Chapter 12: Globalism, Nationalism, and Marginalized Communities

12.4: International Responses: Advocacy and Human Rights Protections

The way the international community responds to human rights crises can mean the difference between protection and persecution for marginalized communities. Around the world, millions of people face displacement, violence, and oppression, often at the hands of their own governments. While some nations prioritize national sovereignty over external involvement, others argue that protecting human rights is a global responsibility. The debate over how the international community should intervene in humanitarian crises has shaped global politics for decades. In the film Children of Men, the absence of international responses is glaring—Britain, overwhelmed by social collapse, isolates itself and actively suppresses refugees rather than providing aid or protection. The film’s dystopian world illustrates what happens when global advocacy, humanitarian intervention, and international cooperation break down. In reality, efforts to protect vulnerable populations come in many forms, from the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to international commitments like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). By examining these mechanisms, we can better understand the strengths and limitations of international responses to human rights challenges.

When governments fail to protect their citizens, independent organizations often step in to fill the void. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in advocating for human rights, providing humanitarian aid, and supporting marginalized communities. Organizations like Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, and the International Rescue Committee operate globally to offer legal assistance, medical care, and shelter to displaced populations. In Children of Men, such organizations are notably absent, leaving refugees and immigrants at the mercy of an authoritarian state. This reflects real-world situations in which NGOs struggle to operate due to government restrictions, as seen in Myanmar, where humanitarian groups face severe obstacles in delivering aid to the persecuted Rohingya population. Despite these challenges, NGOs remain essential in crisis zones, often serving as the first responders when state institutions collapse. However, their ability to act is limited without broader political or military intervention, which leads to the question of when and how states should engage in humanitarian intervention.

The decision to intervene in another country’s crisis is one of the most complex and controversial aspects of international relations. Humanitarian intervention involves diplomatic, economic, or military actions taken to prevent or stop human rights abuses. In Children of Men, the absence of any external intervention allows Britain’s mistreatment of refugees to go unchecked, mirroring real-world cases where international inaction has had devastating consequences. For example, during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the international community largely failed to intervene, allowing mass killings to unfold. By contrast, NATO’s military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was justified on humanitarian grounds, aiming to prevent further ethnic cleansing of Albanians by Serbian forces. While humanitarian intervention can sometimes prevent atrocities, it is also highly controversial—critics argue that it can be used as a pretext for military aggression or regime change, as seen in the 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, which led to long-term instability. The debate over intervention has led to the development of international norms, most notably the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which seeks to balance state sovereignty with the moral obligation to prevent mass atrocities.

The idea that the international community has a duty to protect populations from crimes against humanity is a relatively recent but increasingly important principle in global governance. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was formally adopted by the United Nations in 2005, establishing that when a state fails to protect its people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to step in. This principle reflects the moral and political dilemmas explored in Children of Men, where the British government fails to uphold basic human rights, and no international body intervenes to stop its abuses. While R2P has been invoked in some cases—such as the international response to the Darfur crisis in Sudan—it has been inconsistently applied, with critics arguing that political interests often dictate when and where intervention occurs. The Syrian Civil War is a prime example: despite overwhelming evidence of mass atrocities committed by the Assad regime, international efforts to intervene have been largely ineffective due to geopolitical divisions among powerful nations. This inconsistency highlights the need for stronger international advocacy, which often comes from transnational advocacy networks.

In an interconnected world, advocacy for human rights does not stop at national borders. Transnational advocacy networks (TANs) are coalitions of NGOs, activists, and international organizations that work together to promote human rights and pressure governments to take action. These networks amplify the voices of marginalized communities, using tactics such as media campaigns, legal advocacy, and direct engagement with policymakers. In Children of Men, the resistance group attempting to help Kee escape represents a form of grassroots advocacy, albeit in a dystopian world where such movements are brutally suppressed. In reality, transnational advocacy networks have played key roles in major human rights victories, such as the global movement to end apartheid in South Africa or the international campaign against landmines, which led to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. However, their effectiveness depends on public awareness and political will—without pressure from advocacy groups, governments may be reluctant to intervene in human rights crises. As seen in both Children of Men and real-world struggles, the protection of marginalized communities requires persistent global engagement, reinforcing the idea that human rights are a shared international responsibility.

Now that you’ve made it through this section, you’ve probably realized that understanding advocacy and human rights protections requires mastering a mountain of acronyms—because in this field, knowing your NGOs from your R2P and ICC from your UDHR is basically a survival skill. The international response to human rights challenges is shaped by a tangled web of advocacy, intervention, and political interests. NGOs provide critical aid and amplify the voices of the oppressed, but without state cooperation, their ability to halt large-scale atrocities is limited. Humanitarian intervention, while sometimes necessary, remains controversial as governments juggle national interests with moral imperatives. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) offers a framework for action in extreme cases, but its selective application raises concerns about inconsistency and political bias. At the same time, transnational advocacy networks work tirelessly to keep human rights on the global agenda, ensuring that injustices are not ignored. Children of Men offers a chilling vision of what happens when these systems fail—when security trumps humanity and the world turns its back on suffering. Ultimately, understanding these international responses is essential for ensuring that human rights protections remain a priority in an increasingly uncertain world.