A comment on Seligman and Montgomery’s “The Tragedy of Human Rights”
- A response to Adam Seligman and David Montgomery’s “The Tragedy of Human Rights”
- A response to Seligman and Montgomery’s “The Tragedy of Human Rights”
- In this paper, the authors argue here that human rights are as much the problem as they are the solution to the contemporary challenge of constructing civil society, observing that the seemingly inherent long-term social and political consequences of close to half a century of advocating human rights to the exclusion of other components of human good and fulfillment have been at the expense of any sense of shared belonging. Delineating between rights and belonging, they show how the extreme right has latched on to a tangible argument for belonging while the left has responded by continuing to advocate for abstract, universal, and unencumbered human rights to the detriment of its efforts to build civil society.
- Journalists, trade unionists, intellectuals, students, professionals active in the corporations of their category: the list of those arrested and those who could be shortly gets longer. So much that in its recent report on the opposition in Egypt, Amnesty International does not hesitate to define the North African country as “an open-air prison”.
- Which are the limits of being tolerant/intolerant, asks Marina Calloni from Milan’s Bicocca University, and what does Zero Tolerance mean?
- Why should a majority group have the right to protect their culture? Isn’t it the minority that needs protection?
- Regional polarization, coupled with domestic problems and/or daring economic processes resulted into a more securitized Gulf, where citizens have higher expectations vis-à-vis states’ duties and their own prerogatives, but civil freedom remain a top-down matter: when regime security juxtaposes with national security, human security always loses.