A Report on Human Rights Advocacy and its Alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Human Rights Watch Operational Model

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a significant non-governmental organization influencing global human rights policy. Its primary strategy involves documenting and publicizing governmental abuses to foster accountability. This methodology of investigation and advocacy can be viewed as a direct effort to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Core Strategic Pillars and their Relation to the SDGs

The HRW approach, as articulated by its former leader Kenneth Roth, is built on three foundational principles, each with clear links to the Sustainable Development Goals framework.

1. Primacy of Legal Accountability: The organization posits that since governments are often the primary violators of human rights, legal prosecution is the most effective tool for redress. This focus on retributive justice and the punishment of perpetrators through domestic or international tribunals directly supports the implementation of SDG 16.3, which calls for promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice.
2. Foundation in International Law: The strategy is anchored in the belief that a comprehensive body of international law—including human rights law, humanitarian law, and standards for governments—provides objective criteria for judging abuses. This reliance on a global legal framework aligns with the international cooperation inherent in the SDGs and provides the normative basis for achieving targets under SDG 16.
3. A Comprehensive and Indivisible Rights Approach: HRW advocates for a “totality” of rights, treating political, civil, social, economic, environmental, and gender rights as equivalent. This holistic view mirrors the indivisible nature of the 17 SDGs, recognizing that progress on one goal, such as SDG 16 (Justice), is intrinsically linked to progress on others, including SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

A Critical Assessment of the Legalistic Strategy in the Context of SDG 16

Despite its alignment with certain SDG targets, a critical analysis reveals that an exclusive focus on legalism may be insufficient for achieving the broader ambitions of SDG 16, particularly the call for “peaceful and inclusive societies.”

• The Limits of Retributive Justice: In post-conflict situations or deeply divided societies, the fundamental task is political reconciliation and the restoration of civic order. A strategy centered on retributive justice may fail to build the trust necessary for sustainable peace. Achieving SDG 16 requires not just justice, but also reconciliation, a goal better served by restorative justice models like South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
• The Challenge of Failed States: The HRW model is less effective in addressing human suffering in failed states, such as Haiti, where atrocities arise from the absence of a functioning government. This represents a significant gap, as the establishment of effective institutions is a core target (SDG 16.6) and a prerequisite for reducing violence (SDG 16.1). The strategy does not adequately address the foundational work of state-building required by the 2030 Agenda.

Further Challenges to Implementation and SDG Attainment

Additional critiques of the HRW model highlight systemic challenges that can impede progress toward achieving the SDGs in a comprehensive and equitable manner.

• The Weakness of International Enforcement: The efficacy of international law is contingent upon the willingness of sovereign states to comply. In a world of diverse political regimes, there is no global authority to enforce human rights universally, posing a significant obstacle to the realization of SDG 16 and other rights-based goals.
• Inconsistent Application and Double Standards: The report notes a disproportionate focus on alleged abuses in democratic states while comparatively neglecting atrocities in totalitarian regimes. This selective application undermines the universal premise of the SDGs and the principle of “leaving no one behind.” It creates an imbalance in efforts to promote accountable institutions (SDG 16.6) and reduce inequalities (SDG 10) globally.
• The Problem of Rights Prioritization: The “all-inclusive” approach to rights, while ideologically aligned with the indivisibility of the SDGs, is practically challenging. Without a clear prioritization of fundamental rights (e.g., freedom from torture), advocacy can become diffuse. This can lead to a de facto prioritization of certain progressive claims over others, such as religious freedom, creating distortions in the pursuit of a truly universal human rights agenda.

Conclusion: Re-evaluating Pathways to Sustainable Peace and Justice

In conclusion, while organizations like HRW play a vital role in documenting abuses, their strategic focus on legal accountability represents only one component of the broader agenda encapsulated in SDG 16. An overemphasis on retributive justice at the expense of political reconciliation and state-building may fail to establish the conditions for lasting peace. For the international community to successfully achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, advocacy must evolve. It must integrate the pursuit of legal justice with the more foundational and difficult work of fostering social solidarity, restoring trust, and building stable, humane political communities capable of securing all human rights for all people.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG to the article. The text revolves around concepts of justice (retributive vs. restorative), the rule of law, holding governments accountable, the role of international criminal tribunals, the problem of weak and failing states, and the importance of fundamental freedoms. The entire discussion on Human Rights Watch’s strategy and its critique is rooted in the principles of this goal.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article explicitly mentions rights related to non-discrimination, such as “racial discrimination” and “LGBTQ rights.” It discusses the principle of equality and the “dignity and freedom of every human being,” which are core to reducing inequalities.

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  This goal is directly referenced when the article lists “gender rights” and “LGBTQ rights” as part of HRW’s comprehensive approach to human rights, which it contrasts with a focus on only basic and political rights.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article discusses “crimes and atrocities,” “civil strife,” and the situation in “failed states” like Haiti, where life is described as “nasty, brutish, and short,” directly connecting to the reduction of violence.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. This is a primary theme. The article details HRW’s strategy of using “international law,” “international criminal tribunals,” and “legal accountability” to prosecute offenders. It also mentions “trial by jury,” the “right to legal counsel,” and the importance of “independent courts” and the “rule of law” in democratic states.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article critiques the lack of focus on “weak and failing states” where there is an “absence of a functioning state.” It also discusses holding “governments accountable for crimes” and the need for governments to have “legitimacy and authority to enforce its laws,” which points to the need for effective institutions.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The article explicitly mentions several fundamental freedoms that are being neglected, such as “religious freedom” and “freedom of the press,” as well as “freedom of speech” and the “right of assembly.”
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… for building capacity… to prevent violence and combat… crime. The critique of HRW’s strategy points to this target. The author argues that instead of focusing only on prosecution, there is a need for “rehabilitating states through nation-building” and undertaking the “foundational work of political reconciliation” to restore civic order.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race… religion or other status. The article’s mention of “racial discrimination,” “religious freedom,” and “LGBTQ rights” directly relates to the goal of inclusion for all, regardless of identity or belief.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The discussion of fighting “racial discrimination” and promoting “LGBTQ rights” implies the need to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensure equal opportunity and protection under the law.

3. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The inclusion of “gender rights” and “LGBTQ rights” in HRW’s advocacy points directly to the effort to end discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Prevalence of functioning and legitimate state institutions

   The article implies this as a key indicator by contrasting democratic states where “the rule of law is honored and courts are independent” with “weak and failing states” like Haiti, which is “ruled by gangs.” The presence or absence of a functioning state is presented as a primary measure of human rights security.

2. Existence of mechanisms for justice and reconciliation

   The article discusses two types of mechanisms. The first is retributive, such as the “prosecution through international courts and tribunals.” The second is restorative, exemplified by “South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” The existence and application of these mechanisms serve as indicators of how a society addresses past abuses.

3. Protection of fundamental freedoms

   The article implies that the level of protection for freedoms such as “religious freedom,” “freedom of the press,” and “freedom of speech” is a key indicator of a state’s human rights record. It criticizes the neglect of these rights in favor of others.

4. Existence of non-discriminatory laws and policies

   By highlighting advocacy for “LGBTQ rights” and against “racial discrimination,” the article implies that the existence and enforcement of laws protecting these groups are indicators of progress towards equality and non-discrimination.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: providencemag.com