has once again arisen. Although such ideological accusations mostly come from parts of the world without their own democratic tradition, the accusations must be taken seriously because people are still dying on account of them.

The state of human rights is obviously different in various parts of the world. The question arises as to whether the demands made on them should be absolutely the same everywhere or whether it is possible to respect some specific deviations from the norm (even though this damages the proclaimed "universality" of human rights), or even to tolerate some culturally, historically, and religiously conditioned practices that are in open contradiction with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where are the boundaries of cultural difference? To what extent is the international community justified in supervising human rights in individual countries and what are the limits to action it can take to enforce their observance?

There is no general agreement on whether human rights are exclusively a means of defense of the freedoms of the individual or whether there is also a foundation for the concept of collective human rights. Even a number of democratic states reject the notion of such collective rights, since particularly over the last ten years the claims of nationalists to the collective right of self-determination have been the cause of tragic conflicts and long-lasting civil wars.

A similar issue is the question of minority rights - ethnic, cultural, intellectual, political, and sexual. Are the rights of minorities a special category of human rights or are they always merely the sum of the rights of the individuals?

In addition to these issues, there are also more practical and everyday issues. One such issue is whether human rights also include social rights, and whether these social rights are also universal or whether they must be the subject of a pragmatic agreement in accordance with local conditions? Another is whether the rights to a clean environment and ecologically sustainable development are fundamental human rights?

And finally some rather more philosophical questions for consideration: From what point is it possible to speak of human rights - from conception, from birth, from the start of adolescence or from adulthood? Is it possible to formulate as a supplement to human rights a list of generally recognized human duties, and would attempts to do so make any practical sense?

Day 2: International Institutions and Human Rights

In recent years the role of nation - states has fundamentally changed as a result of the development of international and supra-national cooperation. Processes of international integration are taking place which require states to give up a part of their sovereignty to higher bodies. On the other hand, more and more decision-making powers are being moved to local levels, and some states are quickly decentralizing and regionalizing. Teams of experts, such as the group preparing reform of the UN, are investigating the perspectives of global governance. The problem shared by most of the international organizations that have been founded in the last 50 years is their cumbersomeness and declining authority. Organizations such as the EU, NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank have begun to question their own legitimacy, authority, and future direction. Critics of these institutions are asking to what degree, if at all, these institutions are necessary, and whose interests they serve.

What is certain is that the globalizing world needs a certain institutionalized authority. However, up until now there have been differences in the degree of belief in the binding nature of supra-national legislation: international legal institutions have ambivalent experience with the implementation and enforcement of law across frontiers.

The international protection of human rights has exceptional significance in critical situations - both in acute ones, such as ethnic conflicts and civil wars, and in chronic ones, such as long-lasting discrimination against national minorities or the political repression of opposition forces. It is especially here that international cooperation on the governmental and non-governmental levels has borne fruit. Non-governmental organizations are often willing to intervene and mobilize public opinion even in situations where governments hesitate for political reasons . In situations where lives are at risk, volunteers from the organization Médicins Sans Frontières provide direct help to civilians even against the will of local government authorities. Amnesty International monitors the observance of human rights all over the world, even in democratic states.

Ecological, social, and economic problems are also taking on an ever wider international context. All of them, especially, environmental questions, have a worldwide significance and will therefore be addressed throughout the whole conference. Do all parts of the world have a right, promised or even guaranteed by someone or something, to a certain living standard or wealth? What influence will the future demographic development of the planet, including the migration of intellectual talent, have on human rights? Does an educated person from a less economically developed country have the right to leave, or the duty to stay or return? Will economically successful regions that can afford to abolish their internal borders, barricade themselves into a fortress with a heavily guarded external frontier? If we agree on the need to accept, along with human rights, also responsibilities that apply to the whole of mankind, is not one of the main responsibilities the care of the shared planet, the rational administration and effective conservation of our shared resources?

Day 3: Human Rights and State Sovereignty

The concluding day attempted to examine the majority of the problems from a rather different perspective. They were presented and interpreted on the basis of the practical experiences of personalities who had either themselves been engaged in one of the following areas or who have followed, studied, and commented on them over a long period of time. The areas were

• human rights and humanitarian intervention
• human rights and international justice
• human rights and international law
• human rights and democracy
• human rights and economic sanctions

The participants in the discussion asked themselves how they would personally formulate their professional challenge and obligation for the 21st century. In a wider context provocative questions were posed. Is there a principle that human rights can be offered, supported, protected but cannot be implemented by military or police force, or have human rights become a concept that enables the subsequent legitimation of whatever is necessary to defend them? The conclusion of the debate then prepared the ground for the announcement of the Prague Declaration, which took place during the afternoon session.