scholarly journals Mainstreaming Human Rights Education: What’s Radical About That?

2016 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Rosemary Ann Blanchard

One of the most radical ways of teaching about universal human rights and international humanitarian law would be to teach about these fundamental internationally-recognized standards for humane interpersonal conduct to every child who enters school in the United States.  American illiteracy about human rights and humanitarian law standards contributes to the climate in which the United States preaches human rights to it's perceived opponents while refusing to apply universally recognized hr and ihl principles to itself. From the failure to incorporate into the American educational structure the cultural and linguistic rights of Indigenous peoples and ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to the refusal to submit to the same standards of international humanitarian law which apply to all combatants, U.S. political and military leaders have been able to rely on the unfamiliarity of most Americans with the fundamental principles of human rights and international humanitarian law to insulate them from effective public scrutiny and meaningful challenge. This article describes efforts to mainstream human rights education at all levels of public education so it becomes a part of the educational experience of every child and, thus, part of the background of every adult. The risks of having HRE co-opted are dwarfed by the risks of having HRE sidelined.

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1140-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Chu

Reciprocity is one of the oldest principles of warfare, but humanitarian norms embedded in international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibit reciprocity over various wartime acts. When it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), how do these conflicting norms shape public opinion? One perspective is that citizens who learn about IHL acquire an unconditional aversion to abusing POWs. Alternatively, people may understand IHL as a conditional commitment that instead strengthens their approval for reciprocal conduct. Survey experiments fielded in the United States support the latter view: people’s preferences depend on the enemy’s behavior, and this “reciprocity effect” is largest among those who believe that the United States is legally committed to treating POWs humanely. Puzzlingly, prior studies do not find a reciprocity effect, but this is due to their use of a no-information experimental control group, which led to a lack of control over the subjects’ assumptions about the survey.


1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (168) ◽  
pp. 135-135

On 17 February 1975, the President of the ICRC Executive Board, Mr. Roger Gallopin, met the American Secretary of State, Mr. Henry Kissinger, while the latter was on a visit to Geneva. The talks centred on the ICRC's humanitarian work throughout the world. The Secretary of State expressed the United States Government's appreciation of the tasks accomplished by the ICRC and, in particular, its efforts to promote international humanitarian law.


Author(s):  
Knut Dörmann

The legal situation of ‘unlawful combatants’ has been one of the most contentious issues in international humanitarian law. It has been addressed in some detail in legal writings following the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and then before the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were adopted. The United States-led military campaign in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, revived the debate. This chapter examines the debate concerning the legal framework applicable to the possible detainability and targetability of ‘unlawful combatants’. It first considers ‘unlawful combatants’ in the hands of the enemy within the framework of international and non-international armed conflicts. It then discusses the penal prosecution of ‘unlawful combatants’ as well as their status under the rules of the conduct of hostilities. The chapter concludes by looking at the practice in Israel and the United States, the former in reference to the incarceration of unlawful combatants and the latter with respect to the fight against terrorism.


2016 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Michael Bennett ◽  
Susan O'Malley

In our introduction to the first of these two issues of Radical Teacher devoted to “Radical Teaching About Human Rights,” we cautioned that all forms of Human Rights Education (HRE) are not radical.  The problem, we pointed out, with rights discourse is that it can mask the politics of how rights are defined, whose rights are recognized, and how they are enforced.  This problem becomes evident when HRE is bound up with a neoliberal, or worse than neoliberal, perspective that points fingers at others and rallies troops for supposedly humanitarian interventions while eliding the role of the United States as an imperializing settler colonial state.  Fortunately, we have once again received several essays that seem to us to be aware of this danger and provide admirable examples of radical teaching about human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document