نظم نوظهور بین‌المللی و آینده حقوق بشر: دیدگاه‌ها و نقدهای نظری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

10.22059/jpq.2022.319808.1007762

چکیده

حقوق بشر از حوزه‌های مورد اختلاف در اندیشه سیاسی است و توافقی بر سر اینکه مبنای توجیه حقوق بشر چیست، وجود ندارد. افزون‌بر این، حقوق بشر با انتقادهای فلسفی مانند اروپامحوری، انتزاعی بودن، فردگرا بودن و بی‌توجهی به تکالیف بشری نیز روبه‌روست که اندیشمندانی چون هانا آرنت، السدر مک‌اینتایر، اونارا اونیل و ماکائو موتوا مطرح کرده‌اند. در عین حال، شواهد حاکی از آن است که نظام بین‌الملل با پیدایش چین به‌عنوان قدرتی بزرگ می‌تواند در آستانه تحولی مهم باشد که از نشانه‌های آن اولویت یافتن دوباره نگرانی‌های امنیتی برای پیگیری مسائلی چون ترویج حقوق بشر و شاید اهمیت یافتن روایت‌هایی بدیل از حقوق بشر است که در کنار نگرانی‌های نظری پیشین، روایت عام‌گرا یا جهان‌شمول‌انگار از حقوق بشر را با چالش جدی روبه‌رو می‌سازد. پرسش اصلی این است که «به حاشیه رفتن روایت عام‌گرا از حقوق بشر در نظم نوظهور چه تهدیدها و فرصت‌هایی را برای حقوق بشر به‌همراه دارد؟» در فرضیه استدلال می‌شود که از منظر تهدیدها، این فرایند می‌تواند بدون اینکه مابه‌ازای شایان توجهی برای دفاع از حقوق افراد در چارچوب ارزش‌های موجود ایجاد کند، ترتیبات حقوق بشری بین‌المللی فعلی را از بین ببرد و از منظر فرصت‌ها، ظرفیتی برای نقش‌آفرینی سنت‌های بدیل در زمینه شناسایی حقوق بشر و درونی‌سازی ارزش‌های حقوق بشری همراه با تعدیل در برداشت‌های مسلط از حقوق بشر فراهم سازد. از روش کیفی مقایسه نقدهای نظری و فلسفی، و روایت‌های بدیل در زمینه حقوق بشر و تناقض‌های درونی آن در سنت‌های فکری و فرهنگی غربی و غیرغربی به‌ویژه سنت کنفوسیوسی استفاده می‌شود تا احتمال دگرگونی در وضعیت آینده حقوق بشر در نظام بین‌المللی بررسی شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Emerging International Order, and the Future of Human Rights: Theoretical Perspectives and Critiques

نویسندگان [English]

  • Homeira Moshizadeh 1
  • Mostafa Saboori 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
2 A PhD Candidate in International Relations, Faculty of Law & Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Human rights have been the concern of not only activists and governments but also the scholars of international relations for decades. With its emphasis on civil and political rights and its individualist underpinnings, human rights discourse appeared to have become dominant in the last two decades of the twentieth century. However, it now faces significant, and perhaps very consequential challenges. Although it has been challenged from various perspectives for decades, it seems that these challenges have become more articulated and multidimensional. Moreover, in the aftermath of the decline of the US, the emergence of China as a great power, and the formation of a post-liberal international order, security concerns have become more significant compared to ethical or normative concerns. This might eventually be followed by the emergence of a non-liberal, non-individualistic set of international norms and values.
In this article, the authors show that theoretical reflections have not led to any agreement among various thinkers over the justification of human rights in spite of the fact that they may be its advocates. Communitarianism as an important rival for universalism challenges natural law tradition as a fundamental justification for universal human rights, and many theorists, even with cosmopolitan inclinations, do not find natural law as an appropriate justification for universalism. Furthermore, the dominant liberal conception of human rights itself has been criticized by influential figures such as Hannah Arendt, Alasdair MacIntyre, Onara O'Neil, and Makau Mutua for being abstract, individualistic, Eurocentric, and with little concern for human obligations. These authors suggest a more contextual understanding of human rights, more attention to collective rights, public awareness of the significance of community bonds, more consideration of  obligations towards others besides right claims, and becoming more aware of the need to end Eurocentric conscious or unconscious assumptions, methods, and understandings. These theoretical debates have become more significant in the post-liberal order in which security concerns have taken precedence over human rights promotion, and have led to violations of the universal narrative of human rights. On one hand, western powers, as the major advocates and promoters of liberal norms and values may not see human rights violations in the world as their main concern. On the other hand, China, as an emerging power is not part of the western world and its cultural Confucian tradition is characterized by being more collectivistic than individualistic. Therefore, it may eventually call for more emphasis on communitarianism and/or human obligations and collective rights. The combination of these two challenges have not been fully discussed by IR scholars. The main objective of this paper was to contribute to current debates on human rights and its significance for international relations by identifying threats and opportunities associated with the marginalization of the universalist account of human rights at both theoretical and practical levels. Finally, the authors conclude that the main threat is that the process may destroy the existing international arrangement without creating any alternative mechanism for defending individuals' rights. The only substitute for international mechanisms is the codification of human rights norms in domestic legal systems. However, since many countries in the world have not attempted to ensure upholding and protecting these rights in their own legal systems, this alternative may prove to be ineffective. However, the new world order may lead to a good opportunity for providing practical solutions to address the theoretical criticisms. The emerging international arrangement may provide new capacity for non-western cultural traditions such as Confucianism to play a role in the expansion of the notion of human rights and more obligation-based norms, in addition to more emphasis on recognizing and accepting differences in opinions in order to promote pluralism. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • human rights
  • Emerging International Order
  • Confucianism
  • China
  • Eurocentrism
  1. جوادی آملی، عبدالله. (1381) فلسفه حقوق بشر. قم: انتشارات بین‌المللی اسراء.
  2. شهبازی، آرامش. (1395) فلسفه حقوق بین‌الملل- پوزیتویسم. تهران: مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی.
  3. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله. (1370، بهار) «روش‌های شناخت حقوق بین‌الملل،» تحقیقات حقوقی، 9: 50-72. در: https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56639.html
  4. Ames, Roger; and Wimal Dissanayake. (1996) Self and Deception: A Cross-Cultural Philosophical Enquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  5. Angle, Stephen. (2002) Human Rights in Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, <DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511499227>.
  6. Arendt, Hannah. (1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
  7. Casla, Koldo. (2018) “Realism: Human Rights Foe?” in Davide Orsi, J. R. Avgustin and Max Nurnus, eds. Realism in Practice: An Appraisal. Bristol: E-International Relations, 143-156. Available at: https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/245064/D474E3F6-4CEE-45C9-AC88-BF59E19C0ADC.pdf (Accessed 7 July 2021).
  8. Chan, Wing-Tsit. (1955) “The Evolution of the Confucian Concept Jên,” Philosophy East and West 4, 4: 295-319, <DOI:10.2307/1396741>.
  9. Cobbah, Josiah. (1987) “African Values and the Human Rights Debate: An African Perspective,” Human Rights Quarterly 9, 3: 309-331, <DOI:10.2307/761878>.
  10. Dalacoura, Katerina. (2003) Islam, Liberalism and Human Rights. London and New York: I. B. Tauris.
  11. Dinsmore, Gregory. (2011) A Place in The World: Hannah Arendt and the Political Conditions of Human Rights, A PhD Dissertation in Government, Cornell University, Ithalca, New York. Available at: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/33522 (Accessed 3 July 2021).
  12. Donnelly, Jack. (2013) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/10.7591/j.ctt1xx5q2.21 (Accessed 9 July 2021).
  13. Dunn, Shannon. (2018) “Islamic Law and Human Rights,” in Anver M. Emon and Rumee Ahmed, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, <DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199679010.013.26>.
  14. Fingarette, Herbert. (1983) “The Music of Humanity in the Conversations of Confucius,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy 331-356, <DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6253.1983.tb00420.x>.
  15. Gewirth, Alan. (1981) “The Basis and Content of Human Rights,” NOMOS 23: 119-147. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24219090 (Accessed 7 July 2021).
  16. Griffin, James. (2008) On Human Rights. London and New York: Oxford University Press, <DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238781.001.0001>.
  17. Hillman, Jonathan. (2020) “A ‘China Model?’ Beijing’s Promotion of Alternative Global Norms and Standards,” The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS.org). Available at: https://www.csis.org/ analysis/china-model-beijings-promotion-alternative-global-norms-and-standards (Accessed 12 June 2021).
  18. Huang, Chiung-Chiu; and Chih-yu Shih. (2014) Harmonious Intervention: China’s Quest for Relational Security. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
  19. Ikenberry, John. (2018) “The End of Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 29, 1: 7-23, <DOI:10.1093/ia/iix241>.
  20. Ikenberry, John. (2015) “The Future of Liberal World Order,” Japanese Journal of Political Science 16, 3: 450-455, <DOI:10.1017/ S1468109915000122>.
  21. Kabange, Christian-jr. (2012) “The Challenges for the Advancement of Human Rights and Democracy in Africa in the 21st Century,” Sacha Journal of Human Rights 2, 1: 15-32. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235674841 (Accessed 8 July 2021).
  22. Kennedy, David. (2011) The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, <DOI:10.1515/9781400840731>.
  23. Lippert, Barbara; and Perthes Volker. (2020) “Strategic Rivalry between United States and China: Causes, Trajectories, and Implications for Europe,” SWP Research Paper: 1-55, <DOI:10.18449/2020RP04>.
  24. MacKinnon, Catharine. (2006) Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, <DOI:10.2307/j.ctvjnrvck>.
  25. MacIntyre, Alasdair. (1984) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
  26. Mearsheimer, John. (2019) “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order,” International Security 43, 4: 7-50, <DOI:10.1162/isec_a_00342>.
  27. Mutua, Makau. (2002) Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fhtq0 (Accessed 8 July 2021).
  28. O'Neill, Onora. (2016) Justice across Boundaries: Whose Obligations? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, <DOI:10.1017/ CBO9781316337103>.
  29. Rawls, John. (1993) “The Law of Peoples,” Critical Inquiry 20, 1: 36-68. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1343947 (Accessed 8 July 2021).
  30. Raz, Joseph. (2007) “Human Rights Without Foundations,” Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper 14: 1-21, <DOI:10.2139/ssrn.999874>.
  31. Retter, Mark. (2018) “The Road Not Taken: On Macintyre’s Human Rights Skepticism,” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 63, 2: 189-215, <DOI:10.1093/ajj/auy012>.
  32. Tasioulas, John. (2007) “The Moral Reality of Human Rights,” in Thomas Pogge, ed, Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very Poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press for UNESCO.
  33. Waldron, Jeremy. (2013) “Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/ Rawls Approach,” NYU School of Law: 13-32, <DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2272745>.
  34. Wresinski, Joseph. (1994) The Very Poor, Living Proof of the Indivisibility of Human Rights. France: Editions Quart Monde.
  35. Xu, Gang. (2019, April 10) “On the Origin of Ren: A Practice of Human Sacrifice and Martyrdom in Early Chinese History,” Archives of Boston Society of Confucius 1, 1: 28-41. Available at: http://www.er4a2.net/ bsc.html (Accessed 2 June 2020).
  36. Yu, Jiyuan. (2005). “Confucius Relational Self and Aristotle’s Political Animal,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 22, 4: 281-300. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27745033 (Accessed 8 July 2021).