Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal (review)

Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal, by Tony Evans (Manchester University Press: Manchester & New York, 1998), 237 pp.

This book was published to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its distinctive mark is that it is a scathing critique of the moral and political basis of the extant global human rights regime. It is neither celebratory of the great "progress" made in the protection of human rights nor of the euphoria of liberalism within which the post-Cold War interest in human rights has been rekindled. It consists of nine chapters divided into four parts. Respective essays interrogate the various aspects of the theory and practice of human rights. Furthermore, they examine the political, social, and economic role of rights and relate the idea of human rights to the discourse on interests, power, and hegemony in global politics. The leftist leaning and hard-hitting nature of the book is understandable given that most of the authors are seasoned critics among them, Tony Evans, Naom Chomsky and Johan Galtung. In this review, I take a problem approach and focus on the issues of power, ethical and legal dilemmas, exclusionary tendencies, and disjunctures of globalization in the twilight of the twentieth century.

Human Rights and Power in Global Politics

The most nerve-racking problem confronting human rights is the lack of respect for human rights by the main powers. The lead chapter by Tony Evans sets the tone of the book by situating it within the discourse of power in global elbowing and jostling for hegemony among states. The concept and practice of power builds on the Gramscian postulation of hegemony, not as a mere product of "coercive force" but as being maintained through consensus and legitimation of "intellectual and moral leadership." ¹ In the human rights arena, Evans argues that "hegemony is exercised in two ways: externally by influencing behavior and choice through rewards and punishment and internally by shaping personal beliefs, opinions, and values that reflect prevailing interests." ² Evans applies this formulation to global power politics and to analyze the role of the United States--as the global hegemon and leader of the human rights project in the post War era.

The overarching portrayal of the role of the United States in shaping power relations in the sphere of human rights is the strength as well as the Achilles' heel of both the chapter and much of the book. The analysis of how the United States played on a specially constructed hegemonic vision of human rights to break from the vicious cycle of isolation, depression, and war and to embark on global economic and political expansionism is highly impressive and conceptually useful. Yet, the narrowing of the discussion to the United States overplays the latter's role and understates the part played by other actors such as European powers and non-Western nations in building the human rights consensus. The author oversimplifies the resistance to the hegemonic role of the United States in the human rights arena as a two-way clash between the socialist and liberal visions of human rights during the Cold War period. While it is largely true that key players in the ideological blocs elbowed each other in a bid to popularize and enthrone their respective visions, it is equally true that the configuration of human rights during and after the Cold War transcended this ideological straight-jacket. However, the line of analysis adopted by the author falls in well with the discussion on the US-dominated and largely unipolar post-Cold War order. The author bemoans the manifest triumph of the liberal vision of human rights that is borne on the wings of US imperial interests. Hence, he argues, the post-Cold War project of universalization of human rights is neither innocent nor separable from the hegemonic intentions of the United States in global politics. He writes: "As self-proclaimed protector of universal human rights the USA...