“The concept of human rights has an inner strength”
A plea for the defense of human rights: A new book from Prof. Dr. Dr. hc. Heiner Bielefeldt
How can we defend international human rights at a time in which their fundamental relevance is increasingly being questioned? In their new book “Menschenrechte nach der Zeitenwende. Gründe für mehr Selbstbewusstsein” (Human rights after the turning point. Reasons for greater confidence) Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Heiner Bielefeldt, Senior Professor of Human Rights at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), and Professor Dr. Daniel Bogner (University of Fribourg) call for greater confidence regarding human rights. In spite of our challenging times.
Human rights are not only violated on a daily basis, their very reason for being is also increasingly being questioned. Are we currently experiencing the end of the era of human rights?
Human rights are currently facing a very, very severe crisis. And yes, some people are actually speculating that we are witnessing the end of the human rights era. However, I would like to vehemently contradict this. There are still good reasons to remain confident in human rights.
What do you base your optimism on? In your new book you even defend human rights as the lifeblood of a struggling democracy.
I would choose the word confidence, or trust, rather than optimism. Spreading optimism would be irresponsible. The current time does not lend itself to optimistic prognoses, with human rights facing a massive crisis. However, I am deeply convinced that human rights remain meaningful and that is why I have an ingrained confidence and trust in their future. Human rights are a strong concept, and are historically and systematically closely interwoven with democracy. It is worth taking a political stance and fighting for human rights – for dignity, freedom, equal opportunities and solidarity. Luckily, this resonates with people from all cultures across the globe.
Has the concept of human rights ever really worked? After all, there are no true options for sanctions in the case of violations.
No-one would be audacious enough to claim that the implementation of human rights is faring well. In the critical times we are facing today, providing any indication of any progress having been made in this area appears challenging. But this impression is misleading. The incentives for encouraging human rights are long-term and often rather indirect, but nonetheless effective. Under international law, all states share responsibility for ensuring that fundamental rules, including human rights, are respected. There are no central implementation mechanisms similar to what we are familiar with on the individual state level. We therefore need states that take a pioneering role and persuade others to follow, sparking a type of “peer pressure”.
The idea is that states that notoriously ignore the rules isolate themselves or at least find it harder to find contractual partners in the international sector, regardless of whether for trade, health policy or knowledge transfer. It naturally becomes problematic when the number of those who ignore the elementary rules for interaction or openly denounce them steadily increases, as we are currently witnessing. Trump, Putin and others are disregarding entire sets of rules, claiming they are trivial and of no importance: the inviolability of state borders, minimum humanitarian rules for conflict situations and also human rights. It is all the more important that we take a political stance against this trend – with collaboration between states and civil organizations.
Putting aside your trust in human rights and their fundamental significance, to what extent are the human rights set down in the UN Charter still in line with the times?
The Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 remains an impressive document. However, when seen from today’s perspective, it does have some deficits. The topic of disability is not mentioned at all. At that time, no-one thought to include rights for gay, lesbian or trans people. Furthermore, no mention is made of indigenous people who have faced and are still facing murderous violence over the centuries right up until the present day. However, human rights are not frozen in time. A huge amount has happened in the critical points I just mentioned and changes will continue to be made, always in answer to publicly articulated experiences of injustice.
The criticism is often raised that the Western human rights narrative pursues Eurocentric interests and strengthens existing inequalities rather than overcoming them. Is the criticism that human rights are seen as a white, colonial instrument of power justified?
It is true that we cannot just dismiss this criticism out of hand. It is striking, for instance, that certain European languages take a leading role in formulating human rights, particularly English. Language is not a trivial issue. In this respect, we will always have to admit that human rights are shaped by culture and that European influences were dominant for a long time – and still are today.
However, I would like to mention two aspects: human rights were not always embraced by the leading culture within Europe and the West. They had to and have to be fought for against manifold resistance. Furthermore, human rights have experienced extensive changes in the wake of the UN Declaration of 1948, partly also due to pressure from states from the South.
One example is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the UN in 1965. It was predominantly representatives from Jamaica, Ghana and Liberia that pushed it through against the interests of Great Britain and France during the anticolonial movement. A more recent example is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. It would be absurd to look for examples of European claims to hegemony in the text of this declaration.
On the one hand, the European Union keeps stressing to other states that human rights must be observed across the globe. On the other hand, there is the way Europe treats refugees at the EU’s external borders and in the context of deals with Libya, Morocco and the like. How can such double standards be justified?
In a nutshell: not at all. With its double standards, the European Union is unfortunately damaging its own reputation. That is particularly unfortunate as Europe has a crucial role to play in international human rights policy. It is important that Europe looks beyond its own borders and embraces human rights as a universal guiding principle. In short: We need more Europe, but not Eurocentrism. The way refugees are treated is the decisive question, and Europe does not paint a good picture in this respect.
What is the decisive factor for the future of human rights?
Whether or not the international protection of human rights has a future depends on the individual commitment of each and every one of us. If hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets across the country to protest against inhuman deportation fantasies, join in vigils or represent Amnesty International at a stand, then this is a sign that anyone who stands up for human rights is not alone.
Further information:
Prof. Dr. Dr. hc. Heiner Bielefeldt
FAU Senior Professor of Human Rights
FAU CHREN, Institute of Political Science
Phone: +49 9131 85 23273
heiner.bielefeldt@fau.de
Menschenrechte nach der Zeitenwende. Gründe für mehr Selbstbewusstsein; authors: Prof. Dr. Dr. hc. Heiner Bielefeldt & Prof. Dr. Daniel Bogner; publisher: Herder, 2025