Julio Montero

According to the orthodox or humanist conception of human rights, individuals have a moral duty to promote the universal realization of human rights. However, advocates of this account express the implications of this duty in extremely vague terms. What does it mean when we say that we must promote human rights satisfaction? Does it mean that we must devote a considerable amount of our time and resources to this task? Does it mean, instead, that we must make occasional donations to charities working to advance human rights realization? In this essay, I argue that this duty can only be constructed as imperfect. This means that it confers agent-relative discretion on us to decide when, how, and to what extent to advance the human rights of others. It also means that it is neither correlative with rights nor enforceable. As I will explain, the main reason for this is that any attempt to construct it as a perfect duty would infringe the dignity of the potential duty bearers and thereby undermine the very values that human rights practice aspires to serve. Finally, I will conclude by providing some guidelines for those who wish to comply with their imperfect duties to improve the situation of those whose human rights are in peril.

Abstract: In this brief article, I claim that the Contribution Principle invoked by Christian Barry as a key principle for determining who owes what to the global destitute is mistaken as a definitive principle and unjustified as a provisional principle for dealing with global poverty. This principle assumes that merely causing, or contributing to the cause of, a state of affairs may be sufficient to have a special responsibility to bear the costs that this state of affairs entails. I argue that an agent will only have such a special responsibility if he or she has caused a state of affairs (for example, acute destitution) by violating a duty not to do so. Therefore, the Contribution Principle is mistaken. Finally, I tackle two possible responses to my argument. The first claims that states have a duty not to undertake actions that may cause, or contribute to the cause of, acute deprivations. The second claims that although the Contribution Principle may be mistaken as a definitive principle for dealing with global destitution, it is nonetheless correct as a provisional principle.

La visión imperante en el derecho internacional actual concibe los derechos humanos como normas relativas al trato que los Estados brindan a su propia población. Esta posición, que se conoce como la “perspectiva estatista” sobre los derechos humanos, es actualmente resistida por varios autores. En este artículo intentaré defender la perspectiva estatista contra una serie de críticas recientemente formuladas por Cristina Lafont en Isegoría y en otras importantes revistas especializadas. En particular, trataré de probar que, contrariamente a lo que Lafont argumenta, esta perspectiva captura adecuadamente la razón de ser de la práctica contemporánea de los derechos humanos y dispone de recursos para resguardar los intereses de los seres humanos de las nuevas amenazas surgidas en un mundo globalizado

En este artículo discuto dos tesis que Thomas Pogge deriva de su concepción institucional de los derechos humanos: la tesis de la culpa y la tesis de la violación global. La tesis de la culpa asevera que los ciudadanos que contribuyen a sostener un régimen institucional que viola derechos humanos sin realizar compensaciones en beneficio de las víctimas, se convierten ellos mismos en violadores de derechos humanos. Por su parte, la tesis de la violación global asevera que al imponer regulaciones injustas que tienden a generar pobreza extrema, el régimen internacional actual viola los derechos humanos de los pobres del mundo. Mi intención será probar que ambas tesis son insostenibles ya que se basan en presupuestos errados en materia de responsabilidad. Esto no nos conducirá, sin embargo, a abandonar la concepción institucional de los derechos humanos. Por el contrario, una vez depurada de sus problemas, se trata de una concepción que puede ayudarnos a pensar adecuadamente sobre la responsabilidad por los derechos humanos en un mundo globalizado. In this paper, I discuss two theses that Thomas Pogge derives from his ins-titutional conception of human rights: the thesis of guilt and the thesis of global violation. The thesis of guilt states that citizens who contribute to support an institutional regime that violates human rights without awarding the victims any compensation become themselves human rights violators. The thesis of global violation, on the other hand, states that, by imposing unfair regulations that tend to generate extreme poverty, the current international regime violates the human rights of the world's poor. My intention is to prove that both theses are untenable because both of them are based on wrong assumptions concerning responsibility. This will not lead us, however, to leave the institutional conception of human rights. On the contrary, once debugged of its problems, it can be considered a conception that can help us to think properly about responsibility for human rights in a globalized world

In her article “Human Rights and the Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions” published in this volume of RLPF, Cristina Lafont argues that in order to impose human rights obligations to global governance institutions, the state-centric conception of human rights that pervades current international politics must be replaced by an alternative, pluralist account. In this response I claim that, when properly interpreted, the state-centric conception is not only perfectly compatible with imposing on global governance institutions the kind of obligations Lafont has in mind, but may also lead us to a better understanding of the nature of these responsibilities in a globalized world.

La tesis central de este artículo es que la concepción de la razón pública propuesta por John Rawls, incluso en su versión “inclusiva”, es demasiado restrictiva y viola el principio liberal de legitimidad y la tesis de la neutralidad del estado, que constituyen elementos centrales de la teoría política de Rawls y del liberalismo político en general. Finalmente, se propone una concepción alternativa de la razón pública liberal, centrada únicamente en un deber básico de civilidad, el deber de reciprocidad, a la que denominaré la concepción “abierta” de la razón pública.

In this article I consider Thomas Pogge’s thesis that affluent countries are violating the human rights of the global poor by contributing support to the current global institutional order. My claim is that affluent countries are not violating the human rights of the global poor in the ways suggested by Pogge. I start by defining a set of conditions that ought to obtain in order to say that a human rights violation has taken place. Then I consider two possible interpretations of Pogge’s thesis and argue that none of them fulfills the conditions required to speak of a human rights violation. On my view, as long as domestic states have the capacity to fulfill the human rights of their own people, poverty constitutes a domestic human rights violation even if the international institutional order somehow contributes to creating this state of affairs. Finally, I examine what transnational duties human rights entail and claim that affluent countries must contribute to the creation of an international order providing domestic states accurate background conditions for the promotion of human rights at the domestic level.

En este artículo discuto dos tesis que Thomas Pogge deriva de su concepción institucional de los derechos humanos: la tesis de la culpa y la tesis de la violación global. La tesis de la culpa asevera que los ciudadanos que contribuyen a sostener un régimen institucional que viola derechos humanos sin realizar compensaciones en beneficio de las víctimas, se convierten ellos mismos en violadores de derechos humanos. Por su parte, la tesis de la violación global asevera que al imponer regulaciones injustas que tienden a generar pobreza extrema, el régimen internacional actual viola los derechos humanos de los pobres del mundo. Mi intención será probar que ambas tesis son insostenibles ya que se basan en presupuestos errados en materia de responsabilidad. Esto no nos conducirá, sin embargo, a abandonar la concepción institucional de los derechos humanos. Por el contrario, una vez depurada de sus problemas, se trata de una concepción que puede ayudarnos a pensar adecuadamente sobre la responsabilidad por los derechos humanos en un mundo globalizado

Durante décadas, los filósofos han concebido los derechos humanos como una clase de derechos naturales de los que gozamos por el mero hecho de ser seres humanos. Sin embargo, esta interpretación ha sido severamente cuestionada en los últimos años. Toda una familia de autores, identificados con una concepción “práctico-dependiente”, asevera que los derechos humanos constituyen una práctica sui generis completamente ajena a la tradición del derecho natural. En contra de esta postura, este artículo argumenta que el discurso de los derechos naturales es parte constitutiva de la doctrina actual de los derechos humanos y que puede hacer un aporte crucial a la adecuada justificación y comprensión de sus funciones, su contenido y su alcance normativo. Más concretamente, mi tesis será que si bien los derechos humanos no pueden reducirse a derechos naturales, bien podrían derivar de derechos naturales previos.

In this article I consider Thomas Pogge’s thesis that affluent countries are violating the human rights of the global poor by contributing support to the current global institutional order. My claim is that affluent countries are not violating the human rights of the global poor in the ways suggested by Pogge. I start by defining a set of conditions that ought to obtain in order to say that a human rights violation has taken place. Then I consider two possible interpretations of Pogge’s thesis and argue that none of them fulfills the conditions required to speak of a human rights violation. On my view, as long as domestic states have the capacity to fulfill the human rights of their own people, poverty constitutes a domestic human rights violation even if the international institutional order somehow contributes to creating this state of affairs. Finally, I examine what transnational duties human rights entail and claim that affluent countries must contribute to the creation of an international order providing domestic states accurate background conditions for the promotion of human rights at the domestic level.

In this article I consider Thomas Pogge’s thesis that affluent countries are violating the human rights of the global poor by contributing support to the current global institutional order. My claim is that affluent countries are not violating the human rights of the global poor in the ways suggested by Pogge. I start by defining a set of conditions that ought to obtain in order to say that a human rights violation has taken place. Then I consider two possible interpretations of Pogge’s thesis and argue that none of them fulfills the conditions required to speak of a human rights violation. On my view, as long as domestic states have the capacity to fulfill the human rights of their own people, poverty constitutes a domestic human rights violation even if the international institutional order somehow contributes to creating this state of affairs. Finally, I examine what transnational duties human rights entail and claim that affluent countries must contribute to the creation of an international order providing domestic states accurate background conditions for the promotion of human rights at the domestic level.

Does the fact that my actions cause someone to lack access to the objects of her human rights make me a human rights violator? Is behaving in such a way that we deprive someone of access to the objects of her human rights even when we could have avoided behaving in such a way, sufficient to maintain that we have violated her human rights? When an affluent country pursues domestic policies that will foreseeably cause massive deprivation abroad in order to improve its already prosperous economy, has this country violated the human rights of the very poor just by doing so? If international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization pursue policies that lead to an increase in the global poverty rate, are such organizations human rights violators? Can an individual undertaking certain actions in the market place that render insecure the access of the worst-off to the objects of their human rights be blamed for violating their rights?In this article I discuss the thesis that claims that whenever we cause, or contribute to the cause of, someone else's lack of access to the objects of her human rights, we are human rights violators. I contend that this thesis, which seems to underpin the arguments of many cosmopolitan authors taking part of the global justice debate, is mistaken. In order to achieve this end, I analyze several alternative formulations of the causal thesis. My conclusion is that before it can be said that an agent has violated someone else's human rights, it has to be proven that this agent has caused, or contributed to the cause of, a state of affairs where someone lacks access to the object of some of her human rights, by infringing a duty not to do so. Furthermore, I maintain that this must be a perfect, as opposed to an imperfect, duty