Wrap Up Post

Posted on by

I think what I learned the most from this course is that human rights are really just rhetoric. That is not to say that they are not important or meaningful but I think that human rights mean different things to different people and are used for different purposes depending on the context. Human rights discourse seems to be taken up by competing groups as a way of asserting power within society. In Argentina, those who were opposed to the military government asserted that the government was violating their citizens human rights as thousands were disappeared. The government and those in support of the military regime then countered the cries of the “subversives” with a different human rights discourse saying that Argentina is human and they are right. In this instance human rights discourse was demonstrated to have a certain power but the actual meaning behind the discourse was different for both parties.

In Zizek’s argument against human rights he also argues how human rights are really just a malleable rhetoric used by western liberal democracies as a justification for invasion in foreign countries. Modern human rights discourse that is touted internationally through the UN really just reflect western capitalist values and uphold the power of western liberal democracies rather than challenging their hegemonic power.  This really has been demonstrated lately in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as Western democracies have invaded the countries under the auspice of human rights (namely the rights of women and the right to democratic elections etc) but through the act of invasion other human rights have been trampled tremendously as countless amounts of civilians have fallen victim to these wars. The price that the civilians have had to pay for these foreign imposed rights has been way too steep, especially considering they never asked for the foreign invasion. A similar argument could be made for the dirty war in Guatemala when America helped direct the genocide of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people supposedly to suppress the threat of communism (but really just to secure America’s property rights) in the region. Had the human rights of all really been a priority instead of American capitalist interests, the genocide may not have happened. Despite the rhetoric of human rights, capital always comes before the needs of the people, it seems.

The Venezuelan government has been asserting that human rights and the socialist revolution go hand in hand.  Many programs have been created that have really benefited the majority of the population in Venezuela, such as healthcare, co-ops, and education reforms. Again, human rights discourses differ in venezuela as well, as the neo-liberal elite (backed by the American government) have also been asserting their desire for human rights, namely freedom of press and property rights. In this case. which I will be discussing in my paper, the elite and the populace have competing human rights discourses.

Human rights in Latin America are extremely contentious and I think it is pretty hard to understand the full scope of the issues through a singles semester course. What we were able to discuss, though, gave me lots of insight into the region and on the idea of human rights in general. Being in such proximity to the Occupy Vancouver site also was exceptionally interesting and I really enjoyed how we could just go up to the site, make observations and discuss the situation within the context of our class. Most classes seem a bit out of touch with reality so this was really refreshing.

Brazil Creates a Truth Commission

Posted on by

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15799705

Brazil’s new president Dilema Rousseff has founded a Truth Commission to investigate human rights abuses in the country especially from their dirty war, during which she was even tortured. She also has approved a law of access to public information which will allow previously secretive documents to be released for public viewing. However, an amnesty law is still in place so no prosecutions will be able to come from the investigations.


MTV the UN and Human Rights

Posted on by

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/calle-13-unicef-human-trafficking_n_1108205.html

 

In looking for a news article this week I stumbled upon this interesting one corresponding to media and the fight for human rights. It turns out that MTV Latin America, specifically the Reggatone group Calle 13, and UNICEF are teaming up to bring awareness to the issue of human trafficking in the region. This is an incredible publicity move for Human Rights seeing as Calle 13 is so popular. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of this campaign.


Human Rights and the Agency of Publicity

Posted on by

Throughout the course, I feel like I have learned a lot about Human Rights theory, and abuses in their various contexts. One factor which keeps standing out in my mind is the agency of publicity. It seems to me that human rights written down in a formal document by the UN only serves a symbolic purpose. Human rights as a single entity are not very useful; saying that they exist or publishing a piece of paper with them on it does not keep people from being tortured.

Publicity is what seems to either keep people from having their human rights abused or ‘at least’ engender punishment for those who have abused human rights. In examining the cases we have studied, going public is what has created some change or reprimand. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo stage visual demonstrations in order to gain publicity for their personal cause. If they would have stayed quite and not gotten international media attention would the Dirty War in Argentina be as well known of an example as it is today?

In examining various news and academic articles about Human Rights for this course, the ‘champions’ of human rights  seem to be those who can gain international media attention. For instance, the indigenous people of the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil have managed to (kind of) stop the construction of a dam on their land because it would destroy their livelihood. However, I would argue that their success is based less upon the destruction of the Amazon and Indigenous Rights, and more upon the fact that the lead singer of U2 and his sunglasses made an appearance at the protest. If you look at mining in Guatemala, the indigenous people there have not had nearly as much success, nor have they had nearly as much press. The same right is being violated the major difference is disproportionate media attention.

This also makes me wonder what would have actually happened in the cases of Human Rights abuses like Guatemala and Argentina had there been more international awareness of what was going on. Perhaps there would not have been any change, but perhaps international media pressure could have shamed governments into halting their actions against various peoples.

Cases like the Dirty War and the United Fruit Company have become rather well known in university settings, but they still are not ‘common knowledge.’ I think that if Human Rights protection were to be a legitimate force then such past cases of abuses do need to be well known in order for the general public to understand the actual importance of these symbolic Human Rights.  For as long as violations of human rights stay out of view of the general public, no one is going to care. If not many people care about human rights not many people will be fighting for them either. Let’s be honest, pieces of paper are not going to fight for themselves.

Therefore, I would say that declarations of human rights are an important symbol because that symbol creates a launching point for publicity on these issues. However, without publicity to create action declarations of human rights are not very utile.


Guatemala Part 1

Posted on by

In reading over the literature from Guatemala there were two things that really stood out to me. The first was the lack of unification by the federal US gov on the issue and the other was the link between being “anti-communist and christian.”  Although, on a quick aside, I would like to say that I find it sad that all of the bombings or the actions of the CIA are not what stood out to me. Somehow corruption and killing has become normalized for me and the actions of governments are interesting. Perhaps this says something about the state of human rights? Do we study cause and effect only, and on which side should importance be placeg, how violations happen or those who were harmed?

Back to focusing on the effect side, I found it fascinating how disjointed the entire affair was on the part of the US. Like on pages 160-1 where an official in the US gov ‘finds out’ about the happenings by glancing at a memo, not from a formal briefing or something of that nature. There are also incredible descriptions of people in the administration actively objecting to what was happening on the basis on international law, yet they proceeded with capturing ships etc.

All of this is very interesting because the US, especially the government, is often portrayed as one unified force which thinks and acts the same. I am even from the US and I generalize  the administration as one unified (often evil) force. It is interesting to be reminded of the agency of different actors and how one really can’t group people into one category or another even if they are members of the same cabinet. I think that this is an excellent reminder about generalizing these human rights cases. Even when the overall effect is as horrific as the case of Guatemala, not everyone on either side is actually complicit in what’s happening nor are they necessarily being silent about the proceedings either.

The next thing that struck me was on page 174: “he told the US ambassador that direct US intervention might be the only way to protect ant-communists and christians in Guatemala.” It’s amazing to me what this statement implies. First that to be anti-communist one must also be christian and second that to be christian is to promote bombings. There are a million things I could say about all of these links, but the thing I find very intriguing is the constant link between US politics and christianity.  Even growing up in the US, there was often a debate over weather a  non-christian president could ever get elected and the conclusion was almost always that it wouldn’t be possible. That idea seems to resonate well with this piece where two concepts communism and christianity are placed in conjunction with one another.  In this case it seems that the pursuit of preserving christianity is one major justification for eradicating “communists.”  It’s fascinating to me how the US evokes christianity as a reasoning for so many of its political movements while the country still professes to have a separation of church and state.

Overall, I think it is quite interesting to look at these nuances behind how all of these conflicts. How on one hand the administration itself was not really unified, but then at the same time the US does seem to have a driving justification of christianity behind many of its decisions, regardless of how many people really agree with it.


Guatemala (Part 2)

Posted on by

Mayor Sanchez, who blasted the armyand claimed the most horrendous human rights abuses, ended up having about asmuch credibility as Dick Cheney. The original story in Part 2 is of the armyforcing civilians to murder other civilians, and of an army hunting down andmurdering more for intimidation or blood lust than for even paranoid andexcessive punishment of guerrilla sympathizing. I initially was wondering whythey’re accounts came off as too casually spoken of, considering they couldn’tlook they’re neighbors in there eyes and given the horrendous things they did;however, I figured a lot gets lost in translation from spoken words to written.But, it turned out the mayor was corrupt. For the mayor to be so easily boughtoff, whether with infrastructure development and employment or a straight-upbribe, calls into question what is truth in anything said. I’m not saying thatthe human rights abuses initially described in Part 2 didn’t happen or wereexaggerated, but we cannot simply say only the Army lies or is corruptible. Peoplelike Mayor Sanchez hurt the credibility of those who have suffered and try totell their story. As we saw later on, western media easily forgets their causeswhen the next cause comes along, so incidents like Sanchez’ about-face do moredamage to enlightening or waking up the western public. For instance, there wasthe civilian who claimed the Army had driven him out, only to later claim ithad been the guerrillas – both times with certainty.
Perhaps it is such conflictingreports that have prevented western media from paying more attention to theIxill Triangle atrocities. It reminds me of Holocaust deniers, who ignore theevidence that is there and fixate on the evidence that isn’t; has this happenedwith the Ixill Triangle genocide? Or are there other reasons for the lack ofcaring and the lack of attention on what should be a world-renowned war on thecitizenry? Was it simply a lack of media attention on atrocities outside thewest at the time? Was it the growing focus on the Middle East? Or perhaps the Holocaust has cast a shadow so big itenvelops all genocides that pale in comparison to the One. But one thing isclear, without people sharing their experiences and without people getting theword out there about what happened, the victims of the Ixill Triangle will belost forever.

Colombia Farc rebels kill four hostages as one escapes

Posted on by

Colombia Farc rebels kill four hostages as one escapes

BBC News-

Left-wing Farc rebels in Colombia have shot dead four hostages, the authorities say.

The captives – all members of the security forces – were killed as troops approached the camp where they were held in the southern region of Caqueta.

All had been held for more than 12 years after being captured in rebel attacks.

Hours after their bodies were discovered, a fifth hostage was found alive.

Defence Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon said the four dead hostages had been killed execution-style – three shot in the head and one in the back.

“They were cruelly murdered with coups de grace,” he said, adding that chains – presumably used to hold them captive – were found alongside their bodies.

President Juan Manuel Santos said the Farc (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were “solely responsible” for the deaths, which he called a “crime against humanity”.

“It is an atrocious crime that deserves the condemnation of all Colombians and the international community,” he said.

The victims have been named as police Col Edgar Duarte Valero, police Major Elkin Hernandez Rivas, policeman Alvaro Moreno, and army Sgt Jose Martinez Estrada.

Sgt Martinez had been a captive for nearly 14 years – the longest of any hostage held by Farc. He left behind a teenage son he had never met.

The hostage who survived – police Sgt Luis Alberto Erazo Maya – apparently escaped into the jungle in the confusion as troops exchange fire with the guerrillas, who fled the scene.

The killing of the hostages is a setback for the Colombian security forces, after a series of victories against the Farc in recent years.

It comes just three weeks after Farc leader Alfonso Cano was killed in combat.

The Farc still hold 14 members of the security forces, as well as dozens of civilian captives.

In the past the Farc tried to use the hostages as bargaining chips to secure the release of captured rebel fighters.

In February they released six hostages in what they called a gesture of peace to the government of Mr Santos.

However the Farc have also killed hostages in the past rather than allow them to be rescued.

Families of some of the hostages have criticised attempts to rescue them, calling for negotiated releases instead.

Mr Santos has said there can be no peace talks with the rebels until they release all their captives and stop attacks.

The Farc have been fighting to overthrow the Colombian government since the 1960s.

Final Thoughts

Posted on by

After spending months reading about human rights and cases around Latin America where they have been highly violated, I believe that there is no universally agreed definition for them. It seems to me that people’s understanding of human rights is continually evolving. There are some general understandings, but I don’t believe they work. I think the professor is close to convert me in a non-believer.

Throughout the readings we identified that most of the development in human rights took place in the 18th Century. It was interesting the explore the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States ‘ Bill of Rights, among others. They clearly influenced many declarations of rights throughout the region. The growth of authoritarian regimes in the 20th Century and the carnage of World War II made pushed the world even more to the protection of human rights with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ideally, human rights involve responsibility toward other people. Ideally, governments should ensure that citizens enjoy their rights.  But we have explored cases where the governments have done the opposite even after the creation of the United Nations.  But some people believe rights are intrinsic, rather than a societal creation intended to moderate the excesses of 20th century racial violence (among other things).

Human rights are mostly documents produced in a political process. It pains me to see hat the active supporters of human rights are a minority and media is held responsible for tracking violations. I am having a hard time finding evidence that human rights exist at all because even though we, as an international community, have agreed on these human rights, cooperation has been minimal. We continue to witness terror and bloodshed. I find it hard to understand how the world allowed the invasion of Iraq, where some many people have died due to the U.S. determination to impose rights and democracy (or at least that is how they sold the invasion—national interests were the real cause).

I want to believe we are protected by human rights and that organizations we have created to enforce them actually do their job. But the reality is different. The United Nations’ role in the world continuously diminishes. It has lost the respect of the power nations; the Security Council has no real influence in the world dynamics and refuses to evolve. How can one believe in human rights when it takes over 15 years or more for the international court of justice to finally persecute war criminals? Impunity governs our existing world and with impunity it is hard to grasp the idea of having human rights.

The Dirty War

Posted on by

This period in history, all around Latin America was certainly very dark and I understand more than ever before why so many grandparents of my generation had drinking problems. What they had survived was not easy to swallow. Dictatorships marked this era and fright changed so many lives.  My grandfather was born and raised in the Dominican Republic. As a young lawyer, he marched and protested against Trujillo en la Quisquellana. As a member of a wealthy family, he fought against repression on the streets with the masses and aided the clandestine movement. But after so many death threats, my grandfather and his siblings had to flee the island and relocate in Venezuela. Trujillo bullied them out of the country and took over of all of their properties. Soon after their arrival, Perez Jimenez took power in my home country, and once again, my grandfather faced dictatorship.  My grandfather marched and protested against Perez Jimenez’s cruelty and was imprisoned and tortured for over a year in Caracas. Soon after, he developed a drinking problem that never left him until his death. Like my grandfather, many others succumbed to alcohol to ease memories and cope with trauma. This fact might not be well documented, but I can ensure you this is a reality witnessed all around Latin America: alcoholisms after dictatorships. I remember conversations with the family of one of my best friends in Argentina. Both her grandfathers were also alcoholics.

The elimination of more than 300,000 considered “potential threats to the Junta” is unforgivable. I guess their goal was not only to silence these people but to eradicate them from public discourse.  What shocks me the most is that these people kidnapped and tortured were not even threats. They were not involved in the violent, leftist guerilla groups.  The Junta targeted social activists, Marxists, left-leaning peronists, jews, catholic clergy working in slums, student activists and even psychologists and sociologists. These people had lost respect to life.

What I think is most ironic in this case, is that Admiral (Evil) Massera died as a free man last year at age 85 and that represents a deep injure to democracy. He was one dark character. He set up a newspaper of his own, called Convicción, and promoted himself as presidential candidate. I also think is ironic that this dictatorship collapsed after  another war: Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Massera was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity back in 1985, and I almost had a stroke when read that Menem’s granted him amnesty in 1990. AMNESTY to a criminal? I guess the logic behind this initiative was to foster a democracy without bitterness. But, how can you honestly rebuild a country with laws prevent the prosecution of hundreds of military officers, soldiers and police linked to this dirty war? That’s impunity and took 15 years to retract it. In 2005, Argentina’s Supreme Court overturned two amnesty laws.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago a victim of the dirty way was name United Nations special rapporteur on torture. Juan Mendez was a young lawyer defending opponents of La Junta and was arrested in 1976 and he spent 18 months at a prison where he was tortured with an electric prod and watched friends being pulled from their cells and executed.

Argentina seems to be moving on from this dark history and certainly the ongoing trials are helping, but I think justice came too late in my opinion and many families are still waiting to know what happened to their loved ones. They need answers to fully move on.

Forced Sterilization in the Modern Era

Posted on by
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/americas/peru-sterilizations/index.html

To learn of forced sterilization of women is not in itself surprising, as sad as that is, but to hear of it occurring in a country like Peru as late as the 1990s was shocking to me. Its something that wouldn't surprise me if it had taken place anywhere in Latin America during the 1950-70s, I suppose. If it happened in the more poverty-stricken or violence stricken countries during the 1990s, it wouldn't surprise me either. Although Peru has dealt with guerrilla terrorism for decades now, it still doesn't have the same general reputation as other Latin American countries for human rights abuses but its yet another learning lesson of the darkness that lays beneath the surface of every developing country.

Hmm…

Posted on by
Human rights. 2 words, absolutely loaded with meaning and history, as this course has shown. I never thought though coming into this class that I'd be sitting at the end of it, not only more educated about rights and especially rights in Latin America, but perhaps also a bit more confused. After looking at each week's readings I found I had something new to mull over in my head... do rights exist or do they not? Are human rights specifically a good thing, or not? Is it fair to give precedence and importance to some human rights over others? What should we put in this damn human rights museum anyway?!

Ultimately, the things I will take away most from this course are: the awareness I have gained of human rights abuses that have been suffered in the past in Latin America, and the knowledge and awareness that I have gained from keeping a closer eye on the news via the weekly blog posts. Though the abuses we looked at occurred during conflicts which have since ended, they are something that still occurs both in Latin America and elsewhere in the world daily.
After doing those weekly blogs and reading others, I noticed I started to get sort of pessimistic about human rights in general... seeing such abuses and reading about the horror that human beings have inflicted and indeed continue to inflict on each other was rough. That being said, I feel like I needed my little idealistic bubble view of the world to be popped. Now knowing that violations such as these have occurred and are still occurring, I feel like maybe one day I want to try and do something to change this. I was even more encouraged when I read about and wrote a paper about the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo.  Too often I think it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the severity of the world's problems and think "yeah, but what can I do about this?" but these women showed me the power of perseverance and courage and in believing in change, and in fighting for, and believing in the re installation and value of their human rights. They stood up to a government committing human rights violations and advocated for change, inspiring others around them and creating a new idea about women in Argentina. I think as long as we have people like these women, who never stop fighting for their rights and for the rights of others - yes, we have human rights.

This class was great. The discussion was always rigorous and informative, and the points and arguments that everyone brought up always made me think a lot and gave me new angles to consider things from. The readings as well provided a lot of different opinions and insights into the relevancy (or perhaps lack thereof) of rights, as well as glimpses into the horror of the violations suffered in both Argentina and Guatemala. I think I can safely say this class sparked something in me that I will definitely keep pursuing in my studies at UBC, and maybe even as a career. Not really sure if it's a desire to fight for rights, or to keep learning about what rights are... but this class started somethin' for me.

Nevertheless, I still have no idea what we should put in the museum of Human Rights. ;)

Hmm…

Posted on by
Human rights. 2 words, absolutely loaded with meaning and history, as this course has shown. I never thought though coming into this class that I'd be sitting at the end of it, not only more educated about rights and especially rights in Latin America, but perhaps also a bit more confused. After looking at each week's readings I found I had something new to mull over in my head... do rights exist or do they not? Are human rights specifically a good thing, or not? Is it fair to give precedence and importance to some human rights over others? What should we put in this damn human rights museum anyway?!

Ultimately, the things I will take away most from this course are: the awareness I have gained of human rights abuses that have been suffered in the past in Latin America, and the knowledge and awareness that I have gained from keeping a closer eye on the news via the weekly blog posts. Though the abuses we looked at occurred during conflicts which have since ended, they are something that still occurs both in Latin America and elsewhere in the world daily.
After doing those weekly blogs and reading others, I noticed I started to get sort of pessimistic about human rights in general... seeing such abuses and reading about the horror that human beings have inflicted and indeed continue to inflict on each other was rough. That being said, I feel like I needed my little idealistic bubble view of the world to be popped. Now knowing that violations such as these have occurred and are still occurring, I feel like maybe one day I want to try and do something to change this. I was even more encouraged when I read about and wrote a paper about the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo.  Too often I think it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the severity of the world's problems and think "yeah, but what can I do about this?" but these women showed me the power of perseverance and courage and in believing in change, and in fighting for, and believing in the re installation and value of their human rights. They stood up to a government committing human rights violations and advocated for change, inspiring others around them and creating a new idea about women in Argentina. I think as long as we have people like these women, who never stop fighting for their rights and for the rights of others - yes, we have human rights.

This class was great. The discussion was always rigorous and informative, and the points and arguments that everyone brought up always made me think a lot and gave me new angles to consider things from. The readings as well provided a lot of different opinions and insights into the relevancy (or perhaps lack thereof) of rights, as well as glimpses into the horror of the violations suffered in both Argentina and Guatemala. I think I can safely say this class sparked something in me that I will definitely keep pursuing in my studies at UBC, and maybe even as a career. Not really sure if it's a desire to fight for rights, or to keep learning about what rights are... but this class started somethin' for me.

Nevertheless, I still have no idea what we should put in the museum of Human Rights. ;)

What I’ve learned

Posted on by
     There is something deeply attractive in the idea that every person, irrespective of citizenship and territorial legislation, has particular basic rights that others ought to respect. But the preoccupation with the concept of human rights has been irregular and erratic: human rights have taken center stage in intellectual dialogue during three historical periods - namely, the Enlightenment period, post-WWII and our current time and yet, has almost disappeared from discourse at all other moments. This (the historical unevenness of the [West's] commitment to human rights) has prompted many academics to view the central idea of human rights – being something people possess without specific legislation, as foundationally dubious and lacking in coherence. The debate on the legality of human rights is thus not concerned with the weight of human rights in applying this concept to issues on the ground (as it is not usually disputed that the invoking of human rights can be politically powerful) but rather, it is concerned with the theoretical grounding of the concept. Where do human rights come from?
     Human rights are often regarded as universal because they are theorized as the rights one has simply because one is human. However, I have come to realize that the concept of human rights largely embodies the ideological priorities of the West. Even the theoretical grounding of the concept resonates clearly with liberalism’s understanding of the relationship between the individual and the state. The source of human rights involves an individual giving up one set of rights - that is, his/her natural rights or rights that are prior to social order for the sake of the general community. In return, the individual gains another set of rights – that is, rights that promise equality. The association between the state and individual thus becomes one of contract in which both sides have rights and obligations. For instance, the individual should obey the laws and in return, the state should provide the individual with security. But I have also discovered that it is this granting of rights, which can be used by the state to justify an excessive use of power. The Argentine dictatorship’s removal of ‘dissidents,’ for example, was grounded on its obligation to the Argentine society to protect its national identity and culture. Therefore, perhaps, the greatest thing this class has taught me is that human rights are not an ideal concept and the universality to which human rights standards aspire should be largely contested – particularly, in today’s world where human rights are being constantly invoked. 

What I’ve learned

Posted on by
     There is something deeply attractive in the idea that every person, irrespective of citizenship and territorial legislation, has particular basic rights that others ought to respect. But the preoccupation with the concept of human rights has been irregular and erratic: human rights have taken center stage in intellectual dialogue during three historical periods - namely, the Enlightenment period, post-WWII and our current time and yet, has almost disappeared from discourse at all other moments. This (the historical unevenness of the [West's] commitment to human rights) has prompted many academics to view the central idea of human rights – being something people possess without specific legislation, as foundationally dubious and lacking in coherence. The debate on the legality of human rights is thus not concerned with the weight of human rights in applying this concept to issues on the ground (as it is not usually disputed that the invoking of human rights can be politically powerful) but rather, it is concerned with the theoretical grounding of the concept. Where do human rights come from?
     Human rights are often regarded as universal because they are theorized as the rights one has simply because one is human. However, I have come to realize that the concept of human rights largely embodies the ideological priorities of the West. Even the theoretical grounding of the concept resonates clearly with liberalism’s understanding of the relationship between the individual and the state. The source of human rights involves an individual giving up one set of rights - that is, his/her natural rights or rights that are prior to social order for the sake of the general community. In return, the individual gains another set of rights – that is, rights that promise equality. The association between the state and individual thus becomes one of contract in which both sides have rights and obligations. For instance, the individual should obey the laws and in return, the state should provide the individual with security. But I have also discovered that it is this granting of rights, which can be used by the state to justify an excessive use of power. The Argentine dictatorship’s removal of ‘dissidents,’ for example, was grounded on its obligation to the Argentine society to protect its national identity and culture. Therefore, perhaps, the greatest thing this class has taught me is that human rights are not an ideal concept and the universality to which human rights standards aspire should be largely contested – particularly, in today’s world where human rights are being constantly invoked.