Human Rights between Universality and Indivisibility: In Conversation with François Zimeray
- Nadia Jahnecke
- Jul 1, 2024
- 18 min read
Updated: Jun 27
François Zimeray is a prominent French diplomat, lawyer, former politician, and human rights activist. Zimeray previously served as France’s Ambassador-at-Large for Human Rights. He later became the French Ambassador for the Kingdom of Denmark in 2013.
This interview was conducted on 14 September 2023.
CJLPA: Welcome, Mr François Zimeray. We would like to begin by thanking you for taking the time to come and interview with The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art. Your extensive political career as an MP in the European Parliament, being the French Ambassador-at-Large for Human Rights appointed by President Sarkozy, and serving as the French ambassador to Denmark, combined with your experience as a lawyer in international criminal and human rights law, provides a valuable perspective on pressing international law and political questions. We would specifically like to examine key legal and political issues in respect to the Russia-Ukraine War, but also more broadly, in the name of human rights. I wanted to begin by asking you to briefly outline your career. Having begun as a commercial lawyer, you transitioned into successful career in politics, and then started a leading law firm specializing in international human rights. What prompted your decision to delve into the field of human rights law?
François Zimeray: Thank you for inviting me, it’s a privilege for me to have this opportunity to share some thoughts and maybe experiences with the students you represent. Human rights has always been a commitment in my life, even before I became a lawyer, before I got involved in politics. I was in high school when I heard about Cambodian genocide, and I was very troubled, because my generation was raised with one motto, inspired by the tragedy of the Second World War, and this motto was ‘never again’. And we were obsessed about what to do in order to avoid a new perpetration of the crimes and atrocities of the mid-20th century. I realised when I was a very young student that this was happening again. I thought that indifference is a crime without forgiveness. So, I got involved in human rights through the schools by welcoming and supporting Cambodian refugees. This put me in contact with the realities of the world. Before, I didn’t know because I was not configurated or confronted to these realities, living in a protected environment in Paris. After meeting the Cambodian refugees and discovering what they had seen and endured, this inspired the rest of my life.
You mentioned a career, but this is a word I never used. In fact, I never had a career plan. When I look into the rear mirror, as it were, it’s only then that I can see something which looks like a career path.
CJLPA: What do human rights mean to you personally?
FZ: That’s a good question. I learned from experience that words have not the same meaning depending on the person who listens to them. And human rights is a very important example, which deserves extended consideration. Because when you say, human rights, most people hear ethics, values, principles, moral virtues. And I have to say that human rights are not ethics. Human rights are not morals. Human rights are not very views, which is a very vague term. Human rights are rights that exist or don’t exist; rights that are enforced or violated.
From this divide, it could lead to two different interpretations and attitudes vis-à-vis human rights. If you think that human rights are the synonym of morals, ethics, virtue, you are then dealing with symbols, posters, statements saying that human rights are perfect because ethics, by definition, are perfect. But, if you think that human rights are rights, which mean compromises or virtues, then human rights are, by definition, imperfect. Why do I say this? Because in democracies, rights are adopted by Parliament, after ideas are traded and discussed by different political parties and ultimately voted for by resolutions. These are therefore rights adopted from compromises which are inherently imperfect. As a former diplomat, I know that if you consider human rights as morals, then it is absolute and there is no possibility for compromise. It becomes a question of morals against other morals. Let’s say for example, we consider women’s rights and their right to religious freedom in wearing a veil, or the burqa, or other aspects. If you stand with moral arguments, you will face people with another vision of morality. I don’t see where a compromise or an agreement can be made if you have different morals. But, if you say human rights are not about morals, but actually about rights, then a dialogue is always possible: Where should we put the limit? What is allowed? What is forbidden? On which criteria should we agree to set a standard?
So this is my personal vision of human rights. Human rights are rights and it’s very demanding. It’s very demanding because sometimes the ‘right’ the law says can imply different solutions, opposite to what morals should inspire. Let’s try to find a very concrete example. Let’s say that in a criminal procedure, you have an accused criminal who is more likely than not guilty, but the criminal procedure is not fully respected. This means that the criminal’s right to a defence and the right to a fair trial is not fully respected. This leads the court to declare a mistrial due to the lack of respect for the rules. This outcome is in accordance with having rights. However, if you ask someone in terms of moral ethics, you have criminal that should be in jail. So, I don’t believe in fixating on morals and the justice that comes with it. I believe in rights, which is different and a very demanding discipline. It is a discipline which requires to think against oneself.
