Rights and Duties

Raz On the Nature of Rights

His theory is based on the idea of the correlative principle between rights and duties
You are only able to have a right if your well-being is of ultimate value
A right comes with a duty
Rights wont change but the duties with the rights change
Rights are not everything good
Rights evolved due to the circumstances surrounding WWII
Is the foundation of the modern ideas of human rights
Core and derivative rights
Some rights derive from other rights
Derivative rights come through justification of the core rights
Rights are grounds for duties
Rights are not the same things as duties
Rights are types of claims and there has to be a duty-bearer
If you cant identify a duty-bearer then there is no right
For Raz there should be more perfection in identifying the duty-bearer
Who can claim rights?
People/corporations/artificial persons of ultimate value being valuable independently of ones instrumental value
Should/are rights grounded in morality?
Rights are self-interested so they cannot be based in absolute morality
Is similar to Bentham. Raz talks about:
Utilitarianism the rights of the state are limited to that specific community
He also says that man, not God, makes law so interests are the basis of rights not natural law
Interests are the utilitarian basis for rights you are trying to achieve the greatest number of rights for the greatest number
of people in the specific community
There has to be a perfect correlativity between rights and duties
The implication of this type of utilitarianism means that rights are not universal they can only be applied within a specific
community
If we split between core and derivative rights, it means we weigh rights differently
If we are not guaranteed the right to security, then we cannot enjoy any of our other rights
We have to be alive and secure to practice our other rights such as right to freedom of speech, etc
Gewirth The Basis and Content of Human Rights
He is closer to universal rights than Raz but he does not establish total human rights
He states that everyone has the right to general well-being
Potential purposive agency its not simply the agency that you posses at this particular time
Our lives have meaning and purpose which is what separates human rights from animal rights, etc
The individual is the basic actor and human beings lives are worth something
It is potential because it is not necessarily what you posses at this exact moment, but refers to the potential you have over
the course of your whole life
He calls freedom and well-being the generic foundation
We can think of well-being as physical security but freedom is rather generic
Freedom is important because of his idea of agency if we arent free then we cant be agents
Principle of Generic Consistency
An agent must implicitly attribute to himself the generic rights that he attributes to his recipients
How universal are universal rights?
If you base your theoretical foundation on agency then the rights are not equal
For people who are not agents there is no foundation for them to assert their rights leaves the door open to people being
taken advantage of
However, he does guarantee everyone the right to life
He differentiates the difference between core and derivative rights
The core rights are freedom and well-being, unless they come into conflict with each other
Gewirth talks about morality he, unlike Raz, takes it into account when talking about core rights
The core rights are necessary to be rationally purposive
Is similar to Mill
Is tied in with freedom/liberty as being fundamental to rights
Is also similar to Rousseau
The social contract is necessary for freedom and well-being
Shue Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and US Foreign Policy
A right is the basis for a justified demand, people not only may, but ought to, insist
A justified demand is anything that can be argued well enough
A right provides the rational basis for a justified demand for actual enjoyment is the most neglected element of many rights
During the Cold War, the US upheld the argument for civil and political rights
The argument for those rights should be looked at differently
There are certain things that we needed to stay alive and those things need to be included in rights
Basic rights are the minimum demands of others on humans
A basic right is that right which is more valuable or intrinsically satisfying to enjoy than some other rights
Discusses standard threats the social guarantees against standard threats are the same fulfillment of basic rights
How are core rights best guaranteed?
Raz says that rights are grounds for duties
Shue says that perfect correlativity is not possible because certain people are necessary to stop rights violations
Positive and negative rights
Subsistence rights are positive rights are active
Security rights are negative are passive
We are more likely to guarantee negative rights because they are not that difficult
We are lazy so we dont want to be active and guarantee subsistence
However, guaranteeing security causes positive action to, for example, stop police from perpetrating violence. They must be
trained, so positive action is necessary.
Because the west is affluent, we have a duty to help the poor obtain subsistence
You can see hints of Marx in his writings
He talks of class and societal hierarchy on an international basis and what is necessary to help bridge the gap a bit
Talks about how it is immoral for us in the West to enjoy certain rights that many in the world could never dream of. How
can we be so materialistic when others are dying?

Religion, Culture, and Human Rights
Fareed Zakaria Culture is Destiny: Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew
He argues that excessive individualism breaks down the social order and is bad for development
Less focus on individualism
Is a large focus on educating the young to keep social vagrancy in check
You can modernize without westernizing
States that we should not start from the assumption that all men are equal
The break down of society comes when you educate women and they become financially stable and are more likely to leave
unhappy marriages
The government executes drug dealers, rules with a firm hand, exercises corporal punishment, etc
The standard of living is very high, yet taxes are very high
They may be authoritarian in certain respects, but they are extremely well off
Culture is more important for Asians
The family is the basis of society
There is a dependence on family that you cannot get from the state
The state should not take on the roles that the family fulfills
The family helps promote social order and good values
Talks about multiculturalism and how he thinks its disruptive for society for immigrants to completely cling to their old ways
Asks, Why would someone move to another country if they are not willing to adopt any of the new ways?
Has merit, but is problematic
Kim Dae Jung Is Culture Destiny?
During the 1990s when he was president, North Korea faced an agricultural failure and there was mass starvation and
malnutrition
Kim Dae Jung enacted the Sunshine Policy they could try to get the North Koreans to stand down from their militarized
position by providing them with things they needed, which at that time was food
Argues that Asian governments interfere much more in the lives of their citizens
Social breakdown is based much more on industrialization, not culture
There is a social breakdown in Asia occurring
States that Asian countries have the benefit of learning from the mistakes made by European and Western nations they
will take democracy and modify to circumvent these mistakes
Argues that culture isnt destiny, democracy is
All Asian countries will come to democracy
Donnelly Human Rights and Asian Values
Argues that there is room for universalism in culture
Donnelly is not opposed to sovereignty, but because of the tension built up in the Charter, states should not shy away from
condemning rights violations in other countries
Human rights are universal but not absolute
The West has a lot to learn from Asia regard ESC rights
Development has been used as an argument for violating human rights
We were allowed to violate rights to develop rights, so should they be allowed to?
Development shouldnt override human dignity
Cobbah African Values and Human Rights
Argues that Western ideals of human rights deny culture we must look at human rights in the context of culture
We must look at human rights in the context of communitarianism
Talks about how the African ideal of the family/community fosters economic ideals in the sense that you are required to
provide charity and economically empower each other
Africans live in large families, not nuclear families
You must understand the cultural norms of the people if you are going to implement rights in a harm-free way
The communitarian nature of African culture has caused some problems
Such as FGM which is often enforced by the women and it is not your decision, it is the decision of the collective
Should we be so sensitive to culture when we have seen it expedite human rights violations? How do we criticise culture
without being insensitive and calling them backward?
Ask whether [insert cultural practice here] is a valuable practice or whether it is harmful and violates rights
Abdul Aziz Said Precept and Practice of Human Rights in Islam
He argues that the theories of Islam uphold and promote human rights, such as protection of minorities, sanctity of life,
unity of mankind, collective obligation for public welfare
He states that the protections outlined in the Quran are only applied to believers
Different regimes have adopted Shariah law in different ways which has/can cause problems
How important is interpretation concerning the implementation of human rights in Islamic countries?
It is the fundamental difference between these states
Is it possible to have a non-secular state that respects human rights?
What do you do when you have a state which is non-secular and they commit human rights violations?
When we deal in IR with violations and groups which demand a change in the law, should we argue based on
interpretation? Or should the arguments be based on something else which is more universal?
NGOs and Transnational Networks
Constructivism is widely used when looking at non-state actors. Why?
Other theories do not look at non-state actors when considering IR
Constructivists say that actors are not necessarily rational. States may not act according to solely economic factors.
Interests play a very important role and affects how actors behave. That concept of knowing what you want is a social
process.
It evolved out of real world events when major states were getting things gravely wrong they thought that states would
act a certain way and they did not. The major factor in its development was the end of the Cold War; realism did not
account for the end of the Cold War.
Keck and Sikkink Activists Beyond Borders
Looks at how advocacy networks develop and interact with states
They explore how national borders are blurred when NGOs are involved
The Boomerang Effect: State A blocks redress to organizations within it; they activate network, whose members pressure
their own states and (if relevant) a third-party organization, which in turn pressure state A
NGOs and transnational networks share information and expertise to help others
Transnational networks want to achieve an outcome but we also need to look at when this process does not work
Information is important and it is the NGOs responsibility to provide the information to the target group targeting is key
A lot of the time the story may be changed slightly to appeal to emotions to affect the target group more
A lot of these issues are highly politicized situations
Many of these NGOs are competing against one another for donations and attention
The Helsinki Accords are a prime example of the boomerang effect
They set up individual country human rights watches which allowed for a look behind the Iron Curtain which had never
before been allowed
There has been an explosion of NGOs in human rights but how far can they go to really deal with the large issues
Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink The Power of Human Rights
The spiral model
It is a series of boomerang effects with 5 phases:
Repression and activation of network the degree of oppression has to be severe enough to gain interest
Denial the boomerang effect is un-answered in this phase because when it come back to the state, the state denies
violations
Tactical concessions the state seeks cosmetic changes to pacify international criticism
Prescriptive status the validity claims of the norm are no longer controversial, even if the actual behaviour continues
violating the rules
Rule-consistent behaviour must keep the pressure up to attain change
If we only adhere to rationalism we end up having to rely on coercion or incentive policies to affect change which may not
always be possible for NGOs to achieve
Some issues are just sexier than others and will automatically garner more attention even though there are serious issues
which are ignored
Case studies (South Africa, Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, Philippines, Uganda, Poland Czechoslovakia, Kenya, Morocco):
Many of the countries in the case studies are countries with violations that have been fairly old so they are not picking at
new wounds
Many of the countries also have deep domestic tensions between ethnic or social groups
These countries are not the major cases or countries most of these countries have largely escaped the explanation of the
spiral model
Conclusions about sovereignty the debate between sovereignty and human rights have been settled and sovereignty is no
longer an excuse to allow human rights
Human rights norms are transforming what it means to be and act as a state
We have to be careful with this statement because this book came out before 9/11 when there was a lot of optimism about
what norms were doing to improve states
Price Reversing the Gun Sights
About the de-land mining campaign
Is about the effect of transnational society on the ban of land mines
Talks about social pressure and how transnational organizations apply pressure to countries to ban land mines
Talks about how some theories are not able to explain why land mines were banned
Realism is unable to explain why some weaker states were willing to ban them when they could have been useful for state
security
The military was for the banning because they stated that land mines were no longer effective as an instrument of war
States were willing to go along with this because they need the military and they have a lot of coercive power over the state
Webers definition of the state: the entity which has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force
Canada was not actually on the list of UN approved countries who wanted to ban land mines, they were put on it by
accident
Lloyd Axworthy took the lead and just went along with it and got Canada to start this project to get other states on board to
ban land mines
If a state hadnt of started this campaign it is unlikely that it would have gone as far
A state wants control over what is considered legitimate or not and they have the power to say that land mines are not
legitimate
Land mines only cost about $3 to make but cost about $1000 to remove and that cost is usually borne by states
Many of the states that did not sign onto the Ottawa Treaty because they still have massive amounts of land mines
Many NGOs would have wanted to go around the state to ban land mines, but it is almost impossible to do that because
states are crucial in the protection and/or violation of human rights
**** states are necessary in human rights considerations ****
We cant solely rely on NGOs to do the work, states must be considered and utilized to correct violations or systemic
problems that are allowing violations to be carried out