In this book, Beitz presents three competing theories of human rights.
To me, none of them can survive from some political harshness. Naturalistic
theory seems to be less vulnerable in comparison to the latter two. But it
contains many other problems that Beitz discussed already in the book. The social
cost problem is huge for naturalistic theory. Beitz wrote that the answer lies
at the social relations between people. Even in domestic politics, factions
would fight ceaselessly on whose responsibility it is to bear the social cost,
not even to mention international politics. The Agreement theory is to me the most
vulnerable if you consider many societies that we may deem them as terrorist groups. Shall we consider ISIS norms
in the agreement theory? Since ISIS actually might achieve the minimal way that
Bernard Williams requires, i.e. a scheme of social cooperation rather than a
system of coordinated behavior maintained by force – it is very difficult to
tell if people follow the rule mainly because they have fear or they believe in
what they are doing or something in between – we have to have a political
mechanism to determine what societies should be the societies to look at, and
what are not. If the first two theories contain political difficulties
empirically, Beitz’s theory contains political problem institutionally. Two-level
system is extremely venerable to political influence. Almost all humanitarian
aid nowadays are conditioned, especially those given to the poorest regions
because they do not have political leverage in the negotiations. I would even
call this a neo-colonialism as you see countries hold the belief of human
rights and lend/give humanitarian aid in exchange for natural resources in
Africa/SE Asia/Latin America. Further, Beitz himself admits that what deems to
be threat are influenced by both domestic
politics and international politics on page 111.
I love human rights, but in so far I did not know if the political
threat is solvable.
Hey Sebastian!
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment!
I want to respond to your concern (and somewhat to others on the blog so far) that any account of Human Rights must necessarily fall victim to the whims of "political harshness."
I actually find Beitz's theory for the idea of human rights quite clever. While naturalist and agreement based theories fall victim to the issues you covered, Beitz's theory, I think, takes seriously the relationship between states as an "emerging practice of human rights." Crucially, the various states around the globe are each allowed to have their own justifications for the reasons to act in defense of human rights. While you are worried that the definition of threat is too fluid because it is influenced by both domestic and international politics, I find this to be a selling point of Beitz's model. Part of Human Rights, Beitz's argues in the naturalist chapter, is that they are not timeless nor placeless -- in fact, he thinks, they are very much pinned to our particular social context. As such, politics should play a role in advancing the practice of human rights. By looking at human rights from a practical perspective rather than a naturalist or agreement perspective, it means that the reasons for action are open for public discourse and debate rather than some sort of god-given or contract-spawend rights. Can this justify neo-colonialism on the basis of human rights? Yes and no. I think, reasonably, that Beitz's model would not support one state taking the resources of another state coercively without legitimate reasons for action. Rather than see politics as a barrier to realizing some innate rights, it takes seriously the existence of political society and its role in collectively following the reasons it develops for action. Politics can not be ignored in the idea of a human right.