Rethinking Human Rights for the New Millennium
Posted on May 24, 2009 | 2,286 views
Filed Under Books, Review | Leave a Comment
The concept of Human Rights is so diverse that its presence can be felt in every human activity that comes across. Understanding this concept has remained rather very tempting for theorists of Human Rights. Several attempts to define this concept in form of scholastic work can be found in body knowledge of Human rights and one such commendable attempt is this book titled ‘Rethinking Human Rights for the New Millennium’ by A. Belden Fields. Professor Fields is a seasoned Political Scientist and Emeritus Professor of Political Science at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, US.
In this book, Prof. Fields has tried to offer his understanding of Human Rights. To him, the said book is more a discourse on the subject that leads to a solid definition of Human Rights. In this context, he writes, “It would defeat the purpose of both this chapter and the entire book to a priori define human rights”. Moreover, through out the text, he appears following the pattern of presenting theories of prominent social scientists from history, patching in his own understanding of those concepts and theories, building his ideas and coming to conclusion. This leaves the text very interesting and offers us a unique understanding of the subject; Prof. Fields calls it the ‘Holistic Conception’ of Human Rights.
The Holistic View of Human Rights presented by Prof. Fields stands out unique on the ground that it rejects making one single value or the concept, the foundation of Human Rights. In this regard, the author writes, “I offer a different way of thinking about Human Rights from those discussed; one that rejects making a single value or concept the foundation of human rights. This is what I call a ‘Holistic’ way”. In pursuit of presenting his Holistic Conception of Human Rights, he has given a series of eleven propositions and they are meant to offer ground work for understanding of Human Rights in new light. Consequently, the concept of Human Rights appears expanding to a newer level. To Prof. Clinton of Baylor University, the most important of these propositions is that the humans have a right to whatever is necessary for their full development as persons—physical, intellectual, emotional, and social. Further, as we go down the line with these propositions, we come across the fact that this approach to subject tends to encompass those elements as well that influence the Human Rights and were never considered significant previously. In this regard, Prof. Fields has the argument that his view would strip human rights of all cross-cultural relevance.
The idea presented by Prof. Fields appears expanding the mandate of human rights and includes many a new actors. Say for instance, as mentioned by Prof. Clinton of Baylor University, “defining human rights by the test of “social recognition” expands them beyond what might be accepted as coming from divine gift in any one religious tradition, or what has been agreed to under positive international law. Enlarging the list of potential human rights violators beyond the governments of states, to include other individuals not acting under color of official authority and other kinds of organizations, such as paramilitary groups, increases the number of occasions on which those adversely affected may make human rights claims. Including economic and social rights in addition to civil and political rights makes it possible to consider many forms of deprivation through domination beyond the ones identified in the liberal tradition that Fields finds inadequate”. Hence, this holistic approach finds its way as something very essential for the recent times when social and cultural dynamics are changing and past traditions are inadequate to cater the needs of modern times. Here, it is worthy of mention that this stand point has serious problems too and one need to take them into account.
Though, the holistic conception of human rights has offered a new horizon that brings an entire new batch of issues under the umbrella of the said subject but, it carries with it practical problems for governance. In this regard, Prof. Clinton thinks that ‘If every political dispute becomes defined as a deprivation of the human rights of one or more of the (individual or collective) parties, the role of bargaining and compromise would seem likely to shrink. Human rights are not to be trifled with, or to be a made a matter of more or less depending on the power and skill of one of the parties to the bargain. They are too important, too foundational, to be treated as interests; as Fields notes, they form both rights and duties. Still, not every dispute turns on the human rights of those involved. Some are honest differences of opinion. Others, particularly in the political realm, are contests over power. Some are the results of misunderstandings. It is the task of politics, and especially that form of politics known as diplomacy, to reach some accommodation between the contending parties that does as little damage as possible to the bargaining realm –the network of norms, customs, and understandings that legitimizes and even encourages bargaining instead of warfare over international disputes’. Consequently, things will rather end up in chaos. It is here, one finds the theoretical weaknesses in the concept presented by Prof. Fields.
When we look at the mandate of human rights in the light of holistic view of Prof. Fields, we find it too broad to stick to it practically. Apart from this, the other problem with the said definition of human rights is its illimitability. Prof. Clinton in this context says, “There is almost nothing that, under certain circumstances and in some measure, might not contribute to the human development of some persons. To make all of these goods human rights is to make human rights co-extensive with all of human activity. Instead of serving as a common floor, above which particular political systems may make further provision in the form of constitutional and legal rights, and individuals may through effort secure for themselves yet more extensive contractual rights, human rights become the whole”. Once, definition of human rights is over stretched to such a level, it losses its clarity and meaning and ‘and is deprived of usefulness in distinguishing the phenomenon it describes from other aspects of the subject under study’.
In the last, it can be established that the attempt by Prof. Fields to define the human rights and his holistic approach is at par. Since every concept carries some weaknesses so is the case with the concept presented by the author in this book. In the words of Prof. Stephen Eric Bronner of Rutgers University, “A. Belden Fields has performed a remarkable feat: he has shown us in this book that there is still something to be learned about human rights. Sensitive, provocative, and eminently readable, it offers a new perspective on an old idea that will undoubtedly prove beneficial for anyone interested in developing a progressive politics for our time”.
Share ThisComments
Leave a Reply
Join
ISSB Pakistan Blog
