The responsibility to protect human rights and the RtoP: prospective and retrospective responsibility

This article argues that -- contrary to the way that it is often framed -- the first pillar of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) is not best understood as an instantiation of a broader international responsibility to protect human rights. Firstly, the RtoP reverts to a discourse of powerful savours and passive victims, which runs against advocates' claim that the RtoP is a 'rights-based norm'. Secondly, although it distinguishes between prevention and response, the RtoP is still fundamentally a discussion of retrospective responsibility. The responsibility to protect human rights, by contrast, is importantly prospective. The article's separation of prospective/retrospective responsibility from the responsibility to prevent and to respond is an independent contribution, with broader significance beyond the RtoP context. Thirdly, the RtoP becomes activated when atrocity is building, imminent or underway; whereas the responsibility to protect human rights may be breached even without a clear causal link to harm

What is the responsibility to respect human rights? Reconsidering the 'respect, protect, and fulfill' framework

The world’s understanding of the action needed to advance human rights is deeply structured by the ‘respect, protect, and fulfill’ framework. But its potential is significantly undermined by a narrow conception of ‘respect’ for human rights. This paper systematically addresses these weaknesses and advances an original alternative. It first provides a historical account of the ‘do no harm’ conception of ‘respect’ in the political context of the late Cold War. It then analyzes this conception’s empirical functioning today, using the example of unauthorized migration along the US–Mexico border. These points illustrate an overarching theoretical argument: the responsibility to respect human rights should be based on a responsibility not to dehumanize, rather than exclusively on a duty to do no harm. This involves the consideration of each person as a moral equal, the elevation of human rights practice as a basis for judgment inside of a moral agent’s self, and the rejection of state-centrism as the basis for all political responsibility. This argument has implications traversing the theory and practice of human rights, including: the ability to translate and embed into practice the new meanings of ‘respect,’ ‘protect,’ and ‘fulfill’; and the need to re-consider the contemporary significance of 1980s liberalism

Humanity Without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights

This book aims to reject theoretical approaches that ground human rights in a notion of dignity, understood in terms of an equal rank, transcendental/spiritual quality and/or human capacity for rational agency. It argues instead that the idea of human rights should be grounded in a fundamental moral right of each person not to be treated as inferior. It defends this argument with reference to a substantive account of what it means to be treated as inferior in the relevant sense—dehumanization, instrumentalization, infantilization, objectification and stigmatization—combined with an account of when and why these are wrong. The book says that they are wrong: if and because they are cruel; if and because these forms of treatment affect a person’s capacity to present and to define themselves, as themselves, within a social community; and if and because they occur without meaningful consent. The book applies these ideas to non-discrimination rights; claims that the ideas provide people and states with reasons to create and to maintain an international human rights system; and argues the moral rights explored in the book are “fundamental” (which Sangiovanni defines in a way that is marginally different from Shue’s (1996) definition of “basic” rights: rights that are structurally necessary for other rights)

Fixing meanings in global governance? "Respect" and "Protect" in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights

This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP s). These UNGP s have successfully presented meanings as fixed while actually stretching those meanings’ boundaries. They reconceptualize what it means to “respect” and “protect” human rights. This is surprising given that the principles were framed as a conservative exercise at clarification, and under-noticed due to the legal rather than conceptual focus of the existing critical literature. To respect human rights, according to the UNGP s, agents need to take costly positive action. Furthermore, protect obligations come before respect. These are significant innovations. On the other hand, two missed opportunities of the UNGP s are their thin harm-based foundation for respect obligations, and their state centrism about who has duties to protect

The location of international practices: what is human rights practice?

This article opens up space to challenge state-centrism about human rights practice. To do so, it presents and critically assesses four methods that can be used to determine who and/or what counts as a part of any international practice: the agreement method, which locates a practice by referring to speech acts that define it; the contextual method, which locates a practice by referring to the actions, meanings, and intentions of practitioners; the value method, which locates a practice by identifying a value or principle that the practice reflects or instantiates; and the purpose method, which locates a practice by constructing an account of the sociopolitical reason(s) for a practice's existence. The purpose method, based on an interpretation of Rawls' constructivism, is developed, in a way that focuses on practitioners' judgement-based reasons to assign responsibility for human rights to any state or non-state actor

Erratum: Author Correction: Identification of genes required for eye development by high-throughput screening of mouse knockouts.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s42003-018-0226-0.]

Pathema: a clade-specific bioinformatics resource center for pathogen research

Pathema (http://pathema.jcvi.org) is one of the eight Bioinformatics Resource Centers (BRCs) funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) designed to serve as a core resource for the bio-defense and infectious disease research community. Pathema strives to support basic research and accelerate scientific progress for understanding, detecting, diagnosing and treating an established set of six target NIAID Category A–C pathogens: Category A priority pathogens; Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium botulinum, and Category B priority pathogens; Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei, Clostridium perfringens and Entamoeba histolytica. Each target pathogen is represented in one of four distinct clade-specific Pathema web resources and underlying databases developed to target the specific data and analysis needs of each scientific community. All publicly available complete genome projects of phylogenetically related organisms are also represented, providing a comprehensive collection of organisms for comparative analyses. Pathema facilitates the scientific exploration of genomic and related data through its integration with web-based analysis tools, customized to obtain, display, and compute results relevant to ongoing pathogen research. Pathema serves the bio-defense and infectious disease research community by disseminating data resulting from pathogen genome sequencing projects and providing access to the results of inter-genomic comparisons for these organisms

EXPORTS Measurements and Protocols for the NE Pacific Campaign

EXport Processes in the Ocean from Remote Sensing (EXPORTS) is a large-scale NASA-led and NSF co-funded field campaign that will provide critical information for quantifying the export and fate of upper ocean net primary production (NPP) using satellite information and state of the art technology

Comparative and Functional Genomics of Rhodococcus opacus PD630 for Biofuels Development

The Actinomycetales bacteria Rhodococcus opacus PD630 and Rhodococcus jostii RHA1 bioconvert a diverse range of organic substrates through lipid biosynthesis into large quantities of energy-rich triacylglycerols (TAGs). To describe the genetic basis of the Rhodococcus oleaginous metabolism, we sequenced and performed comparative analysis of the 9.27 Mb R. opacus PD630 genome. Metabolic-reconstruction assigned 2017 enzymatic reactions to the 8632 R. opacus PD630 genes we identified. Of these, 261 genes were implicated in the R. opacus PD630 TAGs cycle by metabolic reconstruction and gene family analysis. Rhodococcus synthesizes uncommon straight-chain odd-carbon fatty acids in high abundance and stores them as TAGs. We have identified these to be pentadecanoic, heptadecanoic, and cis-heptadecenoic acids. To identify bioconversion pathways, we screened R. opacus PD630, R. jostii RHA1, Ralstonia eutropha H16, and C. glutamicum 13032 for growth on 190 compounds. The results of the catabolic screen, phylogenetic analysis of the TAGs cycle enzymes, and metabolic product characterizations were integrated into a working model of prokaryotic oleaginy.Cambridge-MIT InstituteMassachusetts Institute of Technology. (Seed Grant program)Shell Oil CompanyNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U.S.)United States. National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health. Department of Health and Human Services (Contract No. HHSN272200900006C