Authored by Harshita Sharma and Kirthana Shivakumar, IV Year students at the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai

Introduction

The intersection of human rights and diplomacy is a complex and contentious area of international relations, where ethical considerations collide with geopolitical interests. At the heart of this intersection lies the concept of transactional diplomacy, a strategic approach characterised by exchange of favours between nations. This article delves into the intricate dynamics between human rights and transactional diplomacy, focusing on Germany’s response to the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) verdict on the South Africa-Israel genocide dispute (‘Genocide Dispute’). The Genocide Dispute, with its historical, political, and ethical complexities, serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges inherent in contemporary international relations.

Nature of Transactional Diplomacy and its Impact on Human Rights

‘Transactional Diplomacy’ was a term coined to describe former US President  Donald Trump’s approach to international relations. It can be understood as using a quid pro quo logic, that one would offer concessions or provide incentives for another only if they are benefitting from the same in some form. In the international sphere, a mere trading of favours is insufficient, a more nuanced strategy including compassion and offering trials free of cost are necessary to achieve long-term goals. Historically, transactional diplomacy has been used by nations to mask their disregard for human rights in favour of strategic or economic interests.

One of the most prominent features of transactional diplomacy is selective engagement. This involves governments exhibiting varying degrees of outrage and attention towards different conflicts based on their interests and alliances. For instance, the U.S. has condemned the attacks of Hamas on Gaza yet they simultaneously fail to condemn Israel’s attacks on Gaza. This selective engagement stems from political considerations rather than a consistent commitment to human rights. This has a severe adverse effect on the international human rights regime as nations without political power are left helpless. For instance, despite the escalation of armed conflict in Sudan in 2023, there has been limited international intervention or condemnation.

Another detrimental feature of transactional diplomacy is the prioritising of pragmatism over principles. Applying transactional diplomacy in making foreign policy decisions leads to implementing pragmatic solutions at the cost of human rights. For instance, China’s economic partnerships with African countries often prioritise economic benefits over human rights concerns.

A third feature of transactional diplomacy is unilateral decision-making. Transactions in diplomacy occur between states, each having autonomy to make decisions that may lack broader consensus in the international regime. For instance, both the United States and the United Kingdom continue to engage in arms deals with Saudi Arabia despite such arms contributing to human right violations in Yemen. While international humanitarian law obligates states to conduct human rights risk assessment of their arms sales, enforcement mechanisms are often weak or ineffective, leading to a lack of consequences and setting a negative precedent.

Germany’s Reaction to the ICJ Ruling on the Genocide Dispute

Germany rushed into declaring an intervention against South Africa due to its diplomatic ties with Israel. Irrespective of whether Germany will succeed, the political fallout from and the political cost of this intervention are immense.

Following an unprecedented conflict between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, a humanitarian crisis erupted in the Gaza Strip, leading South Africa to file accusations against Israel for breaches of the Genocide Convention. Germany’s position attracted widespread attention and criticism. Germany fiercely denied Israel’s charges of genocide while recognising Israel’s right to self-defence. Citing the Genocide Convention, Germany emphasised the lack of genocidal intent when targeted military actions were taken against armed militants.

As hostilities increased, various nations, drew comparisons with Germany’s historical crimes and applied increasing pressure to Germany. Namibia called for Germany to re-evaluate its backing for Israel and denounced the country’s intervention. Palestinian officials voiced their shock, charging Germany with defending Israel from responsibility. Germany’s legal defence of Israel’s conduct in Gaza prompted concerns about how genocidal intent should be interpreted as well as the reliability of the evidence.

Germany denied supporting the killings in Gaza by arming Israel, but highlighting its historical responsibility for Israel’s security as a result of the Holocaust. Germany said in response to Nicaragua’s appeal at the ICJ that its arms exports were subject to intense inspection that went above and beyond international legal requirements. Germany has stressed its humanitarian assistance to Gaza while maintaining that Israel reacted to attacks in self-defence. In order to stop Germany’s arms shipments to Israel and reinstate funds for The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (‘UNRWA’), Nicaragua requested ICJ action which was rejected. Germany contended that unless the ICJ proved Israel’s violation of the Genocide Convention, it could not be held accountable for preventing genocide.

Germany’s participation had major political repercussions since many nations saw it as an example of international law’s double standards. This intervention remains an emotive subject of discussion and scrutiny, indicating underlying conflicts within the international community regarding justice, responsibility, and historical legacies.

Impact of Transactional Diplomacy on Human Rights

Human Rights Watch (‘HRW’), an international organisation, highlighted 2023 as a year of serious crises and problems in its annual report. HRW partially attributed these issues to ‘transactional diplomacy.’ This strategy was typified by the inconsistent and occasionally opportunistic position on human rights defence taken by international governments. The World Report 2024 was released in conjunction with an important matter involving the Genocide Dispute. This lawsuit brought to light a humanitarian crisis the ongoing Israeli assault and blockade of Gaza that had claimed the lives of nearly 23,000 people and forced around 2 million more to flee their homes.

The report lamented the diminishing ability of the global system to protect human rights. HRW called on world leaders to put the fundamental human rights above any temporary political advantages or security concerns and denounced transactional diplomacy. The report emphasised how Israel was able to continue its military operations in Gaza due to the financial backing it received from different nations, despite proof of civilian losses. The report highlighted comparable patterns among member states of the European Union, including cases in which these nations made agreements with governments recognised for violating human rights in order to reduce migration. Even historically rights-abiding governments have given in to pressure to sacrifice core values for expedient benefits like political stability or security. The United Nations Human Rights Council (‘UNHRC’) has also taken a fierce stance against transactional diplomacy while promoting stricter accountability on a global level. It commissions fact-finding missions and designates Special Rapporteurs to look into violations of human rights. These systems are intended to hold all nations responsible, irrespective of their economic or political might, in stark contrast to transactional diplomacy’s selective approach.

Conclusion

Germany’s response to the ICJ’s ruling on the Genocide Dispute illustrates the complex interplay between human rights and transactional diplomacy, highlighting the challenges of balancing moral obligations with geopolitical considerations. The traits of transactional diplomacy, such as selective involvement and prioritisation of immediate gains, often lead to inconsistent human rights enforcement, as seen in Germany’s controversial support for Israel. This case underscores the detrimental impact of transactional diplomacy on global human rights, emphasizing the need for nations to prioritize ethical imperatives and uphold international law to achieve a more equitable international order.

Germany’s actions exemplify the difficulties in reconciling human rights with diplomatic goals, advocating for a principled approach in international relations, over a transactional one. To deal with this issue, the first aspect that needs to looked into is stricter implications for non-adherence to jus cogens norms like genocide. This can stem out of binding multilateral agreements. Further, the core essence of these agreements should focus on the promotion of value based diplomacy. This would effectuate long term benefits for the member states rather than phantom victories that come with transactional diplomacy which are temporary in nature. One such example is the Paris Agreement which entails collective value based commitment to preserving the environment. Hence, by encouraging countries to commit to a cause that transcends individual gain, the Paris agreement exemplifies value-based diplomacy in action, inspiring collaboration for a universally beneficial goal which is the need of the hour for human right issues like genocide as well.

Picture Credit: CNN