Universal Rights Down to Earth

by Richard Thompson Ford

A path-blazing lesson on how to reconcile lofty human rights ambitions with political and cultural realities. The idea of universal rights―rights shared by all citizens, regardless of nationality, creed, wealth, or geography―has a powerful grip on the way many people feel about justice and global politics. No one should be subjected to torture or disappearance, to starvation or sex trafficking, to economic exploitation or biased treatment under the law. But when it comes to actually enforcing these rights, the results rarely resemble the ideal.

In Universal Rights Down to Earth , acclaimed author and legal expert Richard Thompson Ford reveals how attempts to apply “universal” human rights principles to specific cultures can hinder humanitarian causes and sometimes even worsen conditions for citizens. In certain regions, human rights ideals clash with the limits of institutional capabilities or civic culture; elsewhere, rights enforcement leads to further human rights violations. And in some countries, offending regimes use human rights commitments to distract attention from or justify their other abuses. Ford explores how our haste to identify every ideal as a universal right devalues rights as a whole, so that even the most important protections―such as that against torture―become negotiable.

In clear, persuasive prose, Ford explores cases ranging from food distribution to the poor in India to sex work in Japan, illustrating how a rights-based approach to these problems often impedes more effective measures―the pragmatic politics of cost weighing, compromise, and collective action. The bad news is that improving lives worldwide isn’t as easy as making a declaration. But the good news, as Universal Rights Down to Earth powerfully demonstrates, is that if we are clear-eyed and culturally aware, it can be done.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Law

160 pages, Paperback

First published November 28, 2011

About the author

Richard Thompson Ford is the George E. Osborne Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He has pub­lished regularly on the topics of civil rights, constitutional law, race rela­tions, and antidiscrimination law. He is a regular contributor to Slate and has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the San Francisco Chronicle. He is the author of Racial Culture: A Critique, The Race Card and Rights Gone Wrong.

Reviews

[Natty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have wanted to read a few more examples of Bentham and Burke's opinion on universal human rights. But overall, I walked away from this book having a better understanding of the opposing views on whether rights are universal: Are human rights the parent or child of the law? Do human rights inform legislation or vice versa? Are rights universal if they require the government to enforce it? Can rights be vague? What is the difference between the right to food and the right to free speech? One right requires a guarantor and the other doesn't? Should rights be utilitarian? And so on. Definitely made me think.

[Mathilde · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

Ford makes an eloquent, convincing case for the need to be more flexible and pragmatic about human rights, using case studies effectively to demonstrate his point. Yet there were only a few real life examples, and I would have enjoyed a more in depth analysis of the implications of his conclusions. Nonetheless this was an eye-opening account and, among many other things, made clear the need to be pragmatic in implementing human rights locally (that is, by working with local contexts and restrictions for more effective implementation.) Just the sort of thing an ignorant idealist like me needs to read to understand the complexity of things that in theory seem black and white.

Quotes
(I literally have 6 pages worth of quotes for this book (saved elsewhere), so this only a selection)

“Modern human rights are a unique fusion of universal morality, political activism, and legal formalism: an approach to social justice that codifies moral intuitions and seems to enforce them through a combination of political lobbying, public relations campaigning and litigation.” (5)

“International human rights are a distinctive type of law that must function primarily through informal and diplomatic means.” (9)

“there is no sovereign to enforce international law - this has been one of the defining concerns of international legal theorists.” (9)

“But as the list of ‘basic human rights’ lengthens, the core idea of universal rights - compelling in its simplicity and modesty - faces an expanding set of pressures and contradictions” (10)

“When carelessly expressed universal rights tempt us to ignore the unique needs, limitations and strength or specific societies.” (13)

“Rights must work with existing political institutions, social customs and economic resources. In this sense, all human rights are local.” (13)

“Rights work best when they define a discrete formal entitlement and identify a specific entity that can guarantee that entitlement.” (40)

“All rights [should] be subject to a cool and objective utilitarian evaluation.” (43)

“Human rights stay above the fray of geo politics and ideological conflict and hence can command the assent of all nations, no matter their political system or ideology.” (52)

“And if you are willing to balance the right against other interests in numerous compelling cases, it’s hard to understand why you wouldn’t weigh cost and benefit in every case.” (54)

“Argued that rights come in many different forms ... sometimes a “right” involves the legal capacity to do something without interference from others; sometimes it involves the legal capacity to compel the help of others in doing something; sometimes it involves the legal capacity to do something without legal punishment. In each case, the “right” is meaningful only to the extent that it describes a relationship with a specific person, institution or group.” (69)

“in many ways an ideal HR guarantee - it’s assertive, yet realistic; it establishes a streamlined international organization to monitor compliance and offer guidance but relies on national governments to handle the details of administration.” (97)

“At worst, ratifying a human rights convention may become a matter of good public relations rather than meaningful reform.” (100)

“It makes sense to put a proposal or claim in terms of rights only when doing so helps us see the issues clearly and/or moves the parties to take appropriate action.” (115)

“Thinking of rights as tools, rather than as abstract moral imperatives, would encourage us to consider alternative approaches to humanitarianism.” (121)

“To best serve humanity, universal human rights need to come down to earth.” (123)

[Gen Giggles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ford presents an unique take on the idea of Universal Rights by questioning if the methods are correct. He doesn't question the concept of rights or even the idea that rights are wrong. He simply looks at the existing attempts to use rights from a legal and practical view point.

His solution to the problem with rights implementation is much the same on that certain rights groups are using now, keep it local and simple.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not what I was expecting. Rather than extolling the virtues of human rights (like much of what I read at AU), Ford examines practical examples and pushes for human rights to be practiced with the same cost/benefit analysis and close attention of local public policy.