From Unicorns to Mules: Phillip Pettit, Hannah Arendt, and the Liberal Human Rights Regime

<p>The research presented here is an effort to interpret the discrepancy between the theoretical inalienability of human rights and the ease with which they are alienated in practice; a paradox Hannah Arendt regarded as the most conspicuous and cruel contradiction of human rights discourse. Proponents of the contemporary human rights regime have recognised that two principal characteristics of liberal human rights politics—namely, the double appellation of the Rights of Man and Citizen and an insistence on sovereignty and power-politics—directly contribute to this paradox. Nonetheless, they deem the current approach to combating rights violations to be ‘the best we can hope for’. After discussing this pragmatic liberal approach, this paper continues by analysing the alternative approaches championed by two republican traditions which criticise liberal human rights—Pettit’s neo-republicanism and Arendt’s participatory republicanism. The former of these proposes an institutional commitment to the rights of the citizen, whereas the latter deems the direct action of political subjects to be the most effective form of guaranteeing written rights in practice. Finally, in agreement with Arendt’s thought, this paper argues that while liberal power-politics and neo-republican institutionalism have their place in human rights politics, rights are at their most secure as expressions of autonomous action.</p>

From Unicorns to Mules: Phillip Pettit, Hannah Arendt, and the Liberal Human Rights Regime

<p>The research presented here is an effort to interpret the discrepancy between the theoretical inalienability of human rights and the ease with which they are alienated in practice; a paradox Hannah Arendt regarded as the most conspicuous and cruel contradiction of human rights discourse. Proponents of the contemporary human rights regime have recognised that two principal characteristics of liberal human rights politics—namely, the double appellation of the Rights of Man and Citizen and an insistence on sovereignty and power-politics—directly contribute to this paradox. Nonetheless, they deem the current approach to combating rights violations to be ‘the best we can hope for’. After discussing this pragmatic liberal approach, this paper continues by analysing the alternative approaches championed by two republican traditions which criticise liberal human rights—Pettit’s neo-republicanism and Arendt’s participatory republicanism. The former of these proposes an institutional commitment to the rights of the citizen, whereas the latter deems the direct action of political subjects to be the most effective form of guaranteeing written rights in practice. Finally, in agreement with Arendt’s thought, this paper argues that while liberal power-politics and neo-republican institutionalism have their place in human rights politics, rights are at their most secure as expressions of autonomous action.</p>

Punishment and Politicization in the International Human Rights Regime

Conventional wisdom treats politicization in the international human rights regime as invariant: for any given violation, states condemn adversaries while coddling friends. However, we find that politicization patterns vary markedly across human rights issues. Some norms are more politicized than others, and states are more likely to punish geopolitical partners on certain violations. We offer a novel theory of politicized enforcement wherein states punish human rights violations discriminatively based on their perceived “sensitivity” for the target state. Using data from the UN Universal Periodic Review, an elaborate human rights mechanism, we show that states tend to criticize their adversaries on sensitive issues that undermine the target regime’s power and legitimacy while addressing safer topics with friends. By uncovering a strategic logic of human rights enforcement, this research contributes new theoretical insights on the relationship between norms and power politics in global governance.

Indigenous “People” in the context of the Right to Self Determination: A Critical Appraisal

Under the international human rights regime, the right to self-determination is a right guaranteed to the groups of “people”. This right is one of the most controversial issues of international law as it comes into conflict with the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states. There are various uncertainties associated with this right regarding the scope of the right and mode of implementation etc. The present article seeks to make an in-depth analysis of the claimants of the right and the uncertainties associated with the meaning of the term “people” in the context of the right to self-determination. The article encompasses, among other things, the right of indigenous people under various international instruments and how they interrelate to the right of self-determination.

Incorporation of Human Rights in International Relations

Human rights have been firmly enmeshed in both studies and practice of international relations. The prevailing theories of international relations describe the function of those rights in substantially dissimilar ways, and it is apparent that their key statements include compelling arguments, suggesting an inconvenient apposition of state sovereignty with ideas of universal moral order. The development of the universal human rights regime of the United Nations (UN), the growth of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and, eventually, human rights activists have made it possible for human rights to be more deeply incorporated into state diplomatic activities. These trends, however, raise critical concerns about the practice of the state of human rights. Although there is some reversal of the norm, however, states continue to face humanitarian crises and show signs of human rights protection domestically and promotion internationally to varying degrees. In the same way, we are also seeing a major change in the principles and procedures of international enforcement of human rights. The goal of this paper is to address briefly certain variables relevant to the incorporation of human rights in international relations.

The United States and Human Rights Marginalization at the International Court of Justice, 1945–1950

Using the 1950 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Paris Peace Treaties advisory opinions as a vantage point, this articles explores the changing attitude of the American government towards the emerging United Nations human rights regime and the latter became entangled in Cold War politics. The first part situates the contribution of this article within the postwar human rights historiography. The second part explores how US legal advisors constructed arguments destined to insulate the American domestic legal system from the alleged domestic disruptive effects of the new human rights. The final section delves into the cases of Cardinal Mindszenty of Budapest and Archbishop Stepinac of Zagreb, and how they reverberated at the ICJ. It argues that US legal advisors sought to turn the human rights violations that triggered the judicial proceedings into violations of treaty provisions. In the process, the ICJ validated this transformation and, thus contributed, to marginalizing the emerging United Nations human rights regime.

The contestation and construction of global governance authorities: A study from the global business and human rights regime

The contestation of global governance institutions can strengthen or weaken, as well as transform, them. This article analyses the productive potential of contestation and justification of global governance institutions by examining the multiple authorities that are invoked as auxiliaries in the process. It studies the (re-)construction of these authorities by dissecting authority into three components: power, legitimacy and connection to public interests. Empirically, the article focuses on the issue area of business and human rights, examining the highly contested process of drafting a binding instrument in the United Nations Treaty Process. The analysis shows that the success of the Treaty Process not only hinges on its direct reaction to contestation, but also on its ability to (re-)construct the multiple related authorities. Ultimately, the article argues that the contestation of global governance institutions involves (re-)constructing multiple authorities. This demonstrates how contestation can also affect global governance institutions, actors and norms beyond the specific field of deliberation.

What are Governmental Human Rights Focal Points?

This Special Issue aims at raising understanding of governmental human rights focal points (GHRFPs). It forms part of a renewed attention to the importance of domestic-level institutions within the international human rights regime. GHRFPs have emerged as a key recommendation of UN bodies, and a defined trend in setting up such State structures is observed in practice. Addressing GHRFPs as a single field of inquiry, this introductory article presents a common analytical approach, which makes it possible to analyse various forms of GHRFPs, with a view to generalising findings and enriching each type of GHRFP with the experiences and lessons learned of others. Hereby, the Special Issue consolidates and structures a research agenda on GHRFPs around key attributes identified in a preliminary manner, in order to spark some critical and constructive analysis of this specific manifestation of the domestic institutionalisation of human rights.

Human Rights Education

Human rights education (HRE) can be described as a tool for popularizing and giving effect to the universal human rights regime. The United Nations (UN) defines HRE as (a) acquiring knowledge about human rights and the skills to exercise these rights, (b) developing values, attitudes, and beliefs that support and reinforce human rights; and (c) defending and advancing human rights through behavior and action. HRE is therefore an ideological instrument deployed as a tactic to inspire agency and activism, primarily as a counterbalance to state power. HRE as tactics is used to denote the education and training of individuals and groups working toward claiming certain protections for themselves or on behalf of those on the margins of society. This typology encompasses the range of legal, advocacy, and policy tools available within human rights frameworks to uphold and protect the rights of individuals and communities. But it is also important to recognize that human rights discourses can been appropriated by certain states to strengthen their sovereign power. HRE as sovereignty acknowledges that states, as well as corporations and far-right civil society groups, can appropriate human rights language in order to reinforce power and legitimacy. States who engage in HRE as sovereignty deliberately employ human rights language with the aim of constructing a self-serving narrative that entrenches power or legitimizes their behavior and actions. HRE as sovereignty characterizes the appropriation of HRE to entrench power through the creation of an official, immutable narrative embedded in human rights language.