Accidental Crossings: Tourism, Sex Work, and Women’s Rights in the Dominican Republic

Abstract

Who is worthy of protection under international laws? Who is subject to the exclusionary practices of feminist politics and the human rights regime? The work of Joy Ezeilo (chapter 9) and Corinne Kumar (chapter 7) in this volume point to the possibilities and challenges posed by the international human rights regime. Kumar, in particular, questions the prevailing paradigm that Sonia Alvarez (2000) describes as “andocentric, classist, western, and racialized postwar interpretations of human rights” (48). The foundational premise for conceptualizing human rights—the liberal-democratic rights characteristic of the European Enlightenment—does not accommodate other definitions of rights, cultures, and value systems, allowing for only the narrowest interpretation of difference within its logic and imposing a worldwide regime that excludes other epistemological paradigms. Redress within this system comes from the nation-state, ironically the most violent offender and abuser of human rights. Kumar’s logic reminds us of Audre Lorde’s argument that “the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde 1984, 112). Her work challenges us to envision other frameworks that do not assume Western, hegemonic, liberal principles as the starting point in conceptualizing human rights.