A Global Adaptive System for Supporting Human Rights?

  • David Joseph GerberEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 30)


We often fail to see important dimensions of international human rights (HR) protection because we use lenses that do not reveal them. This short article suggests a way of looking at HR protection that I believe has value in many contexts and for many—those who make decisions about human rights and those who suffer from deprivation of those rights. It reveals important factors and forces that influence HR protection, but that conventional lenses often fail to reveal. In doing so it opens up potential avenues for increasing the effectiveness of efforts to improve such protections.


  1. Cole WM (2015) International human rights and domestic income inequality: a difficult case of compliance in world society. Am Soc Rev 80:359–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dodder R, Dare R (2000) Complex adaptive systems and complexity theory: inter-related knowledge domains. Research Seminar in Engineering Systems MIT.
  3. Gell-Man M (1992) Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In: Gell-Mann M, Hawkins JA (eds) The evolution of human languages, Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity, Proc, vol X. Addison-Wesley, Reading, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  4. Gerber DJ (1998) System dynamics: toward a language of comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerber DJ (2001) Globalization and legal knowledge: implications for comparative law. Tulane Law Rev 75:949Google Scholar
  6. Gerber DJ (2004) Authority heuristics and legal knowledge. In: Gambero A (ed) Ordinary language and legal language in public and private law. MilanGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonassohn K, Björnson KS (1998) Genocid and gross human rights violations. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Koh H (1997) Why do nations obey international law? Yale Law J 106:2599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koh H (1999) How is international human rights law enforced? Indiana Law J 74:1397Google Scholar
  10. Littman ML (1994) Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of Machine Learning, pp 157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer AE (1993) Universal versus islamic human rights: a clash of cultures or a clash with a construct? Mich J Int Law 15:307Google Scholar
  12. Michaels R (2011) Comparative law. In: Basedow J, Hopt KJ, Zimmermann R (eds) Oxford handbook of European private law, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller H, Page SE (2009) Complex adaptive systems. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Narendra KS, Annaswamy AM (2012) Stable adaptive systems. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  15. Roney T (2014) China Rejects Human Rights Report from US. The Diplomat (1 March 2014).
  16. Sacco R (1991) A dynamic approach to comparative law. Am J Comp Law 39:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shelton D (1996) The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of human rights. Am Univ Int Law Rev 10:333–372Google Scholar
  18. Shi Z (1993), China’s just world: the morality of China’s foreign policyGoogle Scholar
  19. von Stein J (2015) Making promises, keeping promises: democracy, ratification and compliance in international human rights law. Br J Polit Sci 46:655–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Waldrop MM (1992) Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Simon & SchusteCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Welch CE (2000) NGOs and human rights: promises and performance. University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang A (2008) Intelligent complex adaptive systems. IGI PublishingGoogle Scholar
  23. Zheng H (2013) Regulating the internet: China’s law and practice. Beijing Law Rev 4:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer international Pubishing Switzerland AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chicago-Kent College of LawChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations