不便的异见人士:朱利安·阿桑奇案中的人权激进主义

IF 3.3 3区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organization Pub Date : 2023-07-03 DOI:10.1177/13505084231183954
Deepa Govindarajan Driver, M. Andenæs, I. Munro
{"title":"不便的异见人士:朱利安·阿桑奇案中的人权激进主义","authors":"Deepa Govindarajan Driver, M. Andenæs, I. Munro","doi":"10.1177/13505084231183954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is based on investigations by two branches of the United Nations Human Rights Council into the treatment of the whistleblower journalist, Julian Assange – the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The UN investigations analysed for this ‘Acting Up’ article show that Julian Assange is an inconvenient dissident, who has been subjected to persecution by liberal democracies rather than authoritarian regimes. Previous research into whistleblowing has highlighted the courage and risks taken by individual whistleblowers in speaking truth to power however, this case highlights a different facet of speaking truth to power which shows how lawyers, activists and other professionals often refuse to do this because of the professional costs of speaking up for an apparently toxic individual. This article argues that the UN investigations have built a ‘counter-archive’ of suppressed facts about the case, which challenges the ‘collective amnesia’ of the public discourse. This case demonstrates that speaking truth to power requires not only individual courage but the active support of inconvenient dissidents, who lack other civil society support.","PeriodicalId":48238,"journal":{"name":"Organization","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An inconvenient dissident: Human rights activism in the case of Julian Assange\",\"authors\":\"Deepa Govindarajan Driver, M. Andenæs, I. Munro\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13505084231183954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is based on investigations by two branches of the United Nations Human Rights Council into the treatment of the whistleblower journalist, Julian Assange – the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The UN investigations analysed for this ‘Acting Up’ article show that Julian Assange is an inconvenient dissident, who has been subjected to persecution by liberal democracies rather than authoritarian regimes. Previous research into whistleblowing has highlighted the courage and risks taken by individual whistleblowers in speaking truth to power however, this case highlights a different facet of speaking truth to power which shows how lawyers, activists and other professionals often refuse to do this because of the professional costs of speaking up for an apparently toxic individual. This article argues that the UN investigations have built a ‘counter-archive’ of suppressed facts about the case, which challenges the ‘collective amnesia’ of the public discourse. This case demonstrates that speaking truth to power requires not only individual courage but the active support of inconvenient dissidents, who lack other civil society support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231183954\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084231183954","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章基于联合国人权理事会的两个分支机构——联合国任意拘留问题工作组和联合国酷刑问题特别报告员——对举报记者朱利安·阿桑奇待遇的调查。为这篇“行动起来”的文章分析的联合国调查显示,朱利安·阿桑奇是一个不受欢迎的持不同政见者,他受到自由民主而不是专制政权的迫害。先前对举报人的研究强调了个人在向权力说出真相时所承担的勇气和风险,然而,这起案件突出了向权力说出真相的另一个方面,即律师、活动人士和其他专业人士往往拒绝这样做,因为为一个明显有害的人说话需要付出专业成本。这篇文章认为,联合国的调查已经建立了一个关于该案件的被压制事实的“反档案”,这挑战了公共话语的“集体失忆症”。这个案例表明,对权力说真话不仅需要个人的勇气,还需要不方便的持不同政见者的积极支持,他们缺乏其他公民社会的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An inconvenient dissident: Human rights activism in the case of Julian Assange
The article is based on investigations by two branches of the United Nations Human Rights Council into the treatment of the whistleblower journalist, Julian Assange – the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. The UN investigations analysed for this ‘Acting Up’ article show that Julian Assange is an inconvenient dissident, who has been subjected to persecution by liberal democracies rather than authoritarian regimes. Previous research into whistleblowing has highlighted the courage and risks taken by individual whistleblowers in speaking truth to power however, this case highlights a different facet of speaking truth to power which shows how lawyers, activists and other professionals often refuse to do this because of the professional costs of speaking up for an apparently toxic individual. This article argues that the UN investigations have built a ‘counter-archive’ of suppressed facts about the case, which challenges the ‘collective amnesia’ of the public discourse. This case demonstrates that speaking truth to power requires not only individual courage but the active support of inconvenient dissidents, who lack other civil society support.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization
Organization MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The journal encompasses the full range of key theoretical, methodological and substantive debates and developments in organizational analysis, broadly conceived, identifying and assessing their impacts on organizational practices worldwide. Alongside more micro-processual analyses, it particularly encourages attention to the links between intellectual developments, changes in organizational forms and practices, and broader social, cultural and institutional transformations.
期刊最新文献
Alter-anthropological thought in organization studies From anti-state Nazism to neo-bureaucracy? Media Review: Lupin: Eradicating the stereotype of the African immigrant Carta Aberta: (In)visibilizing transgender bodies in organizations Rethinking organization studies methods through a posthumanist epistemology of practice
×
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