14 Dec 13.15-15.00 room 420

This session is a kind of summary of the course, based around the question "do human rights work"? It is based primarily around Kathryn Sikkink's book, which is an excellent overview of normative and empirical critiques of human rights, and a strong defence of the human rights movement.

This is a discussion. No slides, no lecture. This question of if human rights work is really important, so please use this time to think about it!

We will begin with a discussion in groups of the main issues in the literature, before addressing some key questions as a whole group.

We'll take questions on the third assignment and the final essay

We will also take some time to summarise the course, get your thoughts on any issues you wish to return to or discuss, and your views of how the course went so far.

General questions to consider in preparation:

(Again) What are human rights for? If we want to know if they work, we need to discuss what human rights are supposed to do.
If we are to assess if human rights work, what should we compare them to? Human rights as opposed to what?
If we agree on the aims of human rights how would we know if progress was being made, and what are the difficulties with that?

Reading (make sure you've read Sikkink's chapters below or the conversations won't be as fruitful!):

Sikkink Ch 2 (on the legitimacy and effectiveness of human rights) and Ch 5 (on the challenges in measuring effectiveness)
- What are Sikkink's main responses to those that claim human rights are ineffective?
- Why does Sikkink think we might be mistaken in thinking human rights issues are getting worse?
- What do you think of her arguments?

Additional

(These two essays published by Amnesty International are only about 6 pages each but give you a better idea of the critiques Sikkink is talking about)

Moyn S. Human rights in the age of inequality
- Essay based on based on his book 'Not Enough: Human rights in an unequal world'. Moyn critiques the human rights movement for failing to set itself the goal of economic equality, and instead focusing on status equality and on sufficiency. He argues that the movement is in cahoots with neoliberal capitalism and a failure that has 'nothing to say' about the most important issues of our time https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/2015/10/can_human_rights_bring_social_justice.pdf
Hopgood S, The endtimes of human rights
- Essay based on his book of the same name. Hopgood sees the international Human Rights movement (capitalised to distinguish from local grassroots efforts) as being in decline for various political reasons. In addition, among other arguments, he claims that human rights lack impact, cannot address 'hard cases' and that the movement is hypocritical. Together with those political developments, these issues spell the endtimes of human rights https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/2016/12/debating_the_endtimes_of_human_rights.pdf

(This one is a bit longer, and a smörgåsbord of 'hypotheses' as to why human rights are a part of the problems we face. Start at p. 108, and instead of reading it all feel free to pick one or two main arguments to focus on. Examples in questions below)

Kennedy, D. (2002) The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem? Harvard Human Rights Journal 15 pp. 101-126
- What does Kennedy mean by human rights occupying 'the field of emancipatory possibility' on page 108 - section A? How does this link to Moyn's argument above? What does Sikkink reply?)
- What do you think of Kennedy's argument that human rights promises things it cannot deliver on pp 116-118 - section F?

If you're interested: Here is Sikkink discussing her book, with a response from Hopgood. (Check out what Hopgood says about causation at 55.15. You might have spotted this too when reading Sikkink!)