Preface

A quarter century ago, when I was elected to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the human rights institutional landscape had the appearance and analogical character of a largely undeveloped sub-division on the metropolitan fringe. In large part, the land was not even platted. Here and there a few structures poked out of the muddy soil. One, the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, had the look of a community hall built with little hope and less conviction by largely disinterested city fathers obligated to intimate belief in the sub-division’s arresting features and future. Among public buildings, only the European Court and Commission, located in the sub-division’s one prosperous quadrant, evidenced a serious commitment to and belief in the area’s development. Outside that quadrant, the only official structure exhibiting any sign of purposive activity other than the promulgation of norms was the Inter-American Commission. Overshadowing all these public buildings, even (arguably) the European Institutions, was a single distinguished non-governmental one, Amnesty International. Today a thriving, richly diverse community occupies that once almost barren landscape. Public and private institutions pack its main streets. Collectively they form a vast network of norm generating, interpreting and enforcing activities that penetrate virtually every other sphere of human activity from diplomacy to international lending to global trade and investment. So abundant is the development that there is much overlap in structure and function and, conversely, there are a few gaps. Still, the community is not quite fully developed

Swallowing Injustice to Build Community: Latin America After the Era of State Terror

From the mid-1960\u27s to the late 1980\u27s (even later in certain countries), militarized governments in most of Latin America enforced their view of a desirable public order by terrorizing great numbers of citizens who happened to have different views and also their friends and relations and persons who, whatever their views or lack thereof, objected to terror as a means of governing. This paper may be freely circulated, either electronically or on paper, on condition that it not be modified in any way and that the rights of the author are in no way infringed. You may provide a link to this paper on any Web site. You may not, however, post it on another site without the author\u27s express permission

A Life in the Realm of Rights: A Man and a Movement’s History

A review of: Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Human Rights by Aryeh Neier. New York: PublicAffairs. 400pp

Human Rights and the Neo-Conservative Project: What’s Not to Like?

Hegemony, as neo-cons argued in the 1990s, is not the mere possession of dominating power but also the will to use it on behalf of a coherent project. In the Clinton years, hegemony was only latent. The catastrophe of September 2001 created the circumstances in which it could be made real. To what end? There is not yet a single comprehensive statement of the neoconservative project and its premises. This paper may be freely circulated in electronic or hard copy provided it is not modified in any way, the rights of the author not infringed, and the paper is not quoted or cited without express permission of the author. The editors cannot guarantee a stable URL for any paper posted here, nor will they be responsible for notifying others if the URL is changed or the paper is taken off the site. Electronic copies of this paper may not be posted on any other website without express permission of the author

A Symposium on Confronting Global Terrorism and American Neo-Conservatism: The Framework of a Liberal Grand Strategy. By Tom Farer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.

A review of: Confronting Global Terrorism and American Neo-Conservatism: The Framework of a Liberal Grand Strategy. By Tom Farer. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008