Introduction
One of the most critical purposes of modern people is to live in a peaceful and equal world. Multiple attempts are made to establish regulations, consider human rights, and control violations at different levels. International humanitarian law aims at regulating armed conflict effects and protecting people. Despite the existing internationally sponsored initiatives to prosecute the perpetrators of gross human rights violations, some situations are out of the rational explanation. According to a former United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, Jose Ayala Lasso, “A person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000” (cited in de Zayas, 2009, p. 130). This phrase is evidence that many serious crimes remain unpunished, and individuals cannot recognise the existing threats, promoting the times of impunity and injustice. This paper will pay attention to the challenges associated with human rights violations regarding international programs and the conditions under which prosecution is not effective. Human life is priceless, and the similarities and differences between the UK Human Rights Act and the International Human Rights Initiatives deepen an understanding of crimes and killings.
The Current Human Rights Situation in the UK
During the last several years, the United Kingdom has undergone multiple political, social, and economic changes, including the country’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) at the beginning of 2020, known as Brexit. This decision provoked ambiguous attitudes toward the government because it could significantly affect human rights and demonstrate a “disdain for the rule of law” (United Kingdom events of 2020, 2020, para. 1). The questions of foreign policy and the protection of human lives emerged immediately, and it was important for the UK leaders to take steps and strengthen the current situation in the country.
Another challenge related to the human rights discussion touched upon the COVID-19 pandemic and the necessity to implement urgent legislations. The government had to change the existing agenda and identity to protect citizens and manage the spread of the virus that took human lives unreasonably (Peele, 2021). The situation worsened when the time to prioritise vaccination came and procedural fairness was obligatory (Sekalala et al., 2021). Social security rules, sanctions, and equality issues were raised to ensure that human rights law covered the population’s needs and expectations.
However, the intention to manage armed forces and crimes against human lives was remarkable in the UK, which became a basis for a new bill to be implemented. The Overseas Operations Bill approved the presumption against prosecutions for individuals accused of crimes committed abroad five years ago (United Kingdom events of 2020, 2020). Its goal is to promote legal protection of military personnel and veterans who violated human rights because of their tasks and operations. The COVID-19 crisis and the approval of overseas crimes introduce new measures to undermine democratic principles and violate civil rights through the legal prism of state crimes (Gordon and Green, 2021). New legislations support the idea of the government’s overreaching citizens and migrants, overshadowing structural forms of violence (Gordon and Green, 2021). Human rights violations emerge, but the benefits of properly defined organisational goals prevail. As a result, the conditions to justify impunity and reduce criminal punishment increase, proving Lasso’s statement about the vagueness of criminal punishment in the UK.
International Initiatives and Human Rights
Today, a number of serious violations of human rights at local and international levels are reported, becoming a common conflict situation. International humanitarian law introduces the body of rules within which different countries make decisions about how to treat criminals and protect human rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is an international legal body that investigates and alleges violations of civil rights (Černič, 2018). This Court is responsible for applying the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure the respect of the rights to life, fair trials, and expression freedoms for all Europeans. The Human Rights Act was signed in 1998, which affects the convention’s application in UK law (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2019). There is also the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the responsibility of which is to oversee compliances with EU law. Conant (2021) proves that ECJ rulings diminish political rights based on the ECHR judgments. Although the UK left the EU, this event does not prevent the UK cases from being taken to the ECHR, proving the commitment to international human rights treaties and conventions.
At this moment, several international organisations focus on supporting and protecting human rights across the globe. They include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Global Rights, the European Centre for Minority Issues, and the International Federation for Human Rights. Their representatives address the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other laws to prove their positions and help citizens promote justice. However, not many initiatives address the question of perpetrators’ prosecution. Some countries apply mobile hearings to prosecute international crimes and bring justice (Sahin, 2021). Reconciliation is another initiative that fosters respect and forgiveness and affects the quality and nature of punishment. Finally, public (world) opinion is used to approve or disprove a suspected criminal. Still, each country is free to define the specific crimes for prosecution, addressing local rights and universal jurisdiction. The examples of Augusto Pinochet or Saddam Hussein show how much time could be required to obtain justice and prove human rights violations against many people (Einolf, 2021; Esberg, 2021). At the same time, the killing of one person can be a problem for the whole society, and much depends on the context.
Gross Human Rights Violations
To understand how killing one human may be punished harder than the murders of many individuals, it is important to learn the conditions under which gross human rights violations are defined. Amnesty International (2020) addresses the issues of discrimination, right to health, right to housing, women’s rights, and sexual rights in its report about the current situation in the UK. In a broader context, gross violations are serious crimes defined by the gravity of cruelty (Hariharan and Tharika, 2018). The most common examples are murders, tortures, genocide, and apartheid. In addition, enslavement, prolonged detention, deportation, and discrimination may be considered gross human rights violations with inhuman or degrading characters (Hariharan and Tharika, 2018). The EU continues developing the international system that ensures accountability for crimes and the right to reparation. Still, according to Hariharan and Tharika (2018), human rights are not fundamental, which explains the existing controversies and vague court decisions about particular individuals or groups of people. The same crime may be differently investigated and penalised by local and international courts, depending on the place, the condition, and other internal and external factors.
In recent times, much effort has been used to analyse and prove the relationship between the government and the obligation to follow human rights in crime situations. Most citizens believe that they are protected by their politics and legal systems. Regarding the findings by Pegan and Vermeulen (2018), the UK government is rarely defeated in parliament, and if concerns or unclear points emerge, organisational changes are expected within the office. Thus, the situation in the UK politics is more or less stable, and how people should understand and define crimes and punishment depends on other factors like the nature of criminal behaviour, personal histories, and the influential environmental issues like the pandemic or the international situation. For example, the COVID-19 made the government and other organisational bodies impose restrictions and challenge human rights protections regarding education and freedom of movement (Rahman et al., 2021). There are also many examples of domestic violence, hate crimes, sexual abuse, and modern slavery (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2019). Unfortunately, tortures and human rights violations are not limited to some social abuses or restrictions, and punishment is an obligatory requirement.
The Essence of Crime and Punishment
The development of the criminal justice system in the UK is a complex process that includes the participation of various institutions like the police, prosecution services, and the prison system. Sometimes, the cases to blame judges and lawyers are reported, but, in general, the international standards of the Council of Europe are followed to underline the importance of civil rights and related obligations (Humphreys, 2018). Since the mid-18th century industrialisation, Britain has implemented many cultural ideologies and codes according to which society learned what crime and punishment were all about (Tarlow and Lowman, 2018). Stealing, murder, fraud, and other crimes deserve a sort of punishment, but the possibility to avoid a just solution exists in the modern UK, and the activities of politicians, the government, and the legal representatives affect the outcomes.
When it is expected to impose a sentence in the UK, several steps should be regularly taken. First, the type of crime is identified according to the current laws and regulations. Then, the experts learn the offender’s criminal history to understand the reasons for a particular criminal activity (Titchener, 2019). In most cases, personal and financial circumstances are considered to properly represent a hearing process, hire the participants, and allow the individual to make informed decisions and choices.
In courts, criminals may be exposed to different sentences, depending on the number of evidence and how a case is organised. A conditional discharge is possible for a guilty person when the court does not hand down a conviction and impose some restrictions and warrants. Financial fines, compensations, and community services are common for offenders to replace the made harm regarding their abilities (Titchener, 2019). When a serious crime is proved, a prison sentence is the only suitable form of punishment. Imprisonment may be suspended (up to two years), determinate (a fixed length of a sentence), indeterminate (the minimum sentence time), and life (only specific conditions could be revealed to re-examine a case) (Titchener, 2019). Sometimes, all participants of the court hearing come to a conclusion, and no additional questions are raised. If the offender or other stakeholders have some new information to present within some period, the UK court has to re-organise the process and re-take most steps.
International Perspectives in the UK Context
The idea of Lasso about a chance to be judged for killing one person and be unpunished for taking many lives has its ground, and the international perspective shows how such a situation could happen. Impunity of crimes against people is a common topic for many international organisations, and the EU or councils aim at defining similar grounds to analyse conflicts and reduce dehumanisation and violence in the country. International law aims to identify and solve unwanted or questionable incompatibilities of jurisdictions and facilitate international relations (Ozdan, 2018). There are many ways to address human rights violations and understand why impunity happens in the UK. Sometimes, people cannot distinguish the possibility of immunity compared to imposed impunity. As cited in Ozdan (2018), impunity is the international community’s failure to perpetuate violence, allow illegal acts, and create a vengeance culture. There has to be a line between immunity and impunity because the former may be an obstacle to prosecution but a chance to enhance justice (Mitsilegas, 2020; Ozdan, 2018). Therefore, the task of the EU is not to cross the line between what is permissible and what is dangerous or illegal.
It is important to deal with impunity in the UK and demonstrate the government’s position on this topic to the citizens. Most attention is paid to war crimes and the necessity to protect local heroes against unnecessary and unreasonable judgments. Not all senior legal figures support the idea of the Overseas Operations Bill because it damages the reputation of the country and negatively affects the armed forces. However, despite the existing controversies and Brexit, the UK remains committed to the fundamentals of international humanitarian law and respect for human rights. The Bill helps control concerns about the services of British soldiers, and unsustainable accusations are properly managed without breaking the international laws and regulations as long as the government does not ignore the rules. Applying universal jurisdiction is a serious step for the UK to maintain peaceful and trustful relationships with many European countries and other partners abroad.
Conclusion
Despite the desire to create a perfect society, gross human rights violations happen and question the quality of the legal system and laws at local and international levels. Universal jurisdiction should be properly identified and understood in the UK to end impunity for crimes and ensure that no perpetrators can escape or distort justice. The EU and other international communities follow the most critical situations worldwide and never allow a crime to be poorly investigated or judged. The principles of criminal responsibility in the UK are similar to those in most European countries, and crimes against humanity have specific definitions and explanations. The pandemic, Brexit, and military activities challenge the UK legislation in several ways, but a human life may be not just restricted by taken. Lasso’s statement about the possibility of being punished for one killing and never punished for a thousand killings is true due to the implementation of the Overseas Operations Bill. On the one hand, this situation is clear because war crimes are not common with civilian crimes. On the other hand, when impunity is properly grounded in the UK, new concerns about crime quality emerge.
Reference List
Amnesty International (2020) United Kingdom 2020. Web.
Černič, J. J. (2018) ‘Impact of the European court of human rights on the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe’, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 10, pp. 111-137.
Conant, L. (2021) ‘Failing backward? EU citizenship, the Court of Justice, and Brexit’, Journal of European Public Policy.
Einolf, C. J. (2021) ‘How torturers are made: evidence from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq’, Journal of Human Rights, 20(4), 381-395.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2019) Torture in the UK: update report. Web.
Esberg, J. (2021) ‘Anticipating dissent: the repression of politicians in Pinochet’s Chile’, The Journal of Politics, 83(2), 689-705.
Gordon, N. and Green, P. (2021) ‘State crime, structural violence and COVID-19’, State Crime Journal, 10(1), pp. 4-15.
Hariharan, E. and Tharika, S. (2018) ‘Gross human rights violation – the enforcement challenge’, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 1(5). Web.
Humphreys, R. (2018) ‘Enhancing our justice system’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 107(425), pp. 52-56.
Mitsilegas, V. (2020) ‘Conceptualising impunity in the law of the European Union’, in Marin, L. and Montaldo, S. (eds.) The fight against impunity in EU law. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 13-46.
Ozdan, S. (2018) ‘Immunity vs. impunity in international law: a human rights approach’, Baku State University Law Review, 4, pp. 35-51.
Peele, G. (2021) ‘Brexit and post-COVID: reflections on the contemporary conservative party’, The Political Quarterly, 93(3), pp. 404-411.
Pegan, A. and Vermeulen, W. N. (2018) ‘Parliament in gross human rights violations: the case of Darfur’, Acta Politica, 53(3), pp. 448-468.
Rahman, M. et al. (2021) ‘Mental distress and human rights violations during COVID-19: a rapid review of the evidence informing rights, mental health needs, and public policy around vulnerable populations’, Frontiers in Psychiatry.
Sahin, B. (2021) ‘Mobile hearings in the Eastern DRC: prosecuting international crimes and implementing complementarity at national level’, Journal of Eastern African Studies, 15(2), pp. 297-316.
Sekalala, S. et al. (2021) ‘An intersectional human rights approach to prioritising access to COVID-19 vaccines’, BMJ Global Health, 6(2).
Tarlow, S. and Lowman, E. B. (2018) Harnessing the power of the criminal corpse. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Titchener, N. (2019) Types of criminal sentencing under UK law. Web.
United Kingdom events of 2020. Web.
de Zayas, A. (2009) ‘Jose Ayala Lasso’, in D. P. Forsythe (ed.) Encyclopedia of human rights. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 130-132.