This article analyzes the vastly different approaches taken by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom toward asylum claims based on political neutrality. In the recent case of RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UKSC 38 (2012)), the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in favor of several apolitical Zimbabweans who sought asylum in the U.K. on the grounds that they would be tortured if they refused to swear allegiance to the Mugabe regime if deported. This case stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias (502 U.S. 478 (1992)), which denied asylum to an apolitical Guatemalan man who fled to the U.S. after resisting the recruitment efforts of guerillas fighting a civil war against the government. This article uses these two seminal cases to illustrate the wide gulf between U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence in their reliance on international human rights norms and foreign law. In RT (Zimbabwe), the U.K. Supreme Court referenced numerous human rights treaties, as well as the jurisprudence of several common law countries (including the United States) in holding that those who choose not to express a political opinion – for whatever reason – are entitled to the same protection from persecution that extends to the politically active and vocal. In Elias-Zacarias, on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court did not cite any international or foreign law. Its decision was based entirely on statutory interpretation of the U.S. law governing asylum. This article contributes to the literature on the human rights approach to asylum law, which argues that domestic courts considering asylum claims should be guided by the norms promoted in human rights treaties. RT (Zimbabwe) embraces this approach; Elias-Zacarias ignores it. This contrast begs the question that this article interrogates: does the human rights approach to asylum law make a difference to asylum-seekers? It approaches this question through a counterfactual analysis: would Mr. Elias-Zacarias have obtained asylum before the U.K. Supreme Court, and how would the claimants in RT (Zimbabwe) have fared before the U.S. Supreme Court? In addition, this article suggests how U.S. courts might rely on the rulings of their sister signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in ways that would promote a uniform interpretation of that treaty across national borders. It also suggests ways that lawyers representing refugees in the United States might utilize a human rights-based approach to refugee law to benefit clients. And finally, it considers whether one of the factors contributing to the effectiveness of human rights treaties is the adoption of the human rights approach to asylum law by the domestic courts of a ratifying country.
本文分析了美国最高法院和英国最高法院对基于政治中立的庇护申请所采取的截然不同的方法。在最近的RT(津巴布韦)诉内政部国务秘书案(UKSC 38(2012))中，英国最高法院裁定支持几名不关心政治的津巴布韦人，他们在英国寻求庇护，理由是如果他们拒绝宣誓效忠穆加贝政权，如果被驱逐出境，他们将受到酷刑。本案与美国最高法院在INS诉Elias-Zacarias案(502 U.S. 478(1992))中的判决形成鲜明对比，后者拒绝为一名不参与政治的危地马拉男子提供庇护，该男子在反对政府的内战游击队招募后逃到美国。本文用这两个开创性的案例来说明英美法理学在依赖国际人权规范和外国法律方面的巨大鸿沟。在RT(津巴布韦)案中，英国最高法院引用了许多人权条约，以及几个普通法国家(包括美国)的判例，认为那些选择不表达政治观点的人——无论出于何种原因——都有权得到与政治活跃和直言不讳的人同样的保护，不受迫害。另一方面，在伊莱亚斯-扎卡里亚斯案中，美国最高法院没有引用任何国际法或外国法律。它的决定完全基于对美国庇护法律的法定解释。本文对关于庇护法的人权方法的文献作出了贡献，这些文献认为，审议庇护申请的国内法院应以人权条约中促进的规范为指导。RT(津巴布韦)赞同这种做法;Elias-Zacarias对此视而不见。这种对比引出了本文要探讨的问题:庇护法的人权方针对寻求庇护者有影响吗?它通过反事实分析来解决这个问题:埃利亚斯-扎卡里亚斯先生会在英国最高法院获得庇护吗? RT(津巴布韦)的申请人会如何在美国最高法院获得庇护?此外，本文还提出了美国法院如何依赖其1951年《难民地位公约》姊妹签署国的裁决，以促进跨国界对该条约的统一解释。它还提出了在美国代表难民的律师可以利用基于人权的难民法方法来造福客户的方法。最后，它审议了促进人权条约效力的因素之一是否是批准国的国内法院对庇护法采取人权方法。
{"title":"The Right Not to Hold a Political Opinion: Implications for Asylum in the United States and the United Kingdom","authors":"Stephen Meili","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2668270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2668270","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the vastly different approaches taken by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom toward asylum claims based on political neutrality. In the recent case of RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UKSC 38 (2012)), the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in favor of several apolitical Zimbabweans who sought asylum in the U.K. on the grounds that they would be tortured if they refused to swear allegiance to the Mugabe regime if deported. This case stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in INS v. Elias-Zacarias (502 U.S. 478 (1992)), which denied asylum to an apolitical Guatemalan man who fled to the U.S. after resisting the recruitment efforts of guerillas fighting a civil war against the government. This article uses these two seminal cases to illustrate the wide gulf between U.S. and U.K. jurisprudence in their reliance on international human rights norms and foreign law. In RT (Zimbabwe), the U.K. Supreme Court referenced numerous human rights treaties, as well as the jurisprudence of several common law countries (including the United States) in holding that those who choose not to express a political opinion – for whatever reason – are entitled to the same protection from persecution that extends to the politically active and vocal. In Elias-Zacarias, on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court did not cite any international or foreign law. Its decision was based entirely on statutory interpretation of the U.S. law governing asylum. This article contributes to the literature on the human rights approach to asylum law, which argues that domestic courts considering asylum claims should be guided by the norms promoted in human rights treaties. RT (Zimbabwe) embraces this approach; Elias-Zacarias ignores it. This contrast begs the question that this article interrogates: does the human rights approach to asylum law make a difference to asylum-seekers? It approaches this question through a counterfactual analysis: would Mr. Elias-Zacarias have obtained asylum before the U.K. Supreme Court, and how would the claimants in RT (Zimbabwe) have fared before the U.S. Supreme Court? In addition, this article suggests how U.S. courts might rely on the rulings of their sister signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in ways that would promote a uniform interpretation of that treaty across national borders. It also suggests ways that lawyers representing refugees in the United States might utilize a human rights-based approach to refugee law to benefit clients. And finally, it considers whether one of the factors contributing to the effectiveness of human rights treaties is the adoption of the human rights approach to asylum law by the domestic courts of a ratifying country.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68247891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-03-15DOI: 10.4324/9781315095769-19
J. Todres, Sarah Higinbotham
Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, children’s rights are still seen in many circles as novel and quaint ideas but not serious legal theory. The reality, however, is that the realization of children’s rights is vital not only for childhood but for individuals’ entire lives. Similarly, although the books children read and have read to them are a central part of their childhood experience, so too has children’s literature been ignored as a rights-bearing discourse and a means of civic socialization. We argue that children’s literature, like all narratives that contribute to our moral sense of the world, help children construct social expectations and frame an understanding of their own specific rights and responsibilities. Arguing that literature is a source of law for children, we explore children’s literature with a view to examining what children learn about their own rights, the rights of others, and the role of rights more broadly in a democratic society. Using Dr. Seuss as a test case, this Article explores the role of children’s literature in children’s rights discourses. This Article also examines recent empirical work on the benefits of human rights education, connecting that research with law and literature perspectives. Ultimately, this Article aims to connect and build upon the fields of children’s rights law, law and literature, children’s literature criticism, human rights, and cultural studies to forge a new multidisciplinary sub-field of study: children’s rights and children’s literature.
{"title":"A Person's a Person: Children's Rights in Children's Literature","authors":"J. Todres, Sarah Higinbotham","doi":"10.4324/9781315095769-19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315095769-19","url":null,"abstract":"Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in history, children’s rights are still seen in many circles as novel and quaint ideas but not serious legal theory. The reality, however, is that the realization of children’s rights is vital not only for childhood but for individuals’ entire lives. Similarly, although the books children read and have read to them are a central part of their childhood experience, so too has children’s literature been ignored as a rights-bearing discourse and a means of civic socialization. We argue that children’s literature, like all narratives that contribute to our moral sense of the world, help children construct social expectations and frame an understanding of their own specific rights and responsibilities. Arguing that literature is a source of law for children, we explore children’s literature with a view to examining what children learn about their own rights, the rights of others, and the role of rights more broadly in a democratic society. Using Dr. Seuss as a test case, this Article explores the role of children’s literature in children’s rights discourses. This Article also examines recent empirical work on the benefits of human rights education, connecting that research with law and literature perspectives. Ultimately, this Article aims to connect and build upon the fields of children’s rights law, law and literature, children’s literature criticism, human rights, and cultural studies to forge a new multidisciplinary sub-field of study: children’s rights and children’s literature.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"5 1","pages":"1-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70630214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article offers a critical analysis of the complexities of having the state recognize and then take up gay rights as a cause of its own. I examine three principal contexts – the role of gay rights in the state of Israel’s re-branding campaign, the response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2007 speech at Columbia University in which he claimed that there were no homosexuals in Iran, and the role of gay rights in Romania’s effort to join the European Community – as examples of the moral hazards that a minority faces when the state takes up their interests and uses their rights for purposes that well-exceed the obvious interests of the new rights-bearing community. I conclude that critical awareness of the state’s role as fundamental partner in the recognition and protection of a form of sexual rights should push us to regard these “victories” as necessarily ethically compromised.
{"title":"Dating the State: The Moral Hazards of Winning Gay Rights","authors":"Katherine M. Franke","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2014541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2014541","url":null,"abstract":"The article offers a critical analysis of the complexities of having the state recognize and then take up gay rights as a cause of its own. I examine three principal contexts – the role of gay rights in the state of Israel’s re-branding campaign, the response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2007 speech at Columbia University in which he claimed that there were no homosexuals in Iran, and the role of gay rights in Romania’s effort to join the European Community – as examples of the moral hazards that a minority faces when the state takes up their interests and uses their rights for purposes that well-exceed the obvious interests of the new rights-bearing community. I conclude that critical awareness of the state’s role as fundamental partner in the recognition and protection of a form of sexual rights should push us to regard these “victories” as necessarily ethically compromised.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"44 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67853391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-11-01DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0043
Michele R. Pistone
Terrorism significantly threatens the United States and other countries. The threat is new. We should not be surprised that a new threat of terrorism would arise at this time. Driven by the phenomenon of globalization, the dominant constitutional order of the society of states is currently undergoing a major change, as it has done about every century for the past 500 years. In every prior case, such a change was always accompanied by corresponding changes in the nature of terrorism. This time is no different, except that the threat is greater now, due to the growing accessibility of weapons of mass destruction. The greater peril that we now face can effectively be addressed only by policies rooted in a deep understanding of the newness of our age, and the terrible novelty of its terror threat. Al Qaeda is the first example of the new type of terror group that will prove endemic to the coming age, but those groups will not be limited to the adherents of any particular religion or ideology. These ideas, which are controversial, have been developed at length over the last decade by Columbia University law professor Philip Bobbitt. Bobbitt’s theories about the changing nature of the state and the concomitant change in the nature of terrorism have profound implications for U.S. policy toward refugees and other displaced people. These implications are not yet appreciably understood. This Article provides the first extended application of Bobbitt’s ideas to displaced people, a group of almost 80 million that we call “the global homeless.” A large part of the battle to establish the legitimacy of the new constitutional order will be waged among this group. If we proceed as if the status quo were an acceptable way forward, we will heighten the risk that we will suffer grave consequences. We accordingly propose the adoption of a number of new principles, programs and laws aimed at drawing the global homeless and their communities into the new constitutional order of states. Absent the rationale provided by Bobbitt’s theories, the policies we prescribe would have little hope of advancement; once grasped, however, that rationale makes action along the lines we advise imperative and urgent.
{"title":"Unsettling Developments: Terrorism and the New Case for Enhancing Protection and Humanitarian Assistance for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, Including Victims of Natural Disasters","authors":"Michele R. Pistone","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0043","url":null,"abstract":"Terrorism significantly threatens the United States and other countries. The threat is new. We should not be surprised that a new threat of terrorism would arise at this time. Driven by the phenomenon of globalization, the dominant constitutional order of the society of states is currently undergoing a major change, as it has done about every century for the past 500 years. In every prior case, such a change was always accompanied by corresponding changes in the nature of terrorism. This time is no different, except that the threat is greater now, due to the growing accessibility of weapons of mass destruction. The greater peril that we now face can effectively be addressed only by policies rooted in a deep understanding of the newness of our age, and the terrible novelty of its terror threat. Al Qaeda is the first example of the new type of terror group that will prove endemic to the coming age, but those groups will not be limited to the adherents of any particular religion or ideology. These ideas, which are controversial, have been developed at length over the last decade by Columbia University law professor Philip Bobbitt. Bobbitt’s theories about the changing nature of the state and the concomitant change in the nature of terrorism have profound implications for U.S. policy toward refugees and other displaced people. These implications are not yet appreciably understood. This Article provides the first extended application of Bobbitt’s ideas to displaced people, a group of almost 80 million that we call “the global homeless.” A large part of the battle to establish the legitimacy of the new constitutional order will be waged among this group. If we proceed as if the status quo were an acceptable way forward, we will heighten the risk that we will suffer grave consequences. We accordingly propose the adoption of a number of new principles, programs and laws aimed at drawing the global homeless and their communities into the new constitutional order of states. Absent the rationale provided by Bobbitt’s theories, the policies we prescribe would have little hope of advancement; once grasped, however, that rationale makes action along the lines we advise imperative and urgent.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64561369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-08-30DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0048
C. Davidson
Letting people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide out on bail before or during their trials is hard for the public to swallow. Should it matter? This article applies public repute discourse theory on courts’ consideration of the appearance of justice to international bail and argues that international criminal tribunals should resist pressure to detain defendants based on vague standards such as "public confidence in the administration of justice" and “public order.” Efforts to bolster the public’s confidence in or the perceived legitimacy of international tribunals through bail decisions catering to public opinion are not only unfair, but also unlikely to be successful. This article contends that, to the extent rule-makers wish to give international judges more leeway to detain alleged international war criminals on bases other than risk of flight or danger to the community, they should proceed with caution. To address cases where there is a serious threat of public violence stemming from a defendant’s release, a narrow public safety ground requiring both strong evidence of the threat to public safety and of the defendant’s guilt is preferable to detaining based on "public confidence in the administration of justice" or “public order.”
{"title":"May it Please the Crowd? The Role of Public Confidence, Public Order, and Public Opinion in Bail for International Criminal Defendants","authors":"C. Davidson","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0048","url":null,"abstract":"Letting people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide out on bail before or during their trials is hard for the public to swallow. Should it matter? This article applies public repute discourse theory on courts’ consideration of the appearance of justice to international bail and argues that international criminal tribunals should resist pressure to detain defendants based on vague standards such as \"public confidence in the administration of justice\" and “public order.” Efforts to bolster the public’s confidence in or the perceived legitimacy of international tribunals through bail decisions catering to public opinion are not only unfair, but also unlikely to be successful. This article contends that, to the extent rule-makers wish to give international judges more leeway to detain alleged international war criminals on bases other than risk of flight or danger to the community, they should proceed with caution. To address cases where there is a serious threat of public violence stemming from a defendant’s release, a narrow public safety ground requiring both strong evidence of the threat to public safety and of the defendant’s guilt is preferable to detaining based on \"public confidence in the administration of justice\" or “public order.”","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64561422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-04-26DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0031
S. B. Baughman, S. Barclay
Child labor is a global problem that has attracted much discussion. Various solutions proposed include attempts at improving international compliance with human rights standards, levying of trade sanctions or boycotts, and increasing legislation and prosecution of crimes. None of these solutions have achieved more than marginal success, largely because they are rarely enforced and ignore the root causes of child labor and global market forces.The use of fair trade labeling to combat child labor is an approach that has received virtually no attention in the legal community. Yet, primary qualitative research and case studies presented here illustrate that fair trade should be considered as a proven alternative to current strategies to eliminate child labor. First, it relies on market incentives and private monitoring with effective punishments of noncomplying fair trade companies. Second, it is voluntary and private, avoiding the political problems with international monitoring which rarely end in enforcement or penalties. Third, unlike prosecutions that focus on a small number of the resulting problems of child labor and trafficking, fair trade focuses on improving incomes, working conditions, health, and education of a large number of workers.
{"title":"Fair Trade and Child Labor","authors":"S. B. Baughman, S. Barclay","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0031","url":null,"abstract":"Child labor is a global problem that has attracted much discussion. Various solutions proposed include attempts at improving international compliance with human rights standards, levying of trade sanctions or boycotts, and increasing legislation and prosecution of crimes. None of these solutions have achieved more than marginal success, largely because they are rarely enforced and ignore the root causes of child labor and global market forces.The use of fair trade labeling to combat child labor is an approach that has received virtually no attention in the legal community. Yet, primary qualitative research and case studies presented here illustrate that fair trade should be considered as a proven alternative to current strategies to eliminate child labor. First, it relies on market incentives and private monitoring with effective punishments of noncomplying fair trade companies. Second, it is voluntary and private, avoiding the political problems with international monitoring which rarely end in enforcement or penalties. Third, unlike prosecutions that focus on a small number of the resulting problems of child labor and trafficking, fair trade focuses on improving incomes, working conditions, health, and education of a large number of workers.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"43 1","pages":"1-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64561314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-01-01DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0040
Britta S. Loftus
The article focuses on U.S. immigration laws and human trafficking. Topics include why human trafficking laws conflict with immigration enforcement in the U.S., the need for integration between human trafficking response policies and immigration law, and the rights of undocumented immigrants. The author discusses the ways in which the U.S. could reform immigration policy to address the needs of human trafficking victims. Information is provided on the enforcement of anti-trafficking laws in the U.S. Keywords: Human trafficking Language: en
{"title":"Coordinating U.S. law on immigration and human trafficking: lifting the lamp to victims","authors":"Britta S. Loftus","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9947-0040","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on U.S. immigration laws and human trafficking. Topics include why human trafficking laws conflict with immigration enforcement in the U.S., the need for integration between human trafficking response policies and immigration law, and the rights of undocumented immigrants. The author discusses the ways in which the U.S. could reform immigration policy to address the needs of human trafficking victims. Information is provided on the enforcement of anti-trafficking laws in the U.S. Keywords: Human trafficking Language: en","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"43 1","pages":"143-214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64561359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Article provides an interpretive account of the human rights discourse at a time when the U.S. legal community is deepening its relationship with these issues. It maps the context of the human rights project over the past one hundred years, with a critical eye and as a cautionary tale. It reviews the historical circumstances and the ideological framework in which human rights have been appropriated as an instrument of national policy, often to the detriment of humanitarian objectives. It considers the role of law, not only as an instrument by which colonial rule was maintained but as a system that has claimed center stage in the human rights project, often producing outcomes inimical to human rights. It demonstrates that the disparity in power between colonizer and colonized continues to affect the ongoing development of human rights norms and has resulted in the production of legal remedies that are often incapable of safeguarding international human rights. It uses comparative legal discourse as a way to illustrate how the human rights project stipulates the need to rescue people of other cultures from themselves. The Article argues for a shift in methodological and attitudinal approaches to human rights work and suggests that commitment to human rights must be guided by an awareness of the power relationships from which remedies originate. It contends that without such awareness, humanitarian enterprises may inadvertently result in baneful consequences and implicate the human rights project in the very wrongs it seeks to correct.
{"title":"The Human Rights Dilemma: Rethinking the Humanitarian Project","authors":"Deborah M. Weissman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.462524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.462524","url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides an interpretive account of the human rights discourse at a time when the U.S. legal community is deepening its relationship with these issues. It maps the context of the human rights project over the past one hundred years, with a critical eye and as a cautionary tale. It reviews the historical circumstances and the ideological framework in which human rights have been appropriated as an instrument of national policy, often to the detriment of humanitarian objectives. It considers the role of law, not only as an instrument by which colonial rule was maintained but as a system that has claimed center stage in the human rights project, often producing outcomes inimical to human rights. It demonstrates that the disparity in power between colonizer and colonized continues to affect the ongoing development of human rights norms and has resulted in the production of legal remedies that are often incapable of safeguarding international human rights. It uses comparative legal discourse as a way to illustrate how the human rights project stipulates the need to rescue people of other cultures from themselves. The Article argues for a shift in methodological and attitudinal approaches to human rights work and suggests that commitment to human rights must be guided by an awareness of the power relationships from which remedies originate. It contends that without such awareness, humanitarian enterprises may inadvertently result in baneful consequences and implicate the human rights project in the very wrongs it seeks to correct.","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.462524","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67740238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-01-01DOI: 10.1038/scientificamerican05201848-277
Ali Khan
{"title":"The Dignity of Labor","authors":"Ali Khan","doi":"10.1038/scientificamerican05201848-277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican05201848-277","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1038/scientificamerican05201848-277","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57520047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights: the first legal and ethical framework at the global level.","authors":"N Lenoir","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":80967,"journal":{"name":"Columbia human rights law review","volume":"30 1","pages":"537-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"22327234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：