Human Rights Lawmaking in China: Domestic Politics, International Law, and International Politics

2007 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 727-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming Wan
Author(s):  
Michael N. Forster

Although Herder is not usually known as a political philosopher, he in fact developed what is perhaps the most important political philosophy of his age. In domestic politics he was a liberal, a democrat, and an egalitarian; in international politics the champion of a distinctive pluralistic form of cosmopolitanism that sharply rejected imperialism, colonialism, slavery, and all other forms of exploitation of one people by another. Spanning both domains, while he enthusiastically shared the substantive goals of supporters of human rights he also developed a subtle critique of the concept itself, replacing it with his own concept of humanity. His political philosophy is theoretically minimalist and is all the stronger for being so.


2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 553-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey K. Staton ◽  
Will H. Moore

AbstractAlthough scholars have made considerable progress on a number of important research questions by relaxing assumptions commonly used to divide political science into subfields, rigid boundaries remain in some contexts. In this essay, we suggest that the assumption that international politics is characterized by anarchy whereas domestic politics is characterized by hierarchy continues to divide research on the conditions under which governments are constrained by courts, international or domestic. We contend that we will learn more about the process by which courts constrain governments, and do so more quickly, if we relax the assumption and recognize the substantial similarities between domestic and international research on this topic. We review four recent books that highlight contemporary theories of the extent to which domestic and international law binds states, and discuss whether a rigid boundary between international and domestic scholarship can be sustained on either theoretical or empirical grounds.


Author(s):  
Shinkyu Lee

International relations (IR) scholars have increasingly integrated Hannah Arendt into their works. Her fierce critique of the conventional ideas of politics driven by rulership, enforcement, and violence has a particular resonance for theorists seeking to critically revisit the basic assumptions of IR scholarship. Arendt’s thinking, however, contains complexity and nuance that need careful treatment when extended beyond domestic politics. In particular, Arendt’s vision of free politics—characterized by the dualistic emphasis on agonistic action and institutional stability—raises two crucial issues that need further elaboration for IR research that appropriates her thinking. One involves the orientation of her international thoughts. Although Arendt showed “idealistic” aspirations for authentic politics practiced by diverse equals in an institutionally articulated space of freedom, she never lost interest in the extant situation of “non-idealistic” politics. Engaging with Arendt’s theory orientation requires a careful analysis of difficult topics, such as her distinctive conception of the political and her critiques of the nation-state and international law. The other topic that needs clarification when Arendt’s thoughts are applied to IR involves specific ways of associating different sites of power. A close examination of Arendt’s council-based federalism reveals her distinctive idea of international politics, based on her acute awareness of the fundamental complexity that lies in power association and state agency. Bringing IR topics like state agency into conversation with her works generates illuminating questions for Arendt scholarship. Likewise, the ongoing debate on agonistic and institutional features of Arendt’s thoughts can provide crucial insights into critical studies of international politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document