Justifying grounds for multicultural policies in Korea: universal human rights versus benefits of diversity

Multicultural policies often deviate from the principle of equal opportunity since it assumes exclusive policy target groups with extra budget and appropriate organization. If this is so, by what rationale can multicultural policies be justified? Why should we accept such unequal treatment as a procedural method to achieve a more equal society as the final goal? This paper examines justifying logic for multicultural policies that inevitably have an arbitrary aspect of state intervention. This paper first differentiates two kinds of logic, namely universal human rights and the benefits of diversity, which provide supporting rationale for the implementation of multicultural policies. We can witness from the US history that the benefits of diversity have increasingly become the main logic justifying affirmative action instead of liberal discussions on social justice and universal human rights of the 1960s. Korea also shows such a shift towards a utilitarian justification which has focused heavily on the benefits of diversity. However, the utilitarian rationalization for multicultural transition can be easily withdrawn when the benefits of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity disappear, suddenly leading to unexpected discriminatory situations. In this context, this paper argues that discussion of normative justification is required, and such discussions need to be internalized among the citizens of a political community.     

Potential through paradox: indigenous rights as human rights

This paper takes the ratification of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as its departure point. Reactions to the Declaration have thus far been mixed. According to advocates, these events signal ‘a new consensus’ that brings ‘to an end the nation states’ history of oppression of indigenous peoples’. According to critics, however, we have uncritically assumed an alliance between human rights and Aboriginal rights initiatives. This paper draws on these conflicting accounts, the theories of Rancière, and a discussion of a current Canadian court case to offer an assessment of the political possibilities of the UN declaration. Overall we argue that the value of the Declaration rests on our interpretation of the political process by which these rights are enacted. The possibilities of rights-based politics are always contextually dependent. In some instances a human rights frame can represent radical repositionings and rearticulations while at the same time always risking the possibility of co-optation. The acts of politics, in particular acts of dissensus, are the key factors that will impact whether the Rights of Indigenous Peoples lead to transformation or to the reinforcement of the status quo.     

Rethinking human rights

He is author of The Political Economy of the International Monetary Fund (published by Transaction).He is presently a visiting lecturer on ethics and statecraft at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.     

Fortifying the future of human rights with human rights education

Abstract

Those scholars debating the health of the human rights movement completely ignore the role of human rights education, HRE. Whether it is Samuel Moyn and Stephen Hopgood declaring the demise of what they also term the “human rights project”, or Kathryn Sikkink defending it, none explore the effect HRE is having or can have. This article argues that those who neglect to recognize the substantial and substantive conversation going on in our institutions of higher education cannot provide a complete picture of the human rights project. It will demonstrate which of the naysayers Moyn and Hopgood's arguments are weakened by ignoring HRE and argue that Sikkink's recommendations for human rights efforts can be strengthened by HRE. Also explored is what HRE should learn from the critiques of these three scholars and how university HRE can be improved.     

礼教视域下的汉代道德建设

汉代是中国古代利用礼教进行道德建设比较成功的朝代,不仅礼教和德治天下的理论不断完善,而且运用礼教推行道德教化的实践也逐渐成熟,并取得了很好的成效。汉代在道德建设方面的理论和实践对当今的精神文明建设具有一定的启示意义,在全社会普及礼文化教育很有必要。     

Administration of human rights

It is puzzling that although human rights pervade nearly all actions that affect the public, so little attention is devoted to their administration. The absence of books, chapters or even courses describing human rights administration is a silent reproach to our profession. To suggest how such a study might proceed, this article considers three questions: (1) how rights like those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are converted to policies; (2) how human experiences can suggest priorities in their administration; and (3) how to improve the performance of the ‘virtual bureaucracy’ that is carrying the related administrative responsibilities. Serious studies of human rights administration must deal with three critical problems: their complexity as they infuse other public policy issues; their universality as they interact at all levels of public and private society; and their ubiquity, which renders coherent bureaucratic structures and reforms difficult. Such studies are justified because large‐scale efforts to provide education in rights administration can make important contributions to the realization of human dignity. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Taking disability rights seriously

Doris Zames Fleischer and Frieda Zames, The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001, xxix +278 pp. Ruth O'Brien, Crippled Justice: The History of Modern Disability Policy in the Workplace, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001, xiv +288 pp. Paul K. Longmore, Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2003, ix +278 pp. Mary Johnson, Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, and the Case against Disability Rights, Louisville: Avocado Press, 2003, xvii +296 pp. Old political science is characterized by exclusion: exclusion of people who “don't matter,” sometimes on account of where they live, on account of gender, on account of ethnicity, and sometimes on account of other factors. One such factor, disability, has too often been neglected by political scientists and our students.