Critics of Human Rights from a Historical Perspective

Implementation of human rights is often criticized because it is perceived as being imposed on the rest of the world. In this case, human rights start to be seen as a sole abstraction, an empty word. What are the theoretical arguments of these critics and can we determine any historical grounds for them? In this paper, I will try to point at similar critics after the French Revolution – like that of the Historical School and Hegel – and try to show if some of these critics are still relevant. And I will compare these critics with contemporary arguments of cultural relativists. There are different streams and categorizations of human rights theories in today’s world. What differentiates them is basically the source of the human rights. After the French Revolution, the historical school had criticized the individuation and Hegel had criticized the formal freedom which was, according to him, a consequence of the Revolution. In this context Hegel drew a distinction between real freedom and formal freedom. Besides the theory of sources, the theories of implementation such as human rights as a model of learning, human rights as a result of an historical process are worth attention. The crucial point is about integrating human rights as an inner process and not to use them as a tool for intervention in other countries, which we observe in today’s world. And this is the exact point why I find the discussion of the sources more important. This discussion can help us to show how the inner evaluation of a society makes the realization of human rights possible and how we can avoid the above mentioned abstraction and misuse.

Universities and Welfare States Coping with Permanent Financial Austerity: Pressures on (Competing) Public Institutions

A chapter linking universities and welfare states to permanent financial austerity can take a shorter or a longer historical perspective. This chapter looks further back (to the postwar expansion of European welfare states) to better understand future transformations of both public institutions. Their long-term sustainability problems did not start with the financial crisis of 2008 but have been growing since the 1970s (Schäfer and Streeck 2013; Bonoli and Natali 2012; Hay and Wincott 2012). Financial austerity is not a post-crisis phenomenon. As a concept, it was used in welfare state research at least a decade earlier, although it does not seem to have been used in higher education studies until recently. Two quotations bring us to the heart of the matter: welfare states and universities are currently changing under adverse financial conditions caused by an array of interrelating and mutually reinforcing forces and their long-term financial sustainability is at stake across Europe. The welfare state is a “particular trademark of the European social model” (Svallfors 2012: 1), “the jewel in the crown” and a “fundamental part of what Europe stands for” (Giddens 2006: 14), as are tuition-free universities, the cornerstone of intergenerational social mobility in Continental Europe. The past trajectories of major types of welfare states and of universities in Europe tend to go hand in hand: first vastly expanding following the Second World War, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, and then being in the state of permanent resource-driven and legitimacy-based “crisis” in the last two decades. Welfare states and universities, two critically important public institutions, seem to be under heavy attacks from the public, the media and politicians. Their long-term sustainability is being questioned, and solutions to their (real and perceived) problems are being sought at global, European, and national levels.