Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Architecture that Violates Human Rights?
Legal ethics codes in the U.S. do not mention any ethical obligations relating to "human rights." In contrast, the ethics code of the American Institute of Architects addresses human rights head-on, providing that "Members should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors."
As reprinted in the April 14 edition of Arch Daily, this provision has prompted some to ask whether architects violate their ethics code when they design, for example, prisons with isolation cells or death chambers.
Since 2005, Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) has been leading an effort to advocate for additional specificity in the Architects' ethics code that would create enforceable standards by, for example, adding references to international human rights law norms condemning the death penalty. Among other things, ADPSR is circulating a petition, which can be signed by non-architects as well as architects. AIA chapters in San Francisco, Boston and Portland have endorsed the proposal. In April 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, endorsed the campaign. In a public letter to the AIA President, the Special Rapporteur asserted that "it is not appropriate for individuals or organizations that support human rights to participate in or condone the design or construction of supermax prisons (or other similar spaces). In addition, juvenile detention centers and secure mental health facilities should not be designed with spaces intended for any form of solitary isolation."
Raphael Sperry, founder of ADPSR, notes that "[w]e think of architectural regulations as being there to ensure that buildings are safe for the public. But what if a building’s harm is not caused by unexpected structural failure but by the building performing exactly as intended? Can a building designed to facilitate human rights violations amount to a violation in itself? And what is the responsibility of the architects involved?"
Sperry concedes that "Legislators, governors and prison staffers of course hold the greatest responsibility for prison conditions − after all, any room can be used to torture someone, not just one intended as a solitary isolation cell." Doctors who administer death-causing drugs have also been challenged as human rights abusers while practicing their professions, yet in some states they are legally required to administer the death penalty. But, Sperry writes, designers are under no such obligations and they are complicit, in part because they voluntarily accept projects that they know will be used for human rights violations.
Sperry urges that designers reject such projects. But, he says, "[t]he ethical burden on designers is too great for individual architects or firms to handle alone, which is why the AIA must speak clearly and forcefully for human rights. Turning our backs on projects that would violate human rights is an essential move towards realising a vision of a world of equality and prosperity − the world that architects strive to build every day."
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/human_rights/2014/06/architecture-that-violates-human-rights.html
