FINAL Review Lectures

FINAL Review Lectures - FINAL Review Lectures What else was...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: FINAL Review Lectures What else was appealing about the democratic idea? Human rights- best protection of is a democracy Why? 1) priority given to individual rights, including security 2) free press- acts as a watchdog, can uncover unlawful deprivation of rights 3) civilian courts- better chance to prosecute violations 4) electoral costs to violating human rights Idea is you need institutions to allow for full protection of human rights • Change of idea from democracy as a moral virtue to democracy as a right • Citizens have the right to democracy • States have obligation to defend, promote it • But what if some governments refused? What if they violated human rights? • Do citizens have any recourse? • Often times help needed from the outside • Appeals to other states, NGOs regional orgs to help • But there is a problem • Principle of non-intervention • Latin American states take seriously • Idea presented at founding of OAS, 1948 • Defense against U.S. unilateral invasions • participation in Inter-American system hinged on respect for countries to be free from external meddling. • stigma associated with intervention. • But if true, how can citizens get help from abroad when they really need it? • Idea of Sovereignty has changed in last 15 years • Human rights violators can no hide behind • Can’t say, “we are sovereign powers, we do as we please” • New idea is this: Legitimate sovereignty springs from the consent of the governed. • But if basic rights of free expression, organization, participation and representation were being denied, then regime forfeited its claims to legitimate sovereignty. • So, principle of non-intervention yes, but… • Can’t be used to defend atrocious crimes committed against citizens • then intervention to restore human rights could be justified. • OAS action to defend human rights • Resolution 1080 of 1991: OAS permanent council must meet to decide on diplomatic actions should a country’s democracy be suddenly or irregularly interrupted • Applied 4 times: Haiti 1991, Peru 1992; Guatemala 1993 and Paraguay 1996 • We will review the Peruvian case next. Fujimori and Peru • We study Peru as a case of a country that was democratic in name only for nearly a decade. • Fujimori period of democratic rule, who won 3 terms, 1990-2000. • Fujimori was elected legitimately and by a wide margin. And he was re-elected in 1995. He ran for a third term in 2000, and won a scandal ridden election • then thrown from office in the Fall of 2000. • Not by a military coup, but by revelations of massive corruption and coercion that had driven his government. • Marked a dramatic fall of a man who held almost absolute power in Peru for ten years....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/15/2008 for the course POSC 162 taught by Professor Pion-berlin during the Winter '08 term at UC Riverside.

Page1 / 12

FINAL Review Lectures - FINAL Review Lectures What else was...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online