What do you think?
Rate this book
Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights
Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights
In the decades following the triumphant proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the UN General Assembly was transformed by the arrival of newly independent states from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. This diverse constellation of states introduced new ideas, methods, and priorities to the human rights program. Their influence was magnified by the highly effective nature of Asian, Arab, and African diplomacy in the UN human rights bodies and the sheer numerical superiority of the so-called Afro-Asian bloc. Owing to the nature of General Assembly procedure, the Third World states dominated the human rights agenda, and enthusiastic support for universal human rights was replaced by decades of authoritarianism and an increasingly strident rejection of the ideas laid out in the Universal Declaration.
In Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights , Roland Burke explores the changing impact of decolonization on the UN human rights program. By recovering the contributions of those Asian, African, and Arab voices that joined the global rights debate, Burke demonstrates the central importance of Third World influence across the most pivotal battles in the United Nations, from those that secured the principle of universality, to the passage of the first binding human rights treaties, to the flawed but radical step of studying individual pleas for help. The very presence of so many independent voices from outside the West, and the often defensive nature of Western interventions, complicates the common presumption that the postwar human rights project was driven by Europe and the United States. Drawing on UN transcripts, archives, and the personal papers of key historical actors, this book challenges the notion that the international rights order was imposed on an unwilling and marginalized Third World. Far from being excluded, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern diplomats were powerful agents in both advancing and later obstructing the promotion of human rights.
In Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights , Roland Burke explores the changing impact of decolonization on the UN human rights program. By recovering the contributions of those Asian, African, and Arab voices that joined the global rights debate, Burke demonstrates the central importance of Third World influence across the most pivotal battles in the United Nations, from those that secured the principle of universality, to the passage of the first binding human rights treaties, to the flawed but radical step of studying individual pleas for help. The very presence of so many independent voices from outside the West, and the often defensive nature of Western interventions, complicates the common presumption that the postwar human rights project was driven by Europe and the United States. Drawing on UN transcripts, archives, and the personal papers of key historical actors, this book challenges the notion that the international rights order was imposed on an unwilling and marginalized Third World. Far from being excluded, Asian, African, and Middle Eastern diplomats were powerful agents in both advancing and later obstructing the promotion of human rights.
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
2 people are currently reading
42 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 20, 2015
Unfortunately, this book has a really dull title and a bland cover design for what's actually a really interesting and concise history of the relationship between decolonization and the idea of international human rights. Not all of this book makes for compelling reading. There's a lot of discussion of UN Committee speeches and proposals that drag on a bit. Nevertheless, the central points of this book are fascinating. They should be understood by anyone interested in the question of whether human rights are universal.
This is a rather theoretical question that has been hashed over a million times. What Burke adds is an historical investigation into how and why arguments for and against universality were made by newly decolonized states from the 1950's to the 1970's. I was surprised to find out that most decolonizing states were very enthusiastic about the idea that human rights were universal concepts. They deployed this argument against the idea of European colonists that rights were relative and that "uncivilized" races could only have full rights once they had advanced sufficiently. Two factors changed this dynamic. First, decolonization created a host of new states that were highly protective of their sovereignty. Second, these decolonized states rapidly fell into tyranny, leaving only a few democracies in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The new dictators of these countries had little use for universal claims of human rights that could provide a pretext for foreign meddling and/or encourage resistance to their rule at home. They argued that these claims as Western constructs, but Burke shows that their true motivation for relativism was to deflect outside criticism. By the late 1970's, the human rights movement had taken off in the West, but it lagged behind in these other areas because of relativism and tyranny.
What fascinated me about this book was how it changes the debate between relativism and universalism. Instead of arguing theory, Burke says, why not just look at who adopted these ideas in history? That should (and does) tell us a lot about their content. It was tyrants like Nasser, Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Reza Pahlavi, Papa Doc Duvalier who embraced relativism, using it as justification for massive human rights violations. They also argued that the necessity of economic development necessitated authoritarianism that could guide the nation into the modern world. What these states usually end up with was neither development nor human rights, whereas democratic states usually achieved both. Relativism also had great appeal to European colonialists, who infused it with racism and used it to justify the continuation of imperialism. In contrast, hopeful modernizing reformers in the Third World and post-colonial Westerners embraced human rights. The historical results speak volumes about the quality of the idea of cultural relativism in regards to human rights. Not only does this idea not work, it has been embraced by the worst sort of people. This book makes Westerners who argue in favor of cultural relativism look more like dupes of Third World tyrants than respectful protectors of different cultures and peoples (granted, multiculturalism is not the same thing as relativism). In fact, if this book shows anything, it shows that cultural relativism does little to protect the people of these countries. Demanding that every government in the world follow these rules is a much better course, as long as we realize that these changes cannot be forced into other societies.
This is a rather theoretical question that has been hashed over a million times. What Burke adds is an historical investigation into how and why arguments for and against universality were made by newly decolonized states from the 1950's to the 1970's. I was surprised to find out that most decolonizing states were very enthusiastic about the idea that human rights were universal concepts. They deployed this argument against the idea of European colonists that rights were relative and that "uncivilized" races could only have full rights once they had advanced sufficiently. Two factors changed this dynamic. First, decolonization created a host of new states that were highly protective of their sovereignty. Second, these decolonized states rapidly fell into tyranny, leaving only a few democracies in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The new dictators of these countries had little use for universal claims of human rights that could provide a pretext for foreign meddling and/or encourage resistance to their rule at home. They argued that these claims as Western constructs, but Burke shows that their true motivation for relativism was to deflect outside criticism. By the late 1970's, the human rights movement had taken off in the West, but it lagged behind in these other areas because of relativism and tyranny.
What fascinated me about this book was how it changes the debate between relativism and universalism. Instead of arguing theory, Burke says, why not just look at who adopted these ideas in history? That should (and does) tell us a lot about their content. It was tyrants like Nasser, Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, Reza Pahlavi, Papa Doc Duvalier who embraced relativism, using it as justification for massive human rights violations. They also argued that the necessity of economic development necessitated authoritarianism that could guide the nation into the modern world. What these states usually end up with was neither development nor human rights, whereas democratic states usually achieved both. Relativism also had great appeal to European colonialists, who infused it with racism and used it to justify the continuation of imperialism. In contrast, hopeful modernizing reformers in the Third World and post-colonial Westerners embraced human rights. The historical results speak volumes about the quality of the idea of cultural relativism in regards to human rights. Not only does this idea not work, it has been embraced by the worst sort of people. This book makes Westerners who argue in favor of cultural relativism look more like dupes of Third World tyrants than respectful protectors of different cultures and peoples (granted, multiculturalism is not the same thing as relativism). In fact, if this book shows anything, it shows that cultural relativism does little to protect the people of these countries. Demanding that every government in the world follow these rules is a much better course, as long as we realize that these changes cannot be forced into other societies.
September 26, 2018
Good thorough analysis. A bit much for class--maybe assign only portions next time?
February 26, 2021
0.25 stars from me bro this book needs serious help
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews