(Im)possible universalism: reading human rights in world politics

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
VÉRONIQUE PIN-FAT
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Large Role ◽  
Universal Human Rights

Tony Evans (ed.), Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998)Robin Holt, Wittgenstein, Politics and Human Rights (London: LSE/Routledge, 1997)Peter Van Ness (ed.), Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (London: Routledge, 1999)Questions concerning the linkage, or lack of it, between theory and practice are perennial in International Relations (IR). This is particularly acute in the case of studies of universal human rights in world politics. Problems associated with universal human rights are familiar; what are their foundations?, what are their origins?, do they exist in all cultures?, why, when it comes to implementation, do we see such failure and inconsistency across the globe and the persistence of human wrongs?, why does power seem to play such a large role in stifling ‘progress’? All these questions appear in one form or another in the books under review here and readers will, perhaps, take comfort from their familiarity as old, difficult friends.

Moral Membership in a Postliberal State

1984 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy L. Rosenblum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Moral Understanding ◽  
Spheres Of Justice ◽  
Universal Human Rights ◽  
Legal Formalism ◽  
Market Relations

This review article interprets Michael Walzer's Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality as a radical argument for community. It demonstrates the continuity between this volume, in which the particular community and its own moral understanding is the foundation of justice, and Walzer's study of international relations in terms of universal human rights m Just and Unjust Wars. It questions the appropriateness of Walzer's conception of community, of membership, and of shared moral understanding for heterogeneous and differentiated modern societies, and in particular for the United States. It defends liberalism, with its indirect market relations and legal formalism, against Walzer's communitarian challenge, with its substantive agreement among members about the meaning, value, and distribution of goods.

How geopolitical becomes personal: Method acting, war films and affect

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Evren Eken
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Visual Culture ◽  
International Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
War Films ◽  
Method Acting ◽  
Performance Arts ◽  
War Effort ◽  
Emotional Level

This article is about weaponisation of emotions through visual culture. It interrogates how geopolitics trickles down to everyday life and becomes personal through the embodiment of screen actors. While International Relations is attempting to move beyond the limits of existing disciplinary methods and methodologies to better grasp the emotional depths of world politics, this article delves into the ‘method’ in performance arts to understand how visual culture diffuses emotional narratives of the state to the population and affectively enables people to experience the international from the perspective of the United States. In this sense, focusing on ‘method acting’ which revolutionised performance arts in the United States from the 1950s, the article examines the mundane encounters in visual culture through which screen/state actors emotionally situate the audience to make them viscerally experience geopolitics, personally feel like a state/warrior and embody a commitment to the war effort at an emotional level.

scholarly journals When US Scholars Speak of ‘Sovereignty’, what do they Mean?

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Sinclair ◽  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Academic

The term ‘sovereignty’ figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does ‘sovereignty’ mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what ‘sovereignty’ means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.

scholarly journals Formation of the Chinese School of International Relations: Analytical Approaches and Research Methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-200
Author(s):  
Evgeny Nikolayevich Grachikov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Moral Realism ◽  
Social Evolution ◽  
The United States ◽  
World Politics ◽  
World Community ◽  
Chinese School ◽  
Analytical Approaches

In 1987, the first All-China Conference of international scholars took place in Shanghai, which is associated with the beginning of the process of creating the Chinese School of International Relations. Over these decades, a vast array of scientific literature has accumulated, exploring the interaction China with other countries and world community. The article is devoted to the study of analytical approaches prevailing in the Chinese academic environment in the study of foreign policy and world politics of the PRC, and specifically, in relation to the United States. Deng Xiaoping’s “reform and openness” policy contributed to the revival of the discipline of “international relations” and the intensification of international research in academic institutions and universities in China. A deep and systemic influence on these processes was exerted by several factors: uncritical borrowing of western international political knowledge, full-scale training of Chinese scholars in Western, mainly American, universities, and the translation into Chinese of most theoretical works of Western scientists. Methodological tools which include the analytical approaches used by Chinese scientists are taken from publications on realism, liberalism and constructivism. In realism, the emphasis is done on the balance of power, which is investigated in the framework of foreign policy analysis. The interdependence of China and the United States, primarily economic, the subject of study from the point of view of neoliberalism. The socialization and involvement of China in the world community and the liberal world order led by the United States are constructivist studies of bilateral relations. Yan Xuetong’s “theory of moral realism”, Qin Yaqing’s “theory of relations”, the Shanghai school’s “international symbiosis”, and Tan Shiping’s “social evolution of world politics” did not go beyond these paradigms, but are already used as their own innovative methods in a study of China’s relations with external actors. The article pays special attention to the dual identity of the Chinese state, as a developing country and a global power, which is publicly voiced by its representatives. This duality imposes regulatory restrictions on the use of analytical tools and, of course, affects the results of research.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
pp. 145-156
Author(s):  
Carl Lindskoog
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Immigration Detention ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The World ◽  
Universal Human Rights

The conclusion examines the United States’ detention practices in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the global spread of immigration detention that saw countries around the world constructing their own detention regimes from the United States’ model. It then conducts a brief examination of the problem that emerges at the intersection of state sovereignty and universal human rights; it closes with a survey of the contemporary movement against immigration detention, asking what future there might be for a world in which liberty and freedom of movement are treated as inalienable human rights.

Implications for American Leadership

2020 ◽  
pp. 213-224
Author(s):  
Matthew Kroenig
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
International System ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Theoretical Explanation ◽  
World Politics ◽  
New Era ◽  
Innovative Economy

This chapter reviews the central arguments of the book and its findings about a democratic advantage in international politics. It then discusses the implications for international relations theory and for U.S. foreign policy. This book advances international relations theory by providing a novel theoretical explanation that traces the origins of power in world politics to domestic political institutions. It makes a “hard power” case for democracy. The chapter then lays out a competitive strategy for the United States in this new era of great power rivalry. It urges the United States to strengthen its democratic form of governance domestically. Washington should also ensure it maintains an innovative economy, a robust financial sector, strong alliances, and a favorable military balance of power in Europe and Asia. Internationally, the chapter urges the United States to revitalize, adapt, and defend the rules-based international system. The chapter concludes with a challenge to Russia and China. If these countries wish to be true leading global powers, then they must adopt democratic forms of government.

Beneath International Famine Relief in Ethiopia: The United States, Ethiopia, and the Debate over Relief Aid, Development Assistance, and Human Rights

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Kissi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Development Assistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Famine Relief ◽  
Mutual Antagonism ◽  
Ethiopian Government ◽  
The Government

Abstract:This article analyzes the conflicting interpretations of famine, relief aid, development assistance, and human rights by the Ethiopian and American governments, and the complexity of each government's policy and motives. It argues that in the 1970s and 1980s, the Carter and Reagan administrations faced the moral and political dilemma of assisting people in Ethiopia who were in desperate need with-out strengthening the hostile Ethiopian government in the process. And the government of Ethiopia had to make the difficult choice of accepting American aid on American terms at a period in Ethiopian history when doing so was politically suicidal. That America provided the aid and Ethiopia accepted it exemplifies the conduct of international relations in which human dignity compels nations to accommodate one another even within the boundaries of their mutual antagonism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document