Tag Archives: Human rights

 Democracy and the Right to Welfare: Reclaiming Human Dignity through Social Rights 

Posted on by
Reply

Thiruppathi P. 

Ph.D. Scholar 

Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), University of Mysore, India. 

Chair of Comparative Politics SRC 

International Association for Political Science Students (IAPSS) 

Human rights have been touted as the pillars of contemporary democracy, infusing values of freedom, equality, and dignity. While civil and political rights like voting, freedom of speech, and fair treatment under law are touted, social and economic rights are relegated to the background. In order for democracy to be meaningfully inclusive, the right to welfare needs to be accepted as a core human right and not a state-derived indulgence (Beetham, 1999; Sen, 1999). 

This contends that democratic legitimacy is not complete without considering social exclusion and structural inequality—particularly for historically excluded groups such as Dalits in India. The withholding of welfare, dignity, and equal opportunity from the Dalits highlights the imperative necessity of inscribing social rights into the democratic order. Based on the prisms of political communication and rights-based language, this post contends for an expansive understanding of democracy: one that guarantees substantive equality, natural justice, and collective welfare. 

From Political Equality to Social Citizenship 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) upholds both civil liberties and socio-economic rights (Articles 22–26). However, in practice, democracies often treat the latter as aspirational rather than enforceable. As T.H. Marshall (1950) argued, full citizenship involves not just legal equality but social rights—the right to education, livelihood, and health—which allow people to meaningfully participate in public life. 

Nowhere is this disparity more evident than in the life of Dalits in India. Even with constitutional guarantees and effective political rights, Dalits remain discriminated against in obtaining access to public goods, education, health services, and accommodations (Thorat & Newman, 2010). Their plight best illustrates what democracy 

without welfare rights is like—a society in which formal inclusion camouflages structural exclusion. This is a violation of not just human rights but also the concept of natural justice, which presumes fairness, impartiality, and protection against arbitrary denial of dignity. 

Rhetoric, Framing, and Political Inclusion 

Political communication is a central factor in reinforcing or challenging exclusion. The way in which an issue is “framed” determines public perception and policy measures, as pointed out by Entman (1993). When welfare is framed as an entitlement based on human dignity and natural justice, it enhances democracy; when framed as dependency or burden, it legitimates exclusion. 

In India, social welfare schemes for Dalits—e.g., scholarships, affirmative action, or housing schemes—are frequently articulated not as rights, but as concessions or appeasement. Public opinion and policy enforcement are shaped by this rhetorical articulation, dissolving the moral authority of social justice and intensifying stigma. 

On the other hand, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s call for social democracy rested on the premise that “political democracy cannot last unless it lies at the base of social democracy”. His conceptualization of the abolition of caste and welfare as human rights, and not state charity, is a progressive lesson in rights-based messaging and the moral ethics of natural justice. 

Welfare as a Human Right 

Identifying welfare as a human right changes the state’s role: not to give but to guarantee, not to be benevolent but accountable. This is vital for marginalized groups whose rights are perpetually delayed in practice. When Dalit groups insist on land, education, and healthcare, they are not claiming privilege—they are insisting on justice. These calls ring out in all contexts around the world: Black communities’ fight for social rights in the U.S., Latin American indigenous peoples, or refugees in Europe all attest to a common global shortfall of democratic inclusion. 

By restructuring welfare as a natural justice and democratic equity right, democracies allow the most vulnerable to assert their rightful position in the polity, not merely hope for symbolic representation. 

The Democratic Case for Social Rights 

Real democracy is not just a matter of voting—it’s a matter of living with dignity. When political regimes forget this, they open themselves up to solidifying economic inequality and caste or racial hierarchies, even as they may seem representative. To Dalits, social rights—enshrined through education, employment, access to healthcare, and protection from violence—are not merely a question of survival but of dignity and democratic citizenship. Without them, the promise of equality is rhetorical. 

Democratic democracies will hence need to reimagine participation as incorporating economic agency and social mobility. Welfare programs promoting equality must be articulated not only as state welfare measures but as rights from moral obligations of fairness and justice. 

Conclusion: Democracy as Dignity in Action 

The situation of Dalits in India provides a compelling case of why welfare has to be a fundamental democratic right. It teaches us that civil liberties are insufficient where social structures are oppressive. There can be no genuine democracy until and unless these inequalities are met head on through embedding welfare at the institutional, rhetorical, and ethical levels. By bringing political communication into alignment with a rights-based discourse, and by conceptualizing welfare as a necessary component of citizenship, democracies can become more humane, just, and inclusive. In this vision, human rights are not only safeguards against state tyranny but promises of human flourishing and natural justice—particularly for those who were previously excluded from it. 

References 

Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Polity Press. 

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x 

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press. 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom Oxford University Press Shaw TM & Heard. The Politics of Africa: Dependence and Development. 

Thorat, S., & Newman, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Blocked by caste: Economic discrimination and social exclusion in modern India. Oxford University Press. 

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights Violations 

Posted on by
Reply

Laitonjam Muhindro, Ph. D

While internet shutdowns may appear to be an effective strategy for suppressing protests and maintaining order in the short term, they fundamentally infringe upon the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and the right to access information. These rights are enshrined in Article 19(1)a of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various United Nations resolutions that guarantee the protection of these freedoms. The implications of these shutdowns extend far beyond the immediate suppression of dissent, raising serious concerns about the long-term impact on democratic values and citizen engagement. This is to understand a comprehensive analysis of the human rights issues associated with the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns, with a particular focus on the situation in India, specifically in the region of Manipur, as well as a broader global perspective. The study will delve into the various ways in which these shutdowns affect individuals and communities, examining the impact on their ability to exercise their rights and participate in public discourse. The imposition of preventive internet shutdowns by Indian authorities has become a disturbing trend, disrupting the daily lives of ordinary citizens without any conclusive evidence that they are effective in restoring peace and stability. Furthermore, these shutdowns severely impede access to essential information, particularly during times of crisis and emergencies, when access to timely and accurate information is most critical for the safety and well-being of the population.

Internet shutdown is becoming a global phenomenon where the controlling authority is treated as the most convenient and easy tactic to suppress issues immediately in the name of public order.  It is reported that 187 times were in 35 countries around the world during 2022 while compared to 76 times in 2016. Usually, an internet shutdown entails purposefully interfering with electronic communications or the internet to the point that they are rendered completely or partially inoperable. Internet shutdowns have occasionally impacted entire nations, but they usually target a specific population or geographic area to limit the free flow of information in that area. Full and localized shutdowns, bandwidth throttling, and service-based blocking of two-way communication platforms are examples of internet shutdowns, often known as “blackouts” or “kill switches.”

International law has established clear guidelines that acknowledge internet access as an essential requirement for both the practice and fulfillment of human rights, whether in digital spaces or in real life. The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly stated that “the same rights individuals possess offline must also be safeguarded online” and has urged all nations to improve access to and utilization of the internet to foster the complete realization of human rights for everyone. States frequently depend on the justification of “national security” or “public order” to rationalize the interruption of internet services. In legal disputes concerning internet shutdowns, it is crucial to perform a comprehensive analysis of limitations to demonstrate to a court that a right has been violated and that this limitation fails to satisfy the criteria established by Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

Necessity and proportionality

At the core of challenging internet shutdowns is demonstrating that such actions infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, as well as other rights including health and education. Nevertheless, because freedom of expression is not an absolute right, it can be restricted under specific conditions, but only when such restrictions, in line with international human rights standards, are “established by law” and “essential” to guarantee “the respect for the rights or reputation of others” or for “the safeguarding of national security or public order, or public health or morals.”

Human Rights Values Praxis in India: Vishwaguru with Manual Scavengers

Posted on by
Reply

Ms. Sanghamitra Mallick

BITS Pilani K.K. Birla Goa Campus, India

Introduction

India, the largest liberal democracy with a population of 1.4 billion, is a vibrant subcontinent with a rich historical and cultural legacy and often termed as a “Vishwaguru” cultural leader of the cosmos. The Indian constitution, enacted in 1950 post-Independence, accommodated the aspirations of the vulnerable population while absorbing the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 by the UN, which serves as a global benchmark for human rights. Despite the fact that India is hailed as a civilizational state and has evolved as a Constitutional democracy, the human rights situation of the marginalised section of the Indian society remains grim, despite the maker of the Indian Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar whose experience as a Dalit was humiliation, denial of dignity and refusal of Human rights, that he has recorded all along through several of his seminal works. In spite of the fact that the Constitution of India abolished untouchability and advocated the dignified treatment of all human beings equally, the situation of the Dalit population nearly seventy years after the enactment of the Republic is precarious in such a manner that a sizeable number of them are involved in manual scavenging. 

Praxis of Human Rights Values from the Spirit of the Constitution 

A dehumanising occupation of manual scavenging, inheriting a social stratification called the caste system, where the dirty job of society is the yardstick for the Dalits, is constitutionally banned in India. While the spirit of the Constitution (Part III) promotes civil and political rights, the first generation of human rights, the constitution makers left the safeguard of socio-economic rights to the provinces of the then Indian Union, given the limitations of resource allocation through constitution as the “Directive Principles of State Policy” (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution. Thus, a Dalit in India, who is voiceless, is positioned between two columns of Constitutional protection. A) His civil rights are protected and he is an equal before the others, and yet B) his economic rights are to be protected by the Provincial Government, which is supposed to operate in fair terms in ensuring Justice, which is yet to be realised. This praxis would explain how and why manual scavenging in India is perpetuated despite the ban in the Constitution 

Institutional Limitations and Implementation Gaps 

The 1993 Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrine (Prohibition) Act fell under the state subject of health and sanitation, and under Article 252(1), applied only to states adopting it through a legislative resolution. The legal provision is unclear; for instance, the punishment clauses do not specify whether the employer or scavenger is liable for punishment or penalty. It is also a conflicting interest, while a scavenger wants to file a case against executive authority, the same authority is also one to grant permission for filing cases against themselves (Gochhayat, 2018). Since it is a state (Provincial Government) subject, adoption and enforcement differ across states, causing uneven implementation. There is no independent body with enough power to address complaints quickly. There is a lack of political will among states to implement it; some states acted only after the Supreme Court’s intervention.  Exploited by the only means of survival, the fear of social stigma, and the fear of losing their livelihood, manual scavengers often avoid reporting, which leads to poor monitoring data. In 2014, the Indian government, under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi, was installing toilets in rural villages to promote ‘open defecation free’ and eradicate manual scavenging in the country as the flagship project named as Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). But the question is, who is going to clean the septic tanks in the absence of a suction pump (Wilson, 2016)?

Failure of Technological Implementation to Address the Problem in the Age of AI

In this technologically advanced era, there is a continuous dependence on human labour for hazardous tasks like manual scavenging. Indian has the capability to develop cryogenic engines and launch lunar missions, yet we hesitate to invest in technology that eliminates the need for manual toilet cleaning. Despite the fact that at present there are thousands of cases regarding septic tank and sewer deaths in India (Yacoob & Karthik, 2025). 

Conclusion and Recommendation 

Given AI and technological advancements, the mechanising process is feasible. Lawmakers must plan to eradicate this intolerable evil by sufficient budget allocation and concerted implementation of the mechanisation of scavenging in both urban and rural India. Robotic instruments must substitute for humans in getting down the underground drainage system. This is a classic case that depicts the praxis of Human rights Values in India, when a section of its Population hails the Indian State as a Vishwaguru and at the same time, its weaker sections are entrenched in a perpetuated social oppression.

References

Georg, R. (2014, January 28). Brief History of Class and Waste in India. Retrieved from https://longreads.com/2014/01/28/a-brief-history-of-class-and-waste-in-india-2/?

Gochhayat, R. (2018, April 13). Towards Genocide: Upper Caste Policy Over Manual Scavengers. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/genocide-under-the-upper-caste-leadership/?

Mahananda, J. (2018, November 22). Only Manuwadi Hindutva gang can burn Indian Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/only-manuwadi-hindutva-gang-can-burn-indian-constitution-2/

The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of dry Lartines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. (1993). Retrieved from www.indiacode.nic.in: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1581/1/199346.pdf

Wilson, B. (2016, August 24). Who will clean Swachh Bharat toilets, asks Wilson. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Who-will-clean-Swachh-Bharat-toilets-asks-Wilson/article14586879.ece

Yacoob, M., & Karthik, A. (2025, July 28). Let’s raise a stink over manual scavenging in Karnataka. Retrieved from https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2025/Jul/28/lets-raise-a-stink-over-manual-scavenging-in-karnataka

From Rancho Izaguirre, reflections to come

Posted on by
Reply

Miguel Ramírez

Master student in Carlos III University of Madrid

University of Guadalajara

 

The place where I was born and the house where I grew up and lived the most memorable moments of my life is located just 60 kilometers away from Teuchitlán, a municipality in the State of Jalisco, México. Teuchitlán has been on the spotlight among activist and the national and international press in the last few weeks. 

         In Teuchitlán is located Rancho Izaguirre, a property that, in recent days, was secured by Mexican State authorities. This was because it is undeniably the physical space where, without any doubt, actions occurred that have irreversibly destroyed thousands of lives. All the evidence indicates that this place has served as a center of operations where a criminal group trains and disappears people according to their convenience.

The crescendo of the ‘Rancho Izaguirre narrative’ was undeniably triggered by the March 5th dissemination of a harrowing video attributed to the Colectivo de guerreros buscadores de Jalisco/Jalisco Searching Warriors Collective (Franco, Darwin, 2024). documenting their on-site inspection. For an international readership perhaps unfamiliar with this phenomenon, it is crucial to contextualize these collectives as a poignant manifestation of Mexico’s civil society response to the endemic crisis of desaparecidos, disappeared persons crisis. Their emergence underscores the perceived inadequacy and precariousness of the Mexican State’s official response to this profound human rights crisis (Franco, Darwin, 2025a).

These collectives of searchers, essentially grassroots search parties, represent an organized societal endeavor to locate fragmented and concealed human remains across diverse terrains. Confronting sophisticated and disturbing modus operandi of bodily disposal and evidentiary obfuscation, their reason is to provide solace and closure to families grappling with the agonizing ambiguity of disappearance. Operating under duress, these brave individuals often face criminalization from state actors and threats, intimidation, and violence from the very criminal elements seeking to perpetuate their impunity and conceal their barbarity. Undeterred, they venture into the abyss, meticulously documenting the unfathomable horror and savagery that unfolds with impunity across the nation daily.

It is pertinent to underscore here that a significant number of these courageous searchers have themselves fallen victim to assassination at the hands of organized criminal groups, as meticulously documented by the NGO ¿A dónde van los desaparecidos? /Where do the disappeared go? (Nuño, Analy y Ayala Martínez, Aranzazú, 2025).

This grim reality illuminates yet another dark and tragic dimension of this ongoing crisis, an inhumane entrenchment of impunity and the perpetuation of individual, familial, and collective suffering engendered by these disappearances, a chilling attitude that should rightfully terrify and concern us all.

The aforementioned video, capturing the Collective’s entry into the property, offers stark and brutal testimony. The documented scenes are nothing short of an indictment, reflecting the squalor and terror of a nation seemingly adrift in a crisis that elicits insufficient societal introspection, compounded by a tepid and inadequate institutional response. The visual inventory – hundreds of discarded garments and footwear strewn across the Rancho, personal items of individuals who once possessed their liberty and their lives – paints a visceral portrait of loss. The contentious issue of alleged clandestine crematories, purportedly utilized by organized crime to obliterate bodies and conceal homicides, has ignited a national debate, giving rise to the terrifying speculation of extermination camps run by criminal organizations (Ginés, Isabel,2025).

However, the Rancho Izaguirre saga is but another episode within a broader societal and institutional crisis of overwhelming magnitude. In the analytical framework proposed by Mexican researcher Rosana Reguillo, this constitutes yet another grim ‘postcard of horror,’ a stark tableau illuminating the brutal reality of a State seemingly subjugated by the violence and dynamics of the necromáquina, a lethal apparatus of human annihilation operating with near-total impunity across the national landscape (Reguillo, Rossana, 2025), relentlessly extinguishing the lives and liberties of individuals and families.

The disappeared persons crisis– brutally exposed at Rancho Izaguirre – undoubtedly represents the most harrowing manifestation of this necromáquina. The staggering statistics of disappeared persons in Mexico underscore the inescapable responsibility of the Mexican State. According to official government data, as of April 18, 2025, the number of individuals not located stands at a staggering 127,280 (The National Search Commission for Persons/Comisión Nacional de Busqueda, 2025). Pervasive impunity severely hinders the ability to definitively attribute culpability for these disappearances. An overwhelming majority of cases never reach judicialization. In its latest report on disappearances in Mexico, the United Nations Committee Against Forced Disappearance concluded that a mere 2% to 6% of cases have been brought before the courts, with only 36 convictions nationwide (United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances,2022). In 2023, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted the paltry figure of just 40 convictions for this crime, urging Mexico to rectify this trajectory of profound impunity (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2023) While these figures are subject to updates and minor numerical variations, the near-absolute impunity surrounding this crime remains as an undisputed reality.

This context compels the conclusion that a robust and reliable information source for definitively establishing legal culpability for disappearances remains elusive. Nevertheless, it is a widely acknowledged fact that a significant proportion of disappearances have been perpetrated by crime organizations, often with the complicity or omission of state agents, as detailed within the aforementioned UN report.

Recently, on April, 2025, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances concluded that disappearances in Mexico occur in a systematic and widespread manner, a reality that led the Committee to activate for the first time the Article 34 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance (Nucamendi, Marcos, 2025). Thus, the repercussions and possibilities surrounding this mechanism warrant a discussion for another time.

The necessary reflection, therefore, transcends the purely legal realm, yet crucially requires its foundation. In Mexico, the impunity surrounding the disappeared crisis is not merely a statistic; it represents a profound absence, a vital and social void. A disappeared human is absent from their life, from a specific place and environment where they are awaited, and thus perpetually missing. However, this absence extends to the collective consciousness. Impunity signifies the absence of an history, a narrative that must be reclaimed by our public institutions if we are to function as a community committed to justice and truth, and if our institutions are to respond to this fundamental yearning. Addressing this crisis requires dismantling impunity and contemplating how to transcend this devastating reality by learning from it, and mostly, honoring the memory of the hundreds of thousands of victims. Rancho Izaguirre stands as another harrowing tableau, which, while instilling fear and revulsion, must serve as a catalyst for a profound and urgently needed collective reflection on the excessive violence that plagues Mexico.

To contemplate the victims and to endeavor to reclaim their memory, articulating through our institutions a truth, even if merely juridical—as first step—, regarding these systematic and widespread outrages, is an imperative. The alternative consigns us to the Arendtian banality of evil (Arendt, Hannah, 2016), where an absence of reflection stands as fertile ground for mass violations of individual dignity. The crisis of violence in Mexico —the necromáquina—compounded by a pervasive impunity sustained by an overwhelming and inexplicable institutional and social normalization, a sort of lack of a proper construction of the collective memory in the way Hartog presents it (Hartog, François, 2007). This underscores the urgent need for a reflection that has yet to fully materialize but must come: a collective consensus that positions human dignity as the very nucleus of communal and individual action within Mexico.

As I was making the finals corrections to this text, the devastating news reaches me: María del Carmen Morales, who was searching for her disappeared son, Julian, since the beginning of 2024, committed member of the Colectivo guerreros buscadores de Jalisco —the collective that found and documented the atrocities of the Izaguirre ranch —and her son, Jaime Ramírez Morales, have been brutally murdered in Tlajomulco, Jalisco (Franco, Darwin, 2025b). This is undeniably another grim snapshot of the pervasive violence that destroys families and communities with total impunity across México. 

References. 

If You’re a Libertarian, Why Don’t You Support Reparations?

Posted on by
Reply

Juan Pablo Carbajal-Camberos 

PhD candidate Carlos III University of Madrid

In recent years, the “libertarian rhetoric” has gained ground in several Latin American countries through political, business, and religious channels. However, I believe there is a widespread misinterpretation of libertarian principles within the political sphere, leading to glaring inconsistencies and significant intellectual deficiencies.

One of the most notorious examples is the case of Javier Milei in Argentina, a —self-proclaimed— libertarian who fervently advocates for the destruction of the state. He has gone so far as to declare himself “the one who destroys the state from within” (sic), while promoting the privatization of public goods and the free market as a reductionist solution to all social problems. But if those who define themselves as libertarians believe that the market is the only legitimate arbiter of social relations, why do they unconditionally discard compensations when the original appropriations are clearly unequal?

The philosopher Robert Nozick, one of the most prominent theoretical figures of contemporary libertarianism or conservative liberalism—and frequently paraphrased by Milei—formulated a robust and profound conception of justice based on self-ownership, merit, and voluntary contract. Yet even Nozick—much to the surprise of many libertarians—admits that there are historical circumstances (such as slavery, colonialism, or dispossession) that result in unjust appropriations and would require compensation. In other words, Nozick himself admits that a libertarian society cannot be built without first addressing these injustices through substantive reparations.

This point is essential in deconstructing the false ‘libertarian narrative’ often boosted by economic aristocracies. A true libertarian could not endorse a society that privileges freedom without guaranteeing equal conditions for exercising that freedom in competition—could they? If they genuinely valued liberty as a fundamental and guiding principle of society, wouldn’t they seek mechanisms to enable more citizens to achieve higher levels of freedom?

Far from the ideals of the theoretical founders of libertarianism, contemporary libertarian proposals are more akin to a dystopia—like the one illustrated in the film In Time, where the rich live forever and the poor struggle to survive a single day—than the kind of libertarian societies imagined, for instance, by Robert Nozick.

There is, therefore, a fundamental contradiction in today’s self-proclaimed libertarians. They often invoke the names of great libertarian thinkers while ignoring their warnings (or perhaps they didn’t finish reading them). They reject progressive taxation, affirmative action, market regulation, and any attempt at wealth redistribution as threats to some “natural” order. But if they accept that historical injustices exist, how can they advocate for a “free” market that begins from radically unequal starting points?

Many libertarians present their ideology as a pure defense of liberty. But what they often defend is the freedom of the most powerful—the freedom to maintain privilege, not to level the playing field. This view justifies and reproduces structural inequalities under the camouflage of merit. In practical terms, if you were a serious libertarian, you would intuitively accept some egalitarian premises.

True freedom—the kind that allows people to live without fear, without hunger, and with real opportunities—cannot emerge in highly unequal societies or flourish atop historical injustices. To be a serious libertarian, start by demanding equal amounts of liberty and fair chances to access it. Otherwise, what you are defending is not freedom but modern barbarism.

The hijacking of Human Rights discourse: political manipulation and loss of impact

Posted on by
Reply

José Daniel Rodríguez Arrieta

Professor and Researcher at the School of Political Science, University of Costa Rica

Human rights PhD candidate in Carlos III University of Madrid

Human rights, born from the 1948 Universal Declaration as a beacon of justice and universal dignity, are now hijacked by political and social forces that turn them into a tool, abandoning their historical vocation. This phenomenon is not merely a historical accident but a process in which human rights discourse has been shaped and manipulated to serve ideological and geopolitical interests.

We understand discourse as a set of linguistic and symbolic practices that not only reflect reality but also construct it. Discourses are not neutral; they are vehicles of power that shape how societies understand and defend fundamental values such as justice, freedom, and equality. The discourse on human rights, therefore, does not merely respond to an ideal or the need to protect people—it has also become a battlefield where meanings are negotiated and different forms of power are deployed.

In this context, the appropriation of human rights discourse by political actors has led to a distortion that weakens its transformative power. A clear example is the culture war that has defined the relationship between the ultra-conservative right and progressive movements, particularly concerning the so-called “woke culture.” Donald Trump, in his attempt to delegitimize struggles for racial and gender equity, has turned the debate into a dichotomy between the defense of “individual rights” and what he calls “progressive authoritarianism.” This discourse, filled with terms like “freedom of speech” and “reverse discrimination,” empties historical struggles for the rights of the most vulnerable of their substantive content.

On the other hand, progressive movements have also engaged in the instrumentalization of human rights discourse. By placing inclusion and diversity struggles at the center, they have created a sort of discursive orthodoxy that allows no dissent. The defense of LGBTQ+ rights or the rights of racial minorities, in many cases, has given way to strategies that can lead to the censorship of dissenting opinions, paradoxically undermining the very defense of human rights.

From an international relations perspective, the manipulation of human rights discourse becomes even more evident in today’s geopolitical dynamics. Western powers, for instance, have positioned themselves as defenders of international humanitarian law in certain conflicts while applying a double standard in others. The support for Ukraine after the Russian invasion is a clear example: sanctions and international condemnation of Russia are based on the defense of human rights and the right to self-determination of peoples. However, this same fervor is not applied with the same intensity when it comes to Palestine, where human rights violations by Israel have been minimized or even ignored by the international community, exposing the hypocrisy of an international system that fails to apply its principles consistently—an international system that once prided itself on being grounded in human rights principles.

At the same time, authoritarian governments like Viktor Orbán’s in Hungary have adopted human rights language to justify regressive and ultranationalist policies. Orbán has presented his anti-LGBTQ+ laws as a “protection of traditional family values,” appealing to the right of nations to preserve their own principles. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invokes the defense of “traditional values” to justify political repression and the criminalization of dissent, cloaking his authoritarianism in the guise of human rights while actually stripping them of their emancipatory content.

This hijacking of human rights discourse presents a legitimacy crisis both nationally and internationally. When human rights are instrumentalized as a means to achieve specific political ends, they lose their ability to inspire profound and universal social reforms. The rhetoric of human rights, instead of being a force for justice, becomes a tool of power, selectively used depending on geopolitical or ideological contexts.

To restore the transformative power of human rights, it is essential to detach them from partisan and political agendas. This requires a reassessment of their universal character and a commitment to accountability that ensures their consistent application in all contexts. A critical and profound reflection is necessary—not only to dismantle current manipulations but also to reinvent a vision of human rights as a principle of global and universal justice.

Only in this way can human rights regain their credibility and once again serve as an authentic tool for social and political justice.

Conference on 40th Anniversary of Right of Peoples to Peace To commemorate Human Rights Day

Posted on by
Reply

Objectives

At the same time, the year 2024 marks forty years since the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace (A/RES/39/11, 11 November 1984) and the preparation for the International Year of Peace and Trust, 2025 (A/RES/78/266), both resolutions being directly linked to the development of human rights in an environment of awareness for peace against violence.

Considering the current moment of global political instability with repercussions in all areas of the social and intellectual domain, it is proposed that the “Conference on the Right of Peoples to Peace” be held, allowing for a broad debate on issues related to the theme, such as, for example, the culture of peace, sense of peace in restricted system, human rights, democracy and governance, documenta)on and methods, education, etc.

Joint Project
a) Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa (Autonomous University of Lisbon)
b) RC#26 on Human Rights from IPSA
c) Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu (Adam Mickiewicz University in
Poznań)
d) Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (University Carlos III of Madrid)
e) South Asia Research Institute for Minorities — SARIM

Scientific Board
Prof. Dr. Jedrzej Skrzypczak, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan and Chair of RC26 on Human Rights IPSA

Prof. Dr. Oscar Perez de la Fuente, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and Vice-Chair of RC26 on Human Rights IPSA

Prof. Dr. Alex Sander Pires, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa and Chair-Elect of RC26 IPSA

Date
10 December 2024, between 19h and 22h (Lisbon Time)
System
Hybrid.

Schedule
19:00 — 19:10: Opening.
Prof. Dr. Alex Sander Pires, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa and Chair-Elect of RC26 IPSA

19:10 —19:30: Dr. Patrice Vahard, Director of BCNUDH BUREAU CONJOINT DES NATIONS UNIES AUX DROITS DE L’HOMME

“UBUNTU in its relation to peace and its values.”

19:30 — 19:45: Prof. Dr. Jedrzej Skrzypczak, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan and Chair of RC26 on Human Rights IPSA

“The right of people to peace in the pre-war period: 40th anniversary of UND
Declaration.”

19:45 — 20:00: Prof. Dr. Oscar Perez de la Fuente, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and Vice-Chair of RC26 on Human Rights IPSA

“Peace, war, law and Politics.”

20:00 — 20:15: Prof. Dr. José António Frías Montoya, Universidad de Salamanca

“Documentation in Human Rights (in Spanish/en Español).”

20:15 — 20:30: Prof. Dr. Anju Gupta, JECRC University and Member of RC26 IPSA Board

“Women’s rights and gender equality in South Asia.”

20:30 — 20:45: Prof. Dr. Alexandre Miguel Mestre, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

“Olympic truce and the peace of peoples.”

20:45 — 21:00: Dr. Furqan Ahmed, South Asia Research Ins)tute for Minori)es and Secretary of RC26 IPSA Board

“Religious Nationalism as a Threat to the Right to Peace in Digital Spaces:
defending minorities on social media.”

21:00 — 21:15: Prof. Dr. Deepak Mewada, JECRC University

“Human Rights Day: Reflecting on progress and challenges.”

21:15 — 21:30: Prof. Dr. Lier Pires Ferreira, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

“Peace in times of hegemonic rupture (In Portuguese / Em Português).”

21:30 — 21:45: Prof. Carlos Imbrosio Filho, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

“From right to peace to R2P: bridging aspirantions and obligations in preventing atrocities and nuclear catastrophes.”

21:45 — 22:00: Final Remarks and closure

Artificial intelligence and human rights

Posted on by
Reply

Beyond Europe – RC26 session “AI and Human Rights. UN Human Rights Day – part1
” (12 December 2024, 15.15-16.45)

Chair: Prof. Jedrzej Skrzypczak (AMU, RC26 IPSA chair)
Keynote speaker:

  1. Ph.D. Francisco Bariffi (University Carlos III of Madrid) fbariffi@der-pu.uc3m.es,
    o AI and Human Rights in Global Governance: Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups in the Age of Emerging Technologies
  1. Francesco Cirillo, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Tuscia, Viterbo (Italy), francescocirillostudio@gmail.com
    • AI and Cognitive Manipulation: Are European Legislators Chasing Shadows?
  2. Marco Marsili, Research Institute for International Studies, Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Cà Foscari University of Venice, Italy.
    • Navigating the Future: Human Rights Implications of Artificial Intelligence”.
  3. dr. Dorottya Biczi (Széchenyi István University Doctoral School of Law and Political Sciences, Department of Constitutional Law and Political Science, bdorottya2000@gmail.com)
    • The potential impact of artificial intelligence on fundamental rights.

Discussants: Furqan Ahmed (South Asia Research Institute for Minorities SARIM, Karachi, Pakistan, Secretary of RC26 Board) Prof. Ewa Szewczyk (Uniwersytet Zielonogórski, Poland)

Beyond Europe – RC26 session 2“AI and Human Rights”. UN Human Rights Day – part 2

 (12 December 2024, 17.00-18.30 Warsaw/Madrid time)

Chair: Prof. Cassius Guimaraes Chai, (Universidade Federal do Maranhão /PPGDIR/Law/ /PPGAERO/Aerospace Engineering/ and Faculdade de Direito de Vitória (PPGD/Law), member of RC26 IPSA Board)

  1. Prof. Jedrzej Skrzypczak (AMU)

Challenges for freedom of expression and pluralism of opinion in the EU arising from the development of artificial intelligence

  • R.Karmegam Ph.D, Research Scholar (Full Time) Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, TamilNadu, India-608002

            Dr.D.Sivakumar Associate Professor, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University,  Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu,India        

S.Sharmila Devi Associate Professor, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University,  Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu,India 

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATION: Technologies, Diplomacy,  Algorithms.
  •  S.Sharmila Devi Ph.D, Research Scholar (External) Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, TamilNadu,India

            Dr.M.Jeyabrabha Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University,  Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu,India

R.Karmegam Ph.D, Research Scholar (Full Time) Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu,India

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND COMMUNICATION: Global Diplomacy, Conflict Management and Global Inequality.
  •  Hokstok, Kinga Nagyné (PhD student, Széchenyi István University’s Doctoral School of Law and Political Sciences, Judge, Administrative Division of the Győr Regional Court)
  • The impact of the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace on the right to safe work
  • Prof. Ravisankar R S (Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,  NSS College, Pandalam.(affiliated to the University of Kerala, India.)
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI), Surveillance State and the Human Rights Jeopardy

Discussant: Prof. Oscar Pérez de la Fuente, (Carlos III University of Madrid, vice-chair of RC26 IPSA),