Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times by Jack Snyder (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times by Jack Snyder Mark Gibney (bio) Jack Snyder, Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times (Princeton University Press 2022), ISBN 9780691231549, 328 pages. One of the oddest things about Human Rights for Pragmatists: Social Power in Modern Times is how unpragmatic the book happens to be. Published in the middle of the worldwide Covid epidemic, with the ever-frightening specter of climate change staring all of mankind in the face, there is simply no mention of either of these two things. Instead, Jack Snyder criticizes the confrontational work of civil society organizations, while setting forth a program for improving human rights that relies on a combination of self interest and social movements based on coalition building, with the goal of achieving some form of political power, or as Snyder repeatedly states: rights follow power. This is all fine and good and Snyder's call for factoring in practical political solutions should certainly not fall on deaf ears. Yet, there are a number of aspects of his program that are in need of closer scrutiny. One is that he seems to equate non-governmental organizations with the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which have certainly based much of their work on "naming and shaming" governments that [End Page 731] violate human rights standards. Yet, the truth is that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of civil society organizations operating in the world whose work does not revolve around "naming and shaming." Some of these are indigenous organizations, while others are more international in scope. One would hope that these organizations would heed Snyder's call and recognize their shared interests and values and seek to work together with one another—but it is also quite likely that they already are doing some of this, although what they are seeking to achieve is oftentimes much more localized, and certainly much less grandiose than what Snyder has his sights on. Another aspect of Snyder's work that needs closer scrutiny is his notion of what "outsiders" can bring to this enterprise. One thing that Snyder seems to ignore completely is the role that "outsiders" can play in perpetuating human rights violations in other states. No doubt the prime example of this is climate change, where those states that produce the lowest levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have had to bear the brunt of dealing with increased temperatures, flooding and, perhaps just as importantly, a world that does not want to acknowledge the enormous harm that it is already causing. In other words, you can do all the domestic coalition building that you want, but these efforts will amount to little in a world that is being set on fire—and primarily being set on fire by outside actors. Putting the issue of responsibility aside, Snyder is also decidedly unambitious in terms of the role "outside" states can play in terms of the kinds of policies that it could—and should—pursue. Snyder writes: [T]he most effective role for outsiders is to change the incentives and opportunities in the broad environment in which abuses occur. For example, eliminate import tariffs on fair trade products. Import parts only from suppliers that comply with certified labor standards based on routine, transparent inspection. Offer free accounting training and technology upgrades for foreign banks that voluntarily and verifiably implement a standard package of anticorruption measures. Then wait for the targets of persuasion to decide for themselves whether adopting rights compliant attitudes and behaviors will work for them.1 Snyder continues: "Far from 'doing nothing,' the strategy of the open door requires doing a lot. In fact, it takes more effort than sending out a scathing press release."2 The point is not that Snyder is wrong, it is just that there are a host of other things that "outside" states could do. One would be debt relief. Another would be to go far beyond the soft and somber words of state apologies for colonial practices by making a serious effort at making appropriate restitution. Yet another would be laws—domestic and international alike—that would regulate the egregious practices...