Rights on the Rise: International Mobilization for New Human Rights

C. Bob
{"title":"Rights on the Rise: International Mobilization for New Human Rights","authors":"C. Bob","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.902692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, aggrieved groups around the world have portrayed their problems as human rights issues. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is expansive, for most of its history civil and political rights have garnered the bulk of resources. Yet today groups such as the disabled, gays and lesbians, Third World slumdwellers, South Asian Dalits (Untouchables), AIDS patients, and victims of corporate malfeasance - all seek to establish rights to protect their groups. In many cases, their efforts have met resistance from governments and corporations. Even apparent allies among human rights NGOs have voiced misgivings, arguing that proliferation of new rights vitiates core concerns. My paper proposes a framework for understanding the emergence of new rights, those omitted from or given little prominence in the UDHR. The process involves three phases: First, groups frame long-felt grievances as rights. Why and how they do so has received little scholarly attention. Second, they seek to place their claims on the international agenda, chiefly by convincing gatekeepers in major human rights NGOs to endorse new norms. This seldom-examined stage is crucial since a handful of NGOs exercise great power in certifying rights. Third, assuming key NGOs adopt a norm, they promote it in international arenas where they face strong opposition from states and non-state actors espousing contrary norms. To make this argument, I analyze the recent successes, failures, and strategies of Dalits and the physically disabled as they seek new rights internationally. My analysis challenges dominant theories of transnational relations and social movements. In contrast to Keck and Sikkink's concept of cohesive transnational advocacy networks, I distinguish within networks between established NGO gatekeepers and new rights claimants. I find that NGOs' organizational interests make them less receptive than often assumed, forcing claimants to adapt themselves to NGO predispositions. Moreover, unlike constructivists, I argue that logics of appropriateness and argument cannot explain norm acceptance. Bearers of new norms face opposition from transnational counter-movements that champion equally appropriate counter-norms. Even the rules of argument and participation are contested - a far cry from the deliberative truth-seeking envisioned by constructivists.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"151 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902692","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

In recent years, aggrieved groups around the world have portrayed their problems as human rights issues. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is expansive, for most of its history civil and political rights have garnered the bulk of resources. Yet today groups such as the disabled, gays and lesbians, Third World slumdwellers, South Asian Dalits (Untouchables), AIDS patients, and victims of corporate malfeasance - all seek to establish rights to protect their groups. In many cases, their efforts have met resistance from governments and corporations. Even apparent allies among human rights NGOs have voiced misgivings, arguing that proliferation of new rights vitiates core concerns. My paper proposes a framework for understanding the emergence of new rights, those omitted from or given little prominence in the UDHR. The process involves three phases: First, groups frame long-felt grievances as rights. Why and how they do so has received little scholarly attention. Second, they seek to place their claims on the international agenda, chiefly by convincing gatekeepers in major human rights NGOs to endorse new norms. This seldom-examined stage is crucial since a handful of NGOs exercise great power in certifying rights. Third, assuming key NGOs adopt a norm, they promote it in international arenas where they face strong opposition from states and non-state actors espousing contrary norms. To make this argument, I analyze the recent successes, failures, and strategies of Dalits and the physically disabled as they seek new rights internationally. My analysis challenges dominant theories of transnational relations and social movements. In contrast to Keck and Sikkink's concept of cohesive transnational advocacy networks, I distinguish within networks between established NGO gatekeepers and new rights claimants. I find that NGOs' organizational interests make them less receptive than often assumed, forcing claimants to adapt themselves to NGO predispositions. Moreover, unlike constructivists, I argue that logics of appropriateness and argument cannot explain norm acceptance. Bearers of new norms face opposition from transnational counter-movements that champion equally appropriate counter-norms. Even the rules of argument and participation are contested - a far cry from the deliberative truth-seeking envisioned by constructivists.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
崛起中的权利:新人权的国际动员
近年来,世界各地愤愤不平的群体将他们的问题描述为人权问题。虽然《世界人权宣言》(UDHR)内容广泛,但在其历史的大部分时间里,公民权利和政治权利获得了大量资源。然而今天,残疾人、男女同性恋者、第三世界贫民窟居民、南亚贱民(贱民)、艾滋病患者和企业不法行为的受害者等群体都在寻求建立保护自己群体的权利。在许多情况下,他们的努力遭到了政府和企业的抵制。就连人权非政府组织中明显的盟友也表达了担忧,认为新权利的扩散损害了核心关切。我的论文提出了一个框架,用于理解新权利的出现,即那些被《世界人权宣言》遗漏或不太突出的权利。这个过程包括三个阶段:首先,团体将长期以来的不满化为权利。他们为什么这样做以及如何这样做却很少受到学术界的关注。其次,他们寻求将自己的主张纳入国际议程,主要是通过说服主要人权非政府组织的看门人支持新的规范。这个很少被审查的阶段是至关重要的,因为少数非政府组织在证明权利方面拥有很大的权力。第三,假设主要的非政府组织采用了一种规范,它们就会在国际舞台上推广这种规范,而在国际舞台上,它们会面临来自支持相反规范的国家和非国家行为体的强烈反对。为了证明这一点,我分析了达利特人和身体残疾人士在国际上寻求新权利时最近的成功、失败和策略。我的分析挑战了跨国关系和社会运动的主流理论。与Keck和Sikkink的凝聚力跨国倡导网络的概念相反,我在网络中区分了已建立的非政府组织看门人和新的权利主张者。我发现非政府组织的组织利益使他们不像通常想象的那样容易接受,迫使索赔人适应非政府组织的倾向。此外,与建构主义者不同,我认为适当性和论证的逻辑不能解释规范接受。新规范的制定者面临着跨国反规范运动的反对,这些运动支持同样适当的反规范。甚至辩论和参与的规则也存在争议——这与建构主义者所设想的审慎寻求真理相去甚远。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Governance and Accountability: A Systematic Review to Examine Its Impact on Social Mission in Nonprofit Organizations Legal Issues in Mutual Aid Operations: A Preliminary Guide Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case Examining the Impact of Divestment from Fossil Fuels on University Endowments The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1