In the Name of Human Rights: Global Organizations and Participating Citizens

As a contribution to the growing literature on citizenship and advanced liberal governance, this paper focuses on how citizens—especially the poor—are brought into new policy platforms and new social relationships of responsibility, accountability, and participation. In making specific empirical reference to a range of global organizations and their poverty reduction initiatives, the analysis emphasizes the diverse ways in which individuals are governed as certain kinds of “free” persons through particular administrative practices. In this analysis, we underline how some organizations encourage citizens to participate in global practices, markets, and institutions, and train them to act in ways that are aligned with the principles and expectations imposed on them by advanced liberal governmental agendas. We argue that global organizations that are formally or informally linked to other organizations, agencies, and governments around the world, such as the United Nations and the World Bank, view citizens' participation in rights claiming and budgetary design practices as a crucial part of their responsibility to improve their well-being. We also analyse how specific global organizations promote citizens to become consumers of global financial services as a way of solving global poverty. In assessing programmes designed to encourage poor people to participate in global markets and institutions, we contend that these programmes are founded on governing practices that aim to make citizens, non-governmental organizations, and nation-states adhere to advanced liberal principles. We question whether these programmes improve the well-being of poor people. We suggest that future research needs to focus on how global organizations cultivate different discourses of freedom and liberty which serve to govern citizens as responsible consumers and participants.     

Radicalizing the Immigrant Debate in the United States: A Call for Open Borders and Global Human Rights

This study raises the question of “who” instead of “what” regarding the problem of collective memories in East Asia. To do so, I review the vicissitudes of the memories of two events, the Nanjing Massacre and the Comfort Women, which are now firmly entrenched in popular memories as the core Japanese atrocities against her neighbors during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and the Pacific War (1941–1945). By prioritizing political subjects who can remember or forget—both as performative practices—I argue that history is the very central field of political struggles, not merely a tool for mobilization, in East Asia and the (re)emergence of the memories of the Nanjing Massacre and the Comfort Women in the international scene is more a function of the new subject formation in China and Korea than an un-mediated outcome of unearthed historical facts.     

Disrespect for Human Rights and Contentious Participation: Evidence from China

Journal of Chinese Political Science - This study examines the relationship between the perception of human rights conditions and individual participation in contentious political activities in...     

In the Service of Power: The Global Political Economy of Citizenship and Human Rights

This article investigates how the idea of universal human rights has been co-opted by the prevailing (neo)liberal consensus in support of processes associated with capitalist globalization. So-called “civil and political” rights form the core of (neo)liberal values upon which free market, laissez-faire economics are based, but the idealism of the dichotomy of first and second generation rights is profoundly ideological. Through an examination of the idea of the international citizen, it is argued that the attempt to introduce a duty to promote the widest possible social good falls far short of an obligation to respond to claims for alternative conceptions of “economic and social” rights; far less alternative models of social affairs. Drawing on empirical evidence from Africa, the article contends that the dominance of (neo)liberal rights is integral to the emerging (neo)liberal constitution of the global order effected in the name of “human rights”, “democratization”, “citizenship”, “good governance” and “civil society”.

Never in the recent past have the founding principles of universal rights been so instrumentalized in the service of power, to such an extent that … in the opening years of the twentieth-century, we can speak of a veritable apogee of hegemony and an unprecedented crystallization of the hatreds that it arouses. (Bessis, 2003 Bessis, S. 2003. Western Supremacy: The Triumph of an Idea?, London: Zed.  [Google Scholar])     

Civil Rights and Political Human Rights: Contesting Human Rights Failures within the Minimally Democratic State

Allen Buchanan argues that democracy ought to be added to the list of basic human rights, but he limits the conception of democracy to a minimum of electoral representation within the nation state, effectively collapsing human rights into civil rights. This, however, leaves him unable to address the problem of human rights failures occurring within established states that meet his standard of minimal democratic representation. In order to address this problem, I appeal to James Bohman's conception of the political human rights of all members of humanity, as opposed to the civil rights of the citizens of particular states. I argue that while this provides the basis on which to address the problem of human rights failures within minimally democratic states, Bohman's conception also entails the potential for deep tensions to arise between the different claims of civil and human rights.