# data[].attributes.body
When talking about religion/moral compasses, Douzinas says "it justified the unremitting violence of the Crusades, the genocidal attacks on the Indians and indigenous people of the newly discovered  lands and, later, the atrocities of the religious wars, which, conducted on both sides in the name of the true faith, knew no limit in their attempt to annihilate the morally degraded enemies" (168). What are your thoughts on just wars permitted through religion or the Church? How was the theory of just wars first developed?

# data[].attributes.body
Mutua says "the human rights era has ended," (Mutua 6) From the article what is the strongest argument Mutua gives to support his statement?

# data[].attributes.body
What arguments that we saw in other articles support Mutua's claims? Are there arguments that one can make based on other materials that would challenge Mutua's claims?

# data[].attributes.body
Douzinas claims "legal humanism was a discourse of exclusion, not just of foreign barbarians but also of women and people of colour" (164). Do you think this idea of legal humanism is still present today? How has it improved? Make a connection to a current legal ideology.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes, this idea of legal humanism is still present today.

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes, this idea of legal humanism is still present today.

# data[].attributes.body
-The idea of legal humanism, or the idea that humanity inherently should grant us certain legal protections, is still present. We can see this through the UDHR being upheld, the increase of humanitarian intervention since the 1990s, and R2P, all legal or quasi-legal responses to human rights abuses.
-However, legal humanism is still a discourse of exclusion. The example of the economic sanctions in Iraq presented in the Douzinas reading on page 170 is a good example of this. Continuing economic sanctions and bombings in Iraq starting in 1998 killed over 1 million Iraqi citizens. These actions imply that certain humans' rights (in the Western world) are more important than the rights of other humans. How we assign legal protections to people shows how humanity is defined and certain groups are excluded (in this case, people from non-Western nations).

# data[].attributes.headline
Articles that could support or challenge Muta's claim

# data[].attributes.subject
Articles that could support or challenge Muta's claim

# data[].attributes.body
One article that could support Muta's claims that the age of human rights is over is Hickel’s article which talks about rising global income inequality which could be used as evidence that inequality and poverty are not being addressed. I think a really great article in support of Muta’s argument is Levinson’s “the box” because it talks about the ways that innovation and changes in our economic/ industrial system have decreased human rights and increased focus in other areas that don’t align with human rights.

Muta’s claim could be challenged by articles such as Turner’s article “Human Rights and the

Empire of (International) Law” because it could be argued that the expansion of treaties internationally signifies a commitment and focus on human rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Two of the stronger arguments Mutua gave to support his statement were:

# data[].attributes.subject
Two of the stronger arguments Mutua gave to support his statement were:

# data[].attributes.body
that the Global North has a history in ignoring the values they preach and that the Global South suspects imperialism may come with the integration of human rights, since they more closely align with the Global North’s values than the Global South’s (Mutua 452-3).

that certain states consider human rights to be insignificant, and that the United States’s focus on preventing future terrorist attacks after 9/11 left the leadership role in advocating for human rights unoccupied (Mutua 453-4).

Jennifer Boulette

# data[].attributes.body
The theory of just wars was created in the middle ages with the goal of the church being able to save Caesar without abandoning their commitments to god. Important in the justification for “just wars” was the mission to punish enemies and promote faith. The theory of just wars in the middle ages was used as a moral justification for military action however it was one limited to Christian causes. In my opinion just wars in the name of religion go against the culture aspect of what we have been talking about in class. Just wars fought for religion especially if they are to “promote the faith” (page 168) ignore differences of culture and religion that people have. Additionally as Douzinas mentions these wars justified genocide and violence things that in modern day would not be considered just. Even once the theory of just wars changed to be wars fought for human rights my understanding is that the christian adaptation of this referred to the humanism of rights as limited for men of no property, barely applicable to women, and denied slaves, colonials, and foreigners.

# data[].attributes.body
One article that I think would be interesting to compare in support of Mutua's claims would be Turner's "Human Rights and the Empire of (International) Law" in that the idea of human rights began to develop over time and became established on the international stage. With the emergence of soft law, there is more of a similarity to what Mutua discusses as a step toward the moral vacuum. Additionally, with the replacement of the basis of consent by the abstract idea of the "good" or the "just", human rights can be seen to move towards this moral concept and begin to open up this vacuum that Matua talks about. Turner's article can also challenge Matua's claims because it discusses the establishment of human rights in the international scene, indicating further movement in agreement with the concept that human rights are the "idea of our time". I think the Turner reading can be used to support and challenge Mutua's claims.

# data[].attributes.body
The theory of just war offers a moral justification for military action and can be traced back to the Middle Ages when it was used to benefit Christian causes. Human rights are "supposed to be the first truly universal moral justification for the use of force". While I agree that sometimes military intervention is necessary and the ethically right thing to do, using human rights to justify new wars seems like a power that is just waiting to be abused by countries. With the claim that human rights abuses can call for military intervention, there is a lot of opportunity for states to take advantage of that. I don't think that wars are just when they are based on religious reasons, because they are just an excuse for forcing one group's religious beliefs onto another. However, human rights claims can be abused similarly, which makes me slightly nervous for military intervention claims from big powers swooping in to "save" the other country.

# data[].attributes.body
I think in the US some form of this idea of legal humanism is still present, but not to the extent that it used to be. It’s improved as women, POC, people without property, and others have more access to the law than before. There are certain things that make it more difficult for these groups to engage in law, such as the costs, but they are no longer outright barred from exercising their right to utilize the law.

However, in other places this form of legal humanism might not be the same. Just looking at Iran, we know that the law has little use for women since it favors the men. We see how women are treated as second class citizens in daily life as well, with the protests that are happening over Mahsa Amini’s death. So legal humanism can look differently between countries, and the people bearing the effects may differ as a result as well.

Jennifer Boulette

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal humanism is still present today but the interpretation and implementation varies

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal humanism is still present today but the interpretation and implementation varies

# data[].attributes.body
-Legal humanism is rooted in the idea that human values and rights should be present within legal systems. Human legalism is still present today, as evident in recognizing the freedoms and rights of individuals. We can look at the UDHR, which embodies values of  legal humanism. The UDHR continues to be upheld and protects dignity and rights of individuals regardless of gender, race, or religion. However, the evidence of legal humanism doesn't stop there, as there has been expansions of legal humanism, as seen in the "Responsibility to Protect" and other legal responses that aim to tack violations of human rights. In some legal systems, constitutional provisions and laws may work to uphold individual rights to things such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. These legal systems allow individuals to seek redress when abuses do occur.

-With all this being said, legal humanism is not fair for all, and as the Douzinas reading emphasizes, there are still many inequalities and exclusions that take place regarding human rights. If we turn to Douzinas example of Iraq, we see "continuing sanctions against Iraq , and the renowned bombing after 1998" (pg 170). Starvation was occurring over 30 years, children were malnourished, and daily bombings continued long after the end of the operation (pg 30).  Iraqis were facing major human rights violations while Western society was "conducting a montsouras social experiment." This clearly shows how there is not an equal balance of human rights, as the West saw their human rights as mattering more over other humans.  The Douzinas reading also meantons how "men" ofter were superior when it came to rights. But men without property and women were defined as non-humans. While I think this part has shifted for the better, as we do see in many cultures (specifically the western US) that women's status, and acknowledgments of being human does exist now. We also see the expansion of rights for many people that didn't fall under the original category of "men" who are now having further access to law. While communities such as people of color aren't completely seen as non-human, they still have challenges that make it harder than typical "men" to carry out their rights, so there is still an imbalance in legal humanism.
-If we turn to current examples of intersectionality, and specifically individuals with disabilites who are also women, children, people of color. These individuals have historically faces segregation, and unequal protection under law. Conventions on the right of the child, convention on the rights of the child, and more, aim to combat historical inequality and create more equality and uphold individual rights. There will constantly be debates in society on how to properly balance human rights, soverightny, etc. but its the new creation of legal tools that is re-writting legal humanism for the better and working to include more identities under protection.

Nicole Brunette

# data[].attributes.body
Legal humanism, historically, excluded women, people of color, and other marginalized groups. While progress has been made, the legacy of exclusion still exists today. One current legal ideology that challenges this is intersectionality, which recognizes the intersection of multiple social categories and advocates for inclusive approaches to law. Intersectionality aims to protect the rights of marginalized individuals and address the complex realities of discrimination. While the legacy of legal humanism persists, the influence of intersectionality and similar ideologies has led to increased recognition and protection of marginalized individuals' rights, promoting a more equitable and inclusive legal framework. One current idea or debate that can be connected to the legacy of legal humanism and the progress made through intersectionality is the concept of affirmative action. Affirmative action policies aim to address historical inequalities by providing preferential treatment or opportunities to individuals from disadvantaged groups. This ongoing debate reflects society's struggle to balance the need for equal representation and redressing historical inequities with concerns about fairness and the potential for reverse discrimination.
-Sumaiyah Mohamed

# data[].attributes.headline
Mutua’s strongest argument is that human rights ideologies are overpromised and underperformed.  

# data[].attributes.subject
Mutua’s strongest argument is that human rights ideologies are overpromised and underperformed.  

# data[].attributes.body
-He supports this by saying "the human rights idea has failed to gain complete submission in cultures and traditions outside the West – especially in Asia, the Muslim world, and Africa" (p. 452). This relates to the ideas of legal pluralism and culture that we discussed earlier in the quarter. When our enforcement of human rights fails to live up to cultural standards via legal pluralism, for example, the results of human rights policies are much lesser than the promises of human rights granted to us by the UDHR.
-Mutua also points out how while human rights is a highly regarded ideology for many, and defended almost with a "religious zeal" (p. 451), we still have not found a structure by which to enforce human rights. Perhaps the unenforceability of human rights so far & the lack of results compared to a thriving ideology has made the era of human rights one of the past.

# data[].attributes.headline
End of an era: legal pluralism and imperialism. 

# data[].attributes.subject
End of an era: legal pluralism and imperialism. 

# data[].attributes.body
Mutua makes a strong statement that "the human rights era has ended" (pg 6).

- One reason for this claim is that human rights ideologies have not lived up to expectations. Mutua supports this by saying:  "The human rights idea has failed to gain complete submission in cultures and traditions outside the West- especially in Asia, the Muslim world, and Africa" (pg 452). One big issue pertaining to human rights is that the global West has long dominated the narrative, especially over the global South. The North fails to recognize that in other parts of the world, there are other cultures, legal systems, norms, etc, that could influence these countries' social and legal practices pertaining to human rights. This is the issue of failing to recognize legal pluralism. If we fail to awcknolege the south and continue to dominate though western views, we lose the sucess of crating policies that will help keep the promises shown in the UDHR.

- Mutua also argues how imperlaism plays. role in possibly creating an end of an era. The North claims to be all high and mighty and wants to be seen as a role model of promotion of human rihts, but in reality what they try to get the South to enforce regarding human rights, they lack enforcing these values within the north. The global north is reaching into imperalism territory in trying to extend its influence and control of values of human rights into the south (pg 453). But these values greatly refelct northern values, and fail to consider the south.

Nicole Brunette

# data[].attributes.body
- Just War Theory indicates a moral justification for military action and force since the Middle Ages, according to Douzinas. However, when this theory was developed, it was very selective, as it only applied to Christian causes and European royalty.
- However, during the time of the Middle Ages, anyone could justify this theory by claiming that they were morally right and therefore they could take military action. This lead to the many injustices and murders of minority groups, such as indigenous people.
- I think that the new definition of just war should eliminate this idea of "just" and solely look at the warring parties to see if military action and force is needed. We need to look at the past and realize that historical assumptions of "just" were completely immoral, and instead focus on redefining this concept to be more equtiable.

# data[].attributes.body
- One article that would support Mutua's reading would be Pogge's reading about global inequality because it criticizes the idea that the Age of Rights may be over. Although there is a universal agreement that human rights are essential, there are still so many injustices that occur against human rights, such as global inequality, that those who are responsible fail to take action.
- One article that challenges Mutua's claims would be Henkin's article about human rights being the idea of our time. Henkin does make strong claims about a universal agreement for promoting and protecting human rights, but so many examples prove that this idea has not been upheld. From genocide to other atrocities, if human rights were truly the idea of our time then these atrocities would not occur.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yes I agree that legal humanism is still present in our time. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Yes I agree that legal humanism is still present in our time. 

# data[].attributes.body
I saw someone mention that it still exists but the "interpretation and implementation varies." This reminded me of the Rome Treaty at first was created to address topics regarding the economy but was then expanded to grant women more rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale of how and why wars are waged is the subject of just war theory, which was first developed in the Middle Ages. The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a roadmap for states to follow in the event of a conflict. In addition, the principle isn't meant to justify wars; rather, it's meant to discourage them by demonstrating that going to war only under specific situations is incorrect, and thereby motivating states to find other ways to resolve conflicts. Nevertheless, Douzinas critiques the concept of just wars, arguing that the idea of a just war is often used to justify military intervention and aggression. He argues that the language of just war is often used to mask the true motives behind military action, and that the concept of a just war is inherently flawed because it relies on subjective and arbitrary criteria for determining when military action is justified. States to this day may use religion as an excuse for war as it can be a powerful tool for mobilizing people and justifying actions, and it can also be used to demonize an enemy and rally support for a war effort. Instead of relying on the concept of just war, we should focus on promoting peace and non-violent conflict resolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Mutua's article "Is the Age of Human Rights Over?" and Turner's article "Human Rights and the Empire of International Law" both discuss the limitations and challenges of the human rights framework. However, they approach the topic from different perspectives. Mutua argues that the human rights framework has failed to address the root causes of inequality and injustice, and has become a tool for Western countries to impose their values on the rest of the world. He suggests that a new approach is needed, one that focuses on economic and social rights and takes into account the cultural and historical context of each society. Turner, on the other hand, defends the human rights framework as a necessary tool for promoting justice and accountability in the international arena. He acknowledges the limitations of the framework, but argues that it has the potential to empower marginalized groups and hold powerful actors accountable for their actions. Overall, while both articles acknowledge the limitations of the human rights framework, Mutua's article takes a more critical stance and calls for a fundamental rethinking of the approach, while Turner's article defends the framework as a necessary tool for promoting justice and accountability.

# data[].attributes.body
Kurt Mills brings up concepts which can challenge Mutua’s claims. Mutua argues that human rights are becoming publicly overly exhausted. However Mutuna proves how complex the efforts in protecting human rights can be which inevitably are very involved with the public. Mutua suggests that human rights may have been a temporary phenomenon despite the long term investments and mechanisms that Kurt Mills has suggested.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the concept of just wars in general is very ironic in the way that the author explained. Costa Douzinas proposes that the method is supposed to help justify armed intervention in a moral way. In other words war is being framed in an ethical manner. I’m not sure if war can ever be ethical however the author may be suggesting this and the idea that there is a more correct or acceptable way to carry about war. Another conflicting idea to me is ‘humanitarian wars’. I can really see how religion helps enforce the moral aspect of action and am still surprised to learn this despite knowing that church used to be somewhat a form of government.

The theory of just wars was first developed In order to honor both religion and the former dictator during the Middle Ages (Julias Caesar). Which birthed the dynamic of church and war where church investing its duties into punishing enemies and helping elevate faith.