Two understandings leading to different approaches and outputs
The distinction between human rights violations as symptoms or causes of a violent conflict is not merely theoretical. Indeed, it reflects distinct analytical lenses that hold potentially different policy implications. "For both human rights actors and conflict management practitioners, it matters whether gross human rights violations resulting from conflict is the main concern, or whether the focus is on conflict resulting from a denial of human rights. The problems to be addressed are different and so are the desired outcomes."
If human rights violations are first perceived as symptoms of conflict, the primary objective is to protect people from further abuses, to limit the excesses of war, and to protect civilians and other vulnerable groups. Activities of intermediaries are then aimed at mitigating, alleviating, and containing the destructive manifestations of conflict, in particular any form of physical violence. But if human rights violations are perceived foremost as the cause of the eruption or escalation of a violent conflict, the main objective of activities by both human rights and conflict management practitioners is to address the structural, systemic conditions that give rise to violent conflict in a society. The scholar Johann Galtung introduced the term structural violence to refer to situations where injustice, repression, and exploitation are built into the fundamental structures of society, and where the rights and interests of individuals or groups are impeded upon due to differential access to political representation, economic advancement, and material well-being that is built into a social system. In such situations, a conflict management perspective on human rights must aim at satisfying human needs.11 "The protection and promotion of human rights addresses structural causes of violent conflict by working towards the satisfaction of basic human needs. Institutionalising respect for human rights through, for example, constitutional endorsement of fundamental human rights, the independence of the judiciary, and an independent human rights commission may ensure that such protection is sustained over a period of time and becomes a matter of state policy. It helps prevent high-intensity conflict by limiting the power of the state, affording citizens protection against abuse of rights, and allowing them a large measure of freedom and participation. Root causes can be addressed through measures designed to promote political pluralism, enhance transparency and accountability in governance, enable people to associate freely with groups of their choice, encourage economic growth and equity, facilitate equal access to employment, education, and health care, and strengthen the capacity of the state."
