Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #163

by Andrew Clapham

From the controversial incarceration of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, to the brutal ethnic cleansing being practiced in Darfur, to the widespread denial of equal rights to women in many areas of the world, human rights violations are a constant presence in the news and in our lives. Taking an
international perspective, and focusing on highly topical issues such as torture, arbitrary detention, privacy, health, and discrimination, this Very Short Introduction will help readers to understand for themselves the controversies and complexities behind this vitally relevant issue. Looking at
the philosophical justification for rights, the historical origins of human rights and how they are formed in law, Andrew Clapham explains what our human rights actually are, what they might be, and where the human rights movement is heading.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Law, History, Academic, Read For School

193 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Andrew Clapham is Professor of Public International Law at the Graduate Institute, Geneva and the Director of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He teaches international human rights law and public international law. Prior to coming to the Institute in 1997, he was the Representative of Amnesty International at the United Nations in New York. Andrew Clapham has worked as Special Adviser on Corporate Responsibility to High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, and Adviser on International Humanitarian Law to Sergio Vieira de Mello, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Iraq.

Reviews

[Jasmine · Rating 5 out of 5]

“For human rights to have a greater impact, they have to appeal to people’s imaginations and become properly part of their vocabulary. The vocabulary of human rights can help to formulate these demands. Expressing conflicts in terms of human rights language can reveal the competing interests at stake and suggest the appropriate principles and procedures for resolving the tension.” (p.162)

Andrew Clapham wrote a very readable and concise introduction to Human Rights. I highly recommend it to literally everybody. Throughout my readings, I was quoting quite a lot from this book. For this very short review though, I would like to concentrate on his final remarks. His above-mentioned quote makes once again clear how important language is. And where there is imagination and language, literature is not far away: Clapham concludes his final remarks with a quote from E.M. Forster’s Howards End which I very much would like to share with you all.

“We might finish by returning to the ways in which the expression ‘human rights’ has featured in literature. In his 1910 novel ‘Howards End’, E.M. Forster used the term ‘human rights’ to highlight the injustice of the way the unmarried pregnant Helen Schlegel is being treated by society, and the feelings of solidarity that the other heroine, Margaret, feels towards her sister Helen.

Margaret’s anger and terror increased every moment. How dare these men label her sister! What horrors lay ahead! What impertinences that shelter under the name of science! The pack was turning on Helen, to deny her human rights, and it seemed to Margaret that all Schlegels were threatened with her.

The passage illustrates how, then as now, human rights claims result simply from a sense of injustice and a feeling of solidarity." (p.165)

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 4 out of 5]

As usual, the "Very Short Introductions" series scores with another good book.

We hear a lot about human rights nowadays - but most of us are unsure exactly what they are. Although most of us would agree that each human being deserves to live a life of dignity free from fear, when we get into the specifics, most of us would disagree on many points. Because, as the author says, a "human right" is a very fluid concept, with no clear-cut boundaries.

Using a story by Milan Kundera as a sort of template, Andrew Clapham sets out the following brief characteristics for human rights.

1. For some people, human rights are self-evident and logical.

2. Human rights are claims that occur to people when they feel they have encountered some injustice.

3. A shared sense of grievance provides powerful succour for those claiming their 'rights'.

4. Appealing to rights and ensuring respect for rights is a way of, not only achieving a fixed goal, but changing the system we live in.

5. For some people, there is an historical association between human rights and Western preoccupations, and it has therefore been tempting to dismiss those who raise the issue of human rights as divorced from the actual deprivations they are talking about.

6. The sense of solidarity amongst those who believe they are the victims of a human rights violation can transcend class, gender, and other distinctions.

7. There can be several different logics of human rights depending on culture, time, place and knowledge.

The concern for human rights can be said have started in earnest with Rousseau ("Man loses by the social contract his natural liberty, and an unlimited right to all which tempts him, and which he can obtain; in return he acquires civil liberty, and proprietorship of all he possess") and proceeded through Tom Paine (The Rights of Man), through the declaration of human rights of almost all democracies, to the concept of international human rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, with its 30 articles.

More later.

[Paul Ataua · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is what is, a very short introduction. Lots of good stuff within, but none of it explored in any depth. I was unfortunate enough to choose the audio version which was an emotionless delivery that had me wondering if it was computer generated. If you are looking for an entry level introduction, this is not bad, but I suggest you read and not listen to it.

[Wannida · Rating 4 out of 5]

จบสักที หนังสือที่อ่านจบเป็นเล่มแรกของปี 2020 หลังจากที่อ่านค้างข้ามปีมาตั้งแต่ปีก่อน
หยิบมาอ่านเพราะอยากทำความเข้าใจเรื่อง สิทธิมนุษยชน​เบื้องต้น นี่แหละ ตามชื่อหนังสือ

เนื้อหาในหนังสือช่วงแรกเล่าถึงว่าสิทธิมนุษยชน​ก่อกำเนิดมาได้ยังไง ความเป็นมา กระบวนการสิทธิ ปฏิญญาต่างๆ ซึ่งก็เป็นเรื่องที่เราสนใจอยู่แล้วเพราะต้องทำงานด้วยแหละ แต่ก็ด้วยการใช้ภาษาสิทธิฯ อ่ะนะ เป็นชุดคำที่เรายังไม่คุ้นเคย และยิ่งแปลมาด้วยอีก มันเป็นแนวคิดที่ไม่ได้มีในไทยตั้งแต่แรก และยิ่งไม่มีภาษารองรับ (เพราะเราไม่ได้เป็นคนคิด เราก็ยิ่งไม่มีคำอีก)​ มันก็เลยเป็นการใช้คำแปลกๆ เป็นศัพท์บัญญัติ​ที่เราไม่คุ้น และใช้เวลากว่าจะเข้าใจมันจริงๆ

ช่วงกลางเล่ม เล่าถึงสิทธิฯ ต่างๆ กระบวนการ ที่มาที่ไป พัฒนาการ ก็อ่านได้เรื่อยๆ น่าเบื่อบ้าง ไม่เข้าใจบ้าง บางครั้งก็ไม่เข้าใจเนื้อหาล้อมกรอบที่เป็นตัวอย่าง งงว่ามันเกี่ยวพันกันยังไง มาแบบไม่มี่ที่ไปบ้าง แต่ก็ถูไถผ่านไปได้

แต่หลังจากอ่านจบทั้งเล่มนะ ชอบบทสุดท้ายที่สุดเลย รู้สึกบทนี้อ่านง่ายด้วย (หรือเพราะเริ่มชินภาษาแล้วก็ไม่รู้)​ เป็นบทสรุปที่ทำให้เข้าใจภาพรวม และตอบข้อโต้แย้งได้ดี ว่า คำถามด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน​นั้นเปลี่ยนแปลงไปตามเวลา การพูดคุยเรื่องสิทธิมนุษยชน​ก็เป็นบทสนทนาที่ต่อเนื่อง และมันจะเป็นเรื่องของการเมืองเสมอแหละ เพราะมันเป็นเรื่องของความสัมพันธ์​ระหว่างปัจเจกกับคนในชุมชน โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งกับผู้มีอำนาจ

ผู้เขียนเสนอด้วยว่า การขับเคลื่อน​ด้านสิทธิมนุษยชน​จะเป็นเนื้อเดียวกับวัฒนธรรม​ในสังคมนั้นๆ ได้ ต้องนำคำศัพท์สิทธิ​มาใช้ให้กลมกลืนเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของภาษาที่เขาใช้ อันนี้น่าสนใจดี ในกรณีของไทย ส่วนตัวเราจินตนาการ​ยังไม่ออกว่าภาษาสิทธิจะมาอยู่ในชีวิตประจำวันของคนไทยเราได้ยังไงบ้าง เพราะแค่ในระดับการศึกษา​ขั้นพื้นฐานอย่างประถม มัธยม เราไม่มีการเรียนการสอนเรื่องนี้เลยด้วยซ้ำ แล้วถ้าเอาภาษาสิทธิมาใช้เยอะๆ จริง จะกลายเป็นสื่อสารถึงคนทั่วไปไหม และจะดึงคนเข้าหรือกันคนออกกันแน่?

มีประโยคนึงที่ชอบมาก และทำให้ตัวเองกระจ่างได้มากขึ้นว่าทำไมเราถึงเชื่อในหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน​นัก เราว่ามันให้กำลังใจคนต่อสู้ คนทำงานได้ดี ขอโควทมาไว้ละกัน
"นักเคลื่อนไหวเพื่อสิทธิมนุษยชน​กำลังเรียนรู้ว่าการยืนกรานเรื่องการเคารพสิทธิมนุษยชน​ไม่ใช่หนทางเดียวที่จะเปลี่ยนโลกได้ แต่การยืนกรานเรื่องหลักสิทธิมนุษยชน​อาจเป็นเครื่องมือที่ทำให้มั่นใจว่าผู้คนจะได้ยินเสียงและข้อเสนอที่หลากหลายมากขึ้น"

และย่อหน้าสุดท้ายของเล่มมีพูดถึงสิทธิมนุษยชน​กับงานวรรณกรรมด้วย ฮือ ดีใจ ถึงจะย่อหน้าเดียวก็เถอะ ยกถึงนิยาย Howards End ของ E.M Forster มาโควทและจบปิดเล่มอย่างสวยๆ (จนเราอยากไปหาเล่มนี้มาอ่าน)

โดยรวมก็ ด้วยความที่เล่มนี้เป็น A very short Introduction ผู้เขียนก็พยายามแตะๆ ในเกือบทุกประเด็นแหละ แต่สำหรับเรามันไม่เห็นภาพรวมที่เป็นลำดับชัดเท่าไร แต่ละเรื่องมันอยู่แยกกันจนบางที่อ่านแล้วไม่เห็นความเชื่อมโยง น่าจะดีกว่านี้ถ้าหน้าหรือบทที่สรุปเป็นไทม์ไลน์เวลาด้วย เราเองที่มาเข้าใจบางเรื่องชัด ๆ ก็จากการทำงานและฟังพี่ที่ทำงานอบรมให้ฟังมากกว่า แต่ก็เลยทำให้สำหรับเราการอ่านสนุกขึ้นเพราะมันเชื่อมกันอยู่ แต่ถ้าอยู่ๆ มาหยิบอ่าน ก็อาจจะประติดประต่อยากหน่อย แต่ก็เห็นความพยายามอย่างถึงที่สุดแล้วของคนเขียนนะ

[Pawarut Jongsirirag · Rating 3 out of 5]

ผมว่าผมอ่านเล่มนี้ช้าไปหน่อย เนื้อหาในเล่มเลยไม่ใช่เรื่องใหม่ที่ไม่เคยรู้มาก่อน เนื้อหาในเล่มโดยส่วนใหญ่เป็นสิ่งที่เคยอ่านหรือเคยศึกษามาแล้ว เพียงแต่เล่มนี้นำมาจัดระบบระเบียบและย่นย่อให้เข้าใจง่าย เหมาะกับการอ่านเพื่อวางพื้นฐานของสิทธิมนุษยชนในยุคปัจจุบันได้อย่างครอบคลุมและครบถ้วนดี

ตัวหนังสือเอง ไม่ได้โฟกัสว่ารากฐานของสิทธิมนุษยชนมีความเป็นมาอย่างไร แต่พยายามชี้ให้เห็นว่าเมื่อพูดถึงสิทธิมนุษยชนในปัจจุบันแล้ว มันมีหน้าตาอย่างไร สิ่งใดที่ถูกจัดหมวดหมู่ว่าเป็นสิทธิขั้นพื้นฐานของมนุษย์ที่จะต้องไม่ถูกละเมิดและรัฐมีหน้าที่ในการส่งเสริม และป้องกันไม่ให้เกิดการละเมิดสิทธิมากมายเหล่านี้

ความน่าสนใจหรือเรียกได้ว่ากิมมิคของหนังสือเล่มนี้ คือ การทำให้เห็นว่า สิทธิมนุษยชน ไม่ใช่หลักการตายตัวคับแคบ แต่เป็นสิ่งที่งอกงามและขยับขยายห่มคลุมหลายสิ่งหลายอย่างไปตามยุคสมัยที่เปลี่ยนแปลงไป ซึ่งการไม่หยุดนิ่งนี้เอง ในมุมหนึ่งมันก็เป็นข้อดีที่ทำให้มันเป็นหลักการหรือสิทธิที่ปรับเปลี่ยนตัวเองตามยุคสมัย แต่อีกแง่หนึ่งมันก็อาจกลายเป็นหลักการที่ไม่ชัดเจน ขึ้นอยู่กับการตีความว่าแต่ละคนให้นิยามของสิทธิมนุษยชนครอบคลุมถึงสิ่งใดบ้าง และเข้มข้นมากแค่ไหน

ประเด็นของความไม่ชัดเจนเป๊ะๆนี่เอง ที่ทำให้เกิดข้อถกเถียงว่าวิ่งเหล่านี้สมควรเป็นสิทธิมนุษยชนหรือไม่ และหากมันเป็น มันจะมีความเช้มข้น หรือ อยู่ในสถานะที่อาจถูกลดทอนได้หรือเป็นสิทธิที่แข็งเกร่งจนไม่อาจละเมิดได้เลยไม่ได้เหตุผลใดก็ตาม จนในท้ายที่สุด กลายเป็นคำถามสำคัญของยุคสมัยนี้ เมื่อพื้นที่ของสิทธิมนุษยชน มาปะทะกันเอง จนกลายเป็นข้อถกเถียงว่า สิทธิใดสำคัญกว่ากัน สิ่งใดลดทอนได้หรือไม่ได้ เช่น สิทธิในความเป็นส่วนตัว กับ เสรีภาพของการแสดงความคิดเห็น ซึ่งทั้งสองสิ่งต่างเป็นสิทธิมนุษยชนด้วยกันทั้งคู่ แต่เมื่อก้าวเข้ามาในยุคสมัยที่ทุกคนพูดได้ กลายเป็นปัญหาของ Hate Speech ที่สมควรจะห้ามหรือไม่ หรือมันยังคงยืนเหยียบอยู่ในเจตแดนของเสรีภาพที่ไม่ควรถูกริดรอนไปแม้จะทำให้ผู้อื่นเสียหายก็ตามที

การปะทะและทับซ้อนกันนี้เอง คือ ความท้าทายของสิทธิมนุษยชนในปัจจุบัน นอกเหนือไปจากปัญหาพื้นฐานอย่างการป้องกันการละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนที่ก็ยังคงเกิดขึ้นอยู่ทั่วทุกมุมโลก

สิทธิมนุษยชน จึงไม่ใช่เรื่องสิ้นสุดไร้ข้อโต้แย้ง แต่เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของการสนทนาอันต่อเนื่อง

แต่น่าเสียดายที่บางครั้งเราไม่แม้แต่จะกล้าหันหน้ามาสนทนาต่อกันเลย ...

[Ahmed El Wakeel · Rating 4 out of 5]

صعب انك تقيم كتاب مثل ذلك الكتاب, بل الشيء الوحيد المتاح لك هو ان تفتخر انك آدمي يطمح في اكتمال عنصر الإنسانية بداخلة ليصل لمرحلة الإتزان ويغدو سوياً مهيئا للقيادة والإرتقاء.

" أحمد الوكيل "
كانت رحلة مثرية جداً بالنسبة لي ان يكون الكتاب رقم 51 في 2013 وأول اختيار حقيقي أستغله في زيادة وعيي بحقوقي المدنية كناحية محددة والإنسانية كناحية عامه. بناءاً على ذلك أصبح من العسير تسليط الضوء على أجزاء بعينها.

الكتاب مجملة جيد جداً وطريقة عرضه اختزلت الكثير من الكلام في سطور مكثفة واضحة ومنمقه ومباشرة.

أبرز ما أثارني


كلمة إتش جي ويلز الختامية :
هذه هي حقوق كل البشر. إنها ملك لكم أينما كنتم. طالبوا حكامكم وساساتكم بالتوقيع على هذا الإعلان ومراعاته, وإذا رفضوا وإذا راوغوا, فليس لهم مقام في العالم الحر الجديد الذي عرفته البشرية.



لجميع الشعوب حق تقرير مصيرها بنفسها. وهي بمقتضى هذا الحق حرة في تقرير مركزها السياسي, وحرة في السعي لتحقيق نمائها الإقتصادي والإجتماعي والثقافي.


مقولة محفوظ الشهيرة حول حرية الرأي :
لقد قلت إن حرية التعبير يجب ان تُعتبر مقدسة, وإن الفكر لا يصححه إلا الفكر المقابل.


ليبولد سنجور :
حقوق الإنسان تبدأ بوجبة الإفطار.

البارون بروجام :
التعليم يجعل الشعب سهل القيادة ولكن صعب الإنسياق, سهل الحكم ولكن صعب الاستعباد.

إن اي هجوم منظم أو واسع النطاق ضد المدنيين ينطوي على ترحيل الأشخاص بالقوة,يُعد جريمة دولية ضد الإنسانية, كما أن جرائم الحرب التي تنطوي على تدمير المساكن تعتبر ذات صلة مباشرة بهذة الجريمة. " ما تفعلة إسرائيل ؟" .. هذا ما خطر ببالي.

[Olha Vorozhko]

Як можна зрозуміти з назви - це дуже короткий вступ, але свою задачу описати основні питання книжка виконала

[Evan Dewangga · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought-provoking, probably the best way to start joining the dialogue on human rights is through this book. From the get go, Clapham already gives illustration on how human rights sometimes are seen as criminal's rights, because it protect the well-being of law-breaker. It started with the paradigm, that human rights is far more than individual rights, rather is the rights of society, which show the relation between authority and the common people. Therefore, human rights is never apolitical. Topics such as the dilemma on whether messianic military intervention to "liberate people" is justified or not is measured here. What seems simple, like rights of housing, when weighted with other rights, can be much more complicated. Like stated on this passage:

"Consider the right to water of the people of Gujarat and the rights of those about to be displaced from their housing in the area designated to be flooded for the Narmada dam in India. Invoking human rights does not determine the dilemma."
page 136

It also tackles topics on privacy, capital punishment, and basically the continuous legal progress to universal human rights. Aware with the bias "on the west, not the rest", it also always imply that universality is not uniformity, as diversity brings more approaches to fundamental essence of humanity. It is never one-dimensional and does not answer questions on those many things, rather it makes us question even more based on the historical facts and literature anecdotes.

Like other VSI, it is pretty much jargon-free, suited for casual reader like me. Can't wait to read more VSI!

[Stella ☆Paper Wings☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is decent for what it is- an introduction. Very thought provoking and helpful as a primer. (I read this for a class)

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a tough little nugget of a book. It rewards careful reading though, and provides some food for thought on contemporary issues such as the use of torture and the legitimacy of “humanitarian” military interventions.

Apart from a very brief history of the human rights concept, Clapham approaches his subject squarely from the legal angle. I would rather have seen a deeper disscussion of the philosophical dimension of human rights, and greater consideration given to cross-cultural aspects. Yet the author gives short-thrift to these arguments and clearly sees human rights as universal moral values, if contextually applied. But this fails to acknowledge the thinking of Chinese, Buddhist and Islamic philosophers (to give just some examples), and puts human rights as following uniquely from a Western lineage (Locke, Paine et al.).

A further angle that could fruifully be explored is the role of NGOs (aid organisations) and civil society in advocating for and promoting human rights as a “development” issue. To me, these ommissions mean that the author misses a few points of crucial analysis, albeit in an otherwise excellent book.

[Begum Zorlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book fulfils the promise to provide a good introduction to the concept of human rights and the contention that revolves around it. It sets off with a good overview of the historical process which led to the formation of the concept, its ideational founders, other struggles which shaped and paved the importance of the concept today.

The first chapters of the book addresses the international institutional measures that are utilised to make human rights work and answer questions from International Relations on how does pressure work for non-complying nation states. It also demonstrates that the Non-interference norm has been changing in the international realm and how states contest human rights, act contradictory and with self-interest. The cases of contradiction and success in this field is chosen well to demonstrate the contestation that revolves around this topic.

The book moves on to discuss torture, restrictions on freedom, death penalty, privacy, food, education, housing and work as rights. This calls for overcoming a “narrow” understanding of human rights and see how rights are interrelated.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

While disappointing, Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction is informative. Its brevity does not help it, however, as it is very annoying to start reading about something only to immediately leave it unresolved. There are some technical spelling and theoretical errors parsed throughout, and I can't say the writing was very engaging. Where this book shines is with how it highlights fundamental problems associated with HR. Contradictory laws and false assumptions run rampant in the UNHRC and its long history of disagreement and strife is impossible to overlook. What this means for the UN is not addressed, but it is definitely nice to see such a question being asked.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not amazing and not bad. It didn't really do much for me, though in all fairness I have been reading about human rights issues tangentially for a while. This is really meant for the novice. It gives a very high level look at human rights and their development. It doesn't really get into any debates and stays pretty shallow on current issues. If you have no idea what human rights are or how they were developed then this book may be for you. If you have a basic grasp then move on to more in depth books.

[l · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very, very basic. I can't imagine any of this will be news to anyone.

[Kuang Ting · Rating 5 out of 5]

有一個充滿爭議性的問題，往往激起辯論者的正反論戰，就是關於死刑的存廢。倡導廢除死刑是歐美國家大力提倡的理念，原因不外乎"基於人權保障"，死刑這種終結生命的手段，違反了人權最根本之一:生存的權利。持相反意見的人通常會怒氣沖沖，質疑保障殺人犯的權益究竟是哪根筋秀逗了呢? 這個議題值得深思，而且也有必要持續討論下去。單純以死刑執行的方法來說，人們的觀點其實也隨著時代不同而有不一樣的想法，目前幾個中東國家竟然還存有石刑(丟石頭致人於死)和砍頭這種不可思議的行刑方法，一般人應該都會說這也太殘忍了吧。就算贊同死刑的人，應該也不至於希望行刑的過程緩慢而煎熬吧? 如果有這種想法，我們其實就已經算是在考慮人權的議題了。

因此有一個大哉問，什麼是"人權"呢? 世界上有兩個最有名的人權團體，一個是人權觀察(Human Rights Watch)，和台灣人都熟知的國際特赦組織(Amnesty International)。本書作者Andrew Clapham是一位國際法律師，專長就是國際人權和國際審判。他曾經擔任過國際特赦組織派駐聯合國的代表，他也是一位享譽國際的人權學者，任教於瑞士的日內瓦高級國際關係和發展學院。他發表的意見經常被政府或相關團體引用，總之是一位對人權極有見解的專家。

這一本是關於人權的入門書，入門書要寫的好不容易，我覺得本書寫得非常成功，讓我快速一覽人權領域的重要概念。人權的意義是如此的"模糊"，導致今天任何事情最後都能以"侵害人權"為由提出異議。例如:在國際舞台上，歐美國家以某某國家違反人權進行制裁；示威遊行時，警民發生衝突，與會者抱怨警察侵犯基本人權。這些例子不勝枚舉，我們有必要提出一個問題:到底什麼是人權呢?

這本書非常有條理的將人權的歷史、發展、意涵、爭議...娓娓道來。英文有一個字叫Revelation(揭發、啟示錄)，我覺得很適合形容讀完以後的感覺。作者很客觀，而且大量引用多元的觀點，呈現出人權複雜且深具省思的意含。

作者先討論了哲學上"權利"的本質究竟為何，接著展示了人權的歷史發展。幾百年前就已經有諸如大憲章、法國大革命的口號[自由、平等、博愛]這些號召人們重視自身權益的運動了，不過真正最具影響力的當屬聯合國成立後不久，1948年通過的[世界人權宣言]，有鑑於二戰期間慘絕人寰的悲劇，世界各國有志一同發表了保護人權的宣言，希望歷史別再重演。宣言中試著賦予"人權"明確的意義，但還是不夠清楚。從發表至今，宣言也修訂過，而且針對條文解釋的出版物也不斷地推陳出新。總之，自從有了這個框架，聯合國本身有了指導原則可以執行，各國政府也努力落實到國家法律中。人權也成了外交政策的一種手段，例如美國就經常譴責某國侵害人權而制裁它，但另一方面又販售武器給別人，偶爾又出兵攻打另一國。作者也有針對這種現象進行思辨。

知道了人權的源流，作者接著就深入的分析人權涵蓋的領域了。最基礎的，不能傷害他人，否則就可能構成凌虐(torture)；自由；隱私權；取得食物/教育/醫療/居住/工作的權利；免受歧視和平等權；最後是死刑的探討。如果留意檢視，你應該能感受到人權的意義是動態的，從最根本出發，涵蓋越來越多元的權益，而人權在不同語境下也顯得相當有彈性。

無庸置疑，當今侵犯人權的事件依然層出不窮。有鑑於此，花點心思去理解人權的意義也就非常重要了。這本書給了我很多全新的觀點，讀完才驚覺我以前對人權的認知多麼愚昧。另一個令人欣慰的感受，慶幸自己生活在人權保障相對完善的台灣，得來不易呀，必須好好珍惜，以及繼續往更好前進。

[Jan Slupski · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very short introduction indeed. Sometimes felt too vague, but overall good explaination.

[Max ☭ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I just don't understand the logic behind being "balanced" in topics such as basic human rights. If you think women are lesser being then that's on you. You're not entitled to your opinion, you're entitled to your informed opinion. Nobody is entitled to be arrogant. If you can't conclude that all people are equal in 2024, then maybe you're the lesser being? IDK, this book was okay, but tried to be balanced about issues that should never be balanced.

[Jonny Thomson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a good enough book to cover the basics of the history of Human Rights, and does look at some of the more nuanced, complicated and grey areas of the debate, but 3 reasons it loses 3 stars:

1) It's written in 2005 (not really the authors fault, but a fault of my reading experience nonetheless) which means all the examples are either dated or feel dated. Referencing Tony Blair and black sites seems like it's from a different era. All book on politics need really to be updated more regularly.
2) The book focuses so much on the grey and the nuance to the debate that it doesn't ever really tell you anything. It's so much on the fence, that you don't know what the fence is there for.
3) You get the impression that Clapham is trying to not offend any one or upset any readers. There are no really fully fleshed out examples of human rights violations around the world - only occasional nods. The times he really does seem to get the knife in is at the UK or USA. No doubt these countries have skeletons in their closet, but really a thorough discussion of Latin American or Middle Eastern was needed.

All in all, a tedious book that is short on specifics and big on 'debate'.

[Cerys · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and relatively comprehensive introduction to the basic history and arguments surrounding human rights. Clapham's legal analysis of the issue is excellent and his use of contemporary examples are useful. However, the book had a strong Western focus and lack of philosophical discussion which could've made it far more interesting in my opinion.

[撸撸 狗 · Rating 1 out of 5]

"Both sides of the debates over abortion or assisted suicide will appeal to human dignity as the guiding principle to determine who is right. " That is simply a lie. It seems that the author had failed to prove that human rights exist.

[Antonina · Rating 2 out of 5]

The language is somewhat difficult to scramble through, which i thought was not good for an 'introduction'.

[Mehdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

First reading of this series (A very short introduction). The book covers almost everything about Human Rights, from its beginning (History) to the changes that happened in laws, covenants, and the view we see Human Rights.

To come back to this review (as a revision of this book), these are my highlight and important bookmarks of the book:

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families
The International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Torture:

Several counter-arguments have been developed. First, it is said that information produced under torture is unreliable as the victim will say anything to avoid the pain. Therefore, torture is more likely to generate false leads than help any investigation. Second, it is argued that once allowed in exceptional circumstances, the use of torture will spread, and we will find ourselves on a 'slippery slope' where mistreatment is seen as normal, even expected. Third, it is suggested that torture is wrong because it negates the whole idea that society exists to ensure that we all respect each other's worth or dignity.

No judges are today ready to find arguments to justify torture.

The political philosopher Steven Lukes:

torture is doubly vicious, combining the vice of concealment and the vice of violence - specifically violence against the defenceless. The first is anti-democratic, preventing us from reaching a collective judgment; the second is anti-liberal, constituting, if anything does, a violation of dignity of a person.

Genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, and torture are simply international crimes, which are prohibited and can be individually punished by any state wherever the acts were committed.

The human rights approach starts from a presumption that we all have rights to liberty, freedom of expression, belief, assembly, association, property, and fair trial. Any restriction on these rights has to be justified as proportionate to the aims pursued by the restriction according to a three-stage schema developed in human rights law.

The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states that: 

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a

particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights demands that prison systems shall have, as an essential aim, reformation and social rehabilitation.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

'Education makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.'

decent working conditions and fair wages, the right to form and join trade unions, and the right to strike.

The first right is the right not to be subjected to forced labour. A second right demands that there should be access to the employment market. Third, there should be safe working conditions and just remuneration. Fourth, the right to form trade unions must be recognized; and fifth, workers have the right not to be discriminated against, and to be protected from unfair dismissal. Finally, everyone has the right to social security in the event of unemployment.

Workers must be paid the minimum wage, receive social security benefits, have some measure of job security, be dismissed only with just cause and be paid extra for overtime, and they have the right to form independent trade unions.

The simple response to these arguments is that the death penalty violates the right to life.

[avinash · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decent introduction to human rights. In the end it is about the intricacies where you cannot definitively define what can and can’t be included. We’re evolving with time, slowly realising the dangers we’re inflicting on fellow humans and trying to
Consciously limit some of them. Or atleast trying to limit as many as we can.

Few pointers that I’ve highlighted from the book:

Not every right is viewed from the same pov. Human rights were popularised in the last 1970s and were imposed by the west on to the other countries.

Their perception human rights might not always be the only way or right way.

Take for example, a woman in a rich country went to shop wine in a fancy store and parked in the driveway because there is no other place to park. The entire shop is filled with people protesting poverty and unemployment, dressed in torn and ragged clothes, and trying to guilt trip the customers coming in to buy premium liquor.
Now this woman, while returning sees a police man charging her for wrong parking, gets into a fit and start arguing that it her basic right to park the vehicle after purchasing it for such humongous price and the store cannot provide enough parking, they shouldn’t run it in the first place.
Now imagine, if she designs human rights law for the protesting workers in the store, how would the rights be?

Imad Hassan was a Yemeni national studying in Pakistan. When asked if he knew Al Qaida, he mistook it for a village with a similar name in Yemen and said Yes. He was detained, sold to America for a bounty of $5000 and sent to Guantanamo Prison for 12 years. He went on a hunger strike for 7 years and was force fed over 3000 times. He had several internal and external issues due to force feeding and At times, he used to vomit in his chair, the guards even though they’re not looking, he knew they were aware of the situation.
All he demands for is basic humanity, human right!

Genocide is a crime against humanity.

Right to life? Is that one dimensional?

[Jodesz Gavilan · Rating 4 out of 5]

“For human rights really to take hold, they will have to be understood and fully internalized… For human rights to have a greater impact, they have to appeal to people’s imaginations and become properly part of their vocabulary.”
–––––––
Andrew Clapham’s HUMAN RIGHTS: A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION is a great read for any person who wants to gain more knowledge about something very important yet terribly vilified by many governments today, including the Duterte administration.

Human rights, they say, is as complicated as the many ways governments try to elude accountability over their violations. This book acknowledges this and carefully guides the reader through different factors, instruments, etc, that led to how the human rights field is now.

The book does not only focus on definitions of concepts but also deepdives into significant historical events, complications that deter proper implementation, and arguments surrounding the long history of human rights. Although it is quite disappointing how it somehow has a Western focus, I still like how it also touched on the powerful countries’ contribution to the widespread human rights abuses in the Global South.

Clapham acknowledges valid criticism of human rights and the need for more work to ensure proper implementation on both the global and local levels. But he argues that one cannot dismiss the gains throughout the years and how international instruments such as the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Human Rights Council serve both as measures to hold accountable violators and a reminder for would-be perpetrators.

Very important and appropriate read for these dangerous times!

[Hilario Morales · Rating 4 out of 5]

My auntie from Switzerland gave me this primer, and I read through it on a flight. It starts by tracing the historical foundations of human rights, moving from early legal traditions and religious doctrines to the Enlightenment-era revolutions that enshrined rights in constitutions. From the power struggles that shaped Parliament and the American legal system to the broader fight for recognition, it lays the groundwork for understanding how human rights became both a legal framework and a contested ideology.

But what really pulled me in was how it moves beyond legal milestones, questioning not just where rights come from, but how they’ve been used, challenged, and reshaped over time. It doesn’t just list historical moments, it asks the hard questions. Are human rights truly universal, or are they shaped by Western ideals? Are they a safeguard against oppression or just another tool of power? The book doesn’t shy away from the contradictions, diving into everything from the philosophical origins of human dignity to modern debates about legal enforcement, international intervention, and the balance between security and individual freedoms.

It’s sharp, digestible, and engaging, perfect for anyone who actually wants to understand human rights, not just skim the surface.

If you’ve ever questioned who gets to decide what’s fair, why some rights feel like privileges, or how human rights law plays out in reality (and trust, it’s never that simple), this book lays it all out. Whether you’re in law school or just want to rethink how justice works, it’s worth the read.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read the Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction edition published in 2015. The book has illustrations. The book's introduction is in conversation with the political scientist Stephen Howie’s book Empire: A Very Short Introduction (Clapham 13). Clapham’s book, Human Rights, has a section of references and an index. The book has a section entitled “further reading” (Clapham 179-184). The book has an appendix of “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (Clapham 185-192). The United Nations wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (Clapman 27-28). Clapman writes, “An evaluation of the relevance of the Universal Declaration would have to conclude that the Declaration has had a huge influence in terms of spreading the philosophy of human life” (Clapham 49). Clapham's Universal Declaration of Human Rights also influenced “legal texts and decisions” (Clapham 49). Clapham discusses the “human rights principles related to torture, the right to life, detention, freedom of expression, privacy, food, education, health, housing, work, and non-discrimination” (Clapman 161). I read the book on my Kindle. Clapham’s book is well written. The book provides a box of original texts in each chapter. The book offers examples of several cases involving the concept of human rights. Clapham’s short introduction to Human Rights is well done.
Works Cited:
Howie, Stephen. 2002. Empire: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Kindle.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the ongoing issues with books like these is that they are fairly bent towards American exceptionalism. But of course morality knows no geographical borders. In this short introduction, Clapham confronts different issues that conflict with human rights. Most I agree with, others I did not. But my main qualm is that the premise of theol book is assumed. Why should humans have rights? I don't ask that in a masochistic or draconian manner, I simply mean that this should not be assumed. There should be some sort of foundation to it, otherwise when human rights are compromised there is no structure to which we turn to in our efforts of defense. For instance, let's take the idea that healthcare is a human right. Whether it is or isn't is inconsequential, at least for the moment. We must first establish that humans are indeed indowed rights and it must come from an objective source. If humans determine human rights, and let's say it must be the majority of humans to do so, then they can take those away and undefine them. In other words, human rights cannot be established or given out, but rather they must be recognized in the same way we recognize that gravity is already there.

I wish this was unpacked more because this is such an important precondition that to discuss human rights outside of this context means next to nothing.

[Max Murphy · Rating 3 out of 5]

"...the promise of human rights remains unfulfilled around the world. Daily reports of violent abuse, injustice, and the denial of basic subsistence rights leave no room for doubt that we live in a world of human rights violations... For [rights] to really take hold, they will have to be understood and fully internalized. This means continuing to debate and develop the principles of human rights so that they meet people's needs and expectations. For human rights to have a greater impact, they have to appeal to people's imaginations and become properly part of their vocabulary."

A pretty good back. Not super easy to read, both because it's dry and also because I'm incredibly busy right now. But I chugged through and learned quite a bit about a subject I'm passionate about, which I'm sure is the mission of the "Very Short Introduction" books. Would highly recommend looking them up and finding some on subjects you like.

[MT · Rating 5 out of 5]

- อ่านนสชุดความรู้ฉบับพกพามาก็หลายปี ในที่สุดก็เจอเล่มที่ชอบจริงๆซักที 55555
- ชอบการพูดถึงสิทธิมนุษยชนในบริบทมหภาคช่วง3-4บทแรกมากๆ สนุกมาก ดีมากกกก สิทธิมนุษยชนในสมัยใหม่เคยเป็นสิ่งที่ฟุ้มเฟื่อมเกินไปที่ที่จะเรียกว่าสิทธิได้ เช่น วอลสโตนคราฟที่ออกมาเรียกร้องสิทธิสตรีนิยมก็ถูกปัดตกไป เรื่อยมาถึงสงครามโลกครั้งที่1ที่สันนิบาตชาติมีพูดถึงบางก่อนจะถูกยุบไป กว่าจะมีมนุษยชนจริงๆก้ช่วงหลังสงครามโลกครั้งที่สองหรือ(อาจจะช้ากว่านั้น) เรียกได้ว่าสิทธิมนุษยชนยังเป้นอะไรที่ใหม่นะ แต่นักเขียนก้ไม่ได้มองว่าสิทธิมนุษยชนมันมีประสิทธิภาพขนาดนั้นแม้จะมีแอมเนสตี้หรืออียูแล้ว แต่ไม่ได้แปลว่าองค์กรเหล่านี้จะเข้าไปแทรกแทรงหรือพูดแทนปชชให้กับรัฐบาลในแต่ละประเทศนั้นๆได้จริงๆ อาทิเช่น เมกาไม่เต็มใจที่จะเซ็นสัญญาไม่ซื้อขายอาวุธยุปโธปกรณ์ให้ประเทศต่างๆ สิทธิมนุษยชนในระดับจุลภาคก็มีปัญหาอย่างมากเช่นกัน ทั้งปัญหาปัจัยสี่เรื่อยไปยันความเป็นส่วนตัวต่างๆศาสนา พิธีกรรม บลาๆ
- ชอบที่เรฟเรื่องสั้นคุนเดอรากับอี เอ็ม ฟอสเตอร์ส

[Jerry Wall · Rating 2 out of 5]

Paine's aphorism from his Rights of Man: "my country is the world, and my religion is to do good." p. 8
French Declaration of the Rights * * * rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression." p. 9
Mary Wollstonecroft For surely, sir, you will not assert that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason? p. 10
. . . convention against Tortuare and Other Cruel, etc. . . . 1987 p. 56
2007 the rights and dignity of oldeer persons. p. 57
Torture: Resign, Rumsfeld -- Economist cover p. 87
The human rights approach . . . demands that a government that interferes with individual freedoms can point to a legitimate aim that justifies its actions, that the justification be in accordance with laws that are precise and accessible to the individual, and that the interference is proportionate and necessary in the circumstances. p. 121