论多重目标和局部修复:人权与联合国基于人权方针的“被遗忘的”政治

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Millennium - Journal of International Studies Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1177/03058298221146303
Laura Pantzerhielm
{"title":"论多重目标和局部修复:人权与联合国基于人权方针的“被遗忘的”政治","authors":"Laura Pantzerhielm","doi":"10.1177/03058298221146303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the United Nations (UN), the early years of the post-Cold War era were marked by a historically novel sense of urgency to render governing practices in development cooperation and humanitarian affairs more ‘human’, ‘people-’ and ‘rights’-centred. Since then, the UN ‘Human Rights-Based Approach’ (HRBA) has become widely accepted as an authoritative methodology for grasping the practical implications of rights language. This paper examines the politics of the HRBA by exploring how it ‘fixes’ the multifaceted, normatively charged and elusive object of ‘human rights’ and renders it actionable for UN agencies. It contributes to recent theorizing on knowledge in IR and ties in with critical human rights scholarship by developing a post-foundational reading of human rights and the HRBA that frontloads constitutive power and politicizes ontology. Through an in-depth reconstruction of UN knowledge production on the HRBA, I find that it excludes concerns with international power relations and depoliticizes inequality through a narrow focus on lacking subject capacities. Moreover, I illustrate that the HRBA operates according to dichotomous spatial metaphors and implicit hierarchies that locate UN agencies ‘above’ the subjects and settings they interact with, both normatively and epistemically. The paper contributes to the critical study of human rights by excavating the ambiguous power effects at work in rights-based UN methodologies. Objets multiples et solutions ontiques : les droits de l’homme et les politiques « oubliées » de l’approche fondée sur les droits de l’homme des Nation unies","PeriodicalId":18593,"journal":{"name":"Millennium - Journal of International Studies","volume":"51 1","pages":"519 - 551"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Multiple Objects and Ontic Fixes: Human Rights and the ‘Forgotten’ Politics of the United Nations’ Human Rights-Based Approach\",\"authors\":\"Laura Pantzerhielm\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03058298221146303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At the United Nations (UN), the early years of the post-Cold War era were marked by a historically novel sense of urgency to render governing practices in development cooperation and humanitarian affairs more ‘human’, ‘people-’ and ‘rights’-centred. Since then, the UN ‘Human Rights-Based Approach’ (HRBA) has become widely accepted as an authoritative methodology for grasping the practical implications of rights language. This paper examines the politics of the HRBA by exploring how it ‘fixes’ the multifaceted, normatively charged and elusive object of ‘human rights’ and renders it actionable for UN agencies. It contributes to recent theorizing on knowledge in IR and ties in with critical human rights scholarship by developing a post-foundational reading of human rights and the HRBA that frontloads constitutive power and politicizes ontology. Through an in-depth reconstruction of UN knowledge production on the HRBA, I find that it excludes concerns with international power relations and depoliticizes inequality through a narrow focus on lacking subject capacities. Moreover, I illustrate that the HRBA operates according to dichotomous spatial metaphors and implicit hierarchies that locate UN agencies ‘above’ the subjects and settings they interact with, both normatively and epistemically. The paper contributes to the critical study of human rights by excavating the ambiguous power effects at work in rights-based UN methodologies. Objets multiples et solutions ontiques : les droits de l’homme et les politiques « oubliées » de l’approche fondée sur les droits de l’homme des Nation unies\",\"PeriodicalId\":18593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Millennium - Journal of International Studies\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"519 - 551\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Millennium - Journal of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298221146303\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Millennium - Journal of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298221146303","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在后冷战时代的最初几年,联合国出现了一种前所未有的紧迫感,要求发展合作和人道主义事务中的治理实践更加以“人”、“人”和“权利”为中心。从那时起,联合国的“基于人权的方法”(HRBA)已被广泛接受为掌握权利语言实际含义的权威方法。本文通过探索如何“修复”“人权”这一多面性、规范性和难以捉摸的目标,并使其对联合国机构具有可操作性,来考察人权管理局的政治。它为最近的国际关系知识理论化做出了贡献,并通过发展对人权和HRBA的后基础阅读,将本体论政治化,与批判性人权学术联系在一起。通过对HRBA上联合国知识生产的深入重构,我发现它排除了对国际权力关系的关注,并通过对缺乏主体能力的狭隘关注来非政治化不平等。此外,我还说明,HRBA根据二分空间隐喻和隐含的等级制度运作,这些等级制度将联合国机构置于与之互动的主体和环境之上,无论是在规范上还是在认知上。本文通过挖掘以人权为基础的联合国方法中起作用的模棱两可的权力效应,为人权的批判性研究做出了贡献。目标的多重性和解决方案的多重性:人的权利和政治的多重性;不确定的变性人的权利和变性人的权利的变性人的权利
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
On Multiple Objects and Ontic Fixes: Human Rights and the ‘Forgotten’ Politics of the United Nations’ Human Rights-Based Approach
At the United Nations (UN), the early years of the post-Cold War era were marked by a historically novel sense of urgency to render governing practices in development cooperation and humanitarian affairs more ‘human’, ‘people-’ and ‘rights’-centred. Since then, the UN ‘Human Rights-Based Approach’ (HRBA) has become widely accepted as an authoritative methodology for grasping the practical implications of rights language. This paper examines the politics of the HRBA by exploring how it ‘fixes’ the multifaceted, normatively charged and elusive object of ‘human rights’ and renders it actionable for UN agencies. It contributes to recent theorizing on knowledge in IR and ties in with critical human rights scholarship by developing a post-foundational reading of human rights and the HRBA that frontloads constitutive power and politicizes ontology. Through an in-depth reconstruction of UN knowledge production on the HRBA, I find that it excludes concerns with international power relations and depoliticizes inequality through a narrow focus on lacking subject capacities. Moreover, I illustrate that the HRBA operates according to dichotomous spatial metaphors and implicit hierarchies that locate UN agencies ‘above’ the subjects and settings they interact with, both normatively and epistemically. The paper contributes to the critical study of human rights by excavating the ambiguous power effects at work in rights-based UN methodologies. Objets multiples et solutions ontiques : les droits de l’homme et les politiques « oubliées » de l’approche fondée sur les droits de l’homme des Nation unies
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Contending American Visions of North Korea: The Mission Civilisatrice versus Realpolitik Affect, Aesthetics, and Sovereign Attachments The Violence of Settler Imperialism – and Why the Concept of Coloniality Cannot Grasp It The Affective Economies of Sovereignty: Desire and Identification The International Turn in Far-Right Studies: A Critical Assessment
×
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