Suchergebnisse

ONE. What Together We Can Do; TWO. Laying Out the Theoretical Groundwork; THREE. Global Rights and Responsibilities: Climate Change and Digital Defense against the Dark Arts; FOUR. National Rights and Responsibilities: Voting; FIVE. What Do the Students Think?; SIX. Changing Norms and Practices; SEVEN. The Rights and Responsibilities Framework on Campus: Speech and Sexual Assault

"Why we cannot truly implement human rights unless we also recognize human responsibilities When we debate questions in international law, politics, and justice, we often use the language of rights-and far less often the language of responsibilities. Human rights scholars and activists talk about state responsibility for rights, but they do not articulate clear norms about other actors' obligations. In this book, Kathryn Sikkink argues that we cannot truly implement human rights unless we also recognize and practice the corresponding human responsibilities. Focusing on five areas-climate change, voting, digital privacy, freedom of speech, and sexual assault-where on-the-ground (primarily university campus) initiatives have persuaded people to embrace a close relationship between rights and responsibilities, Sikkink argues for the importance of responsibilities to any comprehensive understanding of political ethics and human rights"--Publisher's description

"Nowhere did two understandings of U.S. identity—human rights and anticommunism—come more in conflict with each other than they did in Latin America. To refocus U.S. policy on human rights and democracy required a rethinking of U.S. policy as a whole. It required policy makers to choose between policies designed to defeat communism at any cost and those that remain within the bounds of the rule of law."—from the IntroductionKathryn Sikkink believes that the adoption of human rights policy represents a positive change in the relationship between the United States and Latin America. In Mixed Signals she traces a gradual but remarkable shift in U.S. foreign policy over the last generation. By the 1970s, an unthinking anticommunist stance had tarnished the reputation of the U.S. government throughout Latin America, associating Washington with tyrannical and often brutally murderous regimes. Sikkink recounts the reemergence of human rights as a substantive concern, showing how external pressures from activist groups and the institution of a human rights bureau inside the State Department have combined to remake Washington's agenda, and its image, in Latin America. The current war against terrorism, Sikkink warns, could repeat the mistakes of the past unless we insist that the struggle against terrorism be conducted with respect for human rights and the rule of law

Over the past three decades, hundreds of government officials have gone from being immune to any accountability for their human rights violations to being the subjects of highly publicized trials in Latin America, Europe, and Africa, resulting in enormous media attention and severe consequences. Here, renowned scholar Kathryn Sikkink brings to light the groundbreaking emergence of these human rights trials as a modern political tool, one that is changing the face of global politics as we know it. Drawing on personal experience and extensive research, Sikkink explores the building of this movement toward justice, from its roots in Nuremberg to the watershed trials in Greece and Argentina. She shows how the foundations for the stunning, public indictments of Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet were laid by the long, tireless activism of civilians, many of whose own families had been destroyed, and whose fight for justice sometimes came at the risk of their own lives and careers. She also illustrates what effect the justice cascade has had on democracy, conflict, and repression, and what it means for leaders and citizens everywhere, including the policymakers behind our own "war on terror."--From publisher description

To confront the climate crisis, we need political change involving a dramatic shift in domestic and transnational norms. Norm models should be recognized as one of the theoretical tools within the panoply of approaches to examine and address climate change. The most promising norm campaigns underway are those that target fossil fuel companies and government policies that support them (e.g., subsidies).

Welcome. My name is Kathryn Sikkink. I am the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and I will be your moderator for this panel on human rights and COVID, challenges and good practices for effective recovery.

AbstractKratochwil's critique of rights as a dominant moral theory that cannot avoid 'hegemonic' politics appears to be too crude. This article suggests that more theoretical and practical attention to the responsibilities necessary to implement rights could address some of Kratochwil's concerns. The language of political and ethical responsibilities is often missing from the practical action discourse of human rights. The article emphasizes the multitude of potential 'agents of justice' and how they can discharge forward-looking responsibilities in open and discretionary ways.

It is a pleasure and a challenge to comment on these two very different Articles, "Saving Human Rights from Human Rights Law," by John Tasioulas, and 'On Human Rights and Majority Politics: Felix Frankfurter's Democratic Theory," by Samuel Moyn. Both are rich, complex, and thought-provoking. To the degree they share any common dimension, it would be their skepticism toward human rights law, and in particular toward the judicialization of human rights law. But the skepticism comes from quite different directions and from their different disciplines. In the case of Tasioulas's paper, the skepticism derives from his belief that legal human rights have gone beyond the realm of moral human rights, and thus he critiques unjustified legalization and judicialization of human rights. Moyn focuses on US constitutional law to argue that courts should exercise more deference with regard to the laws and policies decided upon by democratic majorities. In Tasioulas's case, human rights law is contrasted with morality and found wanting, and in Moyn's case, human rights law is contrasted with democracy and found wanting.