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

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده معارف اسلامی و حقوق، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

گفتمان «حقوق بشر» در عصر مدرن برای دفاع از بی‌قدرتان و رهایی‌بخشی انسان‌ها از یوغ استیلا و تفوق صاحبان قدرت مطرح شد. این گفتمان به سرعت جایگزین دیگر سامانه‌های هنجاری شد و هم‌اینک در قرن بیست‌ویکم میلادی، مهم‌ترین زبان هنجاری برای نقد قدرت سیاسی و حمایت از حقوق فردی است. با این همه، حقوق بشر واجد یک وجه تناقض‌آمیز و سویه تاریک است؛ امروز، محتوا و ظرفیت‌های نهادین حقوق بشر به منبع و ابزاری مشروعیت‌بخش برای تسلط صاحبان قدرت بر ضعفاء تبدیل شده است. این مقاله با رویکردی انتقادی در ضمن روش توصیفی تحلیلی، به این وجه متناقض از گفتمان حقوق بشر می‌پردازد و ریشه‌های آن را در چهار گزاره نشان می‌دهد؛ «گزاره اول» از غیاب مبنای نظری کافی و وحدت‌آفرین برای توجیه حقوق بشر آغاز می‌کند. بی‌مبنائی، راه را بر ابهام معناشناختی و عدم قطعیت مفاهیم «گزاره دوم» و تکثر مصادیق متعارض حق‌ها «گزاره سوم» هموار می‌کند. این سه مقدمه به‌انضمام وابستگی حقوق بشر به ضمانت‌اجرایی به نام قدرت، گفتمان حقوق بشر را به ابزاری برای بسط استیلا و انقیاد «گزاره چهارم» تبدیل می‌کند. وانگهی، چنان‌چه درون یا بیرون از گفتمان حقوق بشر راهی برای خنثی‌سازی این خطرات نباشد، باید عطای این منجی عصر مدرن را به لقایش بخشید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Human Rights Against Human Rights: From Emancipation to Domination

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Saberi Tavallaei
Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

‌ ∴ 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 paper critically examines these challenges and argues that the very strengths of human rights—their universality and adaptability—can also be seen as weaknesses, transforming them from instruments of emancipation to tools of domination.

 ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The central research question addressed in this paper 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 paper investigates the root causes of the paradoxical nature of contemporary human rights, wherein the same discourse designed to defend individual rights is now employed to legitimize actions that undermine those very rights.

 ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The paper 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 paper 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 paper 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 paper 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 paper discusses several examples of human rights being used to justify actions that 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 paper 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 paper concludes by reflecting on the troubling transformation of the human rights discourse, which has shifted from a force for liberation to a potential instrument of domination, with significant implications for justice and equity. 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 paper 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 paper 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 paper 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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Human Rights
  • Natural Rights
  • Political Power
  • Common Language
  1. آرنت، هانا (1392). افول دولت-ملت و پایان حقوق بشر؛ قانون و خشونت (جواد گنجی، مترجم). تهران: رخداد نو.
  2. ارسطو (1364). سیاست (حمید عنایت، مترجم). تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
  3. جوادی آملی، عبدالله (1395). فلسفه حقوق بشر. قم: بنیاد اسرا.
  4. چیت‌ساززاده، امیرحسین و حقیقت‌طلب، پیمان (1400). زیست مهاجران غیرقانونی در ایران؛ بررسی چالش ها و ارائه راهکارها. تهران: مرکز بررسی های استراتژیک ریاست‌جمهوری.
  5. رحیمی، فتح‌الله و حاتمی، سیما (1401). چالش‌های اخلاقی و حقوقی فناوری تولید انسان هیبریدی (ترکیب انسان-حیوان). حقوق فناوری‌های نوین، 5 (3). doi: 10.22133/mtlj.2022.337921.1091
  6. طالبی، محمدحسین (1396). مقایسه گفتمان حق در فرهنگ غرب و اسلام. قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
  7. قاری سیدفاطمی، سیدمحمد و بحرینی، علی (1400). ویژگی‌های انسان از منظر نویسندگان اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر. فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، شماره 51 (2). doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2019.285463.2082
  8. کاپلستون، فردریک (1371). تاریخ فلسفه (مجتبی مینوی، مترجم) (جلد 1). تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
  9. کاسِسه، آنتونیو (1375). نقش زور در روابط بین‌الملل (مرتضی کلانتریان، مترجم). تهران: آگه.
  10. کانت، امانوئل (1380). فلسفه حقوق (منوچهر صانعی دره‌بیدی، مترجم). تهران: نقش‌ونگار.
  11. مطهری، مرتضی (1381). نظام حقوق زن در اسلام. قم: صدرا.
  12. موحد، محمدعلی (1396). در هوای حق و عدالت. تهران: کارنامه.
  13. هوفه، اتفرید (1391). قانون اخلاقی در درون من (رضا مصیبی، مترجم). تهران: نشر نی.
  14. Aristotle (1885). The politics of Aristotle (B. Jowett, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
  15. Bentham, J. (1843). Anarchical fallacies (J. Bowring, Ed.). Marshall & Co.
  16. Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford University Press.
  17. Bix, B. (2004). Natural law: The modern tradition. In J. Coleman & S. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law. Oxford University Press.
  18. Borger, J. (2024, February 20). US vetoes Arab-backed UN resolution demanding ceasefire in Gaza. The Guardian.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/20/us-vetoes-un-resolution-ceasefire-israel-gaza
  19. Committee on Armed Services. (2010). Command and Special Operations Command. U.S. Government Printing Office.
    https://www.centcom.mil/AREA-OF-RESPONSIBILITY
  20. Douzinas, C. (2007). Human rights and empire: The political philosophy of cosmopolitanism. Taylor & Francis.
  21. Finnis, J. (2004). Natural law: The classical tradition. The Oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law. Oxford University Press.
  22. Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
  23. Foucault, M. (2002). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Routledge.
  24. Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-76 (D. Macey, Trans.; F. Ewald, M. Bertani, & A. Fontana, Eds.). Allen Lane.
  25. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our postmodern future. Picador.
  26. Golder, B. (2015). Foucault and the politics of rights. Stanford University Press.
  27. Gordon, R. W. (1984). Critical legal histories. Stanford Law Review, 36(1), 57-125.
  28. Griffin, J. (2008). On human rights. Oxford University Press.
  29. Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.
  30. Ignatieff, M. (2011). Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press.
  31. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2024, March 9). A statement on Gaza and Israel from the president of the ICRC.
    https://www.icrc.org/en/document/statement-gaza-and-israel-president-icrc
  32. International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2024, January 26). Summary of the order of 26 January 2024.
    https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454
  33. al-Jazeera (2024, April 14). Israel-Gaza war in maps and charts: Live tracker. Al Jazeera. Retrieved April 14, 2024, from
    https://aje.io/pnauxp
  34. Kant, I. (1999). Metaphysical elements of justice (J. Ladd, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company.
  35. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (A. W. Wood, Ed. & Trans.). Yale University Press.
  36. Kennedy, D. (2012). The international human rights regime: Still part of the problem? In R. Dickinson, E. Katselli, C. Murray, & O. W. Pedersen (Eds.), Examining critical perspectives on human rights. Cambridge University Press.
  37. Lombroso, C. (2006). Criminal man (N. H. Rafter & M. Gibson, Trans.). Duke University Press.
  38. Lupton, D. (2010). Discourse analysis: A new methodology for understanding the ideologies of health and illness. Australian Journal of Public Health.
  39. MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
  40. MacIntyre, A. C. (1999). Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Open Court.
  41. Marx, K. (1971). On the Jewish question. In D. McLellan (Trans.), Karl Marx: Early texts. Blackwell.
  42. McCumber, J. (2014). Understanding Hegel’s mature critique of Kant. Stanford University Press.
  43. Mende, J. (2021). Are human rights Western—and why does it matter? A perspective from international political theory. Journal of International Political Theory, 17(1).
  44. Middle East Monitor. (2023, October 29). Netanyahu declares holy war against Gaza, citing the Bible. Middle East Monitor.
  45. Middle East Monitor. (2023, October 9). Israeli minister: "We are fighting human animals." Middle East Monitor.
    https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231009-israeli-minister-we-are-fighting-human-animals/
  46. Mill, J. S. (2003). On liberty (D. Bromwich & G. Kateb, Eds.). Yale University Press.
  47. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. Psychology Press.
  48. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2023). Universal Declaration of Human Rights translation project.
    https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/universal-declaration-human-rights/about-universal-declaration-human-rights-translation-project
  49. Perry, M. J. (2010). The political morality of liberal democracy. Cambridge University Press.
  50. Rancière, J. (1995). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy (J. Rose, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  51. Rawls, J. (2001). The law of peoples: With “The idea of public reason revisited”. Harvard University Press.
  52. Raz, J. (2010). Human rights without foundations. In S. Besson & J. Tasioulas (Eds.), The philosophy of international law. Oxford University Press.
  53. Review-Journal, Las Vegas. (2016, June 27). Man ‘marries’ his smartphone in Vegas — really.
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/celebrity/man-marries-his-smartphone-in-vegas-really/
  54. Rorty, R. (1991). Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality. In Truth and progress: Philosophical papers (pp. 167-185). Cambridge University Press.
  55. Sangiovanni, A. (n.d.). Why there cannot be a truly Kantian theory of human rights? In R. Cruft, S. M. Liao, & M. Renzo (Eds.), The philosophical foundations of human rights (pp. 671-691). Oxford University Press.
  56. Schofield, M. (1996). Sharing in the constitution. The Review of Metaphysics, 79(4).
  57. Sedgwick, S. (2011). Hegel's critique of Kant's empiricism and the categorical imperative. In S. Houlgate & M. Baur (Eds.), A companion to Hegel. Wiley.
  58. Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation. HarperCollins.
  59. Singer, P. (2006, May 27). Great apes deserve life, liberty, and the prohibition of torture. The Guardian.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/27/comment.animalwelfare
  60. Talbot, K. (2000). The real reasons for war in Yugoslavia: Backing up globalization with military might. Social Justice, 27(4).
  61. Tasioulas, J. (2007). The moral reality of human rights. In T. Pogge (Ed.), Freedom from poverty as a human right: Who owes what to the very poor? Co-Published with UNESCO & Oxford University Press.
  62. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2024, May 31). Reported impact snapshot: Gaza Strip (31 May 2024).
  63. United States Senate Committee on Armed Services (2010).
  64. (2024, March 25). Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan. UN News.
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931
  65. Wenar, L. (2023). Rights. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring ed.). Stanford University Metaphysics Research Lab.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights
  66. WikiLeaks (2011). Clinton emails: Email ID 12900.
    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12900
  67. Yost, B. S. (2011). Kant's justification of the death penalty reconsidered. Kantian Review, 15(2), 1-27.