Human Rights and Global Politics

Prof. Kurt Mills

POL 203
Gettysburg College
Fall 2003

Office Hours: TBA, and by appointment (no appointments on Wednesdays)
Office: Glatfelter 315
Phone: x6039
E-mail:

And I believe in the future, we shall suffer no more.
Maybe not in my lifetime, but in yours I feel sure.
-Paul Simon, The Cool, Cool River

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights marked the beginning of the modern human rights regime. Through the UDHR and associated documents, states have agreed to respect the human rights of their citizens. Torture, genocide, and apartheid have been outlawed. Everybody is guaranteed equal rights and equal participation in the political process, and the international community has agreed to uphold those rights and punish violators. The reality, of course, is vastly different from the theory. Human rights abuses occur with regularity in almost every country around the world, from genocide, to torture, to gender discrimination, to the suppression of communal identities. The international community has, many believe, failed in a very dramatic way to uphold even minimal human rights values worldwide.

Yet, human rights is on the global agenda in a way that would have been unthinkable not too many years ago. The UN Security Council now regularly takes up issues related to humanitarian crises. Regional human rights bodies, particularly those in Europe and the Americas, now increasingly serve as meaningful places to take human rights claims. The number of human rights and humanitarian nongovernmental organizations has exploded in the past few years. The question then becomes, what has all of this accomplished and what are the global implications of expanded interest in human rights?

In this course, we will examine a variety of issues related to human rights. First, we will examine the history of the idea of human rights and the theoretical underpinnings of the idea. Second, we will undertake a thematic examination of human rights violations worldwide, looking at such issues as genocide and communal rights. Third, we will look at how attempts are made to protect human rights on the global scene, from the UN to regional organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Fourth, we will investigate the various attempts to redress past abuses through truth commissions and war crimes tribunals. Fifth, we will look at human rights considerations in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Finally, throughout the course we will assess the impact human rights is having vis-à-vis theoretical concerns in global politics, focusing on the issue of the relationship between human rights and state sovereignty.

This course will be multi-perspectival. That is, we will look at the is and the ought, the empirical and the normative, practice and theory. And we will examine the issue of human rights from the vantage point of individuals, groups, the state, and the international community. This course is about political philosophy, law, culture, the on the ground realities of human rights abuses, and the role of human rights in the emerging global order.

This course will function as an intensive seminar. Everybody will be expected to be prepared and participate every week.

The formal requirements for the course are as follows:

1) Do the Reading. To gain an adequate understanding of the basic concepts and to be able to participate in class discussion, you must do all of the assigned reading. Many of the readings on the syllabus can be found in the course reading packet. Several can be found online. Articles labeled HRQ are available electronically through the Library web site. Three books are also required:

•Ann Marie Clark, Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms
•David Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations
•Roy Gutman and David Rieff, eds., Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know

2) Participation. Since this is a seminar, it is crucial that all participate in the class discussions. Quality of questions and comments is valued more than quantity. 20% of the final course grade.

3) Presentation on the Week’s Reading. Each week, 1 person will be responsible for giving a presentation on the main issues or ideas covered in the readings, and be prepared with a series of questions for the class to discuss. These questions should be e-mailed to the rest of the class members at least 24 hours before class (i.e. Sunday afternoon). 10% of the final course grade.

4) Response Papers. Each week semester you will write a short (2 pages) reaction to the week’s readings. This should not be a summary of the readings, but rather your reaction to the main points raised in the readings. You should identify the key themes in the week’s readings and comment, referring to the arguments made in several of the articles. Do not use outside reading for this assignment. You may make connections with things you may have done in other classes, or with current events. Due at the beginning of class. 25% of the final course grade.

5) Create a Human Rights Organization. Choose a human rights issue and create an organization to address the issue. In order to do this, you will need to do research on the issue, find out what other organizations are already doing, and figure out what particular role your organization can play. Each person will give a short presentation on their project on Nov. 17. This will give the class the opportunity to provide some feedback for the groups before the final project is turned in. The final project wil be in the form of a web page which will serve as a guide to the issue your organization is intended to address, as well as a description and rationale for your organization. Due Nov. 24. 25% of final course grade.

6) Essay: Ashcroft-Strossen Dialogue. We think about human rights issues occuring somewhere other than the United States. However, particularly in the post-9/11 world, we in the US are faced with significant dilemmas related to civil rights and privacy as the US responds to terrorism. The decisions made regarding the issues are likely to affect us, our family and friends, visitors to the US, and how the US is perceived in the world. Thus, it is vital that we know where we stand on these crucial issues. To this end, you will write a paper in the form of a dialogue between US Attorney General John Ashcroft and the President of the American Civil Liberties Union, Nadine Strossen, in which you attempt to imagine the positions and arguments these two people would take on one or two key issues related to the tensions between national security and human rights. Due April 23. 10% of the final course grade.

7) Final Reflection Essay. In a 5 page essay, I would like you to reflect on your experience during the class. What have you learned? Has your perspective changed on anything as a result of this class? Do not simply repeat points made throught the semester; rather, think about: your participation in the class, what you got out of the class, what you didn’t get out of the class but wish you had, favorite parts of the class, least favorite parts, what was missing, etc. Further, do not confine yourself to these few questions, but rather use them as a jumping off point point for your own thoughts. Be creative! Due the last day of class. 10% of the final class grade.

Other Policies:

The policies in this syllabus will be strictly adhered to. If you are unable to follow these policies at any time during the semester, please consult with me in person as you become aware of any difficulty. Do not wait until the end of the semester to raise your concerns.

You are encouraged to come talk with me about questions you may have regarding the material in the class. Further, since a significant portion of your grade comes at the end of the semester, I will be happy to discuss your performance in the class with you at any time.

E-mail: All class members must check their Gettysburg e-mail address regularly. I will distribute announcements and other materials via e-mail.

Honor Code: Any instances of academic dishonesty will be dealt with according to the honor code. If you have questions of what might constitute an infraction of the honor code, including plagiarism, please feel free to talk with me.

Class Conduct: This class will be conducted in an open and supportive manner. Please be respectful others in the classroom, and expect the same respect from your classmates.

Papers: All papers are to be typed, double-spaced, in a 12 point font. You are responsible for all errors in your papers, including grammatical and spelling mistakes. When appropriate, papers should have footnotes and a bibliography. Do not confine yourself solely to resources found on the Internet. When appropriate, papers should include scholarly articles. Encyclopedias are generally not considered to be valid sources for academic papers.

Late Papers: Late papers will be significantly penalized. Reaction papers cannot be turned in late.

Failure to complete an assignment is grounds for failure in the course.

I reserve the right to modify this syllabus during the course of the semester.

Participation in this course implies acceptance of all of the policies and requirements stated in this syllabus.


Week 1: Introduction
(Sept. 1)
•Read the syllabus
•Video: Night and Fog

Week 2: The History and Theory of Human Rights
(Sept. 8)
•Kurt Mills, A New Sovereignty? Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order, (London, Macmillan, 1998): Chapter 1, “Reconstructing Sovereignty,” pp. 9-53
•Forsythe: Chapter 1, “Introduction: Human Rights in International Relations”
•HRQ: Jerome J. Shestack, “The Philosophic Foundations of Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 20 (May 1998): 201-34

Week 3: The Content of Human Rights
(Sept. 15)
•Forsythe: Chapter 2, “Establishing Human Rights Standards”
•Rhoda Howard, “The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority Over Civil and Political Rights?” Human Rights Quarterly 5 (November 1983): 467-90
•HRQ: Rolf Künnemann, “A Coherent Approach to Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly (May 1995): 323-42
•Universal Declaration of Human Rights
•International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
•International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Week 4: Universalism vs. Relativism
(Sept. 22)
•HRQ: John J. Tilley, “Cultural Relativism,” Human Rights Quarterly 22 (2000): 501-547
•HRQ: Daniel A. Bell, “The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East West Dialogue,” Human Rights Quarterly 18 (3 1996): 641-67
•HRQ: Bonny Ibhawoh, “Between Culture and Constitution: Evaluating the Cultural Legitimacy of Human Rights in the African State,” Human Rights Quarterly 22 (2000): 838-860
•HRQ: Heiner Bielefeldt, “Muslim Voices in the Human Rights Debate,” Human Rights Quarterly 17 (4 1995): 587-617
•Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, “State Responsibility Under International Human Rights Law to Change Religious and Customary Laws,” in Rebecca Cook, ed., Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994): 167-88

Week 5: Global and Regional Human Rights Regimes
(Sept. 29)
•Forsythe: Chapter 3, “Global Application of Human Rights Norms”
•Forsythe: Chapter 5 “Regional Application of Human Rights Norms”
•HRQ: Mahmood Monshipouri and Claude E. Welch, “The Search for International Human Rights and Justice: Coming to Terms with New Global Realities,” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (2001): 370-401
•List of International Human Rights Instruments
•Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

•Resources:

•African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
•American Convention on Human Rights
•Arab Charter on Human Rights
•Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
•European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Week 6: Human Rights and Non-State Actors
(Oct. 6)
•Forsythe: Chapter 7: “Non-governmental Organizations and Human Rights”
•Ann Marie Clark, Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms

Week 7: Reading Day: No Class
(Oct. 13)

Week 8: Communal Conflict and Group Rights: Palestine and Israel
(Oct. 20)
•Kurt Mills, A New Sovereignty? Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order, (London, Macmillan, 1998): Chapter 2, “The Quest for Community: Internal Challenges to Sovereignty,” pp. 54-94
•“The Mideast: A Century of Conflict,” National Public Radio (September 2002)
•Video: Without Rights

•Resources:

•B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
•Adalah: The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel

Week 9: Humanitarian Intervention
(Oct. 27)
•“The Responsibility to Protect,” Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, Dec. 2001 (Online)
•Case Study: Howard Tolley, “President Clinton’s Response to Kosovo,” Teaching Human Rights Online (Online)
•Video: The Triumph of Evil

Week 10: Accountability I: Amnesty, Impunity, and Truth Commissions:
(Nov. 3) South Africa and Rwanda
•HRQ: Audrey R. Chapman and Patrick Ball, “The Truth of Truth Commissions: Comparative Lessons from Haiti, South Africa, and Guatemala,” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (February 2001): 1-43
•Beth Goldblatt and Sheila Meintjes, “South African Women Demand the Truth,” in Meredith Turshen and Clotilde Twagiramariya, What Women Do in Wartime (London: Zed Books, 1998): 27-61
•Alex Boraine, “Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: The Third Way,” in Robert I. Rotberg and Dennis Thompson, eds., Truth vs. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000): 141-57
•Ronald C. Slyle, “Amnesty, Truth, and Reconciliation: Reflections on the South African Amnesty Process,” in Robert I. Rotberg and Dennis Thompson, eds., Truth vs. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000): 170-88
•Kent Greenwalt, “Amnesty’s Justice,” in Robert I. Rotberg and Dennis Thompson, eds., Truth vs. Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000): 189-210
•Peter Uvin and Charles Mironko, “Western and Local Approaches to Justice in Rwanda,” Global Governance 9 (Apr.-June 2003): 219-31

•Resources:

•South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission
•Truth Commissions Project
•Coverage of the Gacaca process in Rwanda by the Fondation Hirondelle

Week 11: Accountability II: Genocide, War Crimes Tribunals, and Universal Jurisdiction
(Nov. 10)
•Forsythe: Chapter 4: “International Criminal Courts”
•HRQ: Menno T. Kamminga, “Lessons Learned from the Exercise of Universal Jurisdiction in Respect of Human Rights Offenses,” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (2001): 940-974
•Christopher Rudolph, “Constructing an Atrocities Regime: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals,” International Organization 55 (Summer 2001): 655-91
•Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
•“International Justice,” in Human Rights Watch World Report 2002 (Online)

•Resources:

•International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
•International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
•Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
•Coalition for an International Criminal Court
•International Center for Transitional Justice
•“Rape and Genocide in Rwanda: The ICTR’s Akayesu Verdict,” Teaching Human Rights Online
•Samantha Power, “Bystanders to Genocide,” The Atlantic Monthly (September 2001)
•Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr., “Nuremberg in Retrospect,” The Atlantic Monthly (December 1946)

Week 12: Human Rights Organization Presentations
(Nov. 17)

Week 13: The Applicability of Human Rights During War
(Nov. 24)
•Human Rights Organization Project Due
•Gutman and Rieff, Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know
•Human Rights Watch, “Legal Issues Arising from the War in Afghanistan and Related Anti-Terrorism Efforts,” October 2001 (Online)
•American Bar Association, “Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants: Preliminary Report,” (August 8, 2002) (Online)
•Kathryn Sikkink, “A Human Rights Approach to Sept. 11” (Online)

•Resources

•September 11: The Aftermath (Human Rights Watch)
•“Anti-Terrorism Measures in the United States,” in Human Rights Watch Report 2002
•Justice Not Revenge: 11 September Crisis (Amnesty International)
•ICRC, “Basic Rules of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols”

Week 14: Human Rights in the Post-9/11 World
(Dec. 1)
•Ashcroft-Strossen Dialogue Due
•Statement of John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Concerning Oversight of the Department of Justice, Presented on July 25, 2002 (Online)
•ACLU, “War on Words: Censorship in Times of Crisis,” (Online)
•Charles Lane, “Debate Crystallizes on War, Rights,” The Washington Post (September 2, 2002) (Online)
•John Podesta, “USA Patriot Act: The Good, the Bad, and the Sunset,” Human Rights Magazine 29 (Winter 2002) (Online)
•James X. Dempsey, “Civil Liberties in a Time of Crisis,” Human Rights Magazine 29 (Winter 2002) (Online)
•David Cole, “Terrorizing Immigrants in the Name of Fighting Terrorism,” Human Rights Magazine 29 (Winter 2002) (Online)
•David Savage, “Terrorism War Arrives At High Court,” ABA Journal (December 20, 2002) (Online)
•"Secret Government," This American Life (January 10, 2003) (Online)
•Joseph Margulies, “A Year and Holding: Limbo Is No Place To Detain Them,” The Washington Post (December 22, 2002) (Online)
•Thomas Wilner, “A Year and Holding: The Longer We Wait, The Worse We Look,” The Washington Post (December 22, 2002) (Online)
•Neil A. Lewis, "Detention Upheld in Enemy Combatant Case," The New York Times (January 9, 2003) (Online)
•Dana Priest and Barton Gellman, “U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations,” The Washington Post (December 26, 2002) (Online)
•Jodie Morse, “How Do We Make Him Talk?” Time (April 6, 2002) (Online)
•Amnesty International, “Ask Amnesty—Torture” (Online)
•Mark Bowden, "The Dark Art of Interrogation," The Atlantic (October 2003) (Online)

Week 15: Class Wrap-Up
(Dec. 8)
•Reflection Essay Due
•Forsythe: Chapter 9: “The Politics of Liberalism in a Realist World”
•Kurt Mills, A New Sovereignty? Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order, (London, Macmillan, 1998): Chapter 6, “Concluding Thoughts on the New Sovereignty”