Comparative Cherry-Picking in a Military Justice Context: The Misplaced Quest to Give Universally Expansive Meaning to International Human Rights

By Madden, Mike | The George Washington International Law Review, October 1, 2014 | Go to article overview

Comparative Cherry-Picking in a Military Justice Context: The Misplaced Quest to Give Universally Expansive Meaning to International Human Rights


Madden, Mike, The George Washington International Law Review


ABSTRACT

This Article identifies, describes, and provides two military justice examples of a phenomenon that is labeled as "comparative cherry-picking," whereby scholars and jurists rely upon extrajurisdictional law in their efforts to promote more expansive human rights protections. The Article then discusses some of the seemingly overlooked pitfalls of the comparative cherry-picking phenomenon, including treaty denunciation, "cheap talk," human rights backsliding, and desuetude. All of these may result in counterproductive advocacy strategies by human rights activists when increases to international human rights standards would, in turn, lead to decreases in levels of state protection of human rights. Thus, in addition to demonstrating the flaws with the comparative cherry-picking phenomenon as a matter of positive international law, this Article also demonstrates how the phenomenon can be ultimately damaging to the cause of those who care about human rights protections.

I. INTRODUCTION

International human rights, in the abstract, are unquestionably a communal good-something to be promoted.1 Perhaps because of this fact, there is a strong tendency among some scholars and lobbyists to advocate for expansive interpretations of domestic and international human rights.2 In marshaling their arguments in favor of broad individual rights, these advocates will often point to extrajurisdictional sources to suggest that conventional interpretations of certain rights are deficient or incorrect.3

This type of reasoning can represent what I will call "comparative cherry-picking," whereby only the most expansive aspects of human rights doctrines from around the world are packaged together and offered as either positive or normative interpretations of given international human rights. In either case, such scholarship and jurisprudence fail to consider, first, the reality that similarly worded rights may mean different things in different legal contexts and second, that there are typically valid reasons (consistent with the goal of advancing respect for international human rights) for different, rather than universally lofty, interpretations of a given right within different instruments. In other words, the idea that extrajurisdictional sources can create or give a universalized meaning to a particular international human right is misplaced both as a matter of international law and-if one seeks to expand respect for international human rights-as a matter of theory.

Through examination of two case studies involving domestic military justice laws, this Article discusses the internationally recognized right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal and will demonstrate that the right's demands are not universal, but heavily contingent upon the domestic and international legal regimes that apply in particular contexts. Part II of this Article introduces the first case study-Canadian military summary trials- and deconstructs recent attempts by commentators to use jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to ascribe overly expansive fair trial obligations to Canada. Although these commentators deploy extrajurisdictional international human rights law (IHRL) as an argument to insist that Canadian summary trials are unfair, the analysis in Part II reveals that summary trials are consistent with both domestic constitutional law and any international law that is actually binding on Canada-specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).4

Part III of this Article introduces a second military justice case study involving the Canadian Federal Court's 2013 decision in Tindungan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)5- another example of an instance where domestic constitutional and international human rights to a fair trial have been conflated and confused. In that case, the American military justice system was found not to "meet basic fairness standards that are internationally recognized to be fundamental to any tribunal system"6 largely because the American system was not compatible with the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on fair military trials. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Comparative Cherry-Picking in a Military Justice Context: The Misplaced Quest to Give Universally Expansive Meaning to International Human Rights
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.