SSU Forum “Human Rights and the State”

Since World War II (WWII), the international community has seen significant advances in protecting and promoting human rights. How did human rights become an international norm? Why did states commit to establishing international human rights regimes even though doing so could constrain their sovereignty? To what extent do global human rights ideas and institutions affect the government’s diplomacy and improve states’ human rights practices? These are some of the main questions answered by a new book by Stanford Professor of Sociology Kiyoteru Tsutsui, titled “Human Rights and the State: The Power of Ideas and the Reality of International Politics.”

On July 6, the Institute for Future Initiatives’ Security Studies Unit at the University of Tokyo hosted Stanford Professor of Sociology Kiyoteru Tsutsui for keynote remarks on his new book on human rights. Following his speech, Professor Takako Hikotani and Professor Kaori Shoji, both from Gakushuin University, joined Professor Tsutsui in conversation before the floor was opened to questions from the audience. The event was moderated by Ryo Sahashi, Associate Professor of International Relations from the University of Tokyo.

Keynote presentation

Professor Tsutsui began his remarks by introducing the history of human rights. He introduced an argument that a growing emphasis on “empathy” in the Enlightenment—the ability to recognize and understand another person’s pain and suffering—had inspired initial human rights movements, such as those seeking to abolish torture and slave trade and fight for women’s equality. Governments resisted the trends but gradually had to concede to those movements to legitimize their authority. For example, Tsutsui mentioned that with women’s contribution during wartime, Western governments could not justify their arguments for discriminatory treatment against women and had to grant women suffrage.

Tsutsui continued to argue that it was not until the UN General Assembly’s 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the notion of universal human rights became widespread. He observed that when human rights treaties emerged in the 1960s, governments scrambled to ratify human rights treaties—but many without the intention to comply with them. Tsutsui explained that countries saw these treaties as toothless during the Cold War, believing that any violations would likely turn into a political competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, leading to ineffective sanctions.

However, according to Tsutsui, this is where a paradox takes hold. While states may be committed to human rights without considering the consequences, the large number of treaty signatories has helped elevate the global legitimacy of human rights, empowering civil society to pressure states to improve their human rights practices. And when the Cold War ended, states that pledged themselves to protect human rights without considering the consequences could no longer capitalize on the Cold War politics but had to face the consequences of their violations. Despite all the human rights progress in today’s world, Tsutsui warned that we should be aware of the backlashes from the rising authoritarian regimes and illiberal populist moves.

Assessing the efficacy of the international human rights regimes in the post-WWII era, Tsutsui argued that the human rights instruments might seem ineffective: they have a poor record of stopping large-scale human rights violations. But he added that human rights regimes had improved small-scale, day-to-day human rights conditions with their incremental approach. He cited how pressure from the UN human rights regimes has successfully compelled the Japanese government to address the human rights concerns of its minority groups, such as the indigenous Ainu people and the Zainichi (Korean residents in Japan).

Tsutsui concluded with final thoughts on the future of human rights. First, a hypocritical pledge on human rights is better than no commitment at all because norms could take root over time. Second, civil society is crucial in pressing states to improve human rights practices. Last, considering the United States has its hands tied by domestic political division and Western Europe is distracted by its confrontation with Russia, Japan now has an opportunity to take the leadership position in global rulemaking and advancing human rights.

Panel discussion and Q&A

Following Tsutsui’s remarks, Professor Takako Hikotani and Professor Kaori Shoji joined the conversation. A key focus of the discussion was a concept discussed in Tsutsui’s book: the “vernacularization” of human rights, or the process of localizing international human rights norms into relevant cultural and historical settings. Shoji asked to what extent the concept of vernacularization is possible in practice. For example, she wondered if allowing married couples to use different surnames or the death penalty can also be explained through the idea, questioning whether that could, in turn, affect the meaning of human rights itself.). Hikotani approached the concept from the perspective of Japanese foreign policy. She asked whether the Japanese government, which traditionally seeks to avoid imposing its values on other countries can meet the Western expectation of making substantial changes to global human rights situations. In response, Tsutsui argued that although the vernacularization of human rights can be pragmatic and helpful in advancing human rights norms in particular social situations, an overemphasis of its importance can fall into cultural relativism. Moving forward, Tsutsui recommended that Japan, while continuing to exert diplomatic leverage to press countries with human rights problems to change their behavior, should take a proactive approach to address human rights issues in Asia, such as initiating its annual human rights report.

The conversation also centered on how the Japanese civil society, in which many citizens still perceive human rights as the appeal of the minority political left-wing, can assist in improving human rights practices at home. To that end, Tsutsui expected the role of private sectors and the increasingly progressive young generation to raise awareness and propel the human rights movement in Japan.

Tsutsui also addressed other topics raised in the panel discussion and Q&A, including the Japanese government’s existing practice of framing human rights issues, the concept of “rights” in the context of vaccinations and masks during COVID-19, and the relationship between democratic institutions and human rights.

*The conference was organized by subsidies from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.