Who Decides When Force Becomes Excessive

With growing public concern over excessive use of force by federal organizations, defining when violence crosses a line is becoming increasingly difficult.

In recent weeks, Israel has been criticized by the United Nations (UN) and countries the world over for excessive force used by their Israeli Security Forces (ISF) against Palestinian protesters. Following the killing of at least 60 Palestinians, including 8 children by the ISF, governments like Ireland are tightening sanctions against Israel, demanding change.

The UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) has opened an official inquiry into Israel’s practices, appalled at what they claim are egregious human rights violations. The HRC is vocal about such violations the world over. Their efforts range from criticism of weak child marriage regulation to voicing concerns over the potential human rights threat posed by climate change.

Debate over all these topics is heated, but perhaps none so much as excessive use of force. What gives any government a right to decide what is considered excessive? Cultural and political factors may be at play that are too complex for external sources to properly understand. Media coverage may be biased. There may be alternative political motivations in judging use of force.

No country is without its own human rights violations, making these conversations often at least somewhat hypocritical. Nevertheless, this does not preclude any nation or organization from participating in discussions around excessive force. Responding to these issues absolutely should be an international concern, but such concerns must be navigated carefully.

It’s because of these needs that the UN exists to begin with. Because it is a cooperative organization made up of 193 countries, it has only as much power as its members ascribe it. In theory, these nations work together to resolve conflicts in a culturally sensitive manner. More countries need to mind this approach.

Odd as it sounds, determining when something is a rights violation is cultural. France provided a clear example of this in 2010 when it first banned the burqa and niqab, claiming that these were symbols of oppression and gender-based violence. Their efforts were clearly misguided and ignorant despite good intentions. Understanding our own cultural context is crucial to understanding when people are actually being victimized as opposed to when we perceive them to be.

It cannot stop here. Though the UN works to address cultural context in human rights violations, it is important to understand the social and political position of perceived victims. They may, as in the case of France, hold much more complex and nuanced views around the topic. They may feel there is no problem at all, at which point legislation itself becomes a violation.

However, this raises new concerns. If we consider cultural context, we must also ask when human rights surpasses cultural consideration. A clear example is genital mutilation, a common practice in some parts of the world facing heavy criticism for being excessively violent, regardless of cultural context. In contrast, the disregard for culture critics often have has itself been subject to great debate.

We must also understand the power structures influencing all of these factors. A group may not see themselves as facing violence and oppression because of the influence of their culture or government. This is seen in the case of genital mutilation, where the practice is culturally ingrained. An extreme example is North Korea, where citizens are starving and impoverished, yet their information is carefully controlled to sculpt their perception of the rest of the world.

Judging excessive use of force may seem simple, but it is a topic that must be approached carefully. It is not enough to judge against one’s own cultural values without listening to the voices of the victims and examining the potentially oppressive power structures they exist within.

These principles apply not just on a global scale, but on a personal one. Recognizing violence and oppression of our peers and acting to protect those who may be harmed must still follow these ideas. The desire to help is powerful, but it absolutely must be tempered with thoughtful cultural consideration, or else it risks becoming oppression itself.