What do you think?
Rate this book
Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice
Praise for the first edition: "Every once in a while a book appears that treats the leading issues of a subject in such a clear and challenging manner that it becomes central to understanding that subject. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice is just such a book.... Donnelly's interpretations are clear and argued with zest."―American Political Science Review "This wide-ranging book looks at all aspects of human rights, drawing upon political theory, sociology, and international relations as well as international law.... [Jack Donnelly] deals successfully with two of the principal challenges to the notion of the universality of human rights: the argument that some non-Western societies are not subject to Western norms, and the claim that economic development may require the sacrifice of some human rights."―Foreign Affairs In a thoroughly revised edition of Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (more than half of the material is new), Jack Donnelly elaborates a theory of human rights, addresses arguments of cultural relativism, and explores the efficacy of bilateral and multilateral international action. Entirely new chapters address prominent post-Cold War issues including humanitarian intervention, democracy and human rights, "Asian values," group rights, and discrimination against sexual minorities.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
65 people are currently reading
630 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 - 15 of 16 reviews
June 18, 2024
Read because I had to. This was a very disappointing read. Writing about universal human rights with this superficiality should be considered a crime.
The author not only states that human rights “originated” about 200 years ago, but also, more tragically, that “the Judeo-christian tradition never espoused universal dignity”.
Why would anyone want to read - or suggest people to read - this ? Because it comes from the world of academia, which is, for the vast majority, anti-christian (See Pinker & friends).
The author not only states that human rights “originated” about 200 years ago, but also, more tragically, that “the Judeo-christian tradition never espoused universal dignity”.
Why would anyone want to read - or suggest people to read - this ? Because it comes from the world of academia, which is, for the vast majority, anti-christian (See Pinker & friends).
Read
April 7, 2013I want to read this books.....
January 28, 2014
The four stars in this review are more for the organization and clarity of Donnelly's ideas and to a lesser extent for the ideas themselves. It works well as an introduction to the validity of human rights, the vocabulary of practitioners and some of the founding documents, particularly, in this case, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The Holocaust, plus the forced relocation of millions and the destruction of the most basic necessities to maintain life during World War II was the impetus for the Declaration (grammatically the upper case D is correct but if Donnelly were reading it aloud you could hear it) and the subsequent treaties that amended and extended it.
An important aspect of the UDHR is that all the rights it enumerates and defines are individual and not group rights. The rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities are dealt with as the rights of individuals belonging to the group, not the group itself as a collective entity, since human rights are literally the rights that one has simply because on is a human being. Human rights are equal rights; all people have the same human rights as everyone else. They are inalienable; one cannot stop being human no matter how badly one behaves or how monstrously one is treated. And they are universal in that we consider all members of the species Homo Sapiens as human beings and thus, automatically, holders of human rights.
Human rights can be violated, ignored or abrogated and often are with impunity for the violators. Attempting to claim a right--the right of free assembly and association, for example, can lead, in many countries to extra-judicial execution--one can simply disappear or, now that it has become a transitive verb, can be disappeared--El Salvador, Chile under Pinochet, Iraq, the Philippines, the USSR, many others. Regimes that feature summary executions of suspected enemies of the state will almost always fail in most other categories of maintaining or expanding human rights. However, no matter how the concept of individual rights is trampled under the jackboots of fascism those rights still exist and individuals in these unfortunate countries are still fully entitled to them. The right to the presumption of innocence in a free and fair hearing before an independent and impartial judiciary doesn't evaporate in, for example, the People's Republic of China even though those rights may seem to be in permanent abeyance.
An important distinction for Donnelly is that human rights are not moral rights--human rights have played what he calls a "vanishingly small part of Western moral theory." He follows John Rawls in identifying them as political rights and is much more specific regarding them than Jurgen Habermas whose political philosophy often complements Rawls but who is in conflict with him as well. An excellent introduction and summary of their thoughts is in an article by Habermas criticizing Rawls in the Journal of Philosophy and the reply by Rawls in the same journal. For those interested the easiest route to search for "Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism". I would post the urls but they are each three lines long and subject to being broken.
Donnelly knows his stuff. He is cited everywhere by everyone, has been consulted by the United Nations and governments throughout the world. “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice" is a valuable and timely book.
An important aspect of the UDHR is that all the rights it enumerates and defines are individual and not group rights. The rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities are dealt with as the rights of individuals belonging to the group, not the group itself as a collective entity, since human rights are literally the rights that one has simply because on is a human being. Human rights are equal rights; all people have the same human rights as everyone else. They are inalienable; one cannot stop being human no matter how badly one behaves or how monstrously one is treated. And they are universal in that we consider all members of the species Homo Sapiens as human beings and thus, automatically, holders of human rights.
Human rights can be violated, ignored or abrogated and often are with impunity for the violators. Attempting to claim a right--the right of free assembly and association, for example, can lead, in many countries to extra-judicial execution--one can simply disappear or, now that it has become a transitive verb, can be disappeared--El Salvador, Chile under Pinochet, Iraq, the Philippines, the USSR, many others. Regimes that feature summary executions of suspected enemies of the state will almost always fail in most other categories of maintaining or expanding human rights. However, no matter how the concept of individual rights is trampled under the jackboots of fascism those rights still exist and individuals in these unfortunate countries are still fully entitled to them. The right to the presumption of innocence in a free and fair hearing before an independent and impartial judiciary doesn't evaporate in, for example, the People's Republic of China even though those rights may seem to be in permanent abeyance.
An important distinction for Donnelly is that human rights are not moral rights--human rights have played what he calls a "vanishingly small part of Western moral theory." He follows John Rawls in identifying them as political rights and is much more specific regarding them than Jurgen Habermas whose political philosophy often complements Rawls but who is in conflict with him as well. An excellent introduction and summary of their thoughts is in an article by Habermas criticizing Rawls in the Journal of Philosophy and the reply by Rawls in the same journal. For those interested the easiest route to search for "Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls's Political Liberalism". I would post the urls but they are each three lines long and subject to being broken.
Donnelly knows his stuff. He is cited everywhere by everyone, has been consulted by the United Nations and governments throughout the world. “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice" is a valuable and timely book.
July 20, 2022
Donnelly's work is an essential read for those looking to delve into human rights curriculum. He outlines the areas of concern for each section of the human rights narrative from genocide to social/economic rights. He does strive to promote a Western-focused definition of the human rights narrative, and he bases human rights principles on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created by the UN. Structurally, he provides students with a sound grasp of where the human rights movement is, and where it is going into the near future.
However, I find Donnelly to be too broad in his assessment of human rights principles. He refuses to lay a sound foundation of where human rights originate from. Essentially, he leaves human rights to be socially constructed by the governments of the world and the extent individuals within those government systems advocate for the rights found within themselves. Donnelly does argue that there are Universal human rights ideals found within the core of each human 'because they are human;' however, I remain unable to see past the true limits to the foundations of where human rights come from.
Donnelly also fails to do justice to various religions and their roles in the human rights story. Christianity is explained primarily in relation to their actions in the Middle Ages, instead of focusing on how the early church advanced key human rights principles. He also limits the analysis of how Confucianism impacted the rise of human rights principles in the East. Instead, he focuses on attempting to center human rights around the universal individual experience.
As a Christian, I am increasingly finding the concept of "human rights" confusing. Human rights imply that humans deserve certain benefits. However, if human beings are made in the image of God we do not deserve anything from God in our fallen state. Any gifts that we receive from the Lord (life, liberty, creativity, shelter, food ext) are just that... gifts. I do not daily lift my fist at God and demand the necessities of life because I 'deserve them.' I lift my hands to God and thank Him for the gifts he provides, and I freely give what I have to those less fortunate because I am acting as Jesus would to those around Him.
Therefore, I will keep this on my shelf in order to understand the secular conception behind the modern human rights movement, but I have come away from this book pushing many of Donnelly's away. I would highly recommend the chapters on genocide and the requirements of states within that framework. That chapter contains insights into the current Russian-Ukrainian situation.
However, I find Donnelly to be too broad in his assessment of human rights principles. He refuses to lay a sound foundation of where human rights originate from. Essentially, he leaves human rights to be socially constructed by the governments of the world and the extent individuals within those government systems advocate for the rights found within themselves. Donnelly does argue that there are Universal human rights ideals found within the core of each human 'because they are human;' however, I remain unable to see past the true limits to the foundations of where human rights come from.
Donnelly also fails to do justice to various religions and their roles in the human rights story. Christianity is explained primarily in relation to their actions in the Middle Ages, instead of focusing on how the early church advanced key human rights principles. He also limits the analysis of how Confucianism impacted the rise of human rights principles in the East. Instead, he focuses on attempting to center human rights around the universal individual experience.
As a Christian, I am increasingly finding the concept of "human rights" confusing. Human rights imply that humans deserve certain benefits. However, if human beings are made in the image of God we do not deserve anything from God in our fallen state. Any gifts that we receive from the Lord (life, liberty, creativity, shelter, food ext) are just that... gifts. I do not daily lift my fist at God and demand the necessities of life because I 'deserve them.' I lift my hands to God and thank Him for the gifts he provides, and I freely give what I have to those less fortunate because I am acting as Jesus would to those around Him.
Therefore, I will keep this on my shelf in order to understand the secular conception behind the modern human rights movement, but I have come away from this book pushing many of Donnelly's away. I would highly recommend the chapters on genocide and the requirements of states within that framework. That chapter contains insights into the current Russian-Ukrainian situation.
March 18, 2019
Obviously, all these theories are being built upon like any social science theory, but this book provides great explanation into past and current human rights theories. This is most definitely an academic book but one I would recommend for everyone.
November 21, 2018
A must-read for all those who are interested in Human Rights. ,
April 4, 2022
A rather clear overview of the theories that Donnelly poses concerning human rights. It gives a nice theoretical framework.
May 15, 2024
Had to read for class. Will not be reading again.
January 30, 2012
Wow,
so far I am SUPER impressed by Donnelly's ability to use circular logic and get stuck in the rut of "modern/traditional" "us/them" binary thinking. I am trying to resolve the fact that I agree with many of his conclusions, but find the logic that Donnelly is taking to those conclusions to be, for lack of a more coherent way to articulate it, kind of fucked up. At least I'm learning a lot as I read.
so far I am SUPER impressed by Donnelly's ability to use circular logic and get stuck in the rut of "modern/traditional" "us/them" binary thinking. I am trying to resolve the fact that I agree with many of his conclusions, but find the logic that Donnelly is taking to those conclusions to be, for lack of a more coherent way to articulate it, kind of fucked up. At least I'm learning a lot as I read.
November 14, 2008
Very informative, if a little dry at times. Donnelly has updated the book quite a bit since the original publication, so make sure you have this recent edition!!!
Read for English 593: Human Rights Literature and Law
Read for English 593: Human Rights Literature and Law
February 18, 2014
A wonderful book for beginner to understand about the idea of human rights, the development of the element of rights after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and the debate inside of the discourse. A solid content, and I'm sure once you start, you gonna like it.
July 11, 2010
Really tough to get through. Not an easy read. I think I have more notes in the margins and underlines than there are words in the book.
November 6, 2012
Jack Donnelly was one of my grad school professors. Good, solid book on human rights.
Read
February 24, 2014i am thinking to know about the of human rights law
November 20, 2013
Jack Donnelly was one of my grad school professors. Good, solid book on human rights.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 16 reviews