Conversations with Utopias: Samuel Moyn’s take on Human Rights

Imagine a world where dignity, freedom, and justice aren’t just aspirations, but fundamental rights woven into the very fabric of existence for every single person, no matter their origin or identity. This is the powerful vision of human rights, a concept so deeply cherished by many, yet surprisingly, its widespread embrace may be a relatively recent phenomenon. It’s a journey from philosophical whispers to a global chorus, a truly utopian venture that has profoundly reshaped local politics and international dialogues.

The origins of human rights are a fascinating tapestry. Many historical accounts of human rights attempt to recast history as a steady march towards international human rights. Debated and reinterpreted throughout history, with some pointing its origins to the dawn of civilization, while others champion the Age of Enlightenment and the transformative American and French Revolutions. The post-World War II era, with the framing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or even the urgent response to the Holocaust in the 1940s, are also frequently cited.
In popular commentary and political speeches, human rights are often presented as obvious and ancient; However, as Professor Samuel Moyn eloquently argues, it was after 1968 that human rights truly began to resonate with broad communities and emerge as a potent movement. Therefore, it wasn’t a linear progression but a powerful response to the collapse of prior utopian ideologies and the pressing need for a new moral compass in the wake of numerous political failures and tensions.

Speaking of political failures and tensions, let me touch on the Cold War’s influence on human rights; You see the Cold War was a period of intense global rivalry. It significantly influenced how the concept of “human rights” was promoted. The background of the Cold War itself lies with the post-World War II dynamics that saw world leadership fall to either the United States or the Soviet Union, each envisioning a distinct new world order. The Soviets championed self-determination as an utopian cause, intertwining it with communism and nationalism, while the U.S. sought to inspire global hopes through the idea of human rights.
The question of whether the Soviet Union was a “failure” is a complex one with no simple answer, it achieved significant industrial and technological advancements especially in the early decades, and played a crucial role in defeating Nazi Germany. However, its centrally planned economy experienced stagnation and the USSR was viewed by many as an inefficiency coupled with the lack of political freedom and human rights, ultimately contributed to its collapse.
With the Cold War dynamic alone, it was almost inevitable that human rights would transition from a nascent social movement to a legal priority.

From Concept to Core Principle

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, born from the ashes of WWII, officially introduced the idea of human rights as a cornerstone of the new world order, largely championed by the U.S. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union advocated for self-determination and freedom from class system. This ideological divide played out globally, with the Soviet Union supporting African colonies seeking independence from Western powers, viewing Western imperialism as a backbone of capitalism. This dynamic likely contributed to the eventual unpopularity of self-determination when the Soviet Union itself faced calls for nationalist motivated separatism within its own political framework.

Despite its 1948 declaration, human rights remained largely just a concept; a struggling movement from the 1940s to the late 1960s. Organizations dedicated to its mission were practically unknown.
The very definition of “human rights” also went through some evolution, shifting from implying colonial liberation and being intertwined with discourse on self-determination in the 1940s and 50s, to its recognizable form today: individual protection against the state.

The West strategically adopted this shift, moving beyond revolutionary ideals to envision international laws as guardians of utopian norms, even integrating them into foreign policy. The U.S., in particular, frequently uses human rights to justify interventions abroad, framed as humanitarian aid or standing against dictators, often with underlying economic interests or aims to build soft power.

While elements of state authority and protection for people have always existed, the idea of a widespread human rights movement in response to some historical events such as the Holocaust in the post-war era, slavery in the Americas etc. are largely misrepresentations of the context of the efforts against these horrible events. The collapse of previous universalist schemes and their replacement by human rights in the 1970s was a more pivotal factor.

Moyn asserts that if we ignore the true origins and trajectory of human rights, we risk overlooking the genuine reasons for its contemporary relevance and power. For me, this is important because, the quiet collapse of the brightest ideas often come when we forget their origin stories, the conditions that necessitated these ideas and how these ideas were able to survive and grow; they can become easily diluted or hijacked by people who do not and have never shared the vision.
He highlights the crucial distinction between the rights of citizens (based on belonging to a political community) and the eventual emergence of human rights, which transcend national boundaries. It is also important to note that human rights is a universalist concept, often contending with the argument of cultural relativism.
While natural rights doctrines, popular in the Age of Enlightenment with thinkers like John Locke, are often seen as predecessors, Moyn pushes back on the idea of a simple, natural progression. Similarly, he contests the notion that human rights have a purely American and French origin from the 18th and 19th centuries.

The true emergence of human rights arrived with a focus on civil libertarian mechanisms for restraining the state, presenting an alternative to revolutionary overthrows or independence movements. Crucially, this impulse stemmed from deep cultural and national traditions of freedom, but also pivotal to it is the international reaction to suffering. This distinction is vital, as mentioned before, human rights are fundamentally universalist in nature and promoted internationally.

So, how did this internationalism take root? From the 1870s, international organizations and leagues began to emerge, fostering a global consciousness. However, the concept of rights was rarely championed above the state level, instead influencing national movements like women’s rights. These pre-1900s movements remained largely confined to specific regions or countries.

Another historic movement often tied to human rights is anti-colonialism. But why wasn’t anti-colonialism a human rights movement? Well I agree with Moyn once gain, that in the post-World War II era, anti-colonialism was primarily about the promise of self-determination, not international human rights. While this resonated globally, anti-colonialists rarely framed their cause in “rights” before 1945. Anti-colonialism had already developed its own powerful narrative by then, while human rights rhetoric was still nascent.
The Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration issued in 1941 by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, aimed to dismantle European empires as a matter of foreign policy. However, Moyn argues against calling it a human rights instrument, noting that the phrase “human rights” isn’t even present within the charter. During this time, even when “human rights” was used, anti-colonial discourse centered on political independence, aligning with the trajectory of self-determination and later, territorial integrity. Interesting, as territorial integrity, in that context, was more akin to self-determination as part of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, but nowadays used at times to quash certain self-determination movements. Understanding the true origins and evolving purpose of human rights is crucial for effectively navigating complexities in today’s geopolitics.

The Pure Struggle: Fueling a Dream

The dream of human rights for a better world gained significant momentum due to several key factors:

1. Direct Engagement: A shift towards working directly with people rather than solely with governments.
2. A New Dawn after the cold war: The powerful correlation between human rights activism and the international human rights era with the fall of the Soviet Union.
3. Voice for the Voiceless: Its adoption by antagonists of dictatorships, particularly in Latin America, where political frameworks had failed (e.g., coups in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay). Highlighting the horrific torture perpetrated by these regimes garnered immense sympathy for victims and fostered a strong affinity for human rights.

By this time, human rights had become an integral part of political discourse and a powerful tool in both partisan politics and geopolitics.

Just as self-determination developed a robust international legal status, it was only a matter of time before human rights would follow suit. Today, International Law is inextricably interwoven with Human Rights. As Moyn aptly quotes, “International law for many theorists and practitioners is no longer the law of nations, it is the law of human rights.” International law has emerged as the new arena for recasting utopian aspirations, exemplified by the revival of international criminal adjudication in the 1990s for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (1994 genocide). More recently, the USA continues to use human rights as a key justification for many of its foreign interventions, despite cases of human rights violation of its own.

Time and time again movements change, or decline and crumble. Humanity keeps pushing but sometimes we aren’t even sure what we are pushing for, or pushing towards.

Can humanity ever truly achieve utopia?