Making kin with more-than-human rights: Expert perspectives on human rights and drug policy

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE International Journal of Drug Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104597
Kate Seear, Sean Mulcahy
{"title":"Making kin with more-than-human rights: Expert perspectives on human rights and drug policy","authors":"Kate Seear,&nbsp;Sean Mulcahy","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Globally, calls for drug law reform are growing. Importantly, many argue that reforms should be guided by human rights. These calls, while welcome, assume a shared understanding of and approach to human rights, and that human rights can effectively guide less punitive approaches to drugs. Such assumptions fail to recognise important critiques, including that human rights have not always protected the interests of those who fail to fit normative ideals of the ‘human’. Are human rights the best framework to repair drug policy injustices? This paper explores these issues, drawing on in-depth interviews conducted with 30 human rights experts – about half of whom openly identify as people who use drugs – from around the world. We find a variety of approaches to human rights, with both optimism and pessimism about their utility for drug policy. These perspectives incorporate reflections on the different ‘levels’ at which rights operate, the limitations of rights and the need to think and do rights relationally, or in more-than-human ways (e.g. Braidotti 2019; Schippers, 2019; Grear 2018; Barad 2007, 2003). This emphasis on relationality stems from identified entanglements between drug policy, animals, habitats, the environment, and humans. Combining Donna Haraway's work on ‘companion species’ (2003), ‘making kin and making kind’ (2016), with Suzanne Fraser's (Early online) call to trouble drugs, we consider ways to trouble human rights by making kin through them. We argue that rights are a potentially generative space within which to explore relationality and new kinds of kin-making. We argue for a ‘more-than-human rights’ approach, following the work of legal scholars such as Marie-Catherine Petersmann (Early online, 2022, 2021) and Emily Jones (2021). We argue that this approach allows us to be and become ‘response-able’ (that is, able to respond, following Haraway) to the world in which we live and the challenges our world faces.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 104597"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002810/pdfft?md5=a694582358481502c892051af18ed3ba&pid=1-s2.0-S0955395924002810-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395924002810","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Globally, calls for drug law reform are growing. Importantly, many argue that reforms should be guided by human rights. These calls, while welcome, assume a shared understanding of and approach to human rights, and that human rights can effectively guide less punitive approaches to drugs. Such assumptions fail to recognise important critiques, including that human rights have not always protected the interests of those who fail to fit normative ideals of the ‘human’. Are human rights the best framework to repair drug policy injustices? This paper explores these issues, drawing on in-depth interviews conducted with 30 human rights experts – about half of whom openly identify as people who use drugs – from around the world. We find a variety of approaches to human rights, with both optimism and pessimism about their utility for drug policy. These perspectives incorporate reflections on the different ‘levels’ at which rights operate, the limitations of rights and the need to think and do rights relationally, or in more-than-human ways (e.g. Braidotti 2019; Schippers, 2019; Grear 2018; Barad 2007, 2003). This emphasis on relationality stems from identified entanglements between drug policy, animals, habitats, the environment, and humans. Combining Donna Haraway's work on ‘companion species’ (2003), ‘making kin and making kind’ (2016), with Suzanne Fraser's (Early online) call to trouble drugs, we consider ways to trouble human rights by making kin through them. We argue that rights are a potentially generative space within which to explore relationality and new kinds of kin-making. We argue for a ‘more-than-human rights’ approach, following the work of legal scholars such as Marie-Catherine Petersmann (Early online, 2022, 2021) and Emily Jones (2021). We argue that this approach allows us to be and become ‘response-able’ (that is, able to respond, following Haraway) to the world in which we live and the challenges our world faces.

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
与超越人权的权利结亲:关于人权和毒品政策的专家观点
在全球范围内,要求进行毒品法律改革的呼声日益高涨。重要的是,许多人认为改革应以人权为指导。这些呼吁虽然值得欢迎,但却假定人们对人权有共同的理解和方法,并假定人权可以有效地指导对毒品采取惩罚性较弱的方法。这些假设没有认识到一些重要的批评意见,包括人权并不总是能保护那些不符合 "人 "的规范性理想的人的利益。人权是修复毒品政策不公正的最佳框架吗?本文通过对世界各地 30 位人权专家的深入访谈,对这些问题进行了探讨,这些专家中约有一半公开表示自己是吸毒者。我们发现,对于人权有多种不同的看法,对其在毒品政策中的作用既有乐观的,也有悲观的。这些观点包含了对权利运作的不同 "层面"、权利的局限性以及以关系或超越人类的方式思考和处理权利的必要性的思考(例如,Braidotti,2019 年;Schippers,2019 年;Grear,2018 年;Barad,2007 年,2003 年)。对关系性的强调源于毒品政策、动物、栖息地、环境和人类之间已确定的纠葛。结合唐娜-哈拉维(Donna Haraway)关于 "伴生物种"(2003 年)、"制造亲属和制造同类"(2016 年)的研究,以及苏珊娜-弗雷泽(Suzanne Fraser)(早期在线)关于解决毒品问题的呼吁,我们考虑通过制造亲属来解决人权问题的方法。我们认为,权利是一个潜在的生成空间,可以在其中探索关系性和新型的亲属关系。我们主张采用 "超越人权 "的方法,追随玛丽-凯瑟琳-彼得斯曼(Marie-Catherine Petersmann,2022 年早期在线,2021 年)和艾米莉-琼斯(Emily Jones,2021 年)等法律学者的研究成果。我们认为,这种方法使我们能够对我们生活的世界和我们的世界所面临的挑战做出 "回应"(即能够做出回应,效仿哈拉维)。
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
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.40%
发文量
307
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.
期刊最新文献
National impact of a constraining regulatory framework on pregabalin dispensations in France, 2020–2022 Suboptimal uptake and placement of a mandatory alcohol pregnancy warning label in Australia Increases in employment over six months following Khanya: A secondary analysis of a pilot randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered behavioral intervention for substance use and HIV medication adherence in Cape Town, South Africa The criminal careers of Australian drug traffickers Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cannabis cultivation and use in 18 countries.
×
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