Human-rights appeals merely shift authority between unequal sovereign states
Evidence
However, the transcendence Malcolm X seeks consists in a turn from the authority of one state to the collective authority of several other states—a fact indicating that one cannot escape from a world consisting of nation-states that are equal as sovereign entities but grossly unequal in power. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 686 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins by asserting “the inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,” and then turns immediately to the state. In doing so it implicitly accepts the fact that the universal character of the rights-bearing person is made the responsibility of sovereign states, each of which has exclusive jurisdiction over a limited group within the human family. This limited population is—as Foucault noted—at once the object of the state’s care and a means of securing its own power. In other words, although the individual does not have the right to decide his own fate, authorities of the state of which he is a citizen have the constitutional right to decide it for him. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 664 (
#corroborates, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Constitutional basic-rights orders are ‘unsaturated’ and point beyond the status quo. — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 11; Mutual protection among states, not principle, governs UN human rights votes; Appealing to human rights still requires other nation-states, not escape from state power. — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 686 (+10 more)
Broader Connections
- Appealing to human rights still requires other nation-states, not escape from state power.
#corroborates(0.95) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 686 - Universal human rights are administered through sovereign states that decide individuals’ fates
#corroborates(0.92) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 664