How real is our consensus about human rights beyond the traditional human rights community? And are claims of legitimacy easily accepted in conjunction with military operations thought to be in support of human rights, as has been claimed in Iraq and Afghanistan ? The US favors civil and political rights on an individual basis, while largely rejecting economic and social rights as well as so-called third generation or group rights. Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world recognizes economic and social rights, and the developing world arguably gives them priority along with group rights. How to make sense of these differences outside the customary framework viewing human rights through the lens of universalist claims versus cultural relativism?

The 2006 Barnes Symposium approaches these issues from three perspectives. First, it examines the on-going debate in the Supreme Court concerning the use of foreign human rights sources in US constitutional litigation. While often understood as a debate solely about the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons), it stretches further in contemplation of differences of opinion between countries over the scope and proper interpretation of human rights. There is also arguably a separate, growing gap between views of human rights espoused by the Executive Branch externally, and views in US courts. The Executive Branch’s behavior has come under criticism in conjunction with the war on terror, but separate and apart from that the Supreme Court has recently articulated relatively conservative views of international law and human rights claims under customary law (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain). Meanwhile, Congress has shown a marked reluctance traditionally to embrace human rights treaties.

Second, the 2006 Barnes Symposium looks at differing views of human rights in different countries or legal systems. For convenience sake, they are grouped by regional panels ( Asia , Africa , the Americas and Islamic views). Here focus may shift between panels, but the differing emphasis on economic and social rights as well as group rights may come to the fore alongside basic enforcement problems. Human rights are not primarily or even necessarily asserted via courts in other countries, which shapes their understanding.

Third, other legal and political systems face their own pressing human rights issues. For example, within the Islamic legal tradition, articulating sharia law consistent with international human rights instruments is a repeated theme in the recent past. There are both religious and equal protection issues, which are typically lost from sight in caricatured treatments all too common in the media. Similarly, the priority placed on economic and social rights under other countries’ views may be best understood by analogy to domestic controversies such as the property rights movement. Who or what takes precedence, social or individual interests, and how is this reflected in views of human rights?

We ask these questions to explore how we draw legal lines as a matter of international law, meanwhile aspiring to legitimacy in claiming human rights to be part of US foreign policy. But how to understand the legitimacy claim if others diverge in basic views of human rights?