Appropriation and the rewriting of rights

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Jayne C. Huckerby, Sarah Knuckey
{"title":"Appropriation and the rewriting of rights","authors":"Jayne C. Huckerby, Sarah Knuckey","doi":"10.1093/icon/moad028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The protective reach of human rights has expanded over time. However, some have argued that this expansion constitutes illegitimate rights inflation, and for some conservative stakeholders, the modern development of rights has been at odds with their positions on issues such as reproductive rights and marriage equality. Against this backdrop, the Trump Administration launched the Commission on Unalienable Rights in 2019 to “reexamine” rights. It might be expected that such an initiative would reject human rights. However, it embraced rights discourse, positioned it as central to US values and policy, and called on the United States to pursue rights with “renewed vigor.” This article offers a decoding of this apparent embrace. We argue that rather than renewing commitments to rights, the Commission appropriated human rights. It reworked the human rights canon from within by elevating some rights over others, and by narrowing rights in line with conservative takes on where rights come from, who they should protect, and which rights matter. This article offers a framework for analyzing how appropriation happens, and where and in what ways it is contested. We identify four core elements to appropriation and spaces for challenging it: messenger and motive legitimacy; process legitimacy; substantive legitimacy; and norm diffusion. This framework makes visible the sites and processes of appropriation under the cover of protecting rights, that in practice seek to roll back understandings of right and their sources. While the Commission was disavowed by the subsequent US administration, conservative efforts to redefine rights are ongoing—including through promotion of the Commission’s work—and share many of the same normative underpinnings of the Commission’s establishment and rollout. Making apparent the strategies and mechanisms of appropriation through this case-study therefore enables recognition of future conservative moves to appropriate rights and provides insights into how to resist such efforts.","PeriodicalId":51599,"journal":{"name":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icon-International Journal of Constitutional Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moad028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The protective reach of human rights has expanded over time. However, some have argued that this expansion constitutes illegitimate rights inflation, and for some conservative stakeholders, the modern development of rights has been at odds with their positions on issues such as reproductive rights and marriage equality. Against this backdrop, the Trump Administration launched the Commission on Unalienable Rights in 2019 to “reexamine” rights. It might be expected that such an initiative would reject human rights. However, it embraced rights discourse, positioned it as central to US values and policy, and called on the United States to pursue rights with “renewed vigor.” This article offers a decoding of this apparent embrace. We argue that rather than renewing commitments to rights, the Commission appropriated human rights. It reworked the human rights canon from within by elevating some rights over others, and by narrowing rights in line with conservative takes on where rights come from, who they should protect, and which rights matter. This article offers a framework for analyzing how appropriation happens, and where and in what ways it is contested. We identify four core elements to appropriation and spaces for challenging it: messenger and motive legitimacy; process legitimacy; substantive legitimacy; and norm diffusion. This framework makes visible the sites and processes of appropriation under the cover of protecting rights, that in practice seek to roll back understandings of right and their sources. While the Commission was disavowed by the subsequent US administration, conservative efforts to redefine rights are ongoing—including through promotion of the Commission’s work—and share many of the same normative underpinnings of the Commission’s establishment and rollout. Making apparent the strategies and mechanisms of appropriation through this case-study therefore enables recognition of future conservative moves to appropriate rights and provides insights into how to resist such efforts.
挪用和改写权利
人权的保护范围随着时间的推移而扩大。然而,一些人认为,这种扩张构成了非法的权利膨胀,对于一些保守的利益相关者来说,权利的现代发展与他们在生殖权利和婚姻平等等问题上的立场不一致。在这种背景下,特朗普政府于2019年成立了不可剥夺权利委员会,以“重新审查”权利。可以预料,这样一项倡议会拒绝人权。然而,它接受了权利话语,将其定位为美国价值观和政策的核心,并呼吁美国以“新的活力”追求权利。本文对这种明显的接受进行了解读。我们认为,委员会没有重申对权利的承诺,而是挪用了人权。它从内部重新制定了人权准则,将一些权利提升到其他权利之上,并根据保守派对权利来源、应该保护谁以及哪些权利重要的看法缩小权利范围。本文提供了一个框架来分析拨款是如何发生的,以及在哪里以及以什么方式进行争议。我们确定了挪用的四个核心要素和挑战它的空间:信使和动机合法性;过程合法性;实体合法性;以及范数扩散。这一框架显示了以保护权利为掩护的挪用地点和过程,这些地点和过程在实践中试图推翻对权利及其来源的理解。尽管随后的美国政府否认了该委员会,但重新定义权利的保守派努力仍在进行中,包括通过促进委员会的工作,并与委员会的成立和推出有许多相同的规范基础。因此,通过本案例研究明确拨款的战略和机制,可以认识到未来保守派争取适当权利的举措,并深入了解如何抵制这种努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
67
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信