What do you think?
Rate this book
The Twilight of Human Rights Law
Countries solemnly intone their commitment to human rights, and they ratify endless international treaties and conventions designed to signal that commitment. At the same time, there has been no marked decrease in human rights violations, even as the language of human rights has become the dominant mode of international moral criticism. Well-known violators like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan have sat on the U.N. Council on Human Rights. But it's not just the usual suspects that flagrantly disregard the treaties. Brazil pursues extrajudicial killings. South Africa employs violence against protestors. India tolerate child labor and slavery. The United States tortures.
In The Twilight of Human Rights Law- -the newest addition to Oxford's highly acclaimed Inalienable Rights series edited by Geoffrey Stone--the eminent legal scholar Eric A. Posner argues that purposefully unenforceable human rights treaties are at the heart of the world's failure to address human rights violations. Because countries fundamentally disagree about what the public good requires and how governments should allocate limited resources in order to advance it, they have established a regime that gives them maximum flexibility--paradoxically characterized by a huge number of vague human rights that encompass nearly all human activity, along with weak enforcement machinery that churns out new rights but cannot enforce any of them. Posner looks to the foreign aid model instead, contending that we should judge compliance by comprehensive, concrete metrics like poverty reduction, instead of relying on ambiguous, weak, and easily manipulated checklists of specific rights.
With a powerful thesis, a concise overview of the major developments in international human rights law, and discussions of recent international human rights-related controversies, The Twilight of Human Rights Law is an indispensable contribution to this important area of international law from a leading scholar in the field.
In The Twilight of Human Rights Law- -the newest addition to Oxford's highly acclaimed Inalienable Rights series edited by Geoffrey Stone--the eminent legal scholar Eric A. Posner argues that purposefully unenforceable human rights treaties are at the heart of the world's failure to address human rights violations. Because countries fundamentally disagree about what the public good requires and how governments should allocate limited resources in order to advance it, they have established a regime that gives them maximum flexibility--paradoxically characterized by a huge number of vague human rights that encompass nearly all human activity, along with weak enforcement machinery that churns out new rights but cannot enforce any of them. Posner looks to the foreign aid model instead, contending that we should judge compliance by comprehensive, concrete metrics like poverty reduction, instead of relying on ambiguous, weak, and easily manipulated checklists of specific rights.
With a powerful thesis, a concise overview of the major developments in international human rights law, and discussions of recent international human rights-related controversies, The Twilight of Human Rights Law is an indispensable contribution to this important area of international law from a leading scholar in the field.
185 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
11 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
About the author
Eric A. Posner
35 books85 followersEric Posner is the Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at The University of Chicago.
His books include Law and Social Norms (Harvard 2000); Chicago Lectures in Law and Economics (Foundation 2000) (editor); Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (University of Chicago 2001) (editor, with Matthew Adler); The Limits of International Law (Oxford 2005) (with Jack Goldsmith); New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis (Harvard 2006) (with Matthew Adler); and Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (Oxford 2007) (with Adrian Vermeule). He is also an editor of the Journal of Legal Studies. He has published articles on bankruptcy law, contract law, international law, cost-benefit analysis, constitutional law, and administrative law, and has taught courses on international law, foreign relations law, contracts, employment law, bankruptcy law, secured transactions, and game theory and the law. His current research focuses on international law, immigration law, and foreign relations law. He is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School.
His books include Law and Social Norms (Harvard 2000); Chicago Lectures in Law and Economics (Foundation 2000) (editor); Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives (University of Chicago 2001) (editor, with Matthew Adler); The Limits of International Law (Oxford 2005) (with Jack Goldsmith); New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis (Harvard 2006) (with Matthew Adler); and Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts (Oxford 2007) (with Adrian Vermeule). He is also an editor of the Journal of Legal Studies. He has published articles on bankruptcy law, contract law, international law, cost-benefit analysis, constitutional law, and administrative law, and has taught courses on international law, foreign relations law, contracts, employment law, bankruptcy law, secured transactions, and game theory and the law. His current research focuses on international law, immigration law, and foreign relations law. He is a graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 14, 2016
This book is mostly a common-sense approach to the human rights legislation: a review of major institutions, a brief history, some empirical data concerning its effects and some suggestions for the future. Posner is drawing some gloomy conclusions about international human rights law in general. Empirical research tend to suggest that its effect on the well-being of the people has been small or absent, despite all efforts.
He also suggests why this have been the case citing:
- epistemic reasons: people just can”t agree on what is the best thing to do for others, especially those living under different cultures;
- political reasons: the states have little reason to comply with the legislation because no one has the courage to impose it upon those that break it. That is because of geopolitical or economic reasons or because many powerful member-states violate it themselves (Rusia, China, etc).
- economic reasons: stopping a trade with the state that engages in human rights violation will make the punished state to seek another agreements with states that may be hostile to those who initiated the punishment (European country feared to stop sending foreign aid to Sudan because it might have pushed it to consolidate its relations with states like Rusia or China.
- ideological reasons: the treatises themselves are vague and burdensome and a government can keep violating some rights claiming that it has no resources for respecting them all.
The conclusion of the book is that human rights lawyer should learn the lesson of development economics: make small and concrete steps toward realistic goals - goals that should be examined for every country in part, with its peculiar circumstances and conditions. Empirical research should, too, have a bigger part in this process. Abstract formulations of vague and aspirational rights may seem nice for many people, but their effect is largely null and to expect changes in the welfare of the people on this basis is utopic. As with all social things like economics, politics, culture...the top-down model of action is inefficient or, worse, counterproductive. Especially when guided by abstract and ideological principles.
He also suggests why this have been the case citing:
- epistemic reasons: people just can”t agree on what is the best thing to do for others, especially those living under different cultures;
- political reasons: the states have little reason to comply with the legislation because no one has the courage to impose it upon those that break it. That is because of geopolitical or economic reasons or because many powerful member-states violate it themselves (Rusia, China, etc).
- economic reasons: stopping a trade with the state that engages in human rights violation will make the punished state to seek another agreements with states that may be hostile to those who initiated the punishment (European country feared to stop sending foreign aid to Sudan because it might have pushed it to consolidate its relations with states like Rusia or China.
- ideological reasons: the treatises themselves are vague and burdensome and a government can keep violating some rights claiming that it has no resources for respecting them all.
The conclusion of the book is that human rights lawyer should learn the lesson of development economics: make small and concrete steps toward realistic goals - goals that should be examined for every country in part, with its peculiar circumstances and conditions. Empirical research should, too, have a bigger part in this process. Abstract formulations of vague and aspirational rights may seem nice for many people, but their effect is largely null and to expect changes in the welfare of the people on this basis is utopic. As with all social things like economics, politics, culture...the top-down model of action is inefficient or, worse, counterproductive. Especially when guided by abstract and ideological principles.
April 25, 2021
This book is among recent monographs, published in the past decade, which aim to provoke and challenge human rights practitioners/supporters (the other two are Moyn's The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History and Hopgood's the Endtimes of Human Rights; both are on my to-read list).
The writer is a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago Law School specialising in financial regulation, international law, and constitutional law. He is clearly not an expert on international human rights law (IHRL). First chapter shows that he lacks basic understanding on human rights institutions (i.e. referring to Human Rights Council as Council on Human Rights).
Posner's thesis focuses on the failure of IHRL in improving human rights situation. He used quantitative data to show that there are almost no changes after states ratified a given human rights treaty. All is good there; human rights practitioners know well that ratification of a convention will not result in human rights becoming an immediate reality on the ground. He added that ratification could lead to positive improving in democratic countries where there are strong institutions, which is also acknowledged in a human rights world.
Posner further criticised IHRL as being rigid and does not offer solutions that are context-specific. He may be correct if he only focused on convention proper. Had he dug deeper, he would know that recommendations (known as concluding observations) are also offered from experts appointed by the HRC on what states could do to improve the situation.
Posner's perception that the West only cares about human rights is another point which shows that his understanding of the human rights dynamics is limited. The book also disregarded the roles and contributions made by human rights groups and actors in the global south that are also driving forces in pushing the human rights agenda domestically and internationally.
IHRL should be criticised and its practitioners provoked, but it could be done based on solid arguments backed by proper and thorough researches. His theses are simplistic and that makes the Twilight of Human Rights Law a disappointing read.
The writer is a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago Law School specialising in financial regulation, international law, and constitutional law. He is clearly not an expert on international human rights law (IHRL). First chapter shows that he lacks basic understanding on human rights institutions (i.e. referring to Human Rights Council as Council on Human Rights).
Posner's thesis focuses on the failure of IHRL in improving human rights situation. He used quantitative data to show that there are almost no changes after states ratified a given human rights treaty. All is good there; human rights practitioners know well that ratification of a convention will not result in human rights becoming an immediate reality on the ground. He added that ratification could lead to positive improving in democratic countries where there are strong institutions, which is also acknowledged in a human rights world.
Posner further criticised IHRL as being rigid and does not offer solutions that are context-specific. He may be correct if he only focused on convention proper. Had he dug deeper, he would know that recommendations (known as concluding observations) are also offered from experts appointed by the HRC on what states could do to improve the situation.
Posner's perception that the West only cares about human rights is another point which shows that his understanding of the human rights dynamics is limited. The book also disregarded the roles and contributions made by human rights groups and actors in the global south that are also driving forces in pushing the human rights agenda domestically and internationally.
IHRL should be criticised and its practitioners provoked, but it could be done based on solid arguments backed by proper and thorough researches. His theses are simplistic and that makes the Twilight of Human Rights Law a disappointing read.
July 3, 2025
Pre-new job reading!! Really really excited to do this research
July 13, 2023
A right is some sort of temporary license given by some pig with a paid membership in Posner's caste. Any other right would land you kidnapped and locked for many years.
Law is whatever rules Posner and his evil gang members generate for their private benefit.
And no, there is no twilight, they are at the height of their power, which is still not enough -- the argument of this volume.
Law is whatever rules Posner and his evil gang members generate for their private benefit.
And no, there is no twilight, they are at the height of their power, which is still not enough -- the argument of this volume.
March 21, 2017
Although Posner starts with an overview on the role and functions of the human rights enforcers (or scuppers), which could at times feel tiresome and general, the book continues on a more elegant tone, the realpolitik and empiricism of his ideas being the foundations of his conclusions. And those are not optimistic: we are living in a world of relative human rights, of divergent ideals and values, of impossible steps in enforcing human rights, of increasing complexities in defining what those human rights are. A chilling read about an issue for which there are no answers in the foreseeable future.
January 7, 2015
The book entitled 'The Twilight of Human Rights' written by Eric A. Posner is, in my opinion as an international human rights law researcher, an essential one. Interestingly, and as the author himself indicates early on, different kinds of readers can benefit from it: those who are not yet familiar with the field of international human rights and those who are.
This is because the book, when critically examining compliance with human rights and human rights discourses, explains the basic foundations of the international substantive and procedural frameworks of human rights protection and promotion, which will certainly allow unfamiliar readers to learn basics about those systems; while offering thought-provoking ideas and insights that will challenge those with experience in the field.
Regarding both dimensions, I will say that the book is certainly interesting and puts forward questions that must be faced by scholars and practitioners, especially if they work on human rights and are committed to them. In my humble opinion, there are some imprecise statements or underlying ideas: for instance, the book posits what I perceive as a State-centered view of international human rights law. While I disagree with such a conception and consider that it fails to describe what human rights law currently permits and what it is meant to do, I must acknowledge that such a point of view centered on State duties is held by many, Yet, it would have been interesting for the author to briefly consider it. Granted, such a failure does not detract from the book at all.
As to the argument, Eric A. Posner posits, among others that human rights treaties and international norms fail to be an influential element in State conduct; that their vague character make many gaps and uncertainties appear, without apparently offering solutions to resource constraints and competing interests that States must answer to; and that human rights language may be set aside when furthering certain positive goals. The author supports his arguments with data and ideas.
As with the State-centered approach, I disagree to varying extents with the central affirmations of the book, but consider that this does not make it a bad one but, rather, a must-read. For starters, abandoning the language of obligations may be pernicious, given how duties can have an expressive and otherwise impact on the conduct of agents of collective entities as States and can be branded by different actors to empower their petitions and claims: leaving States with no human rights duties may end up weakening the system greatly. On the other hand, as to competing goals, some developments on proportionality and other ideas may try to offer answers, and even remotely seeming to endorse curtailments of basic freedoms with an impact on the wellbeing or suffering of individuals for benefiting others are arguments that serve totalitarian regimes or that can lead to arguments that seek some interests at the expense of human dignity, due to the potential disregard of the non-conditional character of the worth and related entitlements of individuals.
That being said, the book does support considerations with which I agree: an exclusively legal or judicial approach to human rights is insufficient and must be complemented by non-legal strategies to promote the well-being of people; non-legal aspects as ideology or strategy end up in the human rights discourses adopted by many actors; and economic and policy studies and actions are necessary to protect people. Furthermore, double standards and contradictions in the system do exist, and being aware of them is important.
Altogether, this is, as said above, a must-read. I am really glad that I read and reviewed this book. After all, it counters what I sometimes perceive as a problematic tendency: the abundance of writings whose authors simply repeat what others say, sometimes out of fear of being politically incorrect. Truly academic freedom and quality demand discussions and debates, sometimes uncomfortable ones, and the author supports his arguments with empirical observations, something frequently absent. As said above, I disagree with some of the conclusions and premises of the arguments found in the book, but that does not mean that I consider it a bad one: quite the contrary, it is an important book that does point out deficiencies in the systems and practice, reason why it pinpoints aspects that must be worked on. Excellent reading which I recommend.
This is because the book, when critically examining compliance with human rights and human rights discourses, explains the basic foundations of the international substantive and procedural frameworks of human rights protection and promotion, which will certainly allow unfamiliar readers to learn basics about those systems; while offering thought-provoking ideas and insights that will challenge those with experience in the field.
Regarding both dimensions, I will say that the book is certainly interesting and puts forward questions that must be faced by scholars and practitioners, especially if they work on human rights and are committed to them. In my humble opinion, there are some imprecise statements or underlying ideas: for instance, the book posits what I perceive as a State-centered view of international human rights law. While I disagree with such a conception and consider that it fails to describe what human rights law currently permits and what it is meant to do, I must acknowledge that such a point of view centered on State duties is held by many, Yet, it would have been interesting for the author to briefly consider it. Granted, such a failure does not detract from the book at all.
As to the argument, Eric A. Posner posits, among others that human rights treaties and international norms fail to be an influential element in State conduct; that their vague character make many gaps and uncertainties appear, without apparently offering solutions to resource constraints and competing interests that States must answer to; and that human rights language may be set aside when furthering certain positive goals. The author supports his arguments with data and ideas.
As with the State-centered approach, I disagree to varying extents with the central affirmations of the book, but consider that this does not make it a bad one but, rather, a must-read. For starters, abandoning the language of obligations may be pernicious, given how duties can have an expressive and otherwise impact on the conduct of agents of collective entities as States and can be branded by different actors to empower their petitions and claims: leaving States with no human rights duties may end up weakening the system greatly. On the other hand, as to competing goals, some developments on proportionality and other ideas may try to offer answers, and even remotely seeming to endorse curtailments of basic freedoms with an impact on the wellbeing or suffering of individuals for benefiting others are arguments that serve totalitarian regimes or that can lead to arguments that seek some interests at the expense of human dignity, due to the potential disregard of the non-conditional character of the worth and related entitlements of individuals.
That being said, the book does support considerations with which I agree: an exclusively legal or judicial approach to human rights is insufficient and must be complemented by non-legal strategies to promote the well-being of people; non-legal aspects as ideology or strategy end up in the human rights discourses adopted by many actors; and economic and policy studies and actions are necessary to protect people. Furthermore, double standards and contradictions in the system do exist, and being aware of them is important.
Altogether, this is, as said above, a must-read. I am really glad that I read and reviewed this book. After all, it counters what I sometimes perceive as a problematic tendency: the abundance of writings whose authors simply repeat what others say, sometimes out of fear of being politically incorrect. Truly academic freedom and quality demand discussions and debates, sometimes uncomfortable ones, and the author supports his arguments with empirical observations, something frequently absent. As said above, I disagree with some of the conclusions and premises of the arguments found in the book, but that does not mean that I consider it a bad one: quite the contrary, it is an important book that does point out deficiencies in the systems and practice, reason why it pinpoints aspects that must be worked on. Excellent reading which I recommend.
January 27, 2015
Why can’t we make progress on human rights?
According to Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, it’s because human rights laws are anchored in the belief that there is a single set of rules governing human behavior that can be enforced impartially. In The Twilight of Human Rights Law, he calls this “rule naiveté,” the belief that agreeing to human rights laws means compliance will follow.
It’s just not so—and, as he notes, the return to the use of torture by the U.S. ...
(Full review on Lit/Rant: http://litrant.tumblr.com/post/108562...)
According to Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, it’s because human rights laws are anchored in the belief that there is a single set of rules governing human behavior that can be enforced impartially. In The Twilight of Human Rights Law, he calls this “rule naiveté,” the belief that agreeing to human rights laws means compliance will follow.
It’s just not so—and, as he notes, the return to the use of torture by the U.S. ...
(Full review on Lit/Rant: http://litrant.tumblr.com/post/108562...)
March 30, 2016
The book serves as a useful foil to those who tout the efficacy of human rights law, but for me the author gives too little attention to any studies that take seriously the effects of the human rights regime since WWII. For example, constructivist theories of IR that look at changing global norms are not given any attention at all. In the last chapter, the author defers to Bill Easterly's work on development economics for insights into how human rights law should proceed, but it's too short of an analysis to give a clear sense of what he has in mind.
October 30, 2016
Shorter book on international human rights law, essentially an expanded journal article. Lots of interesting thoughts but there were many points where I disagreed with Posner, who is very cursory and generalizing in his summary of opposing arguments, and also uses many "strawmen" arguments as to why the enforcement of human rights law, according to him, is largely doomed to fail.
January 28, 2015
Interesting ideas but the writing was somewhat repetitive.
March 14, 2016
Rated 5 stars as professional reading. It is a game changer if you're in the law. If not...I understand how others would be less enthused.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews