Editors’ Preface

Reviewed by: Bureaucratic Intimacies: Translating Human Rights in Turkey by Elif M. Babül Elif Ege* (bio) Elif M. Babül, Bureaucratic Intimacies: Translating Human Rights in Turkey (Stanford University Press 2017), ISBN 9781503601895, 230 pages. Building upon her seven years (2007 to 2014) of ethnographic fieldwork in human rights training programs, in her book Bureaucratic Intimacies: Translating Human Rights in Turkey, Elif M. Babül examines the globally acclaimed concept "human rights" and its daily configurations manifested by government officials such as judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards, teachers, religious officials, and health care professionals. Turkey's candidacy to the European Union (EU) membership started in 1999, and from then on the country pursued the integration process to enforce the EU standards of human rights.1 The human rights training programs that Babül's book focuses on are part of this integration process. For Babül, these programs functioned as spaces of encounter between government workers and transnational human rights regimes. She convincingly argues that training programs enable the "translation"2 of the human rights standards in order to address local issues. Yet these programs also depoliticize these standards in order to navigate the "foreignness" attached to these standards in the nationalist imagery of the government workers, by redefining them as necessary requirements to achieve expertise, professional development, and good governance. According to Babül, in doing so, these training programs have failed to contest the existing authoritarian bureaucratic structures that pave the way for major human rights violations, such as ethnic violence, forced migration, and disappearances. While analyzing the training programs, Babül moves beyond the clear-cut separations of the conventional understanding of pedagogy that builds a hierarchy between the educated and non-educated, and teacher and learner. Instead, she emphasizes "dialectical encounters that generate contradiction and resistance."3 According to her, these training practices operate as "dialogical processes"4 that are full of negotiations, contestations, and uncertainties, where the government workers actively take part in challenging and reframing these supposedly "standard" universal standards in line with their local conditions, social and political interests, and "sensitivities, moralities and rationalities that shape the governmental field in Turkey."5 In this sense, her ethnographic method enables the scholar to pay special attention to the interactions and exchanges of different actors, rather than rely on a top-down analysis of human rights standards and [End Page 474] their implementations. This choice is particularly useful for the Turkish context, considering the prevalent nationalist reactions against the discourse of human rights and its European/Western "experts" that claim them to be foreign impositions. Although recently the state has undertaken the responsibility of the institutionalization of human rights discourse—through "a liberal reclamation"6—the prevalent nationalist reactionary discourse in Turkey has defined human rights as "a cover for treacherous activity against the indivisibility of the nation and the state."7 Babül contextualizes this understanding within the country's political and economic history (particularly after the 1980s coup d'etat). As a recipient of foreign aid and structural adjustment policies, Turkey has been required to follow the standards of human rights and women's rights in order to gain the necessary funds.8 As in other contexts from the Global South,9 this has created the feeling of human rights standards as being a foreign influence on the sovereignty of the state. Babül alludes to this neocolonial aspect of human rights training programs while tracing the history of the training programs in the third chapter, where she emphasizes the role played by the Western military-industrial complex in designing these training programs. However, while doing so, the scholar does not exempt the government workers in Turkey from responsibility as she successfully implements a balanced analysis that holds the government officials accountable for their human rights violations, while also emphasizing global asymmetries of power. Throughout the book, Babül underlines the ways in which these national sensitivities around human rights discourse play a role in building "bureaucratic intimacies"10 where government workers, in different levels and formats, collectively take part in conducting, sharing, and withholding "public secrets," meaning major violations of human rights, for the "continuation/perpetuity of the state."11...

The development of the influence of human rights in its journey has affected various countries, including Indonesia. The end of the New Order government, which was very repressive after 32 years in power, has raised awareness of the importance of respecting human rights. Demands for justice against past human rights violators are increasing, while human rights violations continue to take place in various forms, patterns and different actors. Human rights issues are often used by a group of people for their political and economic interests, while officials are reluctant to act for fear of being accused of violating human rights. The understanding of human rights in Indonesia as values, concepts and norms that live and develop in society can be traced through a study of years, and before the human rights court was formed, cases of gross human rights violations were tried by an authorized general court. The establishment of legal regulations regarding gross human rights violations and the establishment of a human rights court is necessary because the applicable legal regulations, most of which are rules from the Dutch colonial era, such as the Criminal Code, do not regulate gross human rights violations as extraordinary crimes. but only regulates conventional crimes, such as murder as regulated in Article 338 of the Criminal Code, persecution as regulated in Article 351 of the Criminal Code. Kidnapping as regulated in Article 333 of the Criminal Code, rape as regulated in Article 285 of the Criminal Code, etc. So in this case, of course, there is a difference between the prosecution process in criminal law and the prosecution process in cases of gross human rights violations. In order to provide protection, certainty, justice and a feeling of security to individuals or the community, it is necessary to establish a Human Rights Court and the rule of law. In Indonesia, the existence of Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights (UU HAM) and Law Number 26 of 2000 concerning the Human Rights Court (Law on the Human Rights Court) is expected to protect human rights, both individuals and communities and become the basis for enforcing , legal certainty, justice and a feeling of security for individuals and the community against serious human rights violations

Confronting the PastJustice After Transitions Jamal Benomar (bio) In many ways, human rights have been at the center of the democratic revolution that has touched every part of the globe over the last few years. Although the democratic tide has run very strong, emerging democracies still face formidable challenges in establishing the rule of law and creating solid guarantees for human rights. These democratic governments often are successors to dictatorial regimes that practiced such gross human rights abuses as extrajudicial executions, "disappearances," systematic torture, and secret detention. The problem facing these newly democratized countries is how to treat those who were guilty of perpetrating such abuses under the old regime. The difficulty lies in achieving a just solution that is acceptable to a longsuffering population and that steers clear of both witchhunts and whitewashes. However poignant the victims' demand for justice might be, decision makers must still weigh the risks of starting a process that could frighten the military or other forces linked to the old order enough to jeopardize the democratic transition. The issue is an old one that haunts all emerging democracies. In January 1793, the French parliament spent three agonizing days debating how to punish King Louis XVI before deciding to send him to the guillotine. Two hundred years later, similar debates continue to rage in many places. The death penalty has been abolished in almost all democracies, but democratic leaders still agonize as the French did at the end of the eighteenth century over what to do with their former rulers. As we will see from surveying the experiences of various governments who have dealt with this issue, there are no easy answers. [End Page 3] In countries such as Haiti and the Philippines, a de facto impunity has been institutionalized; human rights violations mount as members of the security forces come to believe that they are immune from prosecution. In other countries like Chile, the transition to democratic rule has been marred by the military's continuing grip on power and the resulting amnesty laws. Situations like this can cause rifts between newly elected governments and a citizenry still outraged at those responsible for past acts of official terrorism and repression. Elected leaders must sometimes make a hard choice between the survival of the democratization process and the principles on which they had based their campaign for a return to democratic rule. Retribution versus Reconciliation Advocates of retribution believe that failure to punish the perpetrators of past human rights abuses automatically condones these atrocious crimes, and therefore both constitutes an invitation to their repetition and undermines the rule of law. Proponents of this view, who tend to be human rights activists, find sufficient arguments for their stance in key principles of international law.1 They also argue that focusing world attention on prosecutions of human rights violators may help to deter the forces of the old regime from attempting to retake power through violence. By highlighting and condemning the repressive policies of the old regime, the new government can help establish real standards for the protection of human rights. The prosecution of violators will also provide an opportunity to rid the armed and security forces of some of their worst elements. Perhaps most importantly, such an exercise can help to heal the wounds of those who suffered from official abuse, restore the lost sense of national dignity, and establish faith in the new government as it attempts to build a democratic system based on respect for rights and the rule of law. Punishing perpetrators of past abuses can thus serve not only as a symbolic break with the ugly legacy of authoritarian rule, but also as an affirmation of adherence to new democratic values. Failure to prosecute violators, the argument goes, could seriously undermine the legitimacy of a democratically elected government and generate widespread feelings of cynicism toward the new regime. Advocates of punishment for former military rulers also contend that any concession to the latters' demand for impunity opens the door to a more systematic build-up of military control over the new institutions and gives the military a potential veto over the new government's policies. On the other side, advocates of...

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

Upholding the highest standards of human rights enshrined and guaranteed in its Constitution, Japan has consolidated its democratic political system and has developed policies for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as universal values. Japan firmly believes that the promotion and protection of human rights is a legitimate interest of the international community . Therefore, grave violations of human rights need to be addressed in cooperation with the international community. Japan also affirms that the human rights of all people should be respected, regardless of their country’s culture, traditions, political and economic systems and level of socio-economic development, even if there are differences in their processes and speed of achievement with regard to human rights protection. Protecting human rights is the most fundamental responsibility of any nation. Based on its commitment to dialogue and cooperation, Japan will steer efforts to resolve human rights issues of concerns to the international community and to improve human rights situations through both multilateral fora, including the United Nations (UN), and bilateral dialogues. In addition, Japan is committed to extending necessary and feasible cooperation from the viewpoint of “human security”. Japan is also committed to contributing to realize world peace, stability and prosperity more actively than ever.

From a Latin-American perspective, even in a context where the rule of law has been under attack or has been very weak, the role of human rights NGOs has been and is very relevant in terms of documenting human rights violations, and seeking and bringing justice for the victims of those violations, as well as acting as a guardian angel to the Inter-American human rights system. The role of NGOs within the Inter-American human rights system has to be understood taking into account the specific political and the legal-normative context on the continent. Indeed, the role played by human rights NGOs in the Americas has responded/responds to the political reality of repressive regimes and present-day fragile democracies struggling to uphold human rights and rule of law standards. Furthermore, the legal-normative context, i.e. the American Convention on Human Rights and the interpretation given by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to its provisions, has also given and gives NGOs ample space to interact through different methods and strategies in a less active to a very active manner with the human rights monitoring bodies from 1959 on.

This article looks into the meanings of 'human rights' and 'democracy' which are supposed to be 'essentially contested.' In this connection, it revisits the history of Western political ideas in which the political thoughts of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau on human rights and democracy are reviewed and contrasted. The ultimate purpose of this exercise is to elucidate the theoretical basis of contemporary debates on North Korean human rights within South Korea. For these debates seem to have to do with the multifarious meanings of 'human rights' and 'democracy.' While most people tend to support the concepts of both 'human rights' and 'democracy' with positive outlook, they do not seem to make an adequate differentiation of these terms. This phenomenon is not helpful in addressing the real problems of human rights in some sector of the world. In this sesne, a contrasted comparison between Locke and Rousseau regarding human rights and democracy can shed light on the contempoary debate in this field. Locke provided a comparatively thorough discussion on 'natural rights' in 17th century Europe and, in turn, the theoretical basis of contemporary liberal democracy. He emphasized that human beings were born with the natural rights of life, liberty, and property before the civil government had been established. Furthermore, he argued that the purpose of establishment of civil government was to preserve the natural rights of human beings. This means that Locke's view on natural rights underlies the 'civil and political rights' of contemporary international human rights norms. On the other hand, Rousseau, while paying keen attention to the same question of human liberty, provided a different methodology to achieve this goal in the 18th century. In other words, he advocated comparatively equal level of property among human beings for guaranteeing freedom of the people. In this sense, he placed priority on the equality over the liberty in reality of human life. In turn, he seemed clear that he had provided the theoretical basis for the 'economic and social rights' of the contemporary international human rights norms. At the same time, this article points out that whether Rousseau intended it or not, he contributed to the rise of social democracy or communism as put forward by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. In particular, his thesis of 'general will' in political community embraces a crucial theoretical strand of totalitarianism as pointed out by scholars. While this interpretation of Rousseau is not common in contemporary debates on democracy, this article posits that such approach helps to clarify the contemporary debates and even confusion in the field of human rights protection. Seen in this way, the discourses of both human rights and democracy are both sides of the same coin. The 'civil and political rights' form the basis of liberal democracy while 'economic and social rights' social democracy or totalitarian communism. These two contrasted discourses have dominated modern political history, in particular, during the Cold War period. This is why the International Covenants on human rights were divided into two separate documents while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a simple juxtaposition of these two ideological positions on human rights. The contrasted and even confrontational situations between the two theoretical positions were remarkably weakened with the collapse of the Berlin Wall as a proof of failed Eastern bloc. Nevertheless, the same contrasted discourse of human rights and democracy continues by way of now the concept of human security meaning both 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want.' The two political regimes on the Korean peninsula emerged as a byproduct of the two competitive visions of human rights and democracy.

The situation in Palestine has influenced the deployment of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The impact of longterm Israeli occupation and the rule of the Palestinian Authority in the Occupied Territory is multifaceted. Despite the various research on Palestine, human rights, and the rule of law, few studies have been conducted on the enforcement mechanisms of human rights in Palestine. This study examines the applicability of international human rights and humanitarian laws as well as domestic laws to assess the contribution of these directives in protecting the fundamental human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. It conducts an in-depth case study of three basic rights: the right to movement, the right to property, and the right to equality and non-discrimination in the Occupied Territory. The study further examines the role of the Palestinian High Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court in implementing domestic and international laws. In this regard, the study examines the major laws which are invoked, in certain circumstances, to limit the ability of Palestinians to confiscate, expropriate, and destruct their private property, and to implement discriminatory practices against them. The study further examines whether the available international and domestic mechanisms are effective, and if not, it suggests modifications upon which a functional national and international system could be built. The findings of the research demonstrate that international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law conventions are de facto and de jure applicable in the Occupied Territory. As a result of the aforementioned in-depth study cases, it can be concluded that human rights violations against Palestinians in the Occupied Territory are committed by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. In addition, the Palestinian and the Israeli judiciaries have failed to grant Palestinians reasonable protection or a just remedy, and they are dysfunctional and politically driven. The study concludes with a proposal for new mechanisms for Palestinians to redress human rights violations. The further outcomes of this study argue that neither international human rights nor humanitarian law guarantee full protection for Palestinians. Hence, the implication of the findings indicates that the regulations of international human rights and humanitarian laws, which were made by the powers of the nineteenth century with their colonial provisions, might not fit to the present complications of the current challenges to international law in Palestine. The goal is to promote a re-thinking approach to the employment of human rights to serve all people in an efficient and well-organized system. The scope of this study is not meant to grant Palestinians favorable treatment in the multilateral international system, but to achieve just and successful remedies for victims of human rights violations.

3813-164X : ., - ' , , ., , , , ., , , , , ( , , , )., , , , ,

After taking office, the Biden administration raised human rights and other values to a much higher position in foreign policy than during the Trump administration, claiming that it would regard the protection of human rights in countries around the world as an important goal of its foreign policy. However, from the perspective of its policy practice on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, its relevant human rights discourse cannot stand the test of facts at all. Although Israel has seriously violated Palestinian human rights for a long time, the Biden administration has paid little attention to the Palestinian-Israeli issue and basically inherited the Trump administration’s policy on key issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is tantamount to supporting Israel’s human rights violations. During the Gaza war that broke out in May 2021, the Biden administration refused to condemn Israel’s bombing of Gaza, repeatedly stressed that Israel’s actions were in self-defense, and not only continuously obstructed the Security Council’s adoption of statements condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire between the two sides, it also approved arms sales to Israel. The above actions of the Biden administration fully reflect the hypocrisy of its human rights discourse.

Human rights can be understood as formal norms related to existing legislations as well as the result of public reasoning, when claims of validity coming from the bottom up are politically juridified. Yet, where does the “significance” of human rights come from? Does the “feeling” toward the violation of human dignity rise only from the mobilization of radical spheres in the public space, or does it have origin in other places, like in the intimacy of the household? In order to understand ex negativo the genealogy of the “sense” of the violation of human rights as a counter-factual allegation that immanently refers to daily life experiences, this article considers the interaction between sentiment of fear and pretense of human rights, comparing images and imaginaries of modern political theory with the stories of traditional folk/fairy tales. Namely, philosophical representations of terror and literary narratives of monsters have a common “private” genealogy, as it shines through the hidden relationship existing between imagination, imaginary, and fantasy. Therefore, the character of the “wolf,” as politically conceptualized by Thomas Hobbes and fictionally represented in fairy tales, will be taken as a conceptual and figurative medium, able to underline the semantics of violence. My thesis is that fantastic narratives implicitly evoke forms of violation of human rights that political philosophy has denied for centuries because of the incapacity to conceptualize unspeakable offenses. Fairy tales tell the truth, albeit under camouflaged “bodies”: they are a disguised reminder of the perdurance of domestic violence in the household, seamlessly perpetuated against women and children over centuries. Any criticism toward the abuse of human rights should not forget the heuristic significance of fairy tales and the place where they seem to be peacefully narrated to children: within the domestic space of the family.

The issue of state accountability for human rights violations remains a central concern within contemporary international law. While the international legal framework has progressively evolved to recognize and protect fundamental human rights, enforcement mechanisms against sovereign states often remain fragmented and politically constrained. This paper critically examines the legal principles, institutional mechanisms, and practical challenges involved in holding states accountable for violations of internationally recognized human rights norms. The study explores the inherent tension between state sovereignty and international human rights obligations, emphasizing how traditional notions of non-intervention have been reshaped by emerging doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It further analyzes the role of global and regional institutions, including the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council, in promoting accountability and ensuring compliance with international standards. Through doctrinal analysis and case studies—such as allegations of torture linked to the United States and the international response to the Rwandan Genocide—the paper highlights both the progress and limitations of international accountability mechanisms. It also evaluates the concept of state responsibility, the duty to prosecute, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools such as economic sanctions and international adjudication. The research concludes that while significant advancements have been made in codifying human rights norms and establishing accountability frameworks, substantial gaps remain in implementation due to political interests, lack of universal jurisdiction, and enforcement challenges. Strengthening international cooperation, enhancing institutional independence, and reinforcing legal obligations are essential to ensure that states are held accountable for human rights violations in a consistent and effective manner. Keywords: State Accountability; Human Rights Violations; International Law; State Responsibility; Duty to Prosecute; Sovereignty; Responsibility to Protect; International Justice; Genocide; Torture; Economic Sanctions; Universal Jurisdiction; Rule of Law; Global Governance; Human Rights Protection.

Responsibility of the United Nations and the International Rule of Law

A s was indicated in Chapter 2, one of the major criticisms of conventional human rights discourse, largely confined to civil and political rights, has been that it has concentrated on the protection of human rights and the prevention of human rights abuse only in the public sphere (Clapham 1993; Brohmer 1997; Ratner & Abrams 1997). The very idea of ‘civil and political’ rights implies that rights are about the capacity to engage freely in the structures and processes of civil society and the body politic. The fact remains, however, that for many people it is not in the public or ‘civil and political’ domain where human rights are threatened or denied and where it is necessary for human rights to be promoted and protected. It is in the private or domestic sphere that, arguably, the greater human rights violations occur and where there is most need for social work practice to seek to redress abuses. A number of groups can be identified to whom such human rights practice most particularly applies. In discussing these particular groups in this chapter, several important issues about human rights, and human rights practice, will emerge and will be considered. The chapter will therefore not only consider the human rights of vulnerable groups but will use these considerations to identify a number of important theoretical and practical issues that apply to any examination of human rights and social work practice.

SEPTEMBER 11 Consequences for Canada Kent Roach Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2003. 272pp, $65.00 cloth (ISBN 0-7735-2584-X), $22.95 paper (ISBN 0-7735-2585-8)In the context of the global on terrorism, anomalies abound. Alan Dershowitz is invited by the Canadian government (and paid very handsomely) to give advice on the legitimacy of biometric national identity cards in a liberal democracy after publicly defending the necessity of torture as a tool in the against terror. Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian who is director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard and long considered a left-liberal, defends a little evil-lite in the name of defending us and our lesser evil against them. The Canadian government-appointed commission in the Arar case raises questions about the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism act passed and charter-proofed just three years ago.In this context, Kent Roach's serious and sensible book, September 11: Consequences for Canada, is especially important reading. It provides a dispassionate, rigorous, liberal analysis of the legal underpinnings and possible implications of this rapidly metastasizing war for Canada. seeking to assess its implications for Canadian sovereignty, the rule of law, and democracy, Roach rightly emphasizes that an apocalyptic view which stresses that everything has changed since 9/11 lacks nuance. Canada was moving toward the criminalization of politics and securitization well before 9/11, and democracy was hardly without threat from overzealous governments before that date. The tension implicit in Canada's relationship to the US was also clear long before 9/11. Drawing his inspiration from George Grant, Roach recommends the reassertion of Canadian sovereignty against our neighbour, and not just in response to 9/11.September 11: Consequences for Canada is important for making all these arguments and more. The analysis is also significant for detailing, carefully and lucidly if a bit bloodlessly, the threats to democracy, civil liberties, and human rights-not just here but abroad as well-emanating from the ramped-up security agenda with its spreading tentacles and permanent war footing. The book includes a very good analysis of the Suresh case, in which the supreme court of Canada scandalously left open the possibility of deportation to face torture as a reasonable limit to constitutional rights. Roach rightly notes the foreboding quality of this exception.Roach defends the rule of law, human rights, and democracy against the perils of anti-terror legislation and the host of formally legal manoeuvres associated with it. He argues in favour of a more progressive human security agenda. For all these reasons, Roach's book deserves a wide and attentive reading.This era of disappearing immigrants and citizens, ghost prisoners, secret trials, and investigative hearings that may compel testimony has inspired more radical authors to look back to the likes of Carl Schmitt for analysis of a permanent state of exception, as well as pursuing the apparently obverse intuition of reaching toward the rule of law now demanded globally (e.g., Habermas) as a defence against such threats to human rights, popular sovereignty, and the legitimacy of law itself. Precisely because it represents such an attack on the rule of law, both globally and locally, the war on terror seems well-suited to elicit both of these reactions. …