Thursday, April 23, 2015
Little faith in the process, less faith in the outcome
I'm really not sure what I think about Beitz's take on international norms. He relies on broad acceptance of the norms to form a conception of human rights among nations. This, in my view, is potentially dangerous because I have little faith that the majority will reach the correct norms to enforce. The potential for the majority to reach a conception of human rights that is too broad seems just as likely as the potential for the majority to fail to reach a conception that is broad enough. I'm not sure I have an alternative proposal to present, because an omnipotent state or body does not exist that could propose what these norms actually should be. I simply think that Beitz doesn't adequately address why we should ever listen to the majority of states other than that he has empirically observed the majority to reach the correct conclusion about the norms that should be enforced most of the time. Perhaps if the process of determining what the majority of states believe should constitute norms was a better one I would have more faith in the potential of international norms to ensure human rights, but as the process stands today I have little faith in the process, and less faith in the outcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One other point to add: when I say the majority, I don't necessarily mean the majority by a show of hands. As we know, some actors in the international community have inordinately more influence in determining international norms than others. So perhaps the majority is actually just a majority of influence---or a majority of force. My problem is not with accepting human rights as prima facie, its with who gets to determine the international norms that determine the human rights which are prima facie.
ReplyDeleteDoes Beitz say that we should listen to the majority of states? Doesn't he sharply distinguish the question of what the human rights as currently embodied in our practices are from the question of whether they provide US with reasons for action? (e.g. pp. 103 and 105)
ReplyDeleteI mention this is my post, but this is why I think actively encouraging both individuals and states to participate in the conversation about what should be the standard of human rights is essential. I also don't think that Beitz is trying to say whether the process is good, per say, but simply that it exists. At this point, we must abolish it as a practice (which, in my opinion, would be much worse) or strive to make it as good as we can.
ReplyDelete