Discrepancies Between International Human Rights Considerations and Its Application

Applying just human rights standards is essentially incomprehensible within an unequal world. As a result, these inequities are reflected in the international system that upholds human rights law and considerations. This thesis attempts to tackle the 'why' behind this reality in exploring the question, What explains the increased legal prosecutions for Human Rights Violations within non-western nations compared to western countries despite similar levels of Human Right Violations occurring in both? The conclusive hypothesis is that, as a result of negative implicit biases which stem from historical structural inequalities unequitable human rights applications exist. First, taking court data from the ICC, ICAHR, and ICJ, we established that international courts (which reflect the global system) have predispositions to officially prosecute non-western states over western states. Second, diving into the literature review, I explored other proposed reasonings, including Global Hierarchies and Norm Adherence; I concluded that the very existence of these realities resulted from historical structural inequities that formed due to the western colonialist period. These forms of bias manifest and indirectly harm those being tried. Implicit bias manifests in individual mannerisms, ways of speaking, and reactions in observable yet unconscious patterns. To further corroborate this conclusion, I briefly analyzed past psychological studies that tackled this topic through surveys and test data that found international actors are susceptible to egocentrism, framing effects, and personal opinion, which is present within their decision-making processes. In addition to previous studies, I incorporated the use of sentiment analysis through python programming for the United Nations Periodic Human Rights Review of the countries Greece, Bulgaria, Bolivia, Ecuador, Romania, and Liberia. These countries were chosen due to their similar human rights scores and other factors. The sentiment analysis results demonstrated that subjectivity (Personal Opinion) within the texts is ever-present. Compared to their overall human rights scores, the non-western states contained comparatively negative sentiment. In conclusion, implicit bias was present in international documents, negatively affecting non-western nation-states. Regardless of having it be a favorable or unfavorable implication, if there is bias present in a system that is meant to uphold equal human rights for all persons, then there is an inherent issue in the system.