This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full 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.
- Winter '08