Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Presentation - After 9/11: Security vs Human Rights (Legacy of HR and…
Presentation - After 9/11: Security vs Human Rights
Civil and Other Human Rights in Wartime
Key point: During war (or crisis in general), some rights are violated while others are enhanced.
Enhanced
more assistance to the poor and unemployed
further development of the welfare state
Strong governmental intervention in economy
Violated
increase repression of domestic dissent
free speech and privacy muted by patriotic fervor
Create xenophobia
Example: Great Depression and WWII
Development of the welfare state under FDR New Deal
FDR Admin restricted communists from expression
Commitment to full employment
Japanese internment during the war
McCarthyism and "un-American activities committee" afte rthe war
Bottom line - rights get sacrificed for the sake of security during crisis
IR theory basics
Liberalism
Assumptions
States are part of it, but so are institutions
International cooperation can assauge the problems of anarchy
Yes, the world is Anarchic
People to know
Kant - Liberal Peace Theory
Locke - Enlightenment HR
Realism
Assumptions
States are the unitary actor
Security is the primary concern of the state
Anarchic International System
people to know
Hobbes - Leviathan
Waltz
2 main questions
How can the HR movements cope with wartime requirements
How can one make the case that security and HR are not antithetical
Legacy of HR and Security
Ishay says nah - i wrote a whole frikkin book about how human rights is a cumulative process and provides historical evidence of its progression despite security concerns
IN FACT: human rights and security have been linked from the very beginning
Hobbes - Leviathan: Security is the primary concern of the state
This is not in opposition to liberalism, but rather paved the way for liberalism
Locke - Security = life (life, liberty, property)
Kante - it is the purpose of the state to ensure these rights
Side note tho - as we know, these only existed for Rich White Men
Addition - Realists: The world is a zero sum game (including HR)
As a result of all these philosophies - HR becomes a primary concern at the domestic level, however international politics was concerned with power
World Wars change this (UN, Geneva Convention, Vienna Convention)
Unfortunately - cold war unchanges this - back to security and power politics
Again with 9/11 we see the cycle of peacetime rights vs wartime rights all because of security
Ishay's argument - both are necessary, so realists and HR activists have to change their tune - this means convincing people by somehow linking HR and Security
5 guidelines for this neo-realist human rights agenda
reevaluating the means to the human rights ends
recognizing the limit to imposing human rights as an outsider
seizing human rights opportunities in an environment of global power politics
confronting the overall need for a new human rights realism in our global economy
recognizing the legitimacy of national security concerns
Conclusion banger: It has to be more than indifferent realist and less than liberal intervention/imperialism. Just as politicians and IR theorists cannot overlook human rights, human rights activists cannot dismiss the realists - bridge the fkin gap