Preface

Is Tertiary Prevention Sufficient?

Over the past 50 years, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government agencies, and the UN have concentrated their efforts on secondary and tertiary prevention of human rights violations, such as humanitarian assistance during refugee crises, rebuilding the infrastructure of countries torn apart by war, monitoring human rights conditions, and treatment of victims. Although NGOs are gradually moving toward primary prevention, such work still remains a small percentage of the global effort. The Campaign to Ban the Use of Landmines is a clear example of this shift towards primary prevention (1).  No single reason explains the emphasis on secondary and tertiary prevention, except for the fact that most of the developed nations have been relatively spared from the problematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of individuals. 

Why should countries such as the United States, Canada, and those from Western Europe care about the primary prevention of human rights violations, if they are not directly affected by the problem?  The first reason is the dignity of those hundreds of thousands of victims. The second reason is that no country is immune to the sequelae of torture, uprooting, persecution, and other related human rights violations. Even industrialized nations are vulnerable to a large influx of refugees escaping from a nation in turmoil, as Western Europe witnessed during the recent crisis in Bosnia and Kosovo. The third reason is the obligation of industrialized nations to assist poor countries under certain international covenants and treaties (2-3).

Another essential question that should be raised before considering primary prevention measures for human rights violations is whether they would be effective in controlling the problem. Although primary prevention has been efficacious in controlling infections and certain chronic illnesses, no proof exists that they may control the problem of human rights violations.  Switching our efforts toward primary prevention raises many other questions: Should we concentrate on deterrence or promotion?  Should countries known to violate human rights and to carry out torture and persecution suffer economic and political sanctions, or should they receive a preferential treatment with the hope that better socioeconomic conditions will improve the country's human rights conditions? 

References:
1.Ratification Updates. International Campaign to Ban Landmines Web Site; 2000 March 03 [cited 2000 March 27].
Available at: http://www.icbl.org/

2. Steiner HJ and Alston P, editors. International Human Rights in Context Law, Politics, Morals. Oxford University Press, Oxoford , UK , 1996. p 1132 - 1140.

3. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The State of the World’s Refugees 1997 - 1998, A Humanitarian Agenda. Oxford : Oxford University Press; 1998.