New book examines complexity of human-rights issues

By Andrea Lynn

History is rich with examples of human rights abuses, but plenty of cases
exist today - in Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia, and possibly Haiti and China,
among others. While there is general agreement that abuses occurred and
continue to occur, there also is a debate among political theorists,
philosophers, sociologists and human-rights activists about whether there
is an objective standard or norm by which human rights can be universally
justified.

In fact, theoretical minds have grappled with the question of justification
since the idea of human rights emerged in its modern form from the
Enlightenment, and now another voice enters the debate, that of Jan
Gorecki, who has written "Justifying Ethics: Human Rights & Human Nature,"
published recently by Transaction. An expert on the sociology of law, and
professor of sociology at the UI since 1970, Gorecki dedicates a section of
his book to nine "Christian Poles who helped my mother and me to escape
from the Warsaw Ghetto and sheltered us in 1942-1945."

In the book, Gorecki critiques the conventional standards for justifying
human rights - human nature, divine will and reason - then shows how each
can be discounted on analytical or practical grounds. Still, he argues that
human nature - with its "innate plasticity" of human behavior and potential
for social diversity - is sufficient grounds for human rights activity
without objective justification.

"Even so, the justification, if well established, would be of immense help."

He also discusses the cultural and economic  prerequisites for implementing
human rights, and takes a shot at postmodernists' "acceptance of truth
relativism and, thus, their rejection of objective knowledge," which leads
some to "play games with words and logic." In the United States and other
liberal democracies "the postmodern truth pragmatism is, of course, not
deadly. Nonetheless, its dangers are serious."

In a recent interview, Gorecki argued that the United States "has stopped
playing the leadership role" with regard to human rights, because, among
other things, "it has become paralyzed by internal problems." He also
characterized international human rights law as "a terrible set of norms
that contradict each other and are extremely vague and ambiguous,"
primarily because they derive from so-called customary law, treaties and
other sources, rather than from "an orderly lawmaking process with bite."

However, in his book, he suggests that recent events, including the decline
of the most powerful tyrannies, offer a "new chance" for the worldwide
incorporation of international human-rights law.

"The decline, if answered by well-conceived policies on the part of open
societies and especially of the United States - which is a big if indeed -
can bring about a new, agreed upon limitation of any nation's sovereignty
in favor of an effective, central international organization. And this
would entail a better structured system of sources, as well as more
energetic enforcement of international law and, especially, of the
international law of human rights."