Abstract
This chapter reflects on the implications of Russell Hardin’s analysis of subjective group identification and the logic of group conflict for the work of human rights practitioners. After briefly recalling key elements in Hardin’s argument, the author posits that human rights work, often perceived as an idealistic undertaking, has an underlying strategic logic like that which One for All would lead us to expect. The fundamental goal of human rights work is to change existing societal coordination points in keeping with universalist rights norms. Human rights education seeks to shape the content of the knowledge from which people act, while the law-building approach, and efforts to create enforcement mechanisms including sanctions, work both to consolidate and strengthen rights norms, and to raise the costs of non-compliance. Hardin’s analysis of the dynamics of group conflict also has prescriptive implications for intervening to prevent or end violent conflict, by pointing to institutional and policy changes that have the potential to change the incentives groups face.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I re-read One for All in preparation for the Festschrift held in Hardin’s honor at New York University in November 2015. This article has its origins in that event.
- 2.
But Hardin argues strongly against the is-ought fallacy. The existence of a particular coordination point cannot be taken per se to imply its moral rightness. Cf. Hardin (1995, Chap. 3, p. 60ff).
- 3.
See for example the annual U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2017).
- 4.
Hardin does not deny the possibility that moral or philosophic beliefs can motivate individual action. He simply argues that such action is unlikely to be widespread unless it coincides with self-interest.
- 5.
For current information on threatened human rights defenders around the world, see https://www.frontlinedefenders.org, accessed May 21, 2017.
- 6.
The texts of the ICCPR and the ICESCR are available on the website of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx, accessed May 21, 2017.
- 7.
Some of these address the situation of specific populations, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), while others refine and elaborate certain rights, such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT), or prohibitions, such as the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The preambles of more recent conventions always make reference to the universal principles of the UDHR.
- 8.
For example, several declarations preceded the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and are cited in the Preamble to the Convention. The text of the Convention is available on the website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx
- 9.
Each convention specifies the minimum number of states party that are required for it to enter into force. For the ICCPR and the ICESCR, the number was 35. For the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the number was 20.
- 10.
Available at http://indicators.ohchr.org, accessed May 21, 2017.
- 11.
Exceptions include the regional human rights courts, in particular the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as the International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute, which investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In all cases, countries must choose to accept the jurisdiction.
- 12.
The Enough Project is an example of a human rights organization that advocates a form of accountability for human rights violations by promoting economic sanctions. Cf. http://www.enoughproject.org, accessed May 21, 2017.
References
BBC News. 2001. Kosovo Assault ‘Was Not Genocide’. September 7, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1530781.stm. Accessed 17 May 2017.
Freedom House. Freedom in the World. Available for Various Years at https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world. Accessed 21 May 2017.
Hardin, Russell. 1995. One for All. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
MSN Video News Interview, April 5, 2017. Available at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/video/un-human-rights-chief-commitments-to-rights-norms-are-being-dismantled/vi-BBAJGcM. Accessed 21 May 2017.
U.S. Department of State. 2017. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Available at https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/. Accessed 21 May 2017.
United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 2017. ICTY Remembers: The Srebrenica Genocide 1995–2015. http://www.icty.org/specials/srebrenica20/?q=srebrenica20/. Accessed 21 May 2017.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. 2016. Record International Humanitarian Appeal Requires $22.2 Billion for 2017. December 5, 2016. https://www.unocha.org/story/record-international-humanitarian-appeal-requires-222-billion-2017. Accessed 21 May 2017.
United Nations Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2017. A Special Focus on Discrimination. Available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Discrimination/Pages/discrimination.aspx. Accessed 21 May 2017.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. Available at http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2017.
Zwierzchowski, Jan, and Ewa Tabeau. 2010. The 1992–1995 War in Bosnia and Herzogovina: Census-Based Multiple System Estimation of Casualties Undercount. February 1, 2010. http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/OTP/War_Demographics/en/bih_casualty_undercount_conf_paper_100201.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stanton, K. (2018). Hardin’s One for All: Insights for Human Rights. In: Christiano, T., Creppell, I., Knight, J. (eds) Morality, Governance, and Social Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61070-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61070-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61069-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61070-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)