FORGE Speaker Series

Video Gallery

Theory of Change Behind FORGE: Looking Back to Look Forward

by César Rodríguez-Garavito

  • In his opening remarks, César set out the goals for the four days of the FORGE conference. Beginning with the theme of FORGE, ‘looking back to look forward,’ he explained that the program intends to create a space for imagining the future of the fields of human rights and global justice—but this task of imagination requires us to learn from the past. Delving into the history of the human rights project, he provided snapshots of junctures that have shaped human rights practice. He then described a series of positive changes that occurred specifically in the past decade, such as the emergence of the youth climate movement, the expansion of marriage equality, the consolidation of indigenous peoples’ movements, and the Black Lives Matter movement. But the past 10 years have also seen a shift from techno-optimism to techno-pessimism, as well as the rise of a new model of illiberal democracy that has entailed the methodical dismantlement of human rights architecture.

    Alongside these developments, the past decade has also seen the emergence of louder challenges to the human rights project itself, as scholars have proclaimed the ‘endtimes’ of human rights. César explained that this ‘endtimes’ rhetoric came as a surprise to human rights actors in the Global South, and that some of this critique had been based on a view of “what the human rights system looks like from the ivory tower.” As is evident from the Open Society Barometer and from Dancy and Fariss’s recent empirical analysis of Google searches for human rights, human rights language continues to be very popular, especially in the Global South and in countries that are going through human rights crises. César therefore called for the ‘end of endism’—moving beyond the ‘endtimes’ rhetoric to free up space for renewing the language, the practice, and the promise of human rights.

    FORGE engages in this task of renewal. César explained that the conference would curate a multi-disciplinary conversation that stretches beyond conventional human rights actors and that goes back and forth between ‘thinkers’ and ‘doers’ from across the heterogeneous human rights and global justice ‘ecosystem.’ FORGE, César noted, is not just a conference. Rather, it is a long-term effort that intends to incubate participants’ ideas for change. The focus would therefore be on solutions, and an experimental spirit would drive the four days of the conference—a key aim would be to carve out space for imagining promising solutions. Finally, César noted that, from an emotional and personal point of view, FORGE represents a deliberate attempt at instilling hope into human rights and global justice practice.

The Inner Life of the Future: Governing with Collapse and Transformation In Mind

by Jonathon Rowson

  • Jonathan set the tone of the plenary discussions by exploring the necessity of renewing human rights in this new ‘planetary’ age. The world today, he argued, has fundamentally changed since 1948 when the legal project of human rights began, in three key ways. First, we have entered a new phase of geological time (the Anthropocene); second, as Maria Ressa has noted, an “invisible atom bomb has exploded inside our information ecosystem,” and we need new institutions to deal with this issue; and third, our political and economic system has lost its ability to adapt. We are in a ‘meta-crisis,’ as these ecological, informational, and political crises interact with each other, but a misunderstanding and misappropriation of reality afflicts us. We do not, Jonathan argued, have the means of addressing this meta-crisis within our existing institutional framework.

    In this context, human rights actors will need to renew and reshape their practice, by asking themselves a new set of questions. As the world is increasingly defined by transnational forces of ecology, finance, and technology, how will existing forms of governance premised on sovereign nation states ever be fit for purpose? In a world where democratic processes are used to consolidate plutocratic power, what do we want ‘government of the people, for the people, and by the people’ to mean? And in a world of cascading ecological breakdowns caused by human behavior, shaped by a tenacious economic model, where should we focus our attention? The human rights movement, Jonathan argued, is not yet institutionally or culturally equipped to answer these crucial questions.

    To answer these questions, we will need a reckoning that is commensurate with the challenges of our time. We need a moment akin to the 1948 juncture in which the contemporary human rights project began. But this renewed project will need to begin from different premises. It will need to center global civil society and transnational alliances as opposed to nation states. It will need to emphasize “the ‘human’ in human rights”—that is, kindness must be placed at the center of the movement, as human rights actors must embrace practices that are less legalistic and more centered around emancipatory politics. A renewed practice of human rights will need to have peace at its heart, and it must engage with the need to actively build social solidarity. This will require transformative education and a deeper conception of peace. A key question for the next few days, therefore, will be to distinguish between human rights law, human rights politics, and human rights morality, with an emphasis on developing the latter.

Indigenous Wisdom for an Ailing Planet

by Patricia Gualinga

  • In this talk, Patricia Gualinga, Director of International Relations for the Kichwa People of Sarayaku, introduces the concept of Kawsak Sacha, also known as the living forest. According to Gualinga, Indigenous peoples have been resisting colonialism and environmental degradation for over 500 years. In recent decades, the Sarayaku Indigenous people have proposed Kawsak Sacha as a response to the environmental, political, and spiritual crises.

    Gualinga emphasizes that the legal system is integral to understanding the world and cannot coexist when the rights of humans and non-humans are violated. Her proposal suggests that legal and political regulations should be founded in holistic interventions that recognize the protection of all forms of life, including the earth and the environment. In essence, she argues that there can be no rights without protecting the planet Earth. All these concepts are presented under the idea of integrity, reflecting the Indigenous value of recognizing rights for all.

    The agenda of recognizing rights for nature, proposed by Indigenous peoples, is a crucial part of the Sarayaku mobilization. Their project is intertwined with acknowledging the interconnection and co-dependence that exists within their territory and among all beings.

    Kawsak Sacha highlights the relationship with nature and ecosystems. The concept focuses on the belief that everything is alive and that there are invisible relationships among all beings. This sacred knowledge of Indigenous peoples posits that nature is alive, possesses consciousness like human beings, and living forests play a vital role in protecting life on Earth and the invisible connections that exist with other beings.

    To learn more about Kawsak Sacha, visit: https://kawsaksacha.org/

For The Living

by Ayisha Siddiqa

  • Inviting you to watch Ayisha Siddiqa's segment from FORGE 2023. Ayisha begins with a reflection on the power and necessity of poetry and art. In the light of alarming data on the possibility of the extinction of cultures and peoples, especially Indigenous peoples, we need memory. As we stand “at the dawn of extinction,” and as we are “bombarded with the feeling of immense loss headed our way,” Ayisha noted that “all the things that will be left abandoned will serve as witnesses that we were once here.” We need to commemorate “the brilliance of the histories that have brought us here today.” We need art so that we can “leave behind evidence that we tried.”

    Ayisha’s first poem, After Extinction, painted a beautiful and tragic picture of all the things that will be missed when human beings are extinct. No one will stick their fingers into empty peanut butter jars, fight over the remote control, or spill coffee over their favorite pants—all of this will be gone.

    Ayisha’s poem I Lost My Talk reflected on what she has lost of herself as she has entered the ‘corridors of power.’ As she has gained increasing prominence in the international youth climate movement, recently named one of TIME Magazine’s women of the year, and as a Youth Climate Advisor to the UN Secretary General, she notes that, through these roles, “over the years, I’ve lost my talk. Now when I talk, I introduce myself like you. To enter the door, I wear the same clothes as you.” Ayisha then reflected on memory and the preservation of her family’s history through a family bookkeeper, and read a poem dedicated to her sister. Her final poem was entitled: On another panel about climate. They ask me to sell the future and all I’ve got is a love poem. She asked, “What if the future is soft and the revolution is kind?” and described a future deeply rooted in love, in which humans ‘withstand their own end.’

Extracts from The Secret Lives of Baba Segi’s Wives by Lola Shoneyin

by Maimouna Jallow

  • Through the monologues of three women who are each married to the same polygamous man, Maïmouna’s performance explored the burdens society places on women and the cunning ways in which they try to escape from the confines of poverty and patriarchy. The monologues offered a reflection on gender inequality, touching upon love, gender-based violence, sexual and reproductive health, and different forms of power and control over women, including financial control and bonded labor.

Reinventing Democracy from the Bottom Up

by Ricken Patel

  • Drawing from his experience in online organizing and “witnessing the wisdom and the madness of crowds,” Ricken began by noting that culture and emotion are at the heart of how we operate and are central to the challenges facing democracy today. Quoting a political advisor to the Kremlin who said “they think we are messing with their democracies, but we are messing with their minds,” Ricken argued that we have been witnessing a series of “cultural playbooks” at work, and “it is the battle of the playbooks that will determine the future of our democracies.” Targeted attempts to divide populations have relied centrally on emotional tactics: it is thus vital to understand how these efforts take effect and how we might counter them.

    Drawing insights from psychology, Ricken described the ‘trigger spiral’ through which polarization and extremism intensify. First, the spiral begins with some kind of adversity, leading to feelings of hurt and anger. Second, when the brain is flooded with such emotions, we experience various cognitive distortions: we catastrophize, and we demonize others. Third, we ‘tribalize,’ seeking the comfort of like-minded people. This leads to yet more cognitive distortions, such as social conformity biases and confirmation biases, which in turn increase group polarization. Like-minded groups become ever-more extreme in their views, straying further from reality in what is known as the ‘reality loop’: the fact that individuals are not exposed to opposing views leads to increasingly intense beliefs that they are defending the truth. They are drawn towards extreme action—actions that they would be ashamed of if it turned out that their justifications were based on inaccuracies and misunderstandings. But the consistent confirmation of beliefs allows for the justification of increasingly extreme actions. The ‘tribalism’ and the demonization of others, combined with the reality loop, mean that an individual’s constantly-confirmed views become closely tied to their identity. At this point, changing one’s beliefs entails abandoning one’s entire understanding of the world and involves a partial destruction of the self. Crucially, the trigger spirals of different groups can interact, creating a process of “cumulative extremism” as radicals feed off each other. Ricken warned that democracy has historically not been successful in countering such cumulative extremism; the interaction between the extremism of communists and fascists throughout the 20th century led to the creation of totalitarian regimes in many countries.

    Though many actors in progressive politics believe that they need to ‘hack tribalism’ and turn it to their own purposes, Ricken argued that what is needed is a different cultural playbook. He proposes ‘culture campaigning’ that builds movements centered around the ‘wisdom spiral.’ That is, in the face of adversity, rather than responding with anger, we must practice mindfulness—naming the trigger, withdrawing from it, and “looking for the gift in adversity.” The wisdom spiral leads us to “search for the learning” that arises from adversity, to seek connection instead of demonizing others, and to escape the echo chamber. A more promising cultural playbook would entail communications that center ‘heroes’ of the wisdom spiral and that capitalize on our strong, instinctive motivation to be better humans and leave the world a better place for future generations. As practical, tangible suggestions, he proposed an echo chamber detox, as well as an “undemonized deliberation day” wherein individuals find someone who thinks very differently and listens to their views carefully and respectfully.

Renewing Democracy & Pushing Back Against Authoritarians

by Ivan Krastev

  • Ivan’s presentation on the renewal of democracy sought to offer a fresh diagnosis of “why it has become so difficult to keep democratic institutions working as they are supposed to.” The central theme of his talk was the important role of conceptions of the future within democracy, and the ways in which current views of the future pose challenges to democracy. He explained that, when a person votes in an election, they “experience time in its fullest dimensions” as the past and the future come together in a single moment. The act of voting entails a judgment on the performance of the governments that came before, as well as a judgment on promises about the future. Crucially, democracy functions through simultaneously over-dramatizing and de-dramatizing issues. Some issues are prioritized, while others are left for the future. The future therefore serves a critical purpose for democracy, Ivan noted, by providing a dimension for deliberative problem-solving: the problems that cannot be solved today will be solved tomorrow.

    But, Ivan argued, a dramatic change is underway as certain groups’ conceptions of the future have been shifting. This has serious implications for the operation of democratic institutions. Two very different groups are now driven by a sense of existential urgency. Climate activists argue that policies will only be successful if implemented now, as “tomorrow will be too late.” The anti-immigration right argues that if action is not taken immediately to reduce current rates of immigration, it will be impossible to reverse in 5-10 years’ time. These two groups are increasingly structuring the debate.

    Today, therefore, the future is no longer a dimension in which societies can solve and reconcile their problems through democratic institutions that push for compromise and successfully undertake slow reforms. There is, Ivan argued, “a crisis in the very notion of a slow, reformist process in which you are solving some problems today while other problems will be left for tomorrow.” Because these two groups’ understanding of time and urgency has changed, they increasingly feel that democracy does not work for them. Ivan noted that “the most important precondition for the democratic compromise to work was the idea of a welcoming future”—therefore, this alienation from the future dimension on both the left and the right poses a serious problem for democratic institutions. We should, Ivan argued, “try to de-dramatize certain things to allow democracy to work.” There is a need to exercise caution when suggesting that a failure to implement a policy today will mean that the problem can never be solved, as this “makes it very difficult for democratic politics to work.”

Evidence for Hope

by Kathryn Sikkink

  • Kathryn’s presentation began from the conference’s theme of ‘looking back to look forward.’ The task of promoting new ideas and strategies for the human rights and global justice fields in the future, Kathryn noted, requires us to “know about our successes and failures and how to learn from them—and to do that, we need good information, good data, and good analysis.” Looking back at our successes is not only vital for understanding ‘what works,’ it is also critical for sustaining the movement. Many human rights actors suffer from trauma and depression that is worsened by a sense that their work is ineffective. To sustain activism in the present, we must look to our past and draw out lessons of hope. This is particularly needed in response to the ‘endism’ that César had discussed in his opening remarks.

    Kathryn presented visualizations of longer-term trends to demonstrate human rights successes. For instance, more than two thirds of countries have now abolished the death penalty (in law or in practice), but, she noted, we often take this for granted. We do not look back to celebrate successes and are always focused on what is still to be done. But we must hang onto the places where change has occurred in order to better address those places where change has not occurred. In addition, it is crucial to disaggregate trends to ensure that we are telling accurate stories. For instance, while global trends in girls’ school attendance are stagnating, disaggregating by region shows us that rapid change has occurred in Asia and in Latin America and that there are now more girls than boys in schools in these regions. Quality data and careful analysis can allow us to see the nuances and complexities in how things are changing over time thanks to sustained activism. Therefore, Kathryn noted, as a movement “we need to keep updating ourselves on what is happening.”

    Despite various significant wins and positive longer-term trends, a pervasive feeling across the human rights movement is that ‘everything has been getting worse.’ Turning to psychology, Kathryn explained a series of biases that leave us prone to feelings of hopelessness. Negativity bias means that we pay more attention to negative information, so negative news is more likely to sell. This interacts with the availability heuristic: if one thing is easier to imagine than another, people will think that the former is more likely than the latter; therefore, disproportionately negative news coverage will lead us to believe that negative outcomes are more likely. Third, memory bias also affects us, in that we remember positive things better than negative things. Each of these three interacting psychological traits “creates a sense that we’re living in the worst moment ever” but, Kathryn noted, “our brains are tricking us.” And the stakes of these biases are particularly high: if people around the world come to believe that efforts on behalf of human rights are ineffective, and thus retreat into inactivity, human rights progress could come to a halt or indeed move backwards.

    By understanding these various psychological biases, we can seek to develop responses to our own tendencies. The successes of the human rights movement have resulted from struggle—none of this long-term change is natural—and continued positive change requires people who are able to struggle. She noted that anger is useful as an initial fuel of justice, but it burns out quickly. In order to be sustained, hope is required. To hope, we need to know that we can make a difference in the world; we need to know what works and what does not work. Kathryn therefore called for “reasoned, well-informed, patient hope.”

Unmasked: Seaweed King

Performed by Kevin A. Ormsby
Choreographed by Chris Walker

  • Kevin’s dance performance - Unmasked: Seaweed King - depicts a sort of phoenix rising from the refuse / ashes; addressing human impact on the environment told through a character of ancient wisdom linking Afro-Caribbean mas performance traditions. Seaweed King was developed in collaboration with Laura Anderson Barbata for “What Lives Beneath,” a public performance intervention for The Kula Ring, A Gifting Economy (2016), a transdisciplinary expedition project merging scientific, environmental, and artistic research around ocean conservation and climate change. Unmasked is a solo performance work for the concert stage featuring "seaweed king." This session is currently in queue for summarization and will be included in the next interim report. This video and its summary will be available on the FORGE website along with all the speaker videos.

More Than Human Rights

by César Rodríguez-Garavito

  • We are now entering the Anthropocene, a new epoch of the earth’s history in which we as humans have become dominant and blown past many planetary boundaries. Our carbon emissions, pesticide use, plastic use, and nuclear waste have so significantly marked the earth’s geological record as to lead scientists to declare a new era of planetary history. Again ‘looking back to look forward,’ César noted that the contemporary legal project of human rights, initiated in 1948, is a child of the Anthropocene. There was nothing close to a right to a healthy environment in the International Bill of Rights, for instance. This blind spot long persisted, as human rights actors for decades maintained that climate inaction was “an environmental issue” rather than a human rights issue. And alongside this “great acceleration” in the biosphere, César noted, there has also been a “great acceleration” in the Noosphere. The pace of technological development leads some to believe that human beings will, in time, “become at one with technology.”

    In light of this rapidly-changing context, César argued, a more existential set of questions arises for the human rights movement. Until now, we have focused especially on the ‘rights’ part of the term ‘human rights.’ But interesting and urgent questions surround the ‘human’ in ‘human rights.’ What other beings count as rights-holders? César proposed the term ‘more than human rights’ to think about rights ‘beyond the human.’ This term alludes to our embeddedness in the biosphere, as something larger than us. Though many scientific disciplines stem from the idea of the uniqueness of human beings, a ‘more than human rights’ approach, instead, takes inspiration from the ‘humbling sciences’—biology, botany, ecology—as well as from indigenous knowledge, that have long shown that humans are not as special nor as distinct from other beings as is often suggested. Today, we see many legal initiatives based on the idea that rights should be extended to non-humans, and increasing examples of legislation on the rights of nature.

    César then turned to another angle of the ‘more than human’: powerful actors are arguing that robots should have rights. When an AI-generated painting won an art contest, an engineer who had created the AI system tried to file for copyright, arguing that the AI held intellectual property rights over the painting. Larry Page, former CEO of Google, purportedly accused Elon Musk of being ‘specieist’ against ‘silicon-based life forms.’ Debate about the ‘more than human’ is now a key strand in Silicon Valley thinking; many increasingly believe that we will eventually become cyborgs. As a result, César argued, the future of human rights is likely to be defined by a growing and fundamental tension between radically different projects of what ‘human’ rights are—one that pulls in the direction of a more organic future, and the other pulling in the direction of a more synthetic future.

International Justice in a Challenging World

with Judge Hilary Charlesworth

  • The conversation began with discussion of Hilary’s pivotal 1991 article, Feminist Approaches to International Law. This piece, which initially began as somewhat of a provocation, helped to shift the field by introducing a feminist lens on international law issues. Hilary discussed how important it had been to learn and borrow from other disciplines, including feminist literary theory and international relations. This need to look beyond the legal ‘way of thinking’ and broadening one’s lens by learning from other disciplines has remained central throughout her work. Lawyers, she noted, “tend to focus too much on the role of the law.” In the human rights and global governance fields, lawyers often think about human rights narrowly, whereby a ‘good’ human right is one that we can litigate and that will result in a court decision. But we should adopt a broader understanding of human rights law, one that focuses on the realities of how legal rules are used, adhered to, and avoided. If we focus only on the traditional legal uses of human rights treaties, we may be disappointed. But the more interesting task is to seek to understand how the standards within these treaties can be used, in practice, in ways that were likely not imagined by their drafters. Hilary noted that the work of Sally Engle Merry is critical in helping us to understand how international standards can be vernacularized and used at the local level.

    Turning to her role at the International Court of Justice, César asked Hilary to comment on why there seems to be greater compliance with the judgments of this court than has been seen elsewhere. Hilary noted that countries likely comply with decisions that are adverse to them because of the reputational repercussions of non-compliance, but also because they may be concerned that, if they ever seek to bring a case to the Court in future, their failure to comply with earlier judgments may put them at a disadvantage. In addition, she suggested that most governments feel that being able to say that they complied with a judgment from the ICJ grants them some legitimacy. However, Hilary noted that compliance with provisional measures decisions has been particularly low, and that States are also less inclined to follow the Court’s decisions on issues dealing with the use of force.

    With the Court now set to issue an advisory opinion regarding States’ obligations in respect of climate change, a great deal of hope and attention is fixed on the Court. Hilary noted that the question the Court has received is phrased in very broad terms, which will leave substantial room for interpretation and identification of the various legal issues. In addition, the Court is less constrained within an advisory opinion process as compared with contentious cases. While its role within contentious cases is to respond to a discrete dispute between two states, in advisory opinions the Court sees its role as ‘illuminating’ the United Nations’ work on an issue, identifying all the issues that have a legal dimension. Hilary emphasized that the Court is aware of the immense significance of the issue of climate change, and that it will take the task of issuing this advisory opinion very seriously. The Court’s work will be greatly helped by submissions from States and civil society groups—Hilary concluded by expressing that she hoped that the Court would receive many helpful and high-quality submissions.

Your Word Against Mine? Language, Expertise & Trust in the Making of the Oceans Treaty

by Siva Thambisetty

  • By providing a first-hand account of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Treaty negotiations, Siva offered insights into how the minutiae of international treaty-making can represent significant wins for global justice, and reflected on the contingencies and realities of global governance processes. The BBNJ treaty concerns territory that is beyond sovereign jurisdiction, representing 43% of the earth, and addresses crucial questions surrounding the collection and ownership of organisms that are found in these areas. The substance of the treaty related to intellectual property laws—an “untouchable area of international law”—and addressed global imbalances in power and wealth. As Siva described it, this treaty situated “developed countries versus developing countries.” As a small handful of developed countries conduct research on the high seas and collect marine genetic resources (such as organisms that might offer new possibilities for medicine), developing countries have long argued that the location from which these resources were collected should be made clear, as this has critical implications for monetary and non-monetary benefit-sharing.

    Speaking to her own role within the negotiations as an expert on the G77 Chair’s team, Siva described how, as a South Asian woman and an academic based in a top university in London, the positionality of her expertise and the social identities that she brought to the process were crucial. She was able to develop relationships of trust with the developing country negotiators, while also being perceived by the developed country group as an authoritative expert. Where developing countries, she noted, “are not often seen as having epistemic authority in technical negotiations,” she was able to leverage her expertise and to undertake a form of ‘translation’ of developing countries’ demands through academic publications and technical briefing documents. Experts working with developed country governments reached out to Siva and her coauthors to discuss details of the text proposals included in their publications, for instance, demonstrating the role of academics and the politics of expertise in the making of international law.

    Siva explained the inner workings of the BBNJ Treaty process to demonstrate how specific individuals’ approaches and decisions can lead to key successes. The Chair of the negotiations communicated well with all parties, worked hard to build bridges among the G77 group, and aimed to reach consensus on specific minutiae before addressing some of the fundamental sticking points. This approach meant that the developing countries bloc had reached consensus on text proposals before the plenaries began, which left developed countries on the back foot, having to respond to proposals from a more unified front. This, Siva noted, was a very rare example of developing countries’ text proposals setting the agenda. And this was successful: the elements providing for the labeling of genetic resources that were proposed by the group of 134 developing countries were adopted and agreed upon. This represents not only what Siva described as a “phase shift in biodiversity governance”; it is also an expression of successful multilateralism.

75 Years On: The Pathway to Solutions Through Human Rights

by Volker Türk

  • Volker Türk begins his remarks by acknowledging the challenging times we find ourselves in for human rights, operating in a context of volatile global challenges, including the situation of intolerable suffering in Israel and Gaza. Conflicts are at their highest level since 1945, inequalities are deepening, polarization increases, and technology accelerates largely ungoverned. He references the triple planetary crisis, also a human rights crisis. To find a pathway forward, Volker suggests that we look back 75 years to reflect on the global conditions under which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written, in an attempt to end vicious cycles of war, terror and destruction by recognizing our common humanity and articulating our inherent rights. Volker notes that human rights are a critical tool for sustainable development, resolution of existing conflicts, and prevention of future conflicts. Failure to uphold human rights will not lead to stasis, but instead lead to deepening hostility, suffering and violence.

    The 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an opportune rallying point to build a renewed consensus on our commitment to the resolution of today’s global human rights crises. Despite the progress made, the scale, complexity and speed of today’s crises require a shift from business-as-usual. We need to frame new narratives, draw fully on expertise from other disciplines, seed collaborations, and think critically and creatively about our ways of working. This is why initiatives like FORGE are so welcome.

    One of the priorities for Volker’s office is stepping up the efforts on economic, social and cultural rights, an area often and unhelpfully sidelined within rights discourse. With poverty levels not seen in a generation, escalating hunger, skyrocketing income, wealth inequalities fuel political instability and mistrust. We need instead a widespread embrace of the human rights economy, ensuring industrial, social and environmental policies are guided by human rights standards, as we face the triple planetary crisis.

    Volker is struck by how young activists are particularly leading in approaches, collaborations and litigation approaches to trigger fundamental shifts in approach. The faith of young people in their governments to deliver on their needs is paramount, but young people are more disillusioned than older generations in the efficacies of their governments.

    Volker suggests that first, we need to transcend geopolitical divisions through a common language and a sense of common goals, an approach that is ideologically neutral. Second, solutions for the multitude of challenges must be complimentary; measures to advance sustainable development must also address climate change and address systematic discrimination. Third, solutions need to be anchored in our most instinctive reflexes: solidarity and empathy. Fourth, effective solutions will need the free and meaningful participation of all, especially those marginalized.

    Volker’s office will be coordinating events and initiatives across this anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to rally a new wave of action toward a more equal world.

Comments on 75 Years On: Pathway to Solutions through Human Rights

by Philip Alston

  • In offering some closing remarks, Philip reflected on Volker Türk’s presentation and connected his responses to some of the themes of the conference. Volker had said that the human rights movement needs to “frame new narratives, draw fully on perspectives and expertise from other disciplines, experiment with novel tools, and seed innovative collaborations”—this is, Philip said, exactly what FORGE has begun to do. A common thread throughout the conference and within Volker’s remarks had been the need for the human rights movement to embrace hope. But, Philip noted, this does not mean that human rights actors must choose between hopefulness and hopelessness; hope is indeed necessary, but outrage and anger are indispensable. Centering hope must not lead us to “avoid acknowledging the extent of the challenges that we face.” Similarly, while the creation of new visions of the future is important, there still needs to be space for pragmatism, to combine the visionary with a necessary groundedness.

    There is, Philip argued, an urgent need for deeper change within the human rights movement itself. Climate change and migration, two topics that had been addressed throughout the conference, “both have the potential to destroy the human rights regime.” The movement of people is already leading to greater repression and to the widespread rejection of the values that human rights represent. The nature and severity of these challenges require us to examine and re-emphasize those values. For instance, though Volker had suggested that solidarity is an “instinctive reflex,” Philip argued that a great deal of work is still needed to build greater solidarity. He noted: “it is only when we fully embrace economic, social, and cultural rights that we can really introduce elements of solidarity.” But the human rights movement as a whole has systematically marginalized economic, social, and cultural rights and disproportionately focused on civil and political rights, which do not require redistribution. This has left us with a “deeply impoverished notion of human rights, one that has absolutely no potential to enable us to respond to climate change or mass migration.” Thus, Philip argued that it is crucial to focus on the political economy of the human rights movement itself, in order to transform it. Within the human rights movement, we need to change our value system, such that hunger and a lack of healthcare cause as much outrage as torture and indefinite detention. We are, Philip noted, currently very far from this point. There is a need to instill new values within our own community; we need to be prepared to embrace redistribution.

    Strategies and tactics within the human rights movement therefore need to intervene at a deeper, more structural level, addressing fundamental values. Philip noted that we need to move away from strategies that seek to ‘unleash’ international criminal law, for instance: rather than focusing on expanding the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, efforts should be directed towards addressing underlying values. Finally, Philip warned that we must not allow the power and dedication of youth climate movements to create a ‘cop-out’ for older generations—we, in the present, are not doing enough to combat climate change; we cannot simply turn to the youth to find solutions. We must also adopt strategies that empower youth, by giving them the vote at an earlier age, and stopping restrictions on their ability to protest.

Talk Back / Q&A

  • Q&A | Jonathon Rowson & César Rodríguez-Garavito

    Watch

  • Q&A | Maimouna Jallow, Ayisha Siddiqa, & Ariel Sim

    Watch

  • Q&A | Kathryn Sikkink, Ricken Patel, Ivan Krastev, & César Rodríguez Garavito

    Watch

  • Q&A | Kevin A. Ormsby, Chris Walker, Mauricio Tafur Salgado, & Ariel Sim

    Watch

  • Q&A | Siva Thambisetty, Philip Alston, & César Rodríguez-Garavito

    Watch