18 | Human: Rights & Responsibilities

Disclaimer: The following discussion resembles short excerpts from a reflection which discusses ethical conflicts of rights and responsibilities in the humanitarian sector. The original document is more than 20 pages long. I tried to keep the basic outline and the academic style and structure. If you would like access to the full document, feel free to reach out. 

Introduction

I currently work for a non-governmental Organization (NGO). Being based in South Sudan and exposed to difficult decisions that have to be made, I am encountering ethical conflicts of different natures. Some of such ethical dissonances can be solved using guidelines, experience, and common sense, but at other times our team faces dilemmas to which the answer remains unknown.

Dilemmas can become overwhelming when decisions have to be made, and all options seem wrong on some level. The question we are left with is: how can one make an ethically acceptable decision?

It is important to mention that I am writing this text from a certain perspective — my own. I am of course trying to discover different angles and views on the topic at hand, but I have been shaped by the cultures I have immersed myself into. My perception, the way I understand my environment, and how I attribute meaning is strongly influenced by culture.

Research Question

What are potential approaches to dilemma-like scenarios in the humanitarian context, in which rights and responsibilities stand in conflict with each other?

Assumptions

The discussion at hand is based on the following premises:

• Rights and responsibilities are intertwined. Separating them may be useful for theoretical discussion, but is not applicable in practice. The interdependence of rights and responsibilities involves time, space, individuals, and communities, as well as private and public realms. 

• “The existence of the human soul is inextricably linked to the reality of human rights as well as human responsibility” (Broocks 2018:105).

• Every individual is responsible to act according to their conscience and within human ethical standards. In other words, if a person sees something “going wrong”, they have to take responsibility to act accordingly.

• All humans are equal (e.g. in their dignity, before the law, and in terms of human rights, etc). 

• All humans are different/unique (e.g.: fingerprints, minds, ideas, emotions, etc).

Definition of key-terms

Rights: The Oxford dictionary defines the term as follows: “a legal or moral claim to have or get something or to behave in a particular way” (Oxford English Dictionary 2022). In the text, the term is used in the following ways: First, to refer to Human Rights. Secondly, to engage with the discourse about moral rights (as a counterpart of legal rights). 

Rights-holders: “Rights-holders are individuals or social groups that have particular entitlements in relation to duty-bearers” (European Network of National Human Rights Institutions [ENNHRI] 2022). 

Responsibilities: According to the Oxford dictionary, responsibility is, “a duty to deal with or take care of somebody/something, so that you may be blamed if something goes wrong” (Oxford English Dictionary 2022). In the context of this text, the term responsibility is used to talk about the mandate of humanitarian NGOs. And further, to discuss individual and collective obligations, morally, and politically. 

Duty-bearers: “Duty-bearers are state or non-state actors, that have the obligation to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights of rights-holders” (ENNHRI 2022). 

The dilemma

People who work in the humanitarian sector often find themselves stuck in dilemma-like situations. What ought to be done, when a decision has to be made but all potential options seem wrong, in one or the other way? “It depends”, seems to be a reasonable starting point to approach the question of what to do in dilemma-like scenarios. Each case has to be treated individually, specifically looking at pre-existing power positions and intercultural challenges, and with an encompassing understanding of the broader thematic and local context. 

Example

This part shows how providing medical supplies to a community that suffers from a disease outbreak can bring people into a position in which their rights and responsibilities stand in conflict.

For the following example two fictional communities are used to help imagine the scenario: Community A and Community B are representatives of a collective of individuals. Their cultural background is different, but not specified. The size of each community is not particularly of any relevance and therefore not mentioned. Community A suffers from a deadly disease outbreak. Community B has discovered a medical treatment for the disease. 

At first sight, what ought to be done seems clear: Community B should support Community A with medical supplies. When taking a closer and more practical look at the situation, the layers of complexity keep piling up. 

Without suggesting whether medical supplies should or should not be provided in this example, here are some potential “side-effects” that might occur: No matter how hard one tries, there will always be people who are excluded (intentionally or unintentionally) from receiving medical attention. This existing or created inequality can potentially trigger conflict between different groups/individuals. The simple question remains: Is it worth it? It is not easy to determine whether the cure for a disease helped more people than the potentially created conflict harmed people. Harm is hardly measurable; especially when it was prevented and therefore never manifested as such in anybody's life. 

In addition to causing internal conflict, there are external risks, such as imposing western concepts and/or creating dependencies. Many of those potential risks are well-known in the humanitarian sector, and organisations try to avoid them by applying “do-no-harm” principles (Charancle & Lucchi 2018). 

To better understand the complexity of the scenario, it is helpful to look at the possible positions of each community. 

How Community B reacts to the disease outbreak in Community A depends largely on the positioning of both communities towards the situation. The following examples are to be seen as potential points of view, rather than a realistic representation of any community. 

Potential points of view from Community A could be:

• Community A denies the existence of the deadly disease.

• Community A is entirely unaware of the disease.

• Community A knows about the disease, but people are ashamed to say they are infected.

• Community A does not deny the existence of the disease but believes in a different narrative when it comes to its origin and effect (e.g.: conspiracy theories).

Potential points of view from Community B could be:

• Community B can accept Community A’s refusal of medical treatment.

• Community B can try to force people from Community A to get treated.

• Community B can find incentives for people from Community A to get treated (e.g.: receiving money or food when getting treatment).

• Community B could try to educate Community A about the disease, so they will want to receive treatment. 

The examples above show the complexity of the issue at hand. However, looking at the view of Community A and Community B separately is only the first step in understanding the challenges of responsibility. More relevant questions arise when looking at potential interactions between these communities. The question both communities may have to ask themselves is: What is the most responsible way of dealing with the situation? Although arguably there is not a simple answer to “the most responsible way”, it can be suggested that this may be the core of the issue at hand. As we look into potential interactions between Community A and B, different possibilities will be unveiled. In the following, actions and reactions of both communities are discussed, focussing on rights and responsibilities. 

If Community A assumes the disease does not exist, would simply ignoring the whole outbreak be a responsible way to deal with the situation? After all, everyone has the right to free thoughts and free speech, and if Community A makes clear that in their opinion the disease is not real, that could be the end of the discussion in this example. But what if Community B feels responsible to educate Community A about the disease? Does this perceived responsibility interfere with the right of free thought of Community A? And is there a point at which the responsibility of Community B needs to overrule the right of Community A? 

In addition to potential harm being caused, there are more factors to be considered. Another dissonance caused might be the inequality of power positions. In the reality of humanitarian aid, the people providing medical supplies are often in a position of more power, compared to the people in need. One of the consequences of power inequalities is that interaction and influence are usually not mutual. (In contrast, a healthy relationship between two people is built on the mutual agreement to interact in a way that allows for the mutual influence of each other’s lives.)

One of the biggest challenges seems to be the non-existence of a neutral action. As soon as a need is discovered, it is instantaneously linked to some collective or individual responsibility, leaving us with inevitable choices to make: Should I/we help? If not, why not? If yes, how? These questions are unavoidable, simply because once we see suffering, we cannot “unsee” it. Pretending it does not exist would be an immoral denial of reality — no such thing as a natural action.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that, although we have responsibilities as humans, we must keep in mind that we cannot take full control over situations or other people’s lives. Learning to deal with uncontrollability can be yet another part of what it means to be human(itarian). Whether others are open to receiving our help or not, should not cause us to disengage from our role as duty-bearers. Our inability to see the right answers to inevitable and difficult questions should never keep us from looking for ways of dealing with them. 

As humans, we “find fulfillment […] in the experience of mutual relatedness and responsibility in serving a shared goal” (Newbigin 1988:What is to be done? The Dialogue with Politics). It is a “shared commitment to a common purpose […] what brings human beings to their very best”(ibid). And it is at our best when we can make good decisions despite the most difficult circumstances. 

Sources

• Broocks, Rice (2018). The Human Right: To Know Jesus Christ and to Make Him Known. Thomas Nelson.
• Charancle, Jean Martial Bonis & Lucchi, Elena (2018). Incorporating the principle of “Do No Harm”: How to take action without causing harm Reflections on a review of Humanity & Inclusion’s practices.
• ENNHRI (2022). Human Rights-Based Approach ENNHRI. [Online] https://ennhri.org/about-nhris/human-rights-based-approach/ [2023-01-8].
• Newbigin, Lesslie (1988). Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
• Oxford English Dictionary (2022). OED. Oxford English Dictionary - Online [Online] http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/11125 [2022-11-6].