Not dead yet: Human rights in an illiberal world order
| Author | David Petrasek |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702019827642 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Scholarly Essay
Not dead yet: Human
rights in an illiberal
world order
David Petrasek
University of Ottawa, Canada
Abstract
Many argue that if liberal internationalism is in retreat, global support for human rights
will weaken. This pessimistic outlook for human rights is not fully supported by the
facts, not least that global attention to human rights continues to strengthen even as
Western power declines. Emerging powers will certainly shape the human rights debate,
and the authoritarians among them pose real risks, but global concern for human rights
has never been solely dependent on Western support. The challenge for middle powers
is not one of retrenchment around the status quo, but rather to build new coalitions of
concerned states to meet new human rights challenges.
Keywords
Human rights, United Nations, Canadian foreign policy, liberal internationalism, middle
powers
The international human rights regime is a key feature of the existing global order,
most prominently in the way that order is given its multilateral expression at the
United Nations (UN). The UN Charter made the promotion of human rights a key
purpose of the UN, and all UN member states commit to the basic principle that
the treatment of their own citizenry is a legitimate subject of international concern.
This basic commitment anchors a complex structure of specific treaty and non-
treaty undertakings, overseen by a variety of international institutions and mech-
anisms, and covering a wide range of human rights.
The question, therefore, arises: if the current rules-based, liberal order, with its
commitment to multilateralism, is in crisis, must global attention to human rights
International Journal
2019, Vol. 74(1) 103–118
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702019827642
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
Corresponding author:
David Petrasek,University of Ottawa, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, 1 University
Private, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Email: dpetrase@uottawa.ca
similarly decline? Are we witnessing, in the words of one author, ‘‘the endtimes of
human rights’’?
1
For many, the answer is yes.
2
Indeed, an alleged growing disregard at the inter-
national level for human rights principles is cited as a prime example of the chan-
ging world order. Further, the fact that some emerging powers, China in particular,
have authoritarian regimes is additional proof for many of an inevitable, dimin-
ished concern for human rights. In short, the decline of the West means less global
attention to human rights, and a weakened capacity in multilateral institutions to
defend these rights.
This paper will take issue with this pessimistic view, putting forth two main
arguments. First, the decline thesis assumes a necessary connection between
Western liberal internationalism and global human rights, when in fact it is
highly contingent; international concern for human rights has never been solely,
or even at times mostly, dependent on the commitment of Western powers to a
liberal international order.
3
Even a cursory examination of the historical record
shows that many non-Western powers (liberal or not) played crucial roles in estab-
lishing and maintaining human rights on the global agenda, and many continue to
do so.
4
Moreover, the priority given to global human rights by several Western powers
has waxed and waned. Indeed, inconsistency might be said to be one of the defining
features of Western activity in this area of foreign policy.
Second, the pessimistic position assumes a previous, triumphant era for human
rights (that is now past, or fading), but doesn’t set its benchmarks. To be coherent,
assertions of declining attention to and/or disregard for human rights principles
must set some measurable starting point. That is, if we are entering the human
rights ‘‘endtimes,’’ what did the good times look like?
One benchmark might focus on levels of respect for key human rights world-
wide; another might focus on the scope and robustness of key international human
rights institutions and mechanisms. There are difficulties in measuring progress
(or backsliding) in both areas, but the evidence available simply doesn’t support
the pessimists’ case. There are exceptions, of course, but in relation to most human
rights, we continue to see progress—slow, somewhat fitful, and often fragile, but
1. Stephen Hopgood, The Endtimes of Human Rights (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013).
2. See Eric Posner, The Twilight of Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2014), and David
Rieff, ‘‘The end of human rights?,’’ Foreign Policy, 9 April 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/
09/the-end-of-human-rights-genocide-united-nations-r2p-terrorism/ (accessed 27 January 2019).
3. One could go further and argue that there is not—as is too often assumed—a simple correlation
between classical liberal thinking and international human rights. The latter’s inclusion of collective
rights like self-determination, and its deep preoccupation with economic and social rights, and the
right to development, sit awkwardly with aspects of classical liberal thought. But this argument will
not be pursued here.
4. The best recent book highlighting the role of developing countries in strengthening the multilateral
human rights framework is Steven L.B. Jensen, The Making of International Human Rights: The
1960s, Decolonization, and the Reconstruction of Global Values (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2016). The arguments it advances are discussed below.
104 International Journal 74(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial