International Legal Human Rights Research Articles

Too liberal for global governance? International legal human rights system and indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination

This article considers whether the international legal human rights system founded on liberal individualism, as endorsed by liberal theorists, can function as a fair universal legal regime. This question is examined in relation to the collective right to self-determination demanded by indigenous peoples, who are paradigmatic decent nonliberal peoples. Indigenous peoples’ collective right to self-determination has been internationally recognized in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2007. This historic event may seem to exemplify the international legal human rights system’s ability to function as a truly global legal regime applicable cross-culturally to all well-ordered societies, whether liberal or nonliberal. The article argues, however, that the collective right to self-determination advocated by indigenous peoples for the sake of cultural integrity is inconsistent with the international legal human rights system founded on liberal individualism. By showing the plausibility of indigenous peoples’ defense of their cultural integrity, this article suggests that the international legal human rights system ought to be reconceptualized to reflect a genuine international consensus on human rights among all well-ordered societies if it is to function as a just mechanism for global governance.

Interpreting the Political Theory in the Practice of Human Rights

In this discussion of The Heart of Human Rights, I support Allen Buchanan’s pursuit of a theory-in-practice methodology for interpreting the foundations and meaning of international legal human rights from within the practice. Following my use of that methodology, I recharacterize the theory of rights revealed by this methodology as political not moral. I clarify the import of this interpretation of international legal human rights for two problems that trouble Buchanan: (1) whether the scope of ‘basic equal status’ is a global or an ‘intrasocial’ standard and (2) whether there is a ‘proliferation’ of rights that risks undermining the legitimacy of international legal human rights. I argue that the scope of basic equal status is global and that the practice of making what he calls ‘new’ rights claims is part of the practice of human rights.

A Social Practice Prioritarian Response to Allen Buchanan’s The Heart of Human Rights

Allen Buchanan’s ‘The Heart of Human Rights’ addresses the moral justification of the international legal human rights system (ILHRS). Buchanan identifies two functions of the ILHRS: a well-being function and a status egalitarian function. Because Buchanan assumes that the well-being function is sufficientarian, he augments it with a status egalitarian function. However, if the well-being function is utilitarian or prioritarian, there is no need for a separate status egalitarian function, because the status egalitarian function can be subsumed by the utilitarian or prioritarian well-being function.

Are Moral Rights Necessary for the Justification of International Legal Human Rights?

Are Moral Rights Necessary for the Justification of International Legal Human Rights?

The Heart of Human Rights

Allen Buchanan’s book is an impressive addition to the contemporary philosophical discussions about human rights. It covers a wide range of topics, including the nature of justifications in human rights (chapters 2 and 3), the problems existing accounts face (chapter 2), a justificatory account of human rights as a system of international law (chapters 3 and 4), the nature of legitimacy-judgments in political philosophy (chapter 5), the supposed “supremacy” of international legal human rights (chapter 6), and ethical relativism and pluralism (chapter 7).

La crisis de los sistemas de regulación en la Unión Europea

The rules of new Global Corporate Law are having an impact on international legal systems. Thus, the combination of the privatisation of rules and general effects on the population are dislocating the central cores of Law. The unrestricted market is an expression of capitalist fundamentalism which is affecting both regulatory procedures and the essential contents of Law. The effects on the majority in society are devastating. The economic and financial crisis has been exacerbated by the legal crisis within the framework of the European Union; this has been turned into the latest testing ground on which to smash the Social State based on the rule of Law and, even more seriously, to erode the international legal human rights architecture. The new international and community legality founded on laws, regulations and jurisprudence is giving way to a global constitution which buttresses the power of the ruling classes and works by threatening the procedures to safeguard social rights within constitutional frameworks.

Human rights and reproductive health: political realities and pragmatic choices for married adolescent women living in urban slums, Bangladesh

BackgroundIn Bangladesh, particularly in urban slums, married adolescent women’s human rights to life, health, and reproductive and sexual health remain adversely affected because of the structural inequalities and political economic, social and cultural conditions which shape how rights are understood, negotiated and lived.MethodsThe focus of the research and methods was anthropological. An initial survey of 153 married adolescent women was carried out and from this group, 50 in-depth interviews were conducted with selected participants and, from the in-depth interviews, a further eight case studies of women and their families were selected for in-depth repeated interviews and case histories.ResultsThis paper speaks of the unanticipated complexities when writing on reproductive rights for poor adolescent women living in the slums, where the discourses on ‘universal human rights’ are often removed from the reality of adolescent women’s everyday lives. Married adolescent women and their families remain extremely vulnerable in the unpredictable, crime-prone and insecure urban slum landscape because of their age, gender and poverty. Adolescent women’s understanding of their rights such as the decision to marry early, have children, terminate pregnancies and engage in risky sexual behaviour, are different from the widely accepted discourse on rights globally, which assumes a particular kind of individual thinking and discourse on rights and a certain autonomy women have over their bodies and their lives. This does not necessarily exist in urban slum populations.ConclusionsThe lived experiences and decisions made pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and ‘rights’ exercised by married adolescent women, their families and slum communities, allow us to reflect on the disconnect between the international legal human rights frameworks as applied to sexual and reproductive health rights, and how these are played out on the ground. These notions are far more complex in environments where married adolescent women and their families live in conditions of poverty and socioeconomic deprivation.

Introduction: contextualising “rights” in sexual and reproductive health

The idea for this supplement arose from discussions among a set of research partners associated with the Realising Rights Research Programme Consortium (RR RPC), an international partnership funded by the UK Department for International Development from 200510 that focused on neglected areas of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) [1]. In the Consortium, work on rights has been concerned with ways of bridging the gap between international legal human rights frameworks as applied to SRHR, and how these play out for actual people ‘on the ground’ .W e noted that there was a well-developed international language of human rights in relation to sexual and reproductive health, accompanied by significant international advocacy efforts stretching back several decades [2-4]. However, SRHR remained controversial and contested; sexual rights in particular are poorly understood by many policy actors, they are not easy to operationalise ‘downstream’ in policies and programmes, and their place and relevance in people’s day to day lives have been much less explored [5-7]. The papers in this volume are one contributi on to the task of laying out why it is important to fill this gap and what the analytical challenges are in doing so. We decided, therefore, to focus our thematic work on rights on the challenges of contextualising and operationalising the concept in different local and national domains. The aim was to start from the perspective of lived experience, rather than from an

Book ReviewsAllen Buchanan, . Justice, Legitimacy, and Self‐Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pp. 520. $75.00 (cloth); $35.00 (paper).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook Reviews Allen Buchanan, . Justice, Legitimacy, and Self‐Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pp. 520. $75.00 (cloth); $35.00 (paper).Michael BlakeMichael BlakeUniversity of Washington Search for more articles by this author University of WashingtonPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 118, Number 4July 2008 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/591481 Views: 78Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref © 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Ranjoo Seodu Herr Too liberal for global governance? International legal human rights system and indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, Journal of International Political Theory 13, no.22 (Feb 2017): 196–214.https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217691541Roopinder Oberoi Heterarchial Networks for Global Corporations: Emerging Unstructured Complexity in Regulatory Landscape, (Dec 2015): 187–219.https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-052320150000008009

Do Minority and Group Rights Promote Just Stability in Non-Unitary Political Orders? A Research Agenda

Much has been achieved with regard to the specification of minority and group rights as well as other international legal human rights norms. The positivation of human rights thus secure, many now urge that the next move must be to promote realistion of such human rights regimes. This crucial task may well face special challenges in states whose constitutions unbundle sovereignty into multi-level or multi-national political orders. One important research topic is therefore whether minority and group rights secure their objectives in de jure non-unitary political orders, whose populations sharply divide along ethnic, national, religious or linguistic lines. The aim of this paper is to identify some of the central research challenges that arise. The first section lays out some of the central organising elements of this presentation, while sections 2 and 3 draws on existing literature to elaborate some central concepts and distinctions, and present some of the most prominent competing hypotheses as to whether minority and group rights facilitate the creation of non-unitary political orders, and their stability once arrived at. The presentation elaborates on how minority and group rights may affect several mechanisms of socialisation to human rights and compliance with these complex political orders. The aim is to facilitate legal and social science research that may help assess these claims, and their scope conditions – and thereby help assess the efficacy of minority and group rights in these non-unitary polities. Other contributors – in this special issue and elsewhere – provide case studies that may serve to test and delimit these hypotheses.

Chapter IV. The International Legal Order and Human Rights

Chapter IV. The International Legal Order and Human Rights

From Judge to Participant: The United States as champion of human rights

The United States has engaged in international human rights practice in two significantly different ways. This mix is not so much a sign of schizophrenia as one of maturing. Initially as an international judge the United States traditionally declared human rights legal standards through foreign policy. This declaratory posture has been both positive and negative. Positively it has contributed to a growing body of international legal human rights standards and instruments. But as the U.S. government itself has generally abstained from ratifying international human rights covenants, its participatory role has been minimal. A double standard incites counterjudgments from various parts of the world, as others question the consistency, responsibility, and reciprocity in U.S. standards, practices, and opinions. Such foreign-policy debates wallow in harangue and rhetoric that create more hardness than progress.