The recognition of human rights concept and implementation in the Thai development context.

The concept of human rights embraces the principle that human beings have the potential for free action and self-development, but for this to occur there must be an environment which is conducive to the exercise of that potential. At the same time, as citizens of states, people have rights as well as a duty to express themselves and assist in making decisions for the benefit of society as a whole.68 The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 2 that:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out in this Declaration without distinction o f any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other s t a t u s .^

Nonetheless, the concept of human rights is not always fully recognized by states. To clarify this statement one should examine a couple of points relating to, first, the developm ent o f human rights concept; and second, the relationship between concepts of human rights and state.

A. Linklater, "Men and Citizens in International Relations", Review o f International Studies. Vol. 7, 1981, p. 34.

United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human R ights. Wellington: Department of External Affairs, 1951, p. 7. It seems to me that the Declaration of 1948 does not separate any kind o f belief or political opinion and therefore endorses a fundamental issue of human rights much clearer than the two covenants, namely the International Covenant of Political Rights and the International Covenant o f Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which separate political rights and economic rights from each other. They are, in my opinion, contradictory to the Declaration o f 1948. If there is agreement with the argument that political and economic rights are inseparable, I think the two UN covenants should be reviewed.

First, the development of the human rights concept is, in itself, a problem. The definition and guarantee of human rights may be approached via the basic disciplines of philosophy, law and political science. In terms of philosophy, it is argued that human rights is a "natural right" to which a person is entitled from birth. A legal framework is then formulated to enforce the natural rights and political forces are organized to protect human rights from being violated.70 The term "natural rights" is understood to include all those rights enjoyed by individuals to which they are morally entitled, whether or not they are accorded such rights by positive legal instruments. Citizens have argued that "natural rights" morally entitled them to resist oppression by fighting against the state and demanding that the state establish a legal system and political institutions to endorse their rights and to preserve their interests. In arguing, thus human rights activists rely on philosophy (natural rights), law (legal system) and political science (political institutions and/or structures). However, most people recognize human rights only in terms of political science and this has meant that the human rights concept has not been treated in its full sense.71

Second, there is a conflict between concepts of human rights and the state. While the concept of human rights expresses a concern for the self-development of individuals, the concept of the state inevitably involves the implementation of sovereignty through political institutions (e.g., governmental organizations). In the relations between states, the state also enjoys its own "autonomy" (e.g. domestic laws, decrees, rules and even regulations) which is "immune from the scrutiny and intervention of other states in its internal affairs".72 The concept of state can therefore

For example, the American Declaration of 1776 and the French Declaration of 1789 were drawn up to endorse the "natural rights" of the citizens.

H. Bull, "Human Rights and World Politics", in R. Pettman (ed.), Moral Claims in World Affairs. Canberra: ANU Press, 1979, pp. 82-85. Human rights is a much more controversial issue, in particular, when it is used as a moral claim in the competition between the West and the East. This is due to the fact that there is a great gap between the proclaimed standards of actual human rights in various parts of the world. There is a tendency in the West to put civil and political rights in the first priority, economic and social rights in the second, and "collective rights" in the third. (The collective rights means the right to organize to fight for the common interest as, for instance, some Third World countries claimed the rights to independence against imperialism). On the same ground, economic and social rights are put on the top of the socialist bloc list; and the the Third World prefers the collective rights as its top priority. Human rights become a politically controversial issue when one tries to use its influence to bring others into line with its interpretation of human rights. Yet, in this regard, it should not be a question of lumping sets of rights together and announcing that one set is superior to another according to a stand-point which is entirely arbitrary. I agree with Vincent when he argues that "there should rather be a recognition that there are rights of varying importance within each of the divisions", and that "therefore the problem of priority in human rights cannot be construed as one of deciding between groups of rights" [R.J., Vincent, "Human Rights and Foreign Policy", Australian Outlook. Vol. 36, No. 3, December 1982, p.

2].

T. Nardin, Law. Morality and the Relations of States. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983, p. 53.

come into conflict with the concept of human rights because states pursue national affairs according to policies established and implemented by dominant groups which may find it profitable to violate the rights of individuals.

Since the interests of the state and those of individuals may be contradictory, especially with non-democratic regimes, a state's legal system is often inadequate to correct violations and even less able to protect against human rights violations in the first place. Human rights issues are often seen as a measure of a state's treatment of its people and of the adequacies or otherwise of its legal and political systems. Too often state bureaucracies see human rights issues as a nuisance rather than as a challenge to which solutions may be found.73 Often human rights organizations are seen as trouble­ makers which want to control human rights activities in areas which deal directly with the state's interest and reputation. The ways in which states can threaten or control such organization inevitably depends on political circumstances and on the degree of popular support each group can command. The measures can range from simple warnings, to the banning of organizations and even arresting human rights workers, through to more violent suppression depending on the countries involved. Although it can be argued that the human rights concept can be equated with the Buddhist philosophy of self­ development,74 the state bureaucrats in Thailand, nevertheless, seem to tolerate what they call "trouble-makers" promoting human rights activities only because in the first place they feel that they can control the situation, and secondly, they can gain a good reputation internationally for being a democratic regime by permitting such activities. This sort of official attitude is criticised by political opponents as window dressing.

By comparison with the situation in Western societies, Thai human rights activists are often accused, as Turton says, of "threatening the government". Besides the general conflicts between the state and human rights concepts as discussed above, there is a particular nature and historical development of Thai society and the Thai state. This has led to a situation where, apart from the state, the "civil society"75 (composed of the common people organizations and other interest and pressure groups) is relatively weak, meanwhile the military play a dominant role, and the state ideology (e.g., state, religion and monarchy) is very active. Also, the "separation of power" between legislative, executive, and judicial institutions is not well developed. It is difficult to

R.J. Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations. London: Cambridge University