1993 Elections Highlight Tibetan Rights

１９９３　Ｅｌｅｃｔｉｏｎｓ　Ｈｉｇｈｌｉｇｈｔ　Ｔｉｂｅｔａｎ　Ｒｉｇｈｔｓ１９９３ＥｌｅｃｔｉｏｎｓＨｉｇｈｌｉｇｈｔＴｉｂｅｔａｎＲｉｇｈｔｓ￥ｂｙＢａｓａｎｇＮｏｒｂｕＩｎ１９９３，ｅｌｅｃｔｉｏｎｓｆｏｒｄｅｐｕｔｉｅｓｔｏｐｅｏｐｌｅ＇ｓ...     

Who Has the Rights to Talk About the Human——Rights of Tibetans

At present, Tibetan human rights are a hot topic amongst some people right around the world. On the face of it they sound plausible. But as a matter of fact, they have absolutely no idea of what “Old Tibet” （referring to the time before the peaceful liberation in 1951） was really like, how the Tibetan slaves/serfs lived in old Tibet and how they survived in an appalling lack of numan rights in those days.     

Human Rights Fighter Praises Feudal Serfdom

TheoldTibetunderthe14thDalaiLamahadnohumanrights.Inthe1980s,however,thischiefrenresentativeofthefeudalserfsystemovernightbecamea"humanrightsfighter".Repeatedly,heexcitedlyaccusedtheCentralGovernmentofviolatinghumanrights.Therearesomethingsintheworldwhicha…     

Introduction: Women's Rights as Human Rights: Global Contestations over the Longue Durée

This short essay introduces the forum on ‛Women's Rights as Human Rights: Global Contestations over the Longue Durée’. It briefly outlines the state of the field, a new agenda for research in the area and the topics of the articles in the forum. The forum derives from a symposium on the same topic sponsored by Gender & History and held at the University of Sheffield in spring 2022.     

Human Rights: A New Standard of Civilization?

This is an edited text of the fifth John Vincent Memorial Lecture delivered at the University of Keele on 9 May 1997 in which Jack Donnelly attacks the still common scepticism about international human rights - although from an unorthodox angle.     

Liberalism in Progress—From Equal Rights to Global Participation

Abstract

Michael Walzer defends a political liberalism that upholds the right to share in substantive goods as well as to enjoy civil liberties, and that supports the value and rights of particular ethnic, cultural, and religious communities. But Walzer tends to see the political sphere as one in which conflict continually threatens, and particular commitments must be suppressed or constrained. I propose what might be termed a "progressive" politics, in which particular identities and relationships are appreciated as the bases of meaningful social agency, and in which particular communities come together around problems of mutual concern to establish common ground and working relationships in a participatory democracy.     

High Court Review 2010: The Resurgence of Rights?

In 2010 the High Court delivered several judgments with potentially significant implications for the protection of human rights in Australia. It invoked the doctrine of the implied constitutional freedom of communication in Aid/Watch; found that offshore processing of asylum seekers must comply with procedural fairness and natural justice; invalidated elements of the SA government's control order scheme as it encroached on the independence of the judiciary; and invalidated amendments to electoral laws that shortened the period for enrolment. In this review we evaluate the implications of these decisions in the wider context of the protection of human rights in Australia. We argue that while these decisions have made an important contribution to restating the boundaries of rights protection, there are significant limitations in relying on judicial review as a mechanism of rights protection within the Australian constitutional framework.     

Was James Madison Ever for the Bill of Rights?

Abstract

This article revisits the question whether James Madison believed the Bill of Rights improved the Constitution. In particular, it asks whether the evidence supports the argument that Madison was persuaded that bills of rights serve an important educative function in constitutional government. It concludes that the evidence does not support this argument and suggests that Madison did not believe that the Bill of Rights improved the Constitution.     

Human Rights,Modernity, and Milton’s Areopagitica

Some of the founding documents of our modern human rights culture assert that, by virtue of natural law, the will of God, the will of a Supreme Being, or some kind of natural world order, all humans have a right to civil liberties. In Areopagitica (1644), Milton rejects this way of grounding the claim to civil liberties. Instead, he argues for civil liberties on pragmatic grounds, but also on the premise that members of political societies are entitled to civil liberties from their governors only insofar as those members are rational and virtuous. His argument for civil liberties is also grounded in the view that the proper function of government includes propagating virtue in those it governs, assessing their rationality and moral virtue, and extending civil liberties to them in accordance with this assessment. Arguing in this way, Milton opposes the notion that, simply by virtue of being human, all members of political societies have a specific set of rights which their governments, and indeed all other people on earth, are bound to respect. He thus has more in common with Isocrates and Renaissance humanists than he does with the defenders of our modern human rights culture.     

Human Rights and Multinationals: Is there a Problem?

In recent years interested individuals and pressure groups have expressed considerable concern over the alleged complicity of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in violations of human rights. While such allegations are not historically unprecedented, the context in which they arise has changed. In particular, the increased integration of the global economy has created a perception that MNEs should take more responsibility for the social dimension of their actions, a perception that enterprises themselves have in part accepted through inter alia the issuing codes of corporate conduct. Furthermore, the rise of identity and lifestyle politics has made MNEs, as purveyors of products and services that help to define consumer lifestyles, a target of concern. These changes have significant implications for the evolution of human rights theory. In particular, they require a shift in the traditional view that corporations can only be victims of violations of human rights committed by states, towards one that extends responsibility for the commission, prevention and avoidance of such violations to MNEs themselves. On the other hand, there exist strong arguments against such an extension of human rights responsibilities. In particular, it is said that MNEs should only be responsible for the conduct of their business and should not be forced to involve themselves in such wider social issues. They are also private law entities and so should not possess the same responsibilities as states. This articles posits that such arguments in favour of extension, though strong and likely to remain influential, cannot answer the need for an extension of responsibility for human rights violations to MNEs where appropriate, on the basis that any attack on human dignity, whatever that legal nature and functions of its originator, must be liable to legal sanction. The technical legal means by which this might be done are considered. None the less, the article ends with a caution that any extension of human rights responsibilities to MNEs must not be allowed to deflect attention from the primary responsibility of states, as the most likely perpetrators of human rights violations, to avoid human rights violations on their own part and to establish a legal order in which the risk of such violations committed by private entities can be minimized, whether through effective national regulatory laws or international agreements on standards of corporate conduct.     

Does Believing Homosexuality Is Innate Increase Support for Gay Rights?

Why are Americans who believe homosexuality is innate more likely to support the rights of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs)? Attribution theory suggests that people are more likely to support LGB rights if they do not blame LGBs for their sexual orientation. Alternatively, moral condemnation of homosexuality may lead both to belief that homosexuality is a choice and opposition to LGB rights, while acceptance of LGB rights may lead to a belief in a biological basis for homosexuality as part of a constellation of tolerant beliefs. Using logit analysis on individual‐level data from 24 national surveys conducted since 1977, I find that the link between belief in a biological basis for homosexuality and support for LGB rights is strong and growing for almost all groups on almost all issues. The reason may have more to do with people shaping their origin beliefs to match their political and religious values, than with origin beliefs affecting support for LGB rights.     

(Why) Did Reconstruction Fail? Legislating and Constitutionalizing Civil Rights

Abstract

The Thirty-ninth Congress, which was elected in November 1864 and began its first session in December 1865, undertook three tasks: to restore the Union after the Civil War, to amend the Constitution to ensure citizenship to the freedmen, and to legislate federal guarantees for their civil rights. Considering the political constraints of their situation—a hostile President and intransigence in many of the states of the former Confederacy—this essay aims to catalogue and assess the achievements of that Congress. While the Fourteenth Amendment in the long run served its intended purpose and the Civil Rights and Reconstruction Acts secured for a while the integration of the freedmen into the polity, Reconstruction failed to win widespread consent and proved impossible, at least politically, to continuously enforce.     

North Korea’s participation in the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights

North Korea’s participation in the UNHRC’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)—a peer review in which states make recommendations to one another for improving human rights implementation—is a notable exception to its rejection of other human rights mechanisms. What explains North Korea’s willing participation in the UPR? This essay analyses North Korea’s participation in the first (2008–11) and second (2012–15) UPR cycles through its written submissions, responses to recommendations, and recommendations to other states. It finds that North Korea has consistently accepted weak recommendations, rejected more specific policy changes, and implemented accepted recommendations on a limited basis, allowing it to claim compliance with human rights at minimal cost. The UPR’s reliance on states’ self-reports and its inability to adjudicate competing factual claims allow North Korea to reject claims of egregious abuses, openly advocate for a radically state-centric vision of human rights, and challenge the legitimacy of human rights mechanisms like the Commission of Inquiry and Special Rapporteur while building support from other states with similar views. Notably, the Commission of Inquiry appears to have motivated North Korea to increase its cooperation with the UPR, demonstrating that the UPR complements but cannot replace other UN human rights mechanisms.     

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Deuteronomy and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Abstract

Deuteronomy portrays itself as Moses's speech at the edge of the promised land. This article examines the book's attitudes towards the other within this rhetorical setting by concentrating on the indigenous peoples, also in contrast to those outside the land of Israel. It is pointed out that the ideology of Deuteronomy is very exclusive, and its treatment of indigenous peoples compatible with ideologies that accompany genocides and conquests. Mitigating such exclusive thinking can serve as a model for human interactions today, and this would also seem to be compatible with the overall thinking of the New Testament canonical documents.