From a ‘cultural logic’ to an ‘institutional logic’: The politics of human rights in Pacific Island Countries

Abstract

This article examines the politics of human rights in Pacific Island Countries (PICs). It expands the focus from “culture” to “institutions” to analyze how PICs have engaged with the international human rights regime. We reveal that although the Pacific Island Countries have ratified more international human rights treaties and engaged proactively with the international human rights regime in recent years, this shift has not substantially led to accountability necessary to protect, respect, and promote human rights. To unpack this contradiction, we propose an analytical approach, what we call, an “institutional logic.” Using the institutional logic, we argue that the current situation of human rights in PICs is primarily determined by the presence or absence of necessary institutional arrangements pertaining to rights. Thus, we conclude by suggesting that significant institutional reforms are indispensable for protecting and promoting human rights in PICs.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Natasha Khan, Mosmi Bhim and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions and comments.

Notes

1 The term Pacific Island Countries is used throughout this article to refer to small island countries that are member states of the Pacific Islands Forum. These include the Cook Islands, Fiji Islands, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

2 The term international human rights regime refers to the system that collectively incorporates philosophy, institutions, agency, decision-making processes, and practices underpinning the current the current discourse of human rights in the world.

3 There are, however, some exceptions. Some studies have attempted to provide an institutional analysis of human rights in PICs. For instance, Natalie Baird (2015) discussed the role of nongovernment organizations and how they have created a favorable institutional environment to promote human rights in PICs. Likewise, a volume edited by Charlesworth and Larking (2014) provided critical discussions asking to what extent the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process has made a difference in the human rights situation in South Pacific.

4 For instance, rights to land for subsistence across the Pacific can be through either the matrilineal or patrilineal connection. Some communities in PNG have land rights passed through the mother’s connection whereas others access these rights through the father’s lineal connection. Moreover, Polynesian societies such as those in Samoa and Tonga have leadership rights determined by the Matai system and monarchy, respectively, through birth, whereas those in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands may not necessarily have structured leadership hierarchies determined by birth.

5 Except Tonga, all PICs were colonial states. To avoid colonial rule, Tonga chose to become a British protectorate in 1900. Samoa and Fiji became independent states in 1962 and 1970, respectively. Other PICs—such as Nauru, Vanuatu, Marshal Islands, and Palau—were decolonized only in 1968, 1980, 1986, and 1994, respectively.

6 All religious groups in Tuvalu must register with and receive approval from traditional elder councils, called falekaupule, to practice a religion publicly. In 2012, the authority banned Jehovah’s Witnesses on the recommendation of falekaupule (expert consultation by the authors in Suva, Fiji, October 2018).

7 The data, information and analysis used in this paper are based on the first and second authors' experience of teaching human rights and politics courses in the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, the second author's research consultancy works in the Solomon Islands in 2018 to 2020, and the third author's personal reflection of his work as a human rights professional in the Asia Pacific region.

8 Author consultation with a human rights activist in Suva, Fiji, September 2018. Here we must remain cognizant of the reality that the enjoyment of the rights to health, education, adequate food, shelter, water, and sanitation—also known as “survival kits”—are affected by complex situations such as climate change, of which PICs have been increasingly bearing the brunt. Thus, protecting social, economic, and cultural rights requires multifaceted interventions.

9 The Paris Principles provide international minimum standards for NHRIs and underscore that NHRIs must have (1) independence in law, membership, operations, policy, and control of resources; (2) a broad mandate, pluralism in membership, broad functions, adequate powers, adequate resources, cooperative methods, and must engage with international bodies; and (3) a full compliance with the Paris Principles that provides NHRIs with international recognition.

10 Accreditation confers international recognition and the protection of the NHRIs and its compliance with the Paris Principles. Such status also grants participation in the work and decisions of GANHRI and the work of the UN Human Rights Council and other UN mechanisms.

11 In January 2012, PIFS, OHCHR, and APF conducted a joint scoping mission with a view to assist the Solomon Islands to establish the NHRI,

12 National report of Tonga submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21. 2018. A/HRC/WG.6/29/TON/1. Paragraph 125.

13 Section 1 of Article II–Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

14 Section 2 of Article II–Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

15 Section 4 of Article II–Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

16 Section 12 of Article II–Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

17 Fiji has reservations on Article 1 (definition of torture); Article 14 (the right to award compensation to the victims of torture); articles 20, 21, and 22 (competence of the Committee to receive individual communications); and paragraph 1 of Article 30.

18 National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21. The Solomon Islands. 2016. A/HRC/WG.6/24/SLB/1. Paragraph 14.

19 Personal communication with senior Children Development Department staff in Honiara, Solomon Islands, revealed that from 2018 to 2020, the government budget to promote and protect child rights was only SBD$668,000, a little more than US$80,000.

20 In the previous fiscal year, Fiji$1.2 million was allocated to the FHRADC, but was taken away in the revised budget of March 2020.

21 In 1947, the colonizers in the South Pacific had formed the South Pacific Commission (SPC)—in short, known as the Commission—to provide technical advice on economic and social issues in the region. As the wave of decolonization swept across PICs, the leaders in the region, who were dissatisfied with the prohibition of discussion on political matters in the Commission, decided to form a new intergovernment agency (Shibuya, 2004). This resulted in the formation of PIF.

22 The PIDF emerged from the 2012 Engaging with the Pacific (EWTP) leaders’ meeting, attended by leaders and representatives from Pacific Island Countries and territories, where the agreement was reached to convene the PIDF in 2013. EWTP was a Fiji-led regional process that had evolved since 2010, in reaction to its suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum following the 2006 coup.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

D. B. Subedi

D. B. Subedi is a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at the University of New England in Australia. Previously, he was a lecturer in the School of Government, Development, and International Affairs (SGDIA) at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.

Gordon Nanau

Gordon Nanau is a senior lecturer in the School of Law and Social Sciences (SOLASS) at the University of the South Pacific (USP), Fiji. He is interested in leadership issues and how international conventions and globalization impact local communities in PICs.

Dip Magar

Dip Magar is a human rights practitioner and one of the founder members of a Kathmandu-based human rights NGO, Justice and Rights Institute Nepal (JuRI-Nepal). He has worked extensively to monitor and protect human rights in South and Central Asia and the Pacific region.