Who Is Responsible for Our Human Rights?

A major earthquake (7.7 magnitude) which hit Mandalay, Myanmar on Friday, March 28, 2025, has caused a death toll of more than 3,700 and has led to chaos with many trapped under collapsed buildings. What is curious is the extreme unpreparedness of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar’s military authority) to the earthquake and subsequent response and management to the natural disaster; for a junta that is seemingly attempting to legitimize its leadership position and insisting on holding an election in December 2025 “despite the country’s spiralling civil war”, the Tatmadaw also exhibits an organizational incompetence in governance and a severe disregard for human rights.

The duty to protect life traditionally rests with the state. However, when a state fails its people, a genuine question naturally arises: Whose responsibility is it now? The recent Myanmar earthquake provides us with an excellent basis for further discussion on the issue of human rights realization; the tragedy has forced us to look to the society in the absence of responsible governments and further emphasizes the intrinsic linkage between humanitarian aid and human rights, particularly in crisis situations—humanitarian action aims to protect and restore basic human rights, while human rights law provides the framework in ensuring dignity and well-being.

There is a “third” approach: An applied human rights perspective where practical implementation with a view to human rights protection comes a priori. In the case of Myanmar, I posit that this approach is a viable one given the state’s irresponsibility, nonchalance, and disinterest in the protection of human rights of its people. In light of this, it might be useful to take a step back to see what appropriate measures are needed by viewing human rights beyond an exclusively legal concept but from an applied perspective (see Wernaart 2023, p. 12). Wernaart argues that “[h]uman rights are not for lawyers only, but also for managers, accountants, engineers, social workers, musicians, painters, designers and economists” (ibid.). Simply put, applied human rights place weight on the [non-legal] application and especially the practical implementation of human rights principles and frameworks in various contexts to promote social justice and address human rights issues.

Above all, this contribution is a call-to-action to lawyers and non-lawyers alike—if we are serious about human rights protection, it is time that we seriously consider an applied and whole-of-society approach as our point of departure.

The Connection between Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Relief, and Human Rights

Careful governance requires states to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights; under international law, Myanmar has a duty to protect human rights within its territory so that the people can enjoy their freedoms and live with dignity. The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) in General Comment No. 36 interprets the right to life (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, Art. 6) expansively, linking it to the notion of human dignity (Paras. 2–3, 6). Individuals are thus entitled “to certain standards of living and access to services”, even when natural disaster strikes and there is an urgent need for humanitarian assistance. Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Myanmar is obligated to respect, protect, and fulfil a variety of human rights, including the rights to an adequate standard of living including food, water, and sanitation (Art. 11) and particular to this discussion, health (Art. 12). As previously discussed in my contribution on the right to live, “[t]he right to an adequate standard of living necessitates the enjoyment of the right to health” (see CESCR General Comment No. 14, paras. 2–3), further linking it to the right to life and living with dignity.

Under the ICESCR, the right to health requires states to create “a system of urgent medical care in cases of accidents […] and the provision of disaster relief and humanitarian assistance in emergency situations” (CESCR General Comment No. 14, para. 16). In a humanitarian disaster such as this one, one of the most important principles is to alleviate human suffering (principle of humanity)—providing emergency care for those who need them. According to World Health Organization spokesperson, Dr. Margaret Harris, at least three hospitals in the Mandalay area are completely out of service. Additionally, without food or clean water, exacerbated by the destruction of the water and sewage systems (recall under-developed infrastructure mentioned above) means a huge rise in the spread of communicable diseases such as dengue fever and cholera, something that humanitarian disasters are catalysts of (see video here at 07:55–10:09). The right to health here means very little when infrastructure is non-existent during a period of emergency and disaster management plans have not been instated.

Such contingency plans and disaster management plans could include the consideration of at least two aspects. At its most basic, ensuring consistent earthquake forecasting to ensure seismic safety of the area, given Myanmar’s geographical location; while this would not prevent infrastructure collapse, it would be a measure towards preventing loss of lives. Another aspect to consider is the social and spatial design of certain buildings in Myanmar, in particular healthcare facilities—from the location of these facilities down to the material the building is made of. The right to health means very little without having adequate and functioning health facilities (see Dimitrova, 2023, pp. 149–150).

For the human rights of the people of Myanmar, the bottom-line is clear—there were no warnings issued, and the country was severely ill-prepared and ill-equipped.

Although one could argue that predicting an earthquake is a near impossibility, that does not mean earthquake forecasting is not something that cannot be done. The European Court of Human Rights held in the case of Budayeva and Others v. Russia that the state has a primary duty to “place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life” (para. 129) as part of fulfilling its positive obligation. While the jurisprudence of the ECtHR has no direct bearing on Myanmar, the Court’s judgment demonstrates that disaster preparedness is an obligation under the right to life, a point also made by the HRC in General Comment No. 36 (para. 26). While Myanmar guarantees protection against natural disasters through “[p]reventive and precautionary measures against fire and natural disasters” (para. 7(c) in Schedule Two—Region or State Legislative List of the Myanmar 2008 Constitution), Myanmar remains structurally under-developed. Unfortunately, for an earthquake prone country, little to no preparation—including having actual “contingency plans and disaster management plans” (para. 26, HRC General Comment 36 on Art. 6 ICCPR, Right to Life)—has been in place to protect the population as much as reasonably possible.

Myanmar’s failure to adequately prepare for emergencies becomes particularly clear when contrasted with Thailand: In Thailand, according to a BBC report, just one skyscraper—under construction—collapsed in Bangkok, even though Thailand is not considered a high-risk region for earthquakes and yet, about 10% of its buildings are earthquake-resistant and many buildings in Bangkok are tall skyscrapers (with regulations in 43 provinces across the country). The death toll in Bangkok is significantly lower than in Mandalay and yes, certainly one could argue that Bangkok was not the epicenter of the earthquake. But considering that Bangkok is far more densely populated and has more skyscrapers, which are built atop soft-soil, the comparison demonstrates that Thailand is taking progressive steps even if not an earthquake-prone country and thus fares better in the event of disaster.

As one of Southeast Asia’s poorest nations, Myanmar has a long and troubled track record of “struggling to respond to major natural disasters, often rebuffing international aid offers and publicly downplaying damage” (see CNN report here) The event is shattering Myanmar’s already crumbled health infrastructure since the Covid-19 days, the 2021 coup, and the ongoing civil war. Myanmar’s debilitated state has resulted in Tatmadaw General Min Aung Hlaing declaring a state of emergency and making a rare plea to the international community for humanitarian aid and assistance.

However, local civil society groups and NGOs have warned international donors to ensure that aid must go directly to the beneficiaries and not to the Tatmadaw, which they refer to as “war criminals” and are known to siphon off aid, lamenting that “a regime waging war against its own people [cannot] be trusted to deliver aid”. In fact, the Tatmadaw has not ceased with air strikes even after the earthquake (see here and here).

Given Myanmar’s already crumbled healthcare infrastructure, a lack of a competent governing authority that has a vested interest in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the human rights of its people, and the unpredictability of when an earthquake would occur, Myanmar has thoroughly failed its people.

Conclusion & Outlook: Where to, Now?

Article 2.1 of the ICESCR clearly emphasizes the importance of states taking steps “international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, … to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized”. In Myanmar’s context, existing imposed sanctions do not offer much promise for democratizing the nation and rescuing it from its pariah status. While sanctions are typically the popular choice by states to punish other states, in response to rights violations, Myanmar appears to not care about its international image; indiscriminate killing and the blocking off of humanitarian aid still continue. Instead, by looking to Article 2.1 of the ICESCR for guidance, particularly in areas of assistance and cooperation, especially in economic and technical areas, international actors could perhaps make a difference (see for e.g., Sendai Framework, WHO Health Emergency and Risk Management Framework, and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Framework as viable starting points post-earthquake). As explicitly emphasized by the CESCR Committee, “international cooperation for development and thus for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights is an obligation of all States”, placing increased responsibility to states “which are in a position to assist others” (CESCR General Comment 3 on the Nature of States Parties’ Obligations, para. 14).

Myanmar’s human rights violations are well documented (see here, here, and here). On this basis, human rights thinking has to depart from a purely state-centered basis to a more societal perspective, as evidenced by Thailand’s progressive approach to earthquake-proof their buildings despite not being an earthquake-prone country (see above). In Myanmar’s case, referring to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and ensuring sufficient emergency preparedness and relief measures are in place (see ILC’s 2016 draft articles on the protection of persons in the event of disasters) would definitely be a step in the right direction as the rebuilding process continues.

To that end, this article presents an opportunity for out-of-the-box thinking as to how we can respect and protect human rights given that human rights are inherently interdependent and indivisible which is a necessary premise of understanding our responsibility as a society vis-à-vis the realization of human rights. Referring back to Wernaart’s emphasis that “human rights are not for lawyers only”, it sensibly follows that if we are concerned about protecting human rights for all, the consideration of ethical and moral duties beyond strict legal obligations, should be our new next step in cooperation with one another, prompting a reflection as to how to uphold human dignity and rights even in situations not explicitly covered by law.

The “Bofaxe” series appears as part of a collaboration between the IFHV and Völkerrechtsblog.