How can a normative consensus on human rights develop out of a plurality of different and conflicting ethico-cultural discourses? It is frequently assumed that any agreement on universal human rights must necessarily occur in spite of pluralism from which conflict might arise. Consequently, various images of consensus have been proposed wherein pluralism is viewed as something to be mitigated or overcome. However, such images of consensus fail to offer a satisfactory response to the original question since they fail to fully recognise the political and contestational nature of human rights discourse. This thesis aims to address questions as to how conflict and contingency, both commonly associated with pluralism, can be mediated in a way that is constructive of a particular political community, and constitutive of a vital and innovative discourse on human rights. Hence, theories on agonistic pluralism are discussed and evaluated since they address this very issue ??? the potential for struggle to act as a constructive force. Also in this thesis, a historical analysis of key milestones in the development of a human rights discourse is presented wherein it is argued that human rights have indeed been contingent upon particular instances of struggle and have found expression in a plurality of distinct ethico-cultural discourses. Finally, in order to further illustrate the adaptability of human rights to more than one ethical discourse, examples are presented in which various Muslim scholar-activists justify human rights norms according to Islamic doctrinal principles. Overall, it is the argument of this thesis that it is possible to imagine a human rights consensus, not as a ???world consensus???, but in terms of a sectional political association whose membership is culturally pluralist. In saying this, it must be acknowledged that this construction is necessarily always precarious, precisely because of the contestational, contingent and transformative nature of the discourse of human rights. Also, although only sectional in terms of its support base, the ???consensus??? I describe necessarily strives to become a universal consensus. While universal respect for human rights is ultimately illusive, in view of the universalism of human rights as a discourse, to strive for anything less is unacceptable. In the end, the constant struggle to establish a universal consensus on human rights is precisely that which effects positive, practical change.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/242579 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Bassin, Genevieve, School of Politics & International Relations, UNSW |
| Publisher | Awarded by:University of New South Wales. School of Politics and International Relations |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | Copyright Genevieve Bassin, http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/copyright |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds