Regional bodies reducing conflict, poverty and promoting HRs

Question 1

1) Promoting HRs

Answer 1

Regional organisations can effectively promote human rights through legal frameworks & political pressure:

AU: African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights + African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights → individuals can bring cases against states → increased accountability.
EU: Human rights embedded in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights → legally enforceable through European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Hungary’s 2018 Stop Soros law → ruled in breach of EU Charter by ECJ → forced repeal → shows supranational enforcement works.
ASEAN: ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) → promotes dialogue & encourages respect for human rights.
Against: Enforcement is often weak, limited by intergovernmental structure & internal divisions:

Arab League: No binding human rights charter or enforcement body → statements made (e.g. Syria, Yemen) but no concrete action.
AU: Struggles with powerful members (e.g. Ethiopia, Sudan) → non-interference principle limits decisive action on abuses.
ASEAN: AICHR lacks binding powers → could only issue non-binding recommendations in Rohingya genocide → Myanmar not held accountable.
Judgement:

Mixed record: EU highly effective due to supranational enforcement via ECJ.
Most other regional organisations (AU, ASEAN, Arab League) are ineffective — limited by sovereignty concerns & inability to sanction rights violations.

Question 2

2) reducing poverty

Answer 2

Regional organisations reduce poverty via economic cooperation, trade liberalisation & development funds:

ASEAN: ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) → intra-ASEAN trade ↑ ($800bn in 2022) → poverty ↓ e.g. Cambodia poverty ↓ from 48% (2007) → 17% (2021).
RCEP trade deal → projected 10.4% trade growth.
EU: Structural & Cohesion Funds (€367bn 2014–2020) → supports poorer regions (e.g. Romania, Greece) → improves infrastructure, education, economic growth.
AU: NEPAD + CAADP → supports agriculture e.g. Rwanda → 5% agricultural growth (2008–2015) → rural poverty ↓.
AfCFTA → potential to lift 30m Africans out of extreme poverty by 2035.
Against: Benefits often unequal; poorer states sometimes harmed by integration:

EU: ECB monetary policy suits richer members (Germany, France) → poorer members (Greece, Italy) face austerity & high unemployment → Greece poverty ↑ to 35% (2015).
AU: Poor infrastructure (only 17% of roads paved) → AfCFTA’s poverty reduction limited.
ASEAN: Growth uneven → Singapore GDP per capita ~$59k vs Myanmar ~$1.4k, Laos ~$2.5k → regional disparities remain.
Judgement: Overall effective — trade liberalisation & targeted funding reduce poverty significantly, but outcomes vary depending on the organisation’s institutional strength & infrastructure capacity.

Question 3

3)reducing conflict

Answer 3

For - Regional organisations reduce conflict via trust-building, economic interdependence & conflict mediation:

AU: Peace & Security Council → sanctions, mediation, peacekeeping → e.g. AMISOM helped stabilise Somalia vs. earlier UN/US failures.
EU: Economic integration + shared institutions → >70 yrs peace among members.
ASEAN: Dialogue forum → de-escalates tensions (e.g. South China Sea) via consensus-based diplomacy.
Against: Limited power & internal divisions weaken effectiveness:

Arab League: no enforcement power → failed to resolve Syrian Civil War → divisions (Qatar vs. Egypt/Algeria).
Reflects realist view: states pursue self-interest → regional orgs can’t override core security concerns.
Judgement: On balance, regional organisations have been effective in reducing conflict, esp. through economic interdependence (EU) & effective mediation (AU, ASEAN).