حقوق بشر علیه حقوق بشر؛ گفتمان حقوق بشر از زبان رهایی‌بخش تا ابزار سلطه

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The modern era is characterized by the unprecedented ascendance of human rights as a dominant global discourse. Human rights have not only supplanted other normative systems but have also evolved into what can be described as a "universal religion"—a common language for addressing moral questions, judging good and evil, and critiquing governmental actions. The United Nations' Office for Human Rights highlights this transformation by noting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated more widely than any other document, surpassing even the Bible. This widespread acceptance has rendered human rights the primary tool for challenging entrenched power structures and advocating for individual freedoms.
     However, the very universality and appeal of human rights reveal a darker, paradoxical aspect. To achieve their universal applicability, human rights have been severed from specific cultural, moral, or epistemological roots, making them susceptible to varying and often contradictory interpretations. This detachment from a fixed foundation has led to significant challenges, including normative uncertainty, the proliferation of contradictory claims, and the co-option of human rights by the powerful as a tool of domination rather than liberation. This article critically examines these challenges and argues that the very strengths of human rights—their universality and adaptability—have become their weaknesses, transforming them from instruments of emancipation to tools of domination.
‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The central research question addressed in this article is: How and why has the human rights discourse, initially intended to protect the powerless and critique political power, evolved into a mechanism that can be utilized to justify domination and subjugation? Specifically, the article investigates the root causes of the paradoxical nature of contemporary human rights, wherein the same discourse that was designed to defend individual rights is now employed to legitimize actions that undermine those very rights.
‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The article posits the hypothesis that the inherent weaknesses within the human rights discourse—stemming from its lack of a unified epistemological foundation, semantic ambiguity, and the proliferation of conflicting examples—have rendered it vulnerable to manipulation by powerful actors. These actors exploit the discourse to justify their dominance, thereby subverting the original emancipatory intent of human rights. The hypothesis suggests that unless these weaknesses are addressed, human rights may continue to serve as a vehicle for oppression rather than a means of liberation.
‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
The research adopts a doctrinal methodology with a critical approach, systematically analyzing the conceptual and normative foundations of the human rights discourse. The article dissects the four primary challenges that have emerged in the contemporary human rights landscape:
     Lack of a Unified Epistemological and Justificatory Foundation: The analysis begins with the observation that human rights lack a coherent theoretical basis, making them vulnerable to divergent interpretations and applications.
     Semantic Ambiguity and Conceptual Uncertainty: The study delves into how the absence of a clear definition for key terms like "right" and "human" has led to the expansion of meanings and the potential for contradictory interpretations.
     Proliferation of Incompatible Examples of Rights: The article examines the consequences of the multiplication of rights claims, leading to conflicting rights that undermine the coherence of the human rights discourse.
     Domination and Subjugation: Finally, the research explores how these conceptual and normative ambiguities have facilitated the use of human rights as a tool for legitimizing domination, turning the discourse against its original purpose.
     The framework of the analysis is rooted in critical legal theory, which scrutinizes the power dynamics inherent in the law and legal discourses. By applying this lens to human rights, the article seeks to uncover the ways in which power structures have co-opted a discourse that was originally meant to challenge them.
‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
     The findings of the study reveal a profound paradox at the heart of the human rights discourse. Initially conceived as a means to protect the powerless and challenge the authority of the powerful, human rights have become susceptible to the very forces they were designed to counteract. The analysis shows that the lack of a unified theoretical foundation for human rights has led to a proliferation of interpretations, each rooted in different, often conflicting, philosophical or cultural perspectives. This foundational plurality results in normative uncertainty, making it difficult to resolve disputes over human rights claims in a universally accepted manner.
     The study further discusses how this uncertainty has led to the multiplication of rights, with new rights claims constantly emerging and often conflicting with existing ones. This proliferation dilutes the coherence of the human rights discourse and creates a situation where rights can be selectively invoked to justify opposing actions, depending on the interests of those in power. For instance, the rise of multiple generations of rights—civil and political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights, and collective rights—has led to situations where different groups use the human rights discourse to support fundamentally opposing positions.
     This fragmentation and ambiguity within the human rights discourse have paved the way for its co-option by powerful actors. The article discusses several examples where human rights have been used to justify actions that, in practice, undermine the rights of vulnerable populations. This co-option is facilitated by the fact that human rights, in their contemporary form, rely heavily on enforcement mechanisms tied to political power. As such, the discourse of human rights has increasingly been transformed into a tool for domination, where the powerful can define, interpret, and enforce human rights in ways that serve their interests.
     The discussion highlights the dangers of this trend, noting that if human rights continue to be used in this manner, they may ultimately lose their legitimacy as a tool for emancipation. The article warns that the day may come when more people are harmed in the name of human rights than are saved by them, marking a tragic reversal of the discourse's original purpose.
‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
     The article concludes by reflecting on the troubling transformation of the human rights discourse from a force for liberation to a potential instrument of domination. The analysis identifies four interrelated flaws within the discourse: the lack of a unified justificatory foundation, semantic ambiguity, the proliferation of conflicting rights, and the dependency on enforcement by political power. These flaws feed into each other, creating a cycle where human rights, instead of protecting the powerless, are increasingly used to legitimize the actions of the powerful.
     The Study posits that if these flaws cannot be addressed, the future of human rights as a meaningful tool for justice and liberation is in jeopardy. However, the article also suggests that there may be ways to reclaim the emancipatory potential of human rights. One possibility is to reinvigorate the discourse by grounding it in the lived experiences and struggles of the oppressed, thereby reorienting it away from the interests of the powerful. Another potential avenue is to critically engage with the concept of human rights, refining and redefining it in ways that prevent its misuse.
     Ultimately, the article calls for caution in either abandoning or uncritically endorsing the human rights discourse. Instead, it advocates for an approach that recognizes both the potential and the dangers inherent in human rights. The article concludes by suggesting that future research should explore these possibilities further, with the aim of restoring human rights to their original purpose as a force for justice and liberation.