Modern Boomerang: Influence on Socio-Economic Rights

The classic boomerang tackles civil and political rights by invoking the outcry of another population to change the model in society. The model that was applied in the Seattle City Council case follows this model in similar ways however, this case differs because of the emphasis on socio-economic/cultural rights as well. This new, modern, boomerang will be successful but, a synthesis of the two would be the most effective.

The classic boomerang model works as follows: there is an abuse and victims reach out to local human rights organizations (HROs), which reach out to transnational HROs, bringing the discussion to the average citizen reading the news. These citizens become enraged and write letters to governments, who have the power to cut

ties and funding, creating a larger impact. The boomerang emphasizes civil/political rights as it protects individuals from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. The classic boomerang works well, with government violence because it shows a state violator, physical violence, appealing victims, and direct responsibility. However, this boomerang does not work well when the state committing the violations is incredibly powerful. Additionally, if there is no clear identifiable culprit there is little that can be done.
The case of Juan Mendez is an example of the boomerang taking effect. Mendez, noticed the abuses of political prisoners began acting as their lawyer. He was arrested by the Argentine military and subject to torture and detention for an extended period. Word of this began to travel out to newspapers of the everyday individual who could recognize the abuse of the civil/political rights. Thus, they began to write letters to their government in support of this individual. Which in turn caused backlash from international companies towards Argentina, putting them under extreme scrutiny (Godoy). The state was the violator, he faced violence as torture, he was an appealing victim, and there was a clear perpetrator. This worked because people became aware and could protest and fight for the negative rights of this individual.
In regards to Wells Fargo, the cut came as a response from protesters, but Wells Fargo had also been on rocky relations due to previous scandals and mistreatment of workers.

The city council cares about citizens and their view of the government to maintain society. However, while it has certainly played a major role it was not necessarily the goal of the initial protestors. Politicians could recognize, not only civil/political rights being violated, but the socio-economic/cultural rights being violated. The construction of Dakota Pipeline intruded on their right to water and sacred ground. There was anger over the bank’s role as one of the lenders helping finance pipeline. Additionally, there was anger regarding Trump’s way of greenlighting. While citizens weren’t directly affected with these injustices it was clear that change needed to

happen.
Wells Fargo stated that credit facility was properly examined and the funding of the pipeline made sense and were just providing credit. Seattle’s move came shortly after the pipeline was granted critical easement by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Trump’s expedited review of the pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe strongly opposes the pipeline being built because it threatens to contaminate the drinking water of the tribe. Debora Juarez, argues that this “unlawfully deprives Native peoples of their rights of due process [...] insult to the very real injuries suffered by the Standing Rock Sioux”. In doing so she addresses both sets of rights. In addition to this Seattle Mayor Ed Murray also slammed the renewed efforts to build the Dakota Access Pipeline as a political decision emphasizing this lack of both sets of rights (Egan).
I do not believe that this boomerang will be the most effective for causing change in society.

In the Wells Fargo case, there was nothing that came thus other than the lack of support from Seattle and the bank did not change despite the lack of support. However, it still appears to be in a positive direction. A synthesis of the two boomerangs, becoming multi-optional would be more sufficient in the way that they can cover shortcomings. This is because, while it is important to maintain civil/political rights, socio-economic/cultural rights are necessary as well. There should be a way to recognize both sets of rights allowing the average citizen to step up as well as larger governmental powers. Depending on the situation, the boomerang can change; if the abuse is on negative rights the boomerang emphasizes legality, if positive rights the boomerang emphasizes critical state change. This multidirectional boomerang would then be able to encompass all forms of rights

abuses.