Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-2tv5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T16:46:19.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double bind at the UN: Western actors, Russia, and the traditionalist agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2018

KRISTINA STOECKL Open the ORCID record for KRISTINA STOECKL [Opens in a new window]  and
KSENIYA MEDVEDEVA
KRISTINA STOECKL*
Affiliation:
University of Innsbruck, Dept. of Sociology, Universitätsstraße 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
KSENIYA MEDVEDEVA*
Affiliation:
Free University Berlin, Graduate School of North American Studies, Lansstraße. 5-9, 14195 Berlin, Germany
*
*Email: kristina.stoeckl@uibk.ac.at
†Email: medvedeva@gsnas.fu-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article is dedicated to analysis of the traditionalist agenda, promoted by Russia, in recent debates in the United Nations Human Rights Council (‘Traditional values’ from 2009 to 2013, ‘Protection of the family’ from 2014 to 2017). The traditionalist agenda could be interpreted as yet another chapter of contextualist opposition to the universalist application human of rights and as a successor to the cultural relativism in human rights promoted in the past by the Organization of Islamic States or countries from the Global South. This article seeks to challenge such an interpretation and instead makes the argument that the traditionalist agenda employs novel aspects of illiberal norm protagonism in the human rights sphere. The article undertakes an in-depth analysis of the discourse coalitions of both supporters and opponents of the traditionalist agenda, using the tools of discourse analysis in international relations and drawing on a constructivist approach to norm diffusion in international organisations.

Keywords

human rightsliberalismRussiatraditional valuesUnited Nations

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 383 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Alston, P and Goodman, R, International Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) Ch 7;Google Scholar Lenzerini, F, The Culturalization of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Different authors use different terminology to describe the divide: McCrudden speaks of ‘universalist’ versus ‘relativist positions’; see McCrudden, C, ‘Human Rights, Southern Voices, and ‘‘Traditional Values’’ at the United Nations’ (2014) University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper 419.Google Scholar

3 Marshall, K, ‘Religious Voices at the United Nations: American Faith Perspectives as an Example’ in Stensvold, A (ed), Religion, State and the United Nations (Routledge, London, 2017) 127, 129.Google Scholar

4 The contexualist, cultural-relativist and rights-skeptical positions on human rights was first formulated in a 1947 statement by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association which set the tone, stating that rights must be integrated in different cultures by ‘the only right and proper way of life that can be known to them, the institutions, sanctions and goals that make up the culture of their particular society’. Cited in McCrudden (n 2) 4.

5 UNHRC, Res 12/21: Promoting human rights and fundamental freedom through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind A/HRC/RES/12/21 (2009) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/12/21&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

6 UNHRC, Res 26/11: Protection of the family A/HRC/RES/26/11 (2014) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/26/11&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

7 On the three levels of UN governance, see Weiss, TG, Carayannis, T and Jolly, R, ‘The “Third” United Nations’ (2009) 15(1) Global Governance: A Review of Multiculturalism and International Organizations 123.Google Scholar

8 McCrudden (n 2) 3.

9 Ibid 5.

10 Ibid 5–6.

11 Mälksoo, L, Russian Approaches to International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Hajer, M, ‘Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain’ in Fischer, F and Forester, J (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1993) 43–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Keck, ME and Sikkink, K, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, NY, 1998);Google Scholar Finnemore, M and Sikkink, K, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’ (1998) 52(4) International Organization 887;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Risse, T and Sikkink, K, The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Kymlicka, W, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995);Google Scholar Engle, K, ‘From Skepticism to Embrace: Human Rights and the American Anthropological Association from 1947 to 1999’ (2001) 23(3) Human Rights Quarterly 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Stoeckl, K, The Russian Orthodox Church and Human Rights (Routledge, London, 2014);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stoeckl, K, ‘The Russian Orthodox Church as Moral Norm Entrepreneur’ (2016) 44(2) Religion, State and Society 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 ‘Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.’

17 Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, ‘The Experience of Viewing the Problems of Human Rights and their Moral Foundations in European Religious Communities.’ Presentation at the Conference ‘Evolution of Moral Values and Human Rights in Multicultural Society’, Strasbourg, 30 October 2006 (2006) 108 Europaica Bulletin <http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/108.aspx#1>.

18 Hajer (n 12) 47.

19 Ibid.

20 This section on the ‘Traditional values’ resolution follows Stoeckl, ‘The Russian Orthodox Church as Moral Norm Entrepreneur’ (n 15) 138–40.

21 UNHRC, Resolution 12/21 Traditional Values (n 5).

22 F Ryabykh, Igumen, ‘V Sovete OON po pravam cheloveka proshel seminar posvyashchennyj pravam cheloveka i traditsionnym tsennostyam’ (2010) Website of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Strasbourg www.strasbourg-reor.org (8 October 2010) <http://www.strasbourg-reor.org/?topicid=649>.Google Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 UNHRC, Res 16/3: Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind (2011) A/HRC/RES/16/3, <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/124/92/pdf/G1112492.pdf?OpenElement>..>Google Scholar

26 UNHRC, ‘Preliminary Study on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind’ prepared by the drafting group of the Advisory Committee. A/HRC/AC/9/2 (2012) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/AC/9/2&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

27 UNHRC, Res 21/3: Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind: best practices A/HRC/RES/21/3 (2012) <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/173/96/pdf/G1217396.pdf?OpenElement>..>Google Scholar

28 UNHRC, Study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind A/HRC/22/71 (2012) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/22/71&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

29 UNHRC, Summary Information from States Members of the United Nations and Other Relevant Stakeholders on Best Practices in the Application of Traditional Values while Promoting and Protecting Human Rights and Upholding Human Dignity (2013) A/HRC/24/22 <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/147/94/PDF/G1314794.pdf?OpenElement>..>Google Scholar

30 UNHRC, Res 26/11: Protection of the family (n 6).

31 UNHRC, Summary of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on the protection of the family, A/HRC/28/40 (2014) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/28/40&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

32 UNHRC, Res 29/22 Protection of the family: contribution of the family to the realization of the right to an adequate standard of living for its members, particularly through its role in poverty eradication and achieving sustainable development A/HRC/RES/29/22 (2015) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/29/22&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

33 UNHRC, Res 32/23 Protection of the family: role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of human rights of persons with disabilities A/HRC/RES/32/23 (2016) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/RES/32/23&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

34 UNHRC, Res 29/22 Protection of the family (n 32).

35 UNHRC, Res 32/23 Protection of the family (n 33).

36 Stensvold, A, ‘Introduction’ in Stensvold, A (ed), Religion, State and the United Nations (Routledge, London, 2017) 1–14;Google Scholar Hug, S and Lukacs, R, ‘Preferences or Blocs? Voting in the United Nations Human Rights Council’ (2014) 9 Review of International Organizations 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Baumgart-Ochse, C, ‘Which Gets Protection – Belief or Believer? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Campaign against the ‘‘Defamation of Religions’’’ (2015) 136 Peach Research Institute Frankfurt;Google Scholar Belnap, AG, ‘Defamation of Religions: A Vague and Overbroad Theory That Threatens Basic Human Rights’ (2010) 2(12) Brigham Young University Law Review 635;Google Scholar Blitt, RC, ‘The Bottom up Journey of “Defamation of Religion” from Muslim States to the United Nations: A Case Study of the Migration of Anti-Constitutional Ideas’ (2011) 56 Studies in Law, Politics and Society 121;Google Scholar Marshall, P, ‘Exporting Blasphemy Restrictions: The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations’ (2011) 9(2) The Review of Faith & International Affairs 57;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Angeletti, S, ‘Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression and the United Nations: Recognizing Values and Rights in the ‘‘Defamation of Religions’’ Discourse’ (2012) 29 Stato, Chiese e Pluralismo Confessionale. Rivista telematica 20 <http://www.statoechiese.it/contributi/freedom-of-religion-freedom-of-expression-and-the-united-nations-recognizing>Google Scholar; Kayaoglu, T, ‘Giving an Inch Only to Lose a Mile: Muslim States, Liberalism, and Human Rights in the United Nations’ (2014) 36 Human Rights Quarterly 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Bettiza, G and Dionigi, F, ‘How Do Religious Norms Diffuse? Institutional Translation and International Change in a Post-Secular World Society’ (2015) 21(3) European Journal of International Relations 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Bob, C, The Global Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) 41–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Buss, D and Herman, D, Globalizing Family Values. The Christian Right in International Politics (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 2003) 44;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Haynes, J, ‘Faith-based Organizations at the United Nations’ (2013) EUI Working Paper Series RSCAS 2013/70 <cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/28119>.Google Scholar

41 Interview A, Interview with Heiner Bielefeldt, former UN Ambassador for Religious Freedom. Interviewer: K Stoeckl (16 January 2017). The interview was conducted via Skype in German, all quotes translated by the authors. The interviewee agreed to disclose his identity.

42 This group included Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Uganda. The launching event mentioned took place in February 2015, see <http://mfa.gov.by/en/press/news_mfa/f8ff663d7481c615.html>.

43 Interview B, Interview with a member of the diplomatic corps of the Belarusian mission to the UN. Interviewer: K Medvedeva (23 February 2017). The interview was conducted via Skype in Russian, all quotes have been translated by the authors. The interviewee agreed to disclose the professional affiliation.

44 Interview C, Interview with a stakeholder from the NGO sector. Interviewer: K Stoeckl (16 June 2017). The interview was conducted via Skype in English. The interviewee remains confidential. Interview D, also with a stakeholder from the NGO sector, was conducted on 23 February 2018. Interviewer: K Stoeckl. The interview was conducted in person in English. The interviewee remains confidential.

45 Interview C (n 44).

46 Bob, C, ‘Religious Activists and Foreign Policy in the West’ in Transatlantic Academy (ed), Faith, Freedom and Foreign Policy. Challenges for the Transatlantic Community (Transatlantic Academy, Washington, DC, 2015) 94–112;Google Scholar Curanović, A and Leustean, LN, ‘The Guardians of Traditional Values. Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church in the Quest for Status’ in Transatlantic Academy, Faith, Freedom and Foreign Policy ibid 191–212;Google Scholar Mälksoo, Russian Approaches (n 11) 166–7; Uzlaner, D and Stoeckl, K, ‘The Legacy of Pitirim Sorokin in the Transnational Alliances of Moral Conservatives’ (2018) 18(2) Journal of Classical Sociology 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Keck and Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders (n 13).

48 Waites, M, ‘Critique of ‘‘Sexual Orientation’’ and ‘‘Gender Identity’’ in Human Rights Discourse: Global Queer Politics beyond the Yogyakarta Principles’ (2009) 15(1) Contemporary Politics 137, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 For a similar observation on the professionalisation of religious NGOs, see Lehmann, K, ‘Shifting Boundaries between the Religious and the Secular: Religious Organizations in Global Public Space’ (2013) 6(2) Journal of Religion in Europe 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 United Families International, UN Negotiation Guide (2017); see <https://www.profam.org/article-16/united-nations-negotiating-guide>..>Google Scholar

51 Ibid.

52 We analysed 103 of these, leaving out three submissions for technical reasons.

53 UNHRC, Preliminary Study (n 26).

54 UNHRC, ‘Study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind’ A/HRC/22/71 (2012) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/22/71&Lang=E>..>Google Scholar

55 Horsfjord, VL, ‘Negotiating traditional values: The Russian Orthodox Church at the United Nations Human Rights Council’ in Stensvold, A (ed), Religion, State and the United Nations (Routledge, London, 2017) 62–78.Google Scholar

56 European Union, ‘Contribution of the European Union: Traditional Values’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (15 February 2013) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRValues/EU.pdf>..>Google Scholar

57 United States of America, ‘United States Mission to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva: Submission’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (5 November 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/States/UnitedStatesOfAmerica.pdf>..>Google Scholar

58 European Union, ‘EU response to the Note Verbale of 2 September 2015, with reference to the Human Rights Council Resolution 29/22’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (16 October 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/Other/EU.doc>..>Google Scholar

59 Amnesty International, ‘Human Rights Council report on the protection of the family and the contribution of families in realizing the right to an adequate standard of living’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (28 October 2016), <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/CivilSociety/AmnestyInternational.docx>..>Google Scholar

60 United Kingdom, ‘Submission of the Government of UK’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (n.d.) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/States/UnitedKingdom.doc>.

61 Denmark, ‘Response by Denmark to Note Verbale of 2 September 2015 regarding Human Rights Council Resolution 29/22’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (19 October 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/States/Denmark.docx>..>Google Scholar

62 Sweden, ‘Sweden’s Response to Human Rights Council Resolution 29/22 – ‘‘Protection of the Family’’– By Issue Area’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (29 October 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/States/Sweden1.docx>..>Google Scholar

63 Hungary, ‘Hungarian Measures for the Protection of the Family’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (n.d.) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/States/Hungary.doc>

64 Joint Statement, ‘Joint statement by Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities), New Humanity, Non-governmental Organizations in General Consultative STatus, Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, Alliance Defending Freedom, Association PointsCoeur, Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, International Association of Charities, International Catholic Child Bureau, International Volunteer Organization for Women Education Development, Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco, Mouvement International d’Apostolate des Milieux Sociaux Independants, Teresian Association, World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations’ United Nations Human Rights Office A/HRC/31/NGO/110 (15 February 2017), <http://www.apg23.org/downloads/files/ONU/Protezione%20famiglia/31HRC%20-%20PoF%20-%20Protection%20of%20the%20family%20-%20JWS.pdf>.

65 Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXII, ‘Input to Human Rights Council Resolution 20/22 on the Protection of the Family’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (n.d.) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/CivilSociety/AssociazioneComunitaPapaGiovanniXXIII.pdf>.

66 Interview C (n 44).

67 Joint Oral Statement, ‘Protection of the Family and its Members’, submitted for the 27th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council by Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities), Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Company of the Daughters of Charity of Vincent de Paul, Edmund Rice International, International Association of Charities, International Catholic Child Bureau, International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesians Sisters of Don Bosco IIMA, New Humanity, Pax Romana (International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs and International Movement of Catholic Students), VIDES International (International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education, Development), and World Union of Catholic Women’s Organisations (n.d.) <http://www.apg23.org/downloads/files/ONU/Protezione%20famiglia/27HRC%20-%20Protection%20of%20the%20Family%20-%20JOS.pdf>.

68 C-Fam, ‘Submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights from the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (28 October 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/CivilSociety/CenterFamilyHumanRights.pdf>.

69 Alliance of Romania’s Families, ‘Input to Human Rights Council Resolution 29/22 on the Protection of the Family’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (26 October 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/ProtectionFamily/CivilSociety/AllianceRomaniaFamilies.doc>.

70 Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, ‘Written statement submitted by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child’ Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights A/HRC/31/NGO/19 (25 February 2016) <http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/31/NGO/193&Lang=E>.

71 Interview B (n 43).

72 McCrudden (n 2) 43.

73 Interview D (n 44).

74 Interview C (n 44).

75 Interview E, conducted with a UN diplomat on 23 February 2018. Interviewer: K Stoeckl. The interview was conducted in person in English. The interviewee remains confidential.

76 Ibid.

77 Bateson, G, Steps into an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology (Intertext Books, London, 1972).Google Scholar

78 SP Potseluyev, ‘Double Binds, ili dvojnye lovushki politicheskoj kommunikatsii [Double Binds, or Dual Traps of Political Communication]’ (2008) 1 Polis Political Studies 2.

79 Interview A (n 41).

80 UNHRC, Draft Concept Note for the Intersessional Seminar on the Protection of the Family and Disability (23 February 2017) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Disability/FamilyAndDisability/ConceptNote.doc>.

81 See the press release of the Belarussian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: <http://mfa.gov.by/en/press/news_mfa/fd9a28f4e14df933.html>.

82 Fröhlich, C, ‘Walking the Tightrope. Russian Disability NGOs’ Struggle with International and Domestic Demands’ in Fischer, S and Pleines, H (eds), Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe (Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, 2010) 77–87.Google Scholar

83 Joint Statement by Caritas Internationalis (n 64).

84 Interview A (n 41).

85 Interview C (n 44).

86 See Mälksoo, L and Benedek, W (eds), Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87 Interview B (n 43).

88 McCrudden (n 2) 44.

89 Mullender, R, ‘Human Rights: Universalism and Cultural Relativism’ (2003) 6(3) Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar