I have mixed feelings about this article.
It's quite long, and it uses that length to highlight the problems a universal set of human rights has. He makes some good points about the problems, but nothing that anyone with some familiarity with the area won't already know.
Fine.
Then in the final section, where one might expect some kind of alternative to be proposed he starts talking about development aid, and how that hasn't worked either, and he points out that small-scale, less ambitious projects are often more successful. I think few would disagree with the general thrust of his argument here.
In the very final couple of paragraphs he attempts to say that because large scale aid programs don't work then human rights treaties are "an act of hubris".
I don't think he makes this case very well at all.
Finally - and my biggest criticism - is that he doesn't attempt to provide alternatives to the idea of respect for human rights as a source of moral imperative and authority.
If human rights have failed then that leaves only two main sources of authority: raw power (in the military and economic senses) and religion. I don't find that an acceptable framework to reason with when trying to decipher "good" and "bad".
It's quite long, and it uses that length to highlight the problems a universal set of human rights has. He makes some good points about the problems, but nothing that anyone with some familiarity with the area won't already know.
Fine.
Then in the final section, where one might expect some kind of alternative to be proposed he starts talking about development aid, and how that hasn't worked either, and he points out that small-scale, less ambitious projects are often more successful. I think few would disagree with the general thrust of his argument here.
In the very final couple of paragraphs he attempts to say that because large scale aid programs don't work then human rights treaties are "an act of hubris".
I don't think he makes this case very well at all.
Finally - and my biggest criticism - is that he doesn't attempt to provide alternatives to the idea of respect for human rights as a source of moral imperative and authority.
If human rights have failed then that leaves only two main sources of authority: raw power (in the military and economic senses) and religion. I don't find that an acceptable framework to reason with when trying to decipher "good" and "bad".