Book review: Human Rights, Southern Voices: Francis Deng, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Yash Ghai and Upendra Baxi. Edited by William Twining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 238 pages, Price £26, ISBN 978-0-521-13026-4 Human Rights discourse as a means to establish a just international order is one of the most controversial research-fields for scholars in various disciplines. The subject of human rights is difficult enough to define, but who should be entitled at all to take part in this process remains a permanent topic of ardent discussion. The predominant legal research in Human Rights has developed largely without reference to non-western perspectives, despite the fact that namely post-colonial legal discourse has developed distinct approaches to human rights. “Southern Voices” is one of the first attempts to make such distinctive opinions from the Southern hemisphere accessible and contrast them to the Western academic mainstream on Human Rights research. An attached bibliography broadens the scope of this edition. The editor of this book, William Twining, presents four intellectual activists who in a remarkable way interfere in the contemporary discourse on Human Rights. The book has six parts. It begins with a brief introduction discussing the main arguments of each of the four authors. Twining invites the reader to regard the particular perspectives by comparing their different socio-cultural contexts. The core of the book consists of four parts, each presenting some excerpts from the previously published works of the four intellectuals referring to the topics selected by Twining. The editor has met all four personally and at the beginning of the chapters devoted to the individual authors he explains the work of each, their educational and personal background and their special professional setting. These introductory remarks are in each case followed by a substantial essay of the individual author expounding their particular approach to the topic in question followed by a list of suggested further readings. The book on the whole offers a good insight into the similarities and differences. It helps to compare each particular stance to the other and allows relating them to those patterns of thought that are typical for Western approaches in the study of Human Rights. In my opinion the main purpose of this book has to be seen in its emphasis on challenging the prevailing ideological tendencies in Western research on Human Rights. Twining’s edition makes available the particular views of four legal scholars from a non-Western background to a Western audience. Different social contexts, socio-cultural and activist experiences shaped the mind-set with the help of which they understand, investigate and evaluate law and justice. This pluralist approach counts as an invitation to make academic discourse on internation human rights less parochial and ethnocentric. All four writers, briefly introduced in the following, have been political activists as well as academic theorists. Francis Deng from Kordofan in Western Sudan is known for his career in international diplomacy as well as for his conciliatory role in the Sudanese north-south conflict. The central thematic concerns of his academic work focus on the questions of identity and the complex interaction between tradition and modernisation. The excerpts of his work reprinted in this volume outline the traditional values of his people, the Ngok Dinka of the Sudan, relating them to the norms of Human Rights, to democracy, and to the questions of good governance. He argues that the core values of Dinka tradition and belief are indeed compatible with the values underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His cultural approach to the justification of Human Rights strictly rejects cultural relativism but nonetheless underscores the importance of local traditions necessary to substantiate and complement the otherwise abstract notions of universal rights. Abdullahi An-Na’im, a Northern Sudanese and a committed Muslim is well known for his progressive ideas regarding the Shari’a and Human Rights. Twining chose excerpts of An-Na’ims work representing what he identifies as the three stages of the author’s intellectual biography. Stage one is focusing on the reformation of Islam in the light of Human Rights and international law. The second is emphasising the internal cultural dialogue necessary to give legitimacy to the Human Rights. And finally, An-Na’im argues for a secular state that allows religion to co-exist with public life, public policy and legislation, although he strongly opposes coercive inforcement of the Sha’ria by the state. Commitment to universal Human Rights in the Muslim world, he insists, will only be achieved if those rights can be culturally traced and are consistent with the belief in Islam. To An-Na’im universal Human Rights are legitimised through internal dialogue even more than through cross-cultural appreciativeness. Yash Pal Gay from Nairobi, Kenya, has an unrivalled experience of constitution-making in post-colonial states and in advising governments in Asia, the South Pacific and East Africa. One of his tasks was to reconcile tensions between particular cultural values in multi-ethnic societies and to strengthen the universal aspects of Human Rights through negotiation. Like the others he rejects the exclusive versions of universalism and relativism. He supports an international Human Rights regime in a pragmatic and materialist sense achieved through negotiation and encoded in covenants accepted by the local people. But he points out that governments invoking cultural interests and the right of self-determination may often cover up the reality of material interests and massive violations of Human Rights. Upendra Baxi, from Gujarat in India, is a highly influential activist and writer both in India and South Asia. He describes his perspective on Human Rights as that of a comparative sociologist of law. Like the other writers he also is a supporter of the concept of Human Rights within the international context; but he recognises that the current Human Rights regime is risking to lose touch with those who should be its beneficiaries. He sharply criticises the inflexibility of the Human Rights discourse on the part of the powerful and educated. He calls into mind that the violated, the poor and oppressed are the true authors and interpreters of those rights. Taking rights seriously must involve taking human suffering seriously. To oppose hegemonic interests, imperialism, and patriarchy we must engage in a discourse of human suffering that is capable to move the world. All four Human Rights scholars and activists are legally trained and belong to the post-Independence generation of intellectuals living in countries of the global south. They all experienced colonial rule and have contributed to legal discourse and activism in post-colonial contexts. All four have earned degrees, or have taught at well-known universities such as Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Emory, and Oxford. They are what Twining calls “cultural hybrids”. It could be argued that some of the authors’ opinions were deeply shaped by the ideological bias of Northern academic thinking. Yet, all four try to steer a path between universalism and particularism by emphasising the importance of the local and by stressing the importance of dialogue to overcome the fruitless struggle in Human Rights politics. The book is a valuable and recommendable introduction for students as well as activists to non-western perspectives on Human Rights. For senior scholars of all disciplines it provides a necessary reminder to take into account the experiences and values of individual cultures. The ideological domination of academic institutions of the global north, the handful of critical legal scholars from the global south, the problems of doing research in the poor world, and the fragmentation of international legal studies, has among other things, so far prevented a holistic, trans-cultural dialogue in the study of Human Rights. Even though there are significant differences and disagreements between the four thinkers represented in this volume, they are allies in their struggle to fight poverty, deprivation, and inequality by furthering the development and implementation of Human Rights values. William Twining has successfully made accessible voices of the South as a first step towards de-parochialising the established juristic canon.

SHELL $ 3.5 million penalties. It's a start!

Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) has agreed to pay $3.5 million in penalties and spend an estimated $6 million to install pollution-reduction equipments at three U.S. refineries to reduce harmful air emissions.

The equipment is intended to cut output of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 1,450 tons a year at the facilities in Louisiana, Alabama and Puerto Rico.

Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno said the settlement is an example of businesses' effort to comply with government environmental regulations. "We will continue to work with industry to achieve compliance under the Clean Air Act to remove harmful pollution from the air we breathe," she added.

Corporate Democracy

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, having the status of a legal person, are entitled to the ‘human right’ (first amendment – freedom of speech) by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run government.

The court overruled two existing Supreme Court decisions. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Court held that the government can limit for-profit corporations to the use of PACs to fund express electoral advocacy. McConnell v. FEC applied that principle to uphold the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on “electioneering communications,” that is, corporate funding of election-eve broadcasts that mention candidates and convey unmistakable electoral messages. Striking down these decisions unleashes unlimited corporate and union spending in candidate campaigns, and dooms the 1907 Tillman Act, which also prohibits corporate contributions to candidates.

Corporations have long shown a willingness to spend and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each election through loopholes in the law. Now that the Court has invalidated restrictions on corporate political spending, expect a flood of new money into the 2010 congressional campaigns, state candidate campaigns, judicial elections, and the 2012 presidential election.

U.S. Climate Change Bill passed

The climate change bill requires industry to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by ca. 80 % by 2050. Even though weakend in implementation by the Republicans it certainly can be seen as a great first step finally imposing legal limits on US greenhouse gas emissions. On the one hand it seems incredible that we are only there yet, on the other hand having a closer look at the spent on lobbying on climate change it is a great achievement of common sense over profit. in January, the oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget by 50%, spending $44.5m (£30m) in the first three months of this year to try to influence legislation, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, which monitors the influence of money on Washington politics. According to the Centre for Public Integrity there are now about four climate change lobbyists for every member of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Exxon Mobil, for example, increased its spending on lobbyists in the first three months of this year to $9.2m, from $6.6m for the same period in 2008.

Having the US initiating processes like this and considering the ongoing negotiations with China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/secret-us-china-emissions-talks) one may even allow themselves to feel positive about Copenhagen and call the Kyoto disaster history.

G 20 summit

Clearly, the death of Ian Tomlinson is more than tragic. Nevertheless, it seems to me the real tragedy emerging from the events throughout G20 is that we all seem to be captured by the attraction of side-effects of the actual event. Is that it? Representatives of the world’s leading economies are meeting up to decide about global politics and economics and we are staring at what the police and some protesters in the street do? Why is that worth more controversy and press coverage then the actual outcome of the summit? Why was I feeling deeply ashamed standing outside the ExCell centre last week when there was the chance to look into the faces of the world’s leading politicians, when they where driving by only a few metres from us, looking back into our faces?

Because we were only a couple of hundred people standing there, it was ridiculous. Even worse, more than half of the people counted for journalists and police men. Where was everyone?? I felt deeply embarrassed and sad. There we have the opportunity – if not the duty – to show up representing the people of the world and say: we are here! You are deciding about us! We are the real people!

To me, the very issue lies in our phlegmatic but at the same time sensation-seeking fashion to absorb information and thereby miss out on what in fact is going on.

Innovative Barcelona

Back from the MObile World Congress:
Having heard about a concept phone manufactured mostly from recycled materials and designed to consume less energy in production and operation than existing phone, made from recycled aluminium drinks cans, the rubber keyboard from old car tires; transmission towers that uses up to 50 percent less energy than standard towers. I was pretty shocked to read about the every day environmental awareness of the Spanish: while the amount of solid waste has risen by 60% since the 1990s there is only 9% pf it being fully recycled. having done some research on this , the main reason for it does not seem to be the lack of procedure or separate dust bins, the problem rather seems to be in the attitude of the citizens who apparently are not using the existing systems of waste separation. Well, back to our good old multinationals, i guess it is a good sign that brands that are viewed as 'cool' are at least trying to go a bit greener, even if it is just "greenwash" at the very least there will take a change in perception and attitude take place.

Unfortunately, the gap between innovative advancement in financially driven business and research and the shallow cessation of every day life in the streets of Barcelona showed once again that modern society does need to teamwork on our common goal: the global village and it's maintanance without it overheating.

Giants getting hot

Hey hey, the multinationals are making a move. Twelve leading international companies , including Nokia, Nike, and Hewlett-Packard have signed the Tokyo declaration, which has been organised by WWF and Nokia! Doing though the multinationals pledge their support for a worldwide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in 2050.

Sony, who was targeting to reduce it's emissions by 7 % by 2010 from 2000 levels, already cut their annual emissions by 9 % (Stringer). Having understood that their is no contradiction between economical growths and "going green" (thanks to Mr Stern) it is now our turn to understand to not only paint the multinationals black but teamwork globally.

Well, call me a naive optimist, but in my humble opinion, this is the beginning of a just the change of direction that is needed.