Nationalism and Human Rights: In Theory and Practice in the Middle East, Central Europe, and the Asia-Pacific ed. by Grace Cheng (review)

Historically, each stakeholder may have its own legitimate concerns about human rights and nationalism, even if it denies the concerns of others. As a result, there is a gap between academic research and policy practice on human rights and nationalism. Nationalism and Human Rights seeks to fill this gap to some extent, expands the comprehension of the tensions between human rights and nationalism, and makes new arguments for future research. Based on empirical and normative case studies in Asia-Pacific, Central Europe and the Middle East, this edited volume of essays criticizes the cosmopolitan arguments of human rights and nationalism, explores the multifaceted tensions and interconnections between the two essential ideologies, and analyzes the extent to which human rights could be instrumentalized by the stakeholders that have different concerns on human rights and nationalism.

This edited volume features nine chapters. In Chapter 1, Grace Cheng reviews the literature of nexus between human rights and nationalism and describes the contributions of the chapters. In Chapters 2 through 3, the contributors criticize the cosmopolitan mindset that a multiculturalism policy could promote community rather than cultural separatism, and highlights the tensions between specific groups (e.g., national parties) and states. Chapter 2, written by Beyza Ç. Tekin, examines the policy debates of the minority rights laws in Turkey, which securitize minority rights to a large extent. Chapter 3 by Troy Whitford focuses on immigration policies in Australia and analyzes how a white Australian nationalist organization called “National Action” stood firmly against the state’s multiculturalism immigration policy.

In the following chapter, written from a feminist perspective, Lilian Abou-Tabickh reviews Palestinian women’s human rights in Israel, whose migration upon marriage is not recognized by academia and policy makers. At the same time, their human rights are restricted by the state’s discriminatory policies. Chapter 5 by Omar Dahbour criticizes how the conflicting ideas of rights claims (i.e., national self-determination and minority self-determination), and demonstrates fragments of power or cultural differences could probably intensify disputes and conflicts.

In Chapter 6, Filiz Kartal suggests that cosmopolitan citizenship is problematic, which heavily relies on the cosmopolitan commitment of humanitarian interventions. In Kartal’s opinion this “undermines all of the promises of modern liberal citizenship.”¹ Moreover, cosmopolitan citizenship ignores the fact that many countries are not willing to conduct humanitarian interventions. In Chapter 7, Cheng stresses the tensions between human rights and sovereignty, and points out that human rights should be protected in a transnational context. Mitch Avila, in Chapter 8 of this volume, considers that the current international human rights regime could hardly establish a proper order around the world. In Avila’s opinion, “a society of peoples would be just, not a collection of nation-states.”² In other words, the people possess a “moral character” that could make global justice possible, which means “a people’s moral character consists in the kinds of reasons that inform and influence its collective decision-making institutions.”³

This volume ends with Chapter 9 by Füsun Türkmen who makes critical remarks on the tensions between human rights and nationalism and argues that they still seem far apart, especially because nationalism “is by definition based upon a discriminatory approach to identity and . . . stands in opposition to human rights.”⁴

In my view, one of the most impressive chapters in this volume is Chapter 3, “All in the Name of Human Rights: A Historical Case Study on Australian Nationalism and Multiculturalism, 1980–1990.” In this chapter, Whitford’s arguments not only reveal the tensions between human rights and nationalism, but also give a profound analysis of the rationale beneath these tensions. First, “all parties exhibited an intolerance of the other side, even though they all claimed to be acting in the name of human rights.”⁵ This appears to be a key...