Abstract
AbstractOver the last decades, various groups seeking international legal recognition of new human rights claims have succeeded in their endeavors. Some movements have crafted such convincing demands that their participation has even become an implicit condition of the legitimacy of the resulting human rights documents. But what are the bases of claims for new human rights, and how do they help to confront the argument that human rights’ expansion also entails their dilution? This Article explores narratives based on two different concepts, namely the political-science concept of affectedness and the legal-ethical concept of vulnerability. It does so by drawing on the process for the recognition of peasant human rights at the United Nations. The Article explores what it understands as the peasant critique of existing human rights by looking at the differences and interrelations between affectedness and vulnerability-based argumentation. It argues that an approach premised purely on affectedness, and thus focused on participation, is less empowering than one that includes a regard for vulnerability, which serves as a heuristic device for identifying and challenging inequalities, demands substantive outcomes, and can serve to craft a convincing theoretical account of human rights protections.
Highlights
Over the last decades, various groups seeking international legal recognition of new human rights claims have succeeded in their endeavors
What are the bases of claims for new human rights, and how do they help to confront the argument that human rights’ expansion entails their dilution? This Article explores narratives based on two different concepts, namely the political-science concept of affectedness and the legal-ethical concept of vulnerability
It argues that an approach premised purely on affectedness, and focused on participation, is less empowering than one that includes a regard for vulnerability, which serves as a heuristic device for identifying and challenging inequalities, demands substantive outcomes, and can serve to craft a convincing theoretical account of human rights protections
Summary
From a political studies perspective, affectedness has been explored as a concept that allows for democratic decision-making by identifying “those at a distance who should be able to provide input into discourses and decisions when they are importantly affected by a given decision or policy.”[34]. Despite this—given its promise for boosting the legitimacy of policies criticized for their lack of democratic control and removal from the real world of the non-elite or the non-West—the concept continues to be lauded for its promise.[39] What, does this mean for human rights law? The vulnerability of children—or in other words, the recognition that this group is in need of special protection—can be seen as the foundation of the recognition of children’s rights.[46] In this regard, it can be asked whether, like vulnerability, the concept of affectedness goes beyond a procedural requirement of participation or representation and instead entails substantive protections
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
