The Use and Abuse of Human Rights Discourse: A Legitimacy Test for NGOs, IGOs and Governments

Since the end of the Second World War, human rights have emerged as a standard for evaluating state conduct. As the stature of human rights has risen, however, the language and concepts of rights are increasingly misused. Claims are made by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), or governments, who seek legitimacy for policies that are in fact highly partisan and even abusive of the values of human rights. What counts, then, as a legitimate use of human rights discourse? Aren’t human rights policies always ‘political’? Can any meaningful distinction be drawn between a ‘human rights position’ and a ‘partisan political position’? In this article, I propose a test for identifying illegitimate uses of human rights discourse in the policies endorsed by IGOs, NGOs, governments or scholars. The test consists of three prongs. The first prong is uncontroversial, and serves to identify the core components of human rights policies. I argue that any human rights policy presupposes a few basic elements, which I call its parameters: (a) a choice about territories to which the policy will apply; (b) a choice about human rights issues for which the policy is adopted; (c) a choice about victims to which the policy applies; and (d) a choice about time frames within which abuses have occurred. Under the second prong, I then examine a further kind of choice, which is more controversial. It is called perpetrator selectivity, and concerns the choices that are made about which states (or other responsible actors) are to be criticized for human rights abuses. I argue that, in singling out states or actors for criticism, organizations and governments must observe a standard of overall proportionality between the states or actors whom they select for criticism and the prima face levels of actual human rights abuse that have occurred (as determined by the parameters identified under the first prong). The third prong adds the decisive element. There are indeed instances where perpetrator selectivity may legitimately be disproportionate to prima face levels of human rights violations. Where there is such disproportion, however, it must not effectively recapitulate the position of any contentious party to a recognized political, social or cultural conflict. At first glance, that final criterion may appear complicated or unworkable, since human rights are constantly concerned with political, social and cultural conflicts. Several case studies are introduced, however, to show that it provides a reliable standard for evaluating the legitimacy of claims made in the name of human rights. For example, the test is applied to claims by Muslim groups, which purport to adopt broad and even-handed human rights mandates, while in fact directing virtually all of their criticisms at the abuse of Muslims by Western or pro-Western regimes, ignoring equal and worse violations committed by more avowedly Muslim regimes. I argue that such an approach may be legitimate in the partisan political arena, but not in the arena of human rights, as it contravenes some of the core values of international human rights law

Inside the Outsider: Critical Race Theory against Human Rights?

This article examines disturbing contradictions within critical race theory. Critical race theorists, such as Mari Matsuda, Richard Delgado, or Charles Lawrence, maintain that legal norms cannot be taken at face value, but must instead be understood in historical and social context. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to guarantee ‘equal protection of the law’ to all citizens. However, on its face, that norm reveals little about the brutality and exclusion that ethnic minorities subsequently experienced, often with the complicity of legislatures and courts. Matsuda applies that analysis to hate speech in the 1993 collection Words That Wound, which remains one of the movement’s seminal texts. She argues that freedom of speech cannot be understood in abstraction. History and context teach that hate speech disproportionately harms racial and ethnic minorities. In order to criticize First Amendment protections of hate speech, Matsuda praises the approaches that were advocated in the 1960s and 1970s by the Soviet Union and other socialist states, and eventually adopted within the United Nations. However, she ignores those states’ oppression of their own racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities. Socialist states advocated limits on hate speech not out of concern for their minorities, but because the censored all speech in order to maintain fierce social controls. Many minorities in socialist states fared far worse than those in the United States, despite what Matsuda sees as those states ‘progressive’ stance on hate speech. Matsuda commits precisely the error that critical race theory constantly condemns: she looks only at the officially adopted norms within the United Nations, overlooking any historical, political or social context. Matsuda is right to identify common concerns shared between critical race theory and international human rights law. However, she misconstrues the relationship between those two movements. Critical race theory still has an important role to play, but must hold international human rights law to the same standards to which it holds American law. Failure to do so is a betrayal of critical race theorists’ own stated aims

Distribution and habitat use of selected small and large mammal species in relation to different land use

Landscapes have been changing due to human activity, resulting in forest fragmentation and spreading agricultural use. Nowadays land use strategies in Central Europe are changing. However, it is yet not fully understood if and to what extend these changes in management intensity will affect the communities in according habitats. In the present study I used small and large mammals as target species, because they play a major role in forest and grassland ecosystems acting as food resource for predators, seed dispersers, as well as browsers or grazers. Small mammals were live trapped over two years in all three Exploratories. Faecal pellet group counts of large ungulates were applied in the Exploratory Schorfheide-Chorin. During small mammal live trapping I found higher species richness and animal abundance on managed than on unmanaged forest plots rising with increased structural heterogeneity. Hence, understory vegetation and coarse woody debris are very important for small mammal species in managed forest stands. Faecal pellet group counts revealed that roe deer and fallow deer clearly preferred mature pine stands. I explain the preference towards mature pine forests to be due to the dependence on high quality winter food supply. In this study small and large mammal species seemed to be affected by changes in canopy cover, which is a result of forest management and alters the light regime and structural heterogeneity on the forest floor. However, small mammals are directly determined by habitat structure and the need for cover and shelter, whereas large mammals depend on food availability affected by ground plant growth. In the future, forest management procedures should create high levels of habitat structure, if high small and large mammal diversity is desired. Nevertheless, ungulate abundances should be adjusted to enable and preserve natural regeneration of a broad spectrum of tree species in coniferous and deciduous forests

Combating the Slave Trade: Why Governments are not Good at Governing

It is difficult to read Benjamin Skinner’s revealing piece on the international slave trade and not feel revolted that we still live in a world where so many people live in bondage. What is particularly disturbing is that much of the modern-day slave trade takes place with the full knowledge, and even acquiescence of, state governments

Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination

Alexander Brown writes as an inter-disciplinary scholar at the intersections of law, ethics, philosophy, and politics. With Hate Speech Law: A Philosophical Examination he justly claims to have explored “numerous principled arguments for and against hate speech law by articulating a collection of key normative principles” (316). This ambitious book identifies and organizes conflicting values within the hate speech controversies. It aims to synthesize deeper questions about core concepts of liberalism, democracy, personhood, dignity, and tolerance with policy concerns about pragmatics and effectiveness. The most seasoned free speech scholars will find points and angles they had not previously considered

Who Intervenes and Why it Matters: The Problem of Agency in Humanitarian Intervention

The debate over humanitarian intervention has tended to focus on the conditions under which the resort to armed intervention is permissible while paying less attention to which actors are best suited to engage in such a complicated and demanding undertaking. The purpose of this paper is to explore characteristics that affect the ability of potential agents of humanitarian intervention to effectively undertake this operationally and politically demanding task. While the military wherewithal of the intervener is fundamental, I argue that a potential intervener’s legitimacy as an agent or enforcer of humanitarian norms is also crucial in determining whether and the extent to which it is a suitable agent. In other words, the efficacy of a potential intervener depends not only on its military wherewithal, but also on certain non-material factors than can affect its ability to effectively exercise this power. Using a consequentialist ethical framework, this paper examines the various material and non-material factors that can militate either for or against the suitability of certain actors undertaking humanitarian intervention in various parts of the world. I ultimately use this framework to examine the suitability of various possible agents of a potential humanitarian intervention in Darfur, Sudan. © Eric A. Heinze. All rights reserved. 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

Goodbye Hegemony, Hello.?

Parag Khanna’s analysis of American hegemonic decline paints a bleak picture for the future of America’s role in the emerging global order. He is correct to emphasize how the misguided policies of the Bush administration have done untold damage to America’s credibility, prestige, and overall influence in international affairs. It is thus difficult to find fault with such a sobering analysis of the immense challenges that lie ahead for the next U.S. president in the realm of foreign affairs

Humanitarian Intervention, the Responsibility to Protect, and Confused Legitimacy

A review of: Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? By James Pattison. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 284 pp. and Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. By Aidan Hehir. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 303pp

International Human Rights, 4th ed.

Jack Donnelly’s most recent edition of his well-known text, International Human Rights, provides an updated discussion of the evolution of international human rights since the end of World War II. Like previous editions, this book provides an accessible, relatively comprehensive, and self-consciously analytical treatment of the broad subject of international human rights. While the book is clearly intended for classroom use, and is indeed accessible enough to be understood by most upper-division undergraduates, it is not a “textbook” in the traditional sense, in that Donnelly is not shy about offering his own arguments and interpretations about a variety of controversial issues. Thus, while Donnelly makes significant efforts to be both accurate and fair, his treatment of the many concerns and controversies about human rights is hardly “objective.” Yet this feature is actually an important strength of the book, in that it transcends the pedestrian discussion of the “competing views” in certain debates and actually provides clear arguments that are intended to challenge the readers’ views on certain issues and provoke more critical and analytical thinking, as opposed to simply rote memorization and recitation of empirics. This goal is further advanced by Donnelly through the use of several thought-provoking discussion questions at the end of each chapter, which provide excellent points of departure for further discussion and debate in the classroom