Search results

Liberal political theory and contemporary expositions of human rights focus largely on the individual. Some liberal theorists even deny that ethnic communities and other groups, as collective entities, can have moral rights at all. The outlook is narrow and unfortunate. It reflects a preoccupation with domestic politics and a model of domestic politics that neglects the common fact of heterogeneity. It ignores widespread practices and urgent problems, for in many countries groups identified by race, language, or religion make moral claims, and their claims are sometimes conceded. It ignores the common view that nations or "peoples" have a (moral) right of self-determination, and it even leaves the state itself without justification. If theory is to give adequate guidance, its focus must be broadened. The question of group rights needs to be explored, and interrelationships between the rights of individuals, of groups, and of the state need to be clarified.

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls assumes that the principles of justice are for individuals in a society, and in general he assumes that the society is an ethnically homogeneous state. He thus follows the tradition associated with the dominant form of the social contract theory, which focuses on the individual and the state. His assumptions neglect the fact that almost all states are ethnically plural or heterogeneous, and that many of them confer special status and rights on ethnic groups as collective entities; for example, many of them confer special status and rights on indigenous groups, on groups disadvantaged by prior discrimination, and on minorities and other groups conceded a right to survive as distinct cultural entities. Status and rights for groups necessarily mean differentiation among individuals depending on their membership; and this in turn means that a theory of justice that focuses on the individual and neglects the group both fails to account for existing practices and fails to give guidance where the practices are at issue.

THE CHARTER OF THE UN REQUIRES MEMBERS TO PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS. THE RIGHTS IN QUESTION ARE LARGELY THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, & ARE TO BE PROMOTED SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY & NONDISCRIMINATION. ON THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS & NATIONAL POLICIES, MANY ETHNIC, LINGUISTIC, RELIGIOUS, & OTHER KINDS OF GROUPS HAVE RIGHTS AS COLLECTIVE ENTITIES: IN POLITICS & GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION, THE REGULATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & RESIDENCE, LAW & THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, & ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. EVIDENCE TO DESCRIBE THIS PROPOSITION IS PRESENTED IN EXAMPLES FROM NUMEROUS COUNTRIES TO SHOW THE FACTUAL SITUATION, NOT TO EXPLAIN OR JUDGE IT MORALLY. WHEN GROUPS HAVE RIGHTS, DIFFERENTIATION OCCURS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY ARE MEMBERS. THIS RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHICH DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE DISCRIMINATORY & WHICH ARE JUSTIFIABLE IN THE NAME OF THE RIGHTS OF GROUPS. MODIFIED HA.

This paper focuses on the requirement of the U. N. Charter that members shall promote human rights "without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." It asks: (1) whether "without distinction" means "without any differentiation" or "without discrimination"; (2) whether the naming of race, sex, language, and religion means that "distinction" on other bases remains permissible, or whether what is ruled out is discrimination of any kind that affects human rights; and (3) whether the search for equality has not been internationalized, at least in principle, and what the implications of the internationalization may be. The inquiry can be classified as legal/philosophical.The third question leads to an analysis of the "without distinction" clause of the Charter in terms of the principle of equality. Claims to nondiscrimination are negative claims to equality, and they have as their counterpart claims to affirmative action on behalf of equality—often for groups. The problem is that affirmative action promoting equality for groups entails differentiations among individuals that may be discriminatory. To resolve the dilemma, the test of reasonableness is endorsed—and the search for standards for judging it goes on—at both the domestic and international levels.