What do you think?
Rate this book
The University Center for Human Values Series
Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry
Michael Ignatieff draws on his extensive experience as a writer and commentator on world affairs to present a penetrating account of the successes, failures, and prospects of the human rights revolution. Since the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, this revolution has brought the world moral progress and broken the nation-state's monopoly on the conduct of international affairs. But it has also faced challenges. Ignatieff argues that human rights activists have rightly drawn criticism from Asia, the Islamic world, and within the West itself for being overambitious and unwilling to accept limits. It is now time, he writes, for activists to embrace a more modest agenda and to reestablish the balance between the rights of states and the rights of citizens.
Ignatieff begins by examining the politics of human rights, assessing when it is appropriate to use the fact of human rights abuse to justify intervention in other countries. He then explores the ideas that underpin human rights, warning that human rights must not become an idolatry. In the spirit of Isaiah Berlin, he argues that human rights can command universal assent only if they are designed to protect and enhance the capacity of individuals to lead the lives they wish. By embracing this approach and recognizing that state sovereignty is the best guarantee against chaos, Ignatieff concludes, Western nations will have a better chance of extending the real progress of the past fifty years. Throughout, Ignatieff balances idealism with a sure sense of practical reality earned from his years of travel in zones of war and political turmoil around the globe.
Based on the Tanner Lectures that Ignatieff delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2000, the book includes two chapters by Ignatieff, an introduction by Amy Gutmann, comments by four leading scholars--K. Anthony Appiah, David A. Hollinger, Thomas W. Laqueur, and Diane F. Orentlicher--and a response by Ignatieff.
Ignatieff begins by examining the politics of human rights, assessing when it is appropriate to use the fact of human rights abuse to justify intervention in other countries. He then explores the ideas that underpin human rights, warning that human rights must not become an idolatry. In the spirit of Isaiah Berlin, he argues that human rights can command universal assent only if they are designed to protect and enhance the capacity of individuals to lead the lives they wish. By embracing this approach and recognizing that state sovereignty is the best guarantee against chaos, Ignatieff concludes, Western nations will have a better chance of extending the real progress of the past fifty years. Throughout, Ignatieff balances idealism with a sure sense of practical reality earned from his years of travel in zones of war and political turmoil around the globe.
Based on the Tanner Lectures that Ignatieff delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2000, the book includes two chapters by Ignatieff, an introduction by Amy Gutmann, comments by four leading scholars--K. Anthony Appiah, David A. Hollinger, Thomas W. Laqueur, and Diane F. Orentlicher--and a response by Ignatieff.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
10 people are currently reading
366 people want to read
About the author
Michael Ignatieff
76 books152 followersMichael Grant Ignatieff is a Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition from 2008 until 2011. Known for his work as a historian, Ignatieff has held senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the University of Toronto.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
January 22, 2021
I like when suddenly certain books read one after another make a chain or a puzzle, compliment each other. A previous book which I've read was 'A brief history of Neoliberalism' by David Harvey. Among all the author of that book analyzed grounds of the neoliberal theory in human rights. And now I have finished a book devoted specifically to the phenomenon of human rights.
This book is based on the lectures of the author. Maybe this is the reason that it is as short as dense and neat.
The author starts with a look back to the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without retelling a story of this milestone in the history of our civilization he focuses on how unexpectedly this purely declarative document began to work: to change the society and its institutions.
For many 'human rights' sounds like an absolute point, the end of any debate. While Ignatieff argues that it's far from being true:
Activists who suppose that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a comprehensive list of all the desirable ends of human life fail to understand that these ends—liberty and equality, freedom and security, private property and distributive justice—conflict and, because they do, the rights that define them as entitlements are also in conflict. ... The idea of rights as trumps implies that when rights are introduced into a political discussion, they serve to resolve the discussion. In fact, the opposite is the case. When political demands are turned into rights claims, there is a real risk that the issue at stake will become irreconcilable, since calling a claim a right is to call it non-negotiable, at least in popular parlance.
This is very close to thoughts of Harvey, the author of 'A brief history of Neoliberalism'. And I think that it is a very important point which should be a corner stone for all discussions not only directly related to the human rights, but in general to any political and social thinking, discussions and search.
Ignatieff's look at the human rights derives from the notion of a 'negative liberty' proposed by Isaiah Berlin. It's nearly impossible to agree on a universally accepted definition of what is good. In different cultures, different societies it will be different. But what is wrong, what is painful is clear and familiar perhaps to everyone. That's where negative liberty and human rights emerge:
We must work out a basis for belief in human rights on the basis of human beings as they are, working on assumptions about the worst we can do, instead of hopeful expectations of the best. In other words, we do not build foundations on human nature but on human history, on what we know is likely to happen when human beings do not have the protection of rights.
The author pays much attention to the critique of the human rights or, to be precise, to how the are perceived both in countries traditionally skeptical to them and by critics in West countries. He emphasizes that that human rights are supposed to be a very 'thin' theory which does not prescribe any lifestyle or values but rather declares what should never happen with a human. He says that demand for the rights always comes from the bottom up. Thus an assumed universalism of them is not equal to globalization which comes with economical theories like the neoliberal one.
Another interesting topic is perception of the human rights as a faith, a new secular religion. Again here the author is the same careful and does not hurry to accept such a view. He draws analogies with existing religions, with dogmas they contain. But most important is how he juxtaposes a faith grounded in anthropocentric image of a God (and hence in sacrality of a human being) and a purely historical bitter lesson of how a group (a state, a family, a corporation, etc.) can with legal means make a person to make antihuman deeds. So here Ignatieff again reminds us about the nature of human rights: we need them not because of there is something special and precious in human being but because we've learned how indifferent we can be to someone's pain.
Ignatieff also touched recent big conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. There he reflects how the Western powers acted in these conflicts, how these conflicts demonstrated a big inconsistency in views on human rights, on state sovereignty, on rights of self-determination, on rights on intervention. There are no mechanisms in international laws and agreements which would allow to have some plan on how to act in such situations. At some moments victims only heard promises of help while millions were dying from war crimes. And in others, fighting sides figured out that they could use a magic spell 'human rights' in order to manipulate Western military power and with their help to achieve local goals. This has significantly undermined a credit to the Western world and its ability to spread and protect human rights in the rest of the globe.
As the West intervenes ever more frequently but ever more inconsistently in the affairs of other societies, the legitimacy of its rights standards is put into question. Human rights is increasingly seen as the language of a moral imperialism just as ruthless and just as self-deceived as the colonial hubris of yesteryear.
The book was published in 2003, before the Arab Spring and the war in Syria. Hence even more fascinating is the following observation:
Today, however, the chief threat to human rights comes not from tyranny alone, but from civil war and anarchy. Hence, we are rediscovering the necessity of state order as a guarantee of rights. It can be said with certainty that the liberties of citizens are better protected by their own institutions than by the well-meaning interventions of outsiders.
There are of course many more interesting topics. But then this review will become a retelling of the book in much poorer words.
What I want also to add is that this book came very in time for me. The events happening now in the world - protests in Belarus, poisoning and arrest of oppositioner Navalny in Russia, BlackLivesMatter, storm of the Capitol, Chinese concentration camps for Uyghurs - these are just a few to mention, looks like a temperature in a boiler is growing. Something is happening in the world. At the same time lying and hypocrisy among state officials all over the world has reached the level of high art. Every of them readily expresses a concern with human rights situation in a neighbor's yard while issuing yet another oppressing law in the own state. This worries me very much. Pictures painted by Orwell and Huxley seem close as never before. That's why I found this book extremely valid. I think these days it's crucially important to understand what the human rights actually are and not less important to know what they are not.
This book is based on the lectures of the author. Maybe this is the reason that it is as short as dense and neat.
The author starts with a look back to the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Without retelling a story of this milestone in the history of our civilization he focuses on how unexpectedly this purely declarative document began to work: to change the society and its institutions.
For many 'human rights' sounds like an absolute point, the end of any debate. While Ignatieff argues that it's far from being true:
Activists who suppose that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a comprehensive list of all the desirable ends of human life fail to understand that these ends—liberty and equality, freedom and security, private property and distributive justice—conflict and, because they do, the rights that define them as entitlements are also in conflict. ... The idea of rights as trumps implies that when rights are introduced into a political discussion, they serve to resolve the discussion. In fact, the opposite is the case. When political demands are turned into rights claims, there is a real risk that the issue at stake will become irreconcilable, since calling a claim a right is to call it non-negotiable, at least in popular parlance.
This is very close to thoughts of Harvey, the author of 'A brief history of Neoliberalism'. And I think that it is a very important point which should be a corner stone for all discussions not only directly related to the human rights, but in general to any political and social thinking, discussions and search.
Ignatieff's look at the human rights derives from the notion of a 'negative liberty' proposed by Isaiah Berlin. It's nearly impossible to agree on a universally accepted definition of what is good. In different cultures, different societies it will be different. But what is wrong, what is painful is clear and familiar perhaps to everyone. That's where negative liberty and human rights emerge:
We must work out a basis for belief in human rights on the basis of human beings as they are, working on assumptions about the worst we can do, instead of hopeful expectations of the best. In other words, we do not build foundations on human nature but on human history, on what we know is likely to happen when human beings do not have the protection of rights.
The author pays much attention to the critique of the human rights or, to be precise, to how the are perceived both in countries traditionally skeptical to them and by critics in West countries. He emphasizes that that human rights are supposed to be a very 'thin' theory which does not prescribe any lifestyle or values but rather declares what should never happen with a human. He says that demand for the rights always comes from the bottom up. Thus an assumed universalism of them is not equal to globalization which comes with economical theories like the neoliberal one.
Another interesting topic is perception of the human rights as a faith, a new secular religion. Again here the author is the same careful and does not hurry to accept such a view. He draws analogies with existing religions, with dogmas they contain. But most important is how he juxtaposes a faith grounded in anthropocentric image of a God (and hence in sacrality of a human being) and a purely historical bitter lesson of how a group (a state, a family, a corporation, etc.) can with legal means make a person to make antihuman deeds. So here Ignatieff again reminds us about the nature of human rights: we need them not because of there is something special and precious in human being but because we've learned how indifferent we can be to someone's pain.
Ignatieff also touched recent big conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda. There he reflects how the Western powers acted in these conflicts, how these conflicts demonstrated a big inconsistency in views on human rights, on state sovereignty, on rights of self-determination, on rights on intervention. There are no mechanisms in international laws and agreements which would allow to have some plan on how to act in such situations. At some moments victims only heard promises of help while millions were dying from war crimes. And in others, fighting sides figured out that they could use a magic spell 'human rights' in order to manipulate Western military power and with their help to achieve local goals. This has significantly undermined a credit to the Western world and its ability to spread and protect human rights in the rest of the globe.
As the West intervenes ever more frequently but ever more inconsistently in the affairs of other societies, the legitimacy of its rights standards is put into question. Human rights is increasingly seen as the language of a moral imperialism just as ruthless and just as self-deceived as the colonial hubris of yesteryear.
The book was published in 2003, before the Arab Spring and the war in Syria. Hence even more fascinating is the following observation:
Today, however, the chief threat to human rights comes not from tyranny alone, but from civil war and anarchy. Hence, we are rediscovering the necessity of state order as a guarantee of rights. It can be said with certainty that the liberties of citizens are better protected by their own institutions than by the well-meaning interventions of outsiders.
There are of course many more interesting topics. But then this review will become a retelling of the book in much poorer words.
What I want also to add is that this book came very in time for me. The events happening now in the world - protests in Belarus, poisoning and arrest of oppositioner Navalny in Russia, BlackLivesMatter, storm of the Capitol, Chinese concentration camps for Uyghurs - these are just a few to mention, looks like a temperature in a boiler is growing. Something is happening in the world. At the same time lying and hypocrisy among state officials all over the world has reached the level of high art. Every of them readily expresses a concern with human rights situation in a neighbor's yard while issuing yet another oppressing law in the own state. This worries me very much. Pictures painted by Orwell and Huxley seem close as never before. That's why I found this book extremely valid. I think these days it's crucially important to understand what the human rights actually are and not less important to know what they are not.
March 21, 2016
This is an interesting overview of how the concept of human rights came to be so widespread and there are lots of good points about how we define human rights and the difficulties intervention in other countries can cause. However, this is a very picky academic read and it was hard to get through. The language was not very accessible and the book tends more toward the abstract philosophical aspects of human rights than it does to the practical ones. I guess I just don't like academic language in general, but if you do you will enjoy this more than I did.
April 6, 2017
Problematic and, at times, myopic, but also many-faceted and well-intentioned. Something about this book made me pick up a pen and a highlighter right from the start. I don't think I have ever written so much in a book Clearly, and notably, I felt engaged in conversation with the authors.
March 10, 2022
fantastic conversation about human rights since the Universal Declaration do Human Rights. The style of writing that comes from being based off of lectures makes the writing flow super well. Concise and packed full of conundrums, this opened up so many questions for me to answer in the future.
October 23, 2025
Save your time and read this instead: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/...
Read
July 10, 2020Musings by Ignatieff and other prominent thinkers on human rights and geopolitics. Worth reading and absorbing the ideas around an important if often complex concept.
February 16, 2017
interesting
May 26, 2009
Two essay/lectures by Ignatieff on the theme of when, whether, and how "rights language" and human rights institutions can be effective wthin the confines of a systm of state sovereignty. Although David Rieff has criticised Ignatieff elsewhere for being far too sanguine about the effect of human rights law, Ignatieff here strikes a very realistic and limited tone about what's actually possible. He makes a couple of very clear points: human rights law still requires states to put it into effect, and human rights language is not a trump argument. Ignatieff argues that we must be willing to see that rights claims can and will conflict, and that human rights institutions may need to become more and not less political in order to balance competing claims and mobilise global support.
June 25, 2008
Ignatieff does a good job of judiciously summarizing the most pressing challenges facing those who seek to further the establishment of an international human rights regime. A disciple of Isaiah Berlin, Ignatieff draws on Berlin's famous lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty" to argue for a human rights movement that better operates within the constraints of the Westphalian system.
Because the book is based on the Tanner lectures that Ignatieff delivered at Princeton in 2000, his prescriptions for reform are rendered in broad strokes. It would have been interesting to include commentaries from folks not so closely aligned with the author's views.
Because the book is based on the Tanner lectures that Ignatieff delivered at Princeton in 2000, his prescriptions for reform are rendered in broad strokes. It would have been interesting to include commentaries from folks not so closely aligned with the author's views.
August 7, 2013
I enjoyed reading this, but strongly disagree with certain premises taken for granted by the contributors - namely the statist idea that there are cases where national sovereignty and maintaining so-called order should take precedence over human rights. I was also confused by the notion that human rights need to be grounded in something. If you need an outside source to convince you that hurting and killing other humans is wrong...I'm just not even sure what that says about your character.
April 17, 2016
This is a really solid read on how the human rights movement developed and how it impacts the world today. I truly enjoyed the author's commentary on the dangers of humanist idolatry. Ignatieff also addresses the core questions regarding the legitimacy of human rights "Where do rights come from?" "Can human rights exist without the belief in man as sacred?"
An interesting (and quick) read for anyone interested in human rights.
An interesting (and quick) read for anyone interested in human rights.
August 13, 2011
I liked these essays a lot, probably because I agree with Berlin's conception of rights as being often in both internal and external conflict (as Sandel put it, of Berlin, that we live in a 'tragically configured moral universe'). Too bad about the whole failed philosopher king thing, although my impression is that Ignatieff made a terrible politician.
April 6, 2016
meh... you should only read Ignatieff if you REALLY have to.
November 20, 2025
The man, the legend, the reason for many of my future life decisions. Father.
Read
November 19, 2013nice i love it
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews