Hypocrisy and Human Rights examines what human rights pressure does when it does not work. Repressive states with absolutely no intention of complying with their human rights obligations often change course dramatically in response to international pressure. They create toothless commissions, permit but then obstruct international observers' visits, and pass showpiece legislation while simultaneously bolstering their repressive capacity. Covering debates over transitional justice in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and other countries, Kate Cronin-Furman investigates the diverse ways in which repressive states respond to calls for justice from human rights advocates, UN officials, and Western governments who add their voices to the victims of mass atrocities to demand accountability. She argues that although international pressure cannot elicit compliance in the absence of domestic motivations to comply, the complexity of the international system means that there are multiple audiences for both human rights behavior and advocacy and that pressure can produce valuable results through indirect paths.

The Rule of Law in America (and Europe) is a political "story," a narrative, and a performance. It is, in fact, a play and a fiction we have created over centuries, based on choices about what kind of society we desire to inhabit. The Rule of Law is neither a scientific nor a particularly rational invention, but an unfolding performance that has been "playing" in America for several hundred years, albeit with some very serious abuses and blind spots. Hypocrisy & Myth takes the position that the "truth" of the Rule of Law requires a degree of hypocrisy and suspension of disbelief in regard to the ongoing "performance." This in no way renders the system illegitimate. It does, however, make the Rule of Law an easy target for criticism in both theory and application. The Rule of Law is an arational and irrational system based upon an uncomfortable admixture of reasoned ideals, pre-rational beliefs, evidential insights, and mythic stories. Modern and postmodern attacks on these foundations-attacks often made for egalitarian or ostensibly just purposes-have the power to weaken societal commitments to the Rule of Law and the legitimacy of the overall political community. The challenge we face is that the Rule of Law is such a central component of the lives of most citizens of Western nations that we can hardly conceive of our societies without it. Individuals raised within the system have come to incorporate intuitively the basic outlines of the Rule of Law as background rights and entitlements that surround them like the air they breathe. But even given its vital role, we have little idea of what the Rule of Law is, how it works, and the ways in which it is threatened through our neglect, self-interest, and ignorance. As is explored throughout Hypocrisy & Myth, the Rule of Law is simultaneously facilitator, catalyst, and barrier against the abuse of power. It motivates individuals toward ideals of evolving community, including the development of our highest qualities of humanity as individuals. Equally importantly, the Rule of Law serves as a governor on the uses of collective power against members of that community. In this sense, the Rule of Law provides a rallying point from which individuals may morally resist abuses of power by the community. In this latter dimension, the Rule of Law limits the ability of the state to control citizens through the specific exercise of legal power. About the Authors: David Barnhizer is Professor of Law Emeritus at the Cleveland State University College of Law. Daniel Barnhizer is an associate professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law He received a LL.M from Harvard Law School and a J.D. summa cum laude, from the Ohio State University College of Law where he was Articles Editor of the Ohio State Law Journal. He has been a Visiting Fellow at the University of London's Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. He was Senior Advisor to the International Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Strategic Consultant to the Government of Mongolia, and has authored more than forty articles and six books. His teaching has included Jurisprudence, Ethics, Trial Advocacy, Strategy, Dispute Resolution, Environmental Law, Human Rights, International Trade and Toxic Torts. Daniel Barnhizer is an associate professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law, where he teaches and writes in the areas of business, contract, securities, and commercial law. Professor Barnhizer maintains a consulting practice in corporate and securities law. Professor Barnhizer worked as a litigator in Washington, D.C., with practice areas focused on corporate governance, securities law, and white collar criminal law. He graduated with honors from Harvard Law School where he was Managing Editor of the Harvard Environmental Law Review.

A critical assessement of the problems of sincerity and truth in politics argues that we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics without resigning ourselves to it or embracing it, drawing on the lessons of such thinkers as Hobbes, Mandeville, Jefferson, Bentham, Sigwick, and Orwell.

Richardson-Little exposes the forgotten history of human rights in the German Democratic Republic, placing the history of the Cold War, Eastern European dissidents and the revolutions of 1989 in a new light. By demonstrating how even a communist dictatorship could imagine itself to be a champion of human rights, this book challenges popular narratives on the fall of the Berlin Wall and illustrates how notions of human rights evolved in the Cold War as they were re-imagined in East Germany by both dissidents and state officials. Ultimately, the fight for human rights in East Germany was part of a global battle in the post-war era over competing conceptions of what human rights meant. Nonetheless, the collapse of dictatorship in East Germany did not end this conflict, as citizens had to choose for themselves what kind of human rights would follow in its wake.

Michael Ignatieff draws on his extensive experience as a writer and commentator on world affairs to present a penetrating account of the successes, failures, and prospects of the human rights revolution. Since the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, this revolution has brought the world moral progress and broken the nation-state's monopoly on the conduct of international affairs. But it has also faced challenges. Ignatieff argues that human rights activists have rightly drawn criticism from Asia, the Islamic world, and within the West itself for being overambitious and unwilling to accept limits. It is now time, he writes, for activists to embrace a more modest agenda and to reestablish the balance between the rights of states and the rights of citizens. Ignatieff begins by examining the politics of human rights, assessing when it is appropriate to use the fact of human rights abuse to justify intervention in other countries. He then explores the ideas that underpin human rights, warning that human rights must not become an idolatry. In the spirit of Isaiah Berlin, he argues that human rights can command universal assent only if they are designed to protect and enhance the capacity of individuals to lead the lives they wish. By embracing this approach and recognizing that state sovereignty is the best guarantee against chaos, Ignatieff concludes, Western nations will have a better chance of extending the real progress of the past fifty years. Throughout, Ignatieff balances idealism with a sure sense of practical reality earned from his years of travel in zones of war and political turmoil around the globe. Based on the Tanner Lectures that Ignatieff delivered at Princeton University's Center for Human Values in 2000, the book includes two chapters by Ignatieff, an introduction by Amy Gutmann, comments by four leading scholars--K. Anthony Appiah, David A. Hollinger, Thomas W. Laqueur, and Diane F. Orentlicher--and a response by Ignatieff.

It’s one of the most common complaints against Christians: “They’re all a bunch of hypocrites!” Yet surprisingly, the topic of hypocrisy has remained largely unaddressed both in Christian and secular literature. In Hypocrisy, James Spiegel draws insights from ethics, theology, psychology, apologetics, and spiritual formation to guide you through this complex subject.

The evolutionary psychology behind human inconsistency We're all hypocrites. Why? Hypocrisy is the natural state of the human mind. Robert Kurzban shows us that the key to understanding our behavioral inconsistencies lies in understanding the mind's design. The human mind consists of many specialized units designed by the process of evolution by natural selection. While these modules sometimes work together seamlessly, they don't always, resulting in impossibly contradictory beliefs, vacillations between patience and impulsiveness, violations of our supposed moral principles, and overinflated views of ourselves. This modular, evolutionary psychological view of the mind undermines deeply held intuitions about ourselves, as well as a range of scientific theories that require a "self" with consistent beliefs and preferences. Modularity suggests that there is no "I." Instead, each of us is a contentious "we"--a collection of discrete but interacting systems whose constant conflicts shape our interactions with one another and our experience of the world. In clear language, full of wit and rich in examples, Kurzban explains the roots and implications of our inconsistent minds, and why it is perfectly natural to believe that everyone else is a hypocrite.

The shocking story of the legal persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and the dangerous implications for the whistleblowers of the future. In July 2010, Wikileaks published Cablegate, one of the biggest leaks in the history of the US military, including evidence for war crimes and torture. In the aftermath Julian Assange, the founder and spokesman of Wikileaks, found himself at the center of a media storm, accused of hacking and later sexual assault. He spent the next seven years in asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, fearful that he would be extradited to Sweden to face the accusations of assault and then sent to US. In 2019, Assange was handed over to the British police and, on the same day, the U.S. demanded his extradition. They threatened him with up to 175 years in prison for alleged espionage and computer fraud. At this point, Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, started his investigation into how the US and UK governments were working together to ensure a conviction. His findings are explosive, revealing that Assange has faced grave and systematic due process violations, judicial bias, collusion and manipulated evidence. He has been the victim of constant surveillance, defamation and threats. Melzer also gathered together consolidated medical evidence that proves that Assange has suffered prolonged psychological torture. Melzer’s compelling investigation puts the UK and US state into the dock, showing how, through secrecy, impunity and, crucially, public indifference, unchecked power reveals a deeply undemocratic system. Furthermore, the Assange case sets a dangerous precedent: once telling the truth becomes a crime, censorship and tyranny will inevitably follow. The Trial of Julian Assange is told in three parts: the first explores Nils Melzer’s own story about how he became involved in the case and why Assange’s case falls under his mandate as the Special Rapporteur on Torture. The second section returns to 2010 when Wikileaks released the largest leak in the history of the U.S. military, exposing war crimes and corruption, and Nils makes the case that Swedish authorities manipulated charges against Assange to force his extradition to the US and publicly discredit him. In the third section, the author returns to 2019 and picks up the case as Ecuador kicks Assange out of the embassy and lays out the case as it currently stands, as well as the stakes involved for other potential whistleblowers trying to serve the public interest.

This book brings together two of the most powerful and relevant philosophical critiques of human rights: the post-colonialist and the post-Althusserian, its balanced internal structure not just throwing these two critiques together, but actually forcing them to enter into confrontation and dialogue. The book is organised in three parts: at each end, the post-colonialist and the post-Althusserian critiques are represented by some of their main thinkers (Ratna Kapur, G. C. Spivak, Upendra Baxi; Slavoj Žižek, Jacques Rancière), while in the middle, an American intermezzo (Richard Rorty, Wendy Brown) functions as a genuine Derridian supplement: always already contaminating the purity of the two theoretical schools, preventing their enclosure and, hence, fuelling and complicating further their mutual confrontation. As in any authentic dialogue, the introduction and the conclusion each claim victory for one of the sides by changing the very terms and rules of the dialogue, picturing it as a confrontation between emancipatory universalism and inefficient particularism (from the perspective of the post-Althusserians), or as a split between hypocrisy and truth (from the perspective of the post-colonialists).