What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era
Micheline Ishay recounts the dramatic struggle for human rights across the ages in a book that brilliantly synthesizes historical and intellectual developments from the Mesopotamian Codes of Hammurabi to today's era of globalization. As she chronicles the clash of social movements, ideas, and armies that have played a part in this struggle, Ishay illustrates how the history of human rights has evolved from one era to the next through texts, cultural traditions, and creative expression. Writing with verve and extraordinary range, she develops a framework for understanding contemporary issues from the debate over globalization to the intervention in Kosovo to the climate for human rights after September 11, 2001. The only comprehensive history of human rights available, the book will be essential reading for anyone concerned with humankind's quest for justice and dignity.
Ishay structures her chapters around six core questions that have shaped human rights debate and What are the origins of human rights? Why did the European vision of human rights triumph over those of other civilizations? Has socialism made a lasting contribution to the legacy of human rights? Are human rights universal or culturally bound? Must human rights be sacrificed to the demands of national security? Is globalization eroding or advancing human rights? As she explores these questions, Ishay also incorporates notable documents—writings, speeches, and political statements—from activists, writers, and thinkers throughout history.
Ishay structures her chapters around six core questions that have shaped human rights debate and What are the origins of human rights? Why did the European vision of human rights triumph over those of other civilizations? Has socialism made a lasting contribution to the legacy of human rights? Are human rights universal or culturally bound? Must human rights be sacrificed to the demands of national security? Is globalization eroding or advancing human rights? As she explores these questions, Ishay also incorporates notable documents—writings, speeches, and political statements—from activists, writers, and thinkers throughout history.
459 pages, Paperback
First published August 2, 2004
25 people are currently reading
212 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 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 14, 2019
Professor Micheline R. Ishay sets out to accomplish an almost impossible task, to wright an introduction to the history of human rights ”from ancient times to the globalization era”. what makes this task almost impossible is that the goal of the book is to be aimed at both schollors and beginners to the subject. it is to this hight goal we must jug the book, while keeping in mind that the goal post is as i stated before almost insurmountable.
As within all fields that demands human creativity, the distinction between form and content is mute. But this fact does seldom become more clear as within this types of books (the broad historical overview). what this means for professor Ishay is that all those she tries to be impartial the main structure of the books conveys her main argument and thesis, which is the following, from ancient times until the era of globalization human rights has grown from nothing until the all-encompassing secular religion it now now through a series of barely related phenomena, sure as the rule of law, an impartial judiciary, the concept of right and virtue, and so one and so forth. All these small drops has so to speak formed the great river or sea that now is our concept of Human Rights.
Professor Ishays has an outstanding ability to collect fragments from widely different times and traditions to build a coherent narrative. In the first chapter, which deals with the earliest ethical and legal contributions to the tradition that will later become human rights, we get to know as widely different companies as the first legal code in the modern sense (hammurabi's code from ancient Mesopotamia) and Confucius's teaching of law and morality.
The main advantage of the book is that it covers so much surface. Unfortunately, this means that it moves a little too often just on the surface in order to be fully completed. But more on that later. The other point on which Ishay is more than praiseworthy is the fact that she dos not the liberals writing her own history, she critically examines it, and finds it wanting. Instead, she shows how, from the outset, the classically liberal traditone only recognized property rights as a human right. And how they fought against any expansion of the concept of fear that the other rights would threaten this right of ownership. as an example, she shows how all liberals feared the idea of the peace of expression and the peace and the press, because the less meddled in society would use these against a natural aristocracy. those who pass the Jacobin Declaration on Human Rights further, both in the United States and in the rest of the world, instead become socialists and Marxists, against a liberal order that, more often then not, comes to ally itself with the absolute monarchs and the forces of reaction.
All well and good, for a person whom has more than a superficial knowledge about history this is nothing new. but the fact that it is taken up and given space in an oversized work such as this is a honor to the author. Unfortunately, there are some other problems with the book. Ishay buys the second part of the story, the one that places the birth of human rights as we know them in the Enlightenment.
As Samuel Moyne convincingly has shown, during the period of enlightenment, human rights was primarily aimed towards peoples and nations, with the ambition of allowing a nation-building. What's more, the idea of human rights that we have today is relatively new and came first to the public light during the 1970s engagement with the genocide of World War II and the failed utopian projects of socialism. Another problem with the book that was previously pointed out is that it is so wide. Certainly, every phenomenon and claim is substantiated by direct quotes from first-hand sources. But quotes from texts that are almost four thousand years old are often misleading. Moreover, the quotes from texts are only 30 years old too.
That Ishay can not have expert knowledge regarding all the phenomena she has to cover is a given. and as a result, like most others, she puts a sign of equality between human rights and natural rights. Most people do, but it is never the less wrong. For those who are familiar with the thinkers raised, the claims become questionable. it is inevitable when it comes to an overview, but it does not make the mistakes any less wrong. Usually it is not even inaccuracies, but a mater of nuances, which taken one and one other do not affect the argument, but together leads the river in a different direction.
That being said, the book holds its water as an overview work, as an introduction. it does just enough to elevate it over most other books on the subject. Above all, it serves as an entry into the subject, it points to important points and phenomena in history, phenomena that have come to influence us to this day. Even if it is wrong from the details, it shows the way for a person who wants to understand human rights history, it shows the fields and topics we need to understand and know more about, which we need to delve into. It is you than most books do.
As within all fields that demands human creativity, the distinction between form and content is mute. But this fact does seldom become more clear as within this types of books (the broad historical overview). what this means for professor Ishay is that all those she tries to be impartial the main structure of the books conveys her main argument and thesis, which is the following, from ancient times until the era of globalization human rights has grown from nothing until the all-encompassing secular religion it now now through a series of barely related phenomena, sure as the rule of law, an impartial judiciary, the concept of right and virtue, and so one and so forth. All these small drops has so to speak formed the great river or sea that now is our concept of Human Rights.
Professor Ishays has an outstanding ability to collect fragments from widely different times and traditions to build a coherent narrative. In the first chapter, which deals with the earliest ethical and legal contributions to the tradition that will later become human rights, we get to know as widely different companies as the first legal code in the modern sense (hammurabi's code from ancient Mesopotamia) and Confucius's teaching of law and morality.
The main advantage of the book is that it covers so much surface. Unfortunately, this means that it moves a little too often just on the surface in order to be fully completed. But more on that later. The other point on which Ishay is more than praiseworthy is the fact that she dos not the liberals writing her own history, she critically examines it, and finds it wanting. Instead, she shows how, from the outset, the classically liberal traditone only recognized property rights as a human right. And how they fought against any expansion of the concept of fear that the other rights would threaten this right of ownership. as an example, she shows how all liberals feared the idea of the peace of expression and the peace and the press, because the less meddled in society would use these against a natural aristocracy. those who pass the Jacobin Declaration on Human Rights further, both in the United States and in the rest of the world, instead become socialists and Marxists, against a liberal order that, more often then not, comes to ally itself with the absolute monarchs and the forces of reaction.
All well and good, for a person whom has more than a superficial knowledge about history this is nothing new. but the fact that it is taken up and given space in an oversized work such as this is a honor to the author. Unfortunately, there are some other problems with the book. Ishay buys the second part of the story, the one that places the birth of human rights as we know them in the Enlightenment.
As Samuel Moyne convincingly has shown, during the period of enlightenment, human rights was primarily aimed towards peoples and nations, with the ambition of allowing a nation-building. What's more, the idea of human rights that we have today is relatively new and came first to the public light during the 1970s engagement with the genocide of World War II and the failed utopian projects of socialism. Another problem with the book that was previously pointed out is that it is so wide. Certainly, every phenomenon and claim is substantiated by direct quotes from first-hand sources. But quotes from texts that are almost four thousand years old are often misleading. Moreover, the quotes from texts are only 30 years old too.
That Ishay can not have expert knowledge regarding all the phenomena she has to cover is a given. and as a result, like most others, she puts a sign of equality between human rights and natural rights. Most people do, but it is never the less wrong. For those who are familiar with the thinkers raised, the claims become questionable. it is inevitable when it comes to an overview, but it does not make the mistakes any less wrong. Usually it is not even inaccuracies, but a mater of nuances, which taken one and one other do not affect the argument, but together leads the river in a different direction.
That being said, the book holds its water as an overview work, as an introduction. it does just enough to elevate it over most other books on the subject. Above all, it serves as an entry into the subject, it points to important points and phenomena in history, phenomena that have come to influence us to this day. Even if it is wrong from the details, it shows the way for a person who wants to understand human rights history, it shows the fields and topics we need to understand and know more about, which we need to delve into. It is you than most books do.
August 5, 2017
A dry chronicle of human rights through time. The false precision of legal statements--the BYO interpretation--is embraced as interesting rather than dismissed as meaningless.
What punishments are "cruel and unusual"? How can the right to life ("thou shall not kill") be compatible with holy war? What crimes are "most serious" to merit the death penalty? Who are the "all men" that are created equal? The statements are uninformative if the terms are undefined.
What punishments are "cruel and unusual"? How can the right to life ("thou shall not kill") be compatible with holy war? What crimes are "most serious" to merit the death penalty? Who are the "all men" that are created equal? The statements are uninformative if the terms are undefined.
October 22, 2017
Great and in-depth historical review of human rights, although not so much good in the parts on religion especially Islam.
May 13, 2015
This is a good general look at the history of human rights. If you are looking into detailed accounts here you won't find it, but it works well as an intro book. There are just so many ideas that are touched upon without due reflection that the reader has the burden of carrying the work further (not that that's a bad thing, but rather something one typically doesn't look for in a book). It is clearly written though and is accessible. For someone looking for an easy and (relatively) comprehensive book on the topic this is it.
March 12, 2014
Rta - the vedic concept of natural order has always taken a supercedence in matter of human rights. The reason is that it is not stagnant but flows. as pointed out by "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
The author takes time and patience to establish this with support of western philosophy.
The author takes time and patience to establish this with support of western philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews