Human dignity and the two conceptions of multilateralism

Speech given at the inaugural session of the Journées strasbourgeoises devoted to the theme: "Dignity and Justice".

Stéphane Dion - Prime Minister Trudeau's Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe and Canadian Ambassador to France and Monaco

July 1, 2024, Strasbourg

Right Honourable Chief Justice, President of the Constitutional Council, Prime Minister, General Delegate, Honourable Judges, Professors,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In this unique opportunity to address the cream of the Canadian judiciary and renowned European jurists, you'll understand that as a political scientist, I'm not going to risk giving you a lecture on law. I will therefore approach the crucial subject of the right to dignity, the theme of these Journées strasbourgeoises 2024, from the angle of politics and diplomacy, the two fields of activity to which I have devoted my adult life. So, instead of pretending to explain your job, I'm going to tell you about mine.

More specifically, I'd like to examine human dignity from the point of view of multilateralism, a major preoccupation of every Canadian diplomat.

After describing multilateralism, I will show that the tension between its two conceptions, the liberal and the Westphalian, must be considered for the effective promotion of human dignity.

Multilateralism

Multilateralism is cooperation between states in accordance with international standards. These norms, whether regional or global in scope, are codified in legal documents (charters, agreements, treaties, etc.) and institutionalized through a vast array of international organizations, with the United Nations at its epicenter. These institutionalized mechanisms mobilize countless political figures, diplomats, experts, negotiators, scientists and jurists, with a view to establishing cooperation between sovereign states and private organizations in all fields.

In the absence of a world government, multilateralism, as it has developed since the end of the Second World War, aims to avoid the law of the jungle between sovereign states, and to foster their peaceful cooperation towards common goals.

The institutional apparatus of multilateralism is constantly expanding. Every year, new norms, agreements and organizations are added to the point where it can be said that today, multilateralism covers all areas of human activity: peace and security, human rights, judicial cooperation, economic and social development, trade and finance, health, the environment, climate, fisheries, transport and communications, education, science and technology, and so on.

Since 1945, the multilateral system has served humanity well, even if states are far from always respecting it. If universal rights are better respected than in the past, if decolonization has been achieved, if democracy has progressed, if pandemics are considerably better controlled, if education has spread spectacularly, if extreme poverty has been greatly reduced and if the standard of living has risen sharply, there are many reasons for this progress, but it would not have been possible if states had not adopted a set of common objectives, legal rules, international organizations and other collective means of action to be placed under the umbrella of multilateralism and an international order based on recognized norms and rules.

Canada has been an architect of these multilateral institutions. Again most recently, Canada played a very active role in drafting the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. I should also mention, since we are in Strasbourg, our contribution to the Council of Europe's new Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.

The practice of multilateralism has never been easy. There has never been a golden age. When would there have been? Certainly not during the Cold War. Nor during the 1990s, with the Gulf War, the Rwandan genocide, the Yugoslav wars, a host of civil wars and so on. Every era has had its difficulties. The next time you hear a politician say that multilateralism is more threatened than ever or, more emphatically, that "the future has never been so uncertain", you might suggest that they show more consideration for the difficulties their predecessors had to face.

The end of the Cold War may have raised hopes that the difficulties were behind us, and that multilateralism would henceforth unfold without a hitch. But always, to varying degrees, states have tended to choose to observe the international rules that benefit them, and to ignore or bypass those that displease them. Multilateralism will remain a system not to be taken for granted, requiring constant attention, in a world fundamentally governed by the sovereignty of states.

The most inherent difficulty lies in the constant tension between the two conceptions of multilateralism: the Westphalian and the liberal.

The two conceptions of multilateralism

The Westphalian conception takes its name from the famous Treaties of Westphalia, ratified in 1649, which, among other things, calmed down the Wars of Religion in Europe by leading to the principle that instead of seeking to impose a single religion on all by force of arms, it would be accepted that each state takes the religion of its prince.

In morden terms, the Westphalian concept is one in which states cooperate without interfering in each other's internal affairs. It is institutionalized by Article 2, paragraph 7, of the UN Charter: "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state".

The liberal conception, on the other hand, places multilateralism at the service of the promotion of universal rights. It is spelled out in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifies the rights linked to the dignity of every human being that must be protected everywhere on this planet. Its first article states, as you know, that: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Equal dignity is the basic, inalienable right common to all human beings.

So, on the one hand, the Westphalian conception aims to enable cooperation between different, competing or rival political regimes, including democratic and autocratic ones. On the other hand, the liberal conception aims to establish human dignity everywhere on the planet, with the universal rights that go with it: the right to life, liberty, equality, fraternity, freedom of opinion, expression, religion, movement, the presumption of innocence, political freedoms and economic and social rights. And the rule of law - the principle that no one is above the law, and certainly not those who make it.

We must emphasize the truly universal nature of these rights, of which no human being should be deprived in the name of who knows what cultural relativism. This declaration is not exclusively Western; it is universal in scope. Just because rights have been formulated primarily in one region of the world does not mean they should be reserved for that region alone. Or maybe only Greeks are suited to democracy!

When the Declaration was proclaimed in Paris on December 10, 1948, the United Nations had 58 members. None voted against, 48 voted for, two did not take part in the vote, and eight abstained, including six countries then under Communist rule, plus apartheid-ruledSouth Africa and Saudi Arabia (which cited incompatibility with Sharia law). But seven Muslim countries voted in favor of the Declaration. Countries from every continent lent their support.

As a Canadian, I'm proud that it was a fellow countryman, John Humphrey, then Director of the UN Human Rights Division, who drafted the first version of this fundamental document. Above all, I am proud that this Canadian was able to express the rights of all human beings, regardless of their nationality, gender, religion, cultural or ethnic traits.

The tension between the Westphalian and liberal conceptions of multilateralism is particularly keenly felt by liberal democracies, as they pursue this dual aspiration. They want both to promote universal rights to freedom and democracy, and to deal with autocratic regimes to advance the goals of peace and sustainable development.

Today, the inherent tension or rivalry between the Westphalian and liberal conceptions is exacerbated by two trends: on the one hand, the interdependence (geopolitical, commercial, scientific, environmental...) between democratic states and certain autocratic regimes has grown considerably, particularly with China. On the other hand, the new media have made the violations of universal rights perpetrated by autocratic regimes more visible and more widely known, and they are therefore less tolerated by public opinion in democratic countries. As a result, we are sanctioning more and more of the regimes with which we trade and interact more and more.

We want both - universal rights and inter-regimecooperation - and we're right to do so, but it's not easy. It never has been.

Some would like to abandon the Westphalian conception and speak out loud and clear in defense of rights in all circumstances. But is this really always the best way to promote these rights in today's reality? Take, for example, the situation in which Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, the Hon. Steven Guilbeault, found himself when he had to co-chair, with his Chinese counterpart, the 15th United Nations Conference on Biodiversity in Montreal in December 2022. If the Canadian minister had used this platform to denounce the Chinese regime, he would certainly have wrecked the conference. Instead, his close cooperation with the Chinese minister has enabled humanity to be better equipped to protect biodiversity and promote the right of all human beings to a healthy environment.

Another example is support for Ukraine in the face of Putin's war of aggression. We could limit ourselves to seeking support only from democratic countries. But this would be a mistake, for the issue at stake is universal in scope, transcending differences between regimes. It must be proven once and for all that a country gains nothing by attempting to invade its neighbor. It must be demonstrated, for the good of all, that the crime of invasion does not pay.

So, there's no getting around it: we need to make the most of both conceptions of multilateralism, Westphalian and liberal. Both are necessary to overcome all the immense challenges facing humanity, including : stopping the resurgence of war, not relaunching the nuclear arms race, combating the terrible consequences of climate change and the collapse of biodiversity, feeding nine billion people without depleting our ecosystems, guaranteeing access to fresh water everywhere and not allowing it to become a source of conflict, protecting populations from international terrorism and cyber-attacks, putting an end to large-scaletax evasion, managing migratory flows humanely and curbing their causes.

None of these major global challenges can be overcome without ever more effective multilateralism, underpinned by extensive cooperation between different regimes, and without progress in democracy, the rule of law and universal rights, first and foremost the equal right of all human beings to dignity.

This is a dilemma of our time. I invite this assembly, which includes some of the world's finest jurists, to consider it. The question is put to you: in this imperfect world, how can we advance human dignity? We look forward to hearing your answers. No pressure! I wish you excellent Journées strasbourgeoises!

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.