Social Workers and International Human Rights

Introduction

On January 14, 2004 , NASW's Legal Defense Fund (LDF) joined in a Supreme Court challenge to the continued detention of “unlawful combatants” at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay , Cuba . Acting as an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”), NASW's LDF joined with other civil rights and social justice organizations to file a brief arguing for basic civil rights for the detainees, most of whom were captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . This article reviews the connection between human rights concerns and the social work profession, as viewed through the lens of NASW's participation in Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States (collectively, the Guantanamo Bay cases), and based on NASW's policy statements and the NASW Code of Ethics.

Case Summary

More than 600 combatants, primarily from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002, have been held — without access to any legal process — by the United States government at Guantanamo Bay . Housed in wire cages with little protection from the elements or vermin, most of these inmates have no legal counsel, and have been detained with no right to a review of their legal status and no ability to contact family members. Sixteen of the detainees are attempting, through legal challenges, to gain the right to a review of the legality of their continued detention through the U.S. legal system. The petitioners' lawsuit is based on the habeas corpus statute ( habeas corpus literally means “bring forth the body”) and the right to a basic judicial review of the legality of one's detention. If successful, their lawsuit could pave the way for judicial review of the remaining detainees' legal status.

The U.S. government and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (which issued an opinion in 2002), assert that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction to hear the claims of these non-citizens, who were captured on enemy soil and are being held offshore. In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense has maintained that the protections of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW), 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, are inapplicable. Thus, the government argues that the Guantanamo Bay detainees may be held indefinitely with no access to even the most basic protections of due process.

NASW's Involvement as Amicus

In the Guantanamo Bay cases, the NASW LDF brief argues that the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war apply with the force of law to the United States as a treaty ratified by the U.S. The brief also indicates that it is disingenuous for the United States to claim that there is no legal jurisdiction in a naval base under its control since 1903 simply because it is not on U.S. ground. Violation of a U.S. treaty is accepted as grounds for a non-frivolous habeas corpus request, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

NASW's participation as amicus curiae in any given case involves an evaluation of several factors, including the significance of the legal decision to be rendered, the connection to a published policy or the Association's Code of Ethics , and the availability of a well-written brief supported by likeminded organizations. The NASW Code of Ethics provides a broad mandate for participation in cases protecting human rights and dignity. Standard 6.01, NASW Code of Ethics , states, “Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments...and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice” (NASW, 1999).

Although social workers have long been involved in promoting human rights, many members of the profession lack a clear understanding of this issue, and of NASW's policy statement on this topic. In the United States , many rights have become well established, such as the right to fair wages, humane treatment of the mentally ill, protection of children from exploitation, and civil rights for persons of all races and genders. At each stage in the battle for these rights, social workers have been involved; in some cases, such as Jane Addams' work for women's suffrage and Florence Kelly's operation of the Consumers' League in the national campaign against child labor, these advocacy efforts became the birthing ground for the creation of the professional social worker.

According to the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), “Human rights condenses into two words the struggle for dignity and fundamental freedoms which allow the full development of human potential” (NASW, 2003). NASW's policy statement, “International Policy Human Rights,” points out the parallel between human beings' fundamental rights and the values articulated in the NASW Code of Ethics , recognizing the inherent dignity and worth of each person. International organizations, such as the United Nations, have formulated a set of common legal standards basic to life in a civil society. The assertion and eventual recognition of rights is key to the transformation of vulnerable populations, within the United States and internationally.

NASW's “International Policy on Human Rights” was adopted by the NASW Delegate Assembly in 1999, and superceded the human rights statements approved in 1981 and 1990. The policy states, “NASW endorses the fundamental principles set forth in the human rights documents of the United Nations.” These principles include the right not to be arbitrarily detained and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of an individual's rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him, as specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. NASW policy “supports the adoption of human rights as a foundation principle upon which all of social work theory and applied knowledge rests” (NASW, 2003).

On this basis, NASW heartily supports the Guantanamo Bay detainees' rights to have access to basic due process protections. “NASW must speak out against inhumane treatment of people in whatever form it exists” (NASW, 2003).

The basic protections of our legal system, such as the right to court review for denial of liberties and freedoms, form the bedrock of our society. Without the assumptions that there is equal access to the law, that laws will be applied fairly, and that police functions are separate from judicial and legislative functions, social workers' ability to support individuals in their environment would be severely hampered.

Social workers in community organizing roles are well aware of the connection between group consciousness of legal rights and the ability to organize a neighborhood or population to make significant change. In the international sphere, the lack of recognition and support for human rights presents a similar opportunity for social workers to advocate for humane standards of treatment for all people.

Conclusion

Social workers may all-too-easily forget that we live in a global community where many freedoms and legal protections that we, in the U.S., take for granted are unavailable and seemingly unattainable to other peoples — particularly those in third world and developing nations. Regardless of political orientation, it is essential for social workers to understand that, for our liberties and those of our clients to be protected, laws must be applied fairly and rationally, with access to justice for all people. Increasingly we are challenged to stand up for the rights and liberties of the unpopular, so that rights and protections will remain available for all, and in recognition of our common humanity.

References

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers . Washington , DC : Author.

National Association of Social Workers. (2003). International Policy on Human Rights. Social work speaks: National Association of Social Workers policy statements, 2003–2006 (6th ed., p. 180). Washington , DC : NASW Press.

Additional Resources

National Association of Social Workers. (2003). Abstract of International Policy on Human Rights. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.socialworkers.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/international.asp

Posner, M. H., Pearlstein, D., Doherty, F., Freiman, J. F., & Turner, C. (2004, January). Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States : Brief of Amici Curiae Bipartisan Coalition of National and International Non-governmental Organizations in Support of Petitioners [Online]. Available at: http://www.socialworkers.org/ldf/brief_bank/14077Freiman.pdf

Stoesen, L. (2004, March). Guantanamo Case Joined. NASW News , p.1 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/news/2004/03/guantanamo.asp?back=yes

The information contained in this Web site is provided as a service to members and the social work community for educational and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We provide timely information, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this Web site and its associated sites. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between NASW, LDF, or the author(s) and you. NASW members and online readers should not act based on the information provided in the LDF Web site. Laws and court interpretations change frequently. Legal advice must be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case. Nothing reported herein should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.-

LDF Home | Legal Issue of the Month | Contributions to LDF
Members' Application for Assistance
Guidelines for Grants | Law Notes