Special Session
REVISITING THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS: The turn at 10
Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the publication of Beitz’s landmark work, the organizers of the Braga Meetings on Ethics and Political Philosophy are hosting an international conference to take stock of the practical-political turn in the philosophy of human rights. This event will take place as the Special Session within the 10th Braga Meetings from June 13th-15th, 2018.
The format will alternate discussion panels and plenary sessions, led by our keynote speakers, with selected presentations. Submissions for the panels are welcomed.
The format will alternate discussion panels and plenary sessions, led by our keynote speakers, with selected presentations. Submissions for the panels are welcomed.
BACKGROUND
The point of the political turn in the philosophy of human rights is to make sense of our normative international language through a deep understanding of its function in the global order. Political conceptions of human rights become accounts of a justificatory practice that itself produces urgent reasons for action within this global order. This practical-political turn operates through two conceptual translations. The first translation, from the metaphysics of human agency to the moral ontology of the self-governing state, concerns the subject of rights. The second occurs between normative frameworks, translating from the moral-juridical language of international human rights to a special kind of global political practice that takes rights as public placeholders for justificatory claims
Charles Beitz’s The Idea of Human Rights (2009) holds pride of place in this political turn as the first systematic attempt to conceptualize the multiple discussions sparked by Rawls’s The Law of Peoples (1993, 1999). Ten years later, we are grateful to have Charles Beitz himself to lead a clearinghouse debate with other prominent contributors about what has been gained and lost in the turn.
Among other topics, we want to assess whether we have an improved understanding of the mirroring relation between moral and legal human rights (Raz, Buchanan), and whether we have a clearer account of the connection between international human rights, cosmopolitanism and institutional reform (Føllesdal, Kreide, Lafont, Cohen). What is the role of political agency in the shift in focus from the subject of rights to the conditions for legitimate governance? Can we understand the practice of rights-claiming without a moral account of the rights-claimer (Beitz, Benhabib)? Similarly, if we understand human rights as public instruments in struggles against forms of injustice and according to their function as standards for correction and reform, how open is the political conception to self-correction in light of the injustices it might neglect or allow (Kreide)?
Shifting the scope of the reassessment, does the political turn necessarily imply a state-centric view and a minimal list of rights (Lafont)? Could we instead reduce the particularized list to a common concern with equality of status (Buchanan, Sangiovanni)? And should we also abandon the pursuit of a core conception of dignity (Sangiovanni)?
Finally, what is the “practice” in this practice-dependent conception? Do we have a common account that remains valid across the plurality of cultures, and across the plurality of institutions of the global order and their specific juridical, developmental, commercial, military, and administrative practices?
Among other topics, we want to assess whether we have an improved understanding of the mirroring relation between moral and legal human rights (Raz, Buchanan), and whether we have a clearer account of the connection between international human rights, cosmopolitanism and institutional reform (Føllesdal, Kreide, Lafont, Cohen). What is the role of political agency in the shift in focus from the subject of rights to the conditions for legitimate governance? Can we understand the practice of rights-claiming without a moral account of the rights-claimer (Beitz, Benhabib)? Similarly, if we understand human rights as public instruments in struggles against forms of injustice and according to their function as standards for correction and reform, how open is the political conception to self-correction in light of the injustices it might neglect or allow (Kreide)?
Shifting the scope of the reassessment, does the political turn necessarily imply a state-centric view and a minimal list of rights (Lafont)? Could we instead reduce the particularized list to a common concern with equality of status (Buchanan, Sangiovanni)? And should we also abandon the pursuit of a core conception of dignity (Sangiovanni)?
Finally, what is the “practice” in this practice-dependent conception? Do we have a common account that remains valid across the plurality of cultures, and across the plurality of institutions of the global order and their specific juridical, developmental, commercial, military, and administrative practices?
The Special Session: “Revisiting The Idea of Human Rights: The turn at 10.”
We will revisit The Idea of Human Rights in a sustained conversation organized around the aforementioned questions and with the contributions of our keynote speakers:
Abstract submission is now closed.
Proposals must contain an abstract (400-500 words) prepared for blind review, along with 5 keywords.
Please provide your name, contact information, affiliation, and a short 2-3 line bio.
Please provide your name, contact information, affiliation, and a short 2-3 line bio.
Members of socially under-represented collectives are especially encouraged to apply.
The official language of the conference will be English.
Deadline for abstract submissions: March 11, 2019.
Deadline for notification of acceptance: April 1, 2019.
Further queries can be directed to [email protected]
The official language of the conference will be English.
Deadline for abstract submissions: March 11, 2019.
Deadline for notification of acceptance: April 1, 2019.
Further queries can be directed to [email protected]
