HUMAN RIGHTS: SOUTHERN VOICES AND A NOTE ON LINGUISTIC INJUSTICE
HRSV project I:
WHAT? Originally an article about four individuals (11 Review of Constitutional Studies 2006) and a book
of original texts set in context, Cambridge U.P.(2011).
ABSTRACT. As the discipline of law responds to various challenges of “globalization”, it has become
increasingly clear that Western traditions of jurisprudence largely proceed in ignorance of and without
reference to the viewpoints, interests and traditions of non-Western peoples. This project takes a
modest first step towards de-parochializing our juristic canon by introducing and expounding some of
the writings about human rights of four “Southern” jurists: Francis Deng, Abdullahi An-Na’im, Yash Ghai,
and Upendra Baxi. All four were trained in the common law and have published extensively in English, so
their work is readily accessible, but in some respects their perspectives are strikingly different. Francis
Deng argues that traditional values of the Dinka of the Southern Sudan are basically compatible, in most
respects, with the values underlying the international regime of human rights, especially in respect of
“dignity” as it features in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Abdullahi An-Na’im, also from
Sudan, argues that a “modernist” interpretation of Islam involves ideas that are, for the most part,
similarly reconcilable with international human rights ideas, but that acceptance of such ideas depends
far more on conversations and debates within Islam than on cross-cultural dialogue, let alone external
attempts at persuasion or imposition. Yash Ghai, a Kenya citizen, is skeptical of most claims to
universality that are made for human rights; however, adopting a pragmatic materialist stance, he
argues that his extensive practical experience of postcolonial constitution-making suggests that human
rights discourse provides a workable framework for negotiating political and constitutional settlements
that accommodate different interests in multi-ethnic societies. Upendra Baxi, a former Vice-Chancellor
of Delhi University, argues that as human rights discourse becomes commodified, professionalized by
technocrats, and sometimes hijacked by powerful groups, it is in grave danger of losing touch with the
experience of suffering and the needs of those who should be the main beneficiaries – the poor and the
oppressed, who are the main authors of human rights. To take human rights seriously is to take
suffering seriously
WHY? Aims: As part of making Anglophone academic law of less parochial and ethnocentric :
1. To make the writings of four ‘Southern’ human rights scholars and activist better-known in the
mainstream Western discourse on human rights; 2. To make available original texts by each set
in the contexts of their lives and times; 3. To provide a model and to stimlate similar treatments.
Aims 1 and 2 achieved; 3 only partially so.
Next steps: HRSV Project II
To formulate a project, perhaps based at Warwick, for further dissemination along the same lines. For
example:
1
Who? The possibilities are almost endless. :e.g. Southern feminist/ women’s voices; Indian human
rights theorists; Muslim jurists; other religions; Latin American /Chinese jurists/ Korean/ Indonesian/
West/ East African/South African etc.; human rights sceptics etc., etc.
How? Archive at Warwick (perhaps digital) (under discussion); a book series and/or digital website.
Widening the scope: Limitations of the original volume
Common law trained jurists of immediate post-Independence generation (b. 1938-46) writing in English
about human rights for Anglophone audiences. Each of these could be varied.
Project III Linguistic diversity and social injustice in relation to Law.
Project I grew out of a general concern about problems of law in multi-lingual societies. Various
attempts to hold workshops and sessions at major conferences petered out, not for lack of interest, but
because the label had diverse associations for both jurists and scholars of linguistics. For example, in one
conference papers included difficulties of translation of legislation; the training of court interpreters;
language rights; the hermeneutic problem , the politics of language change-overs; the survival of
endangered languages; the role of law, language and culture.... and so on. These just did not hang
together to make one or two coherent books. The label ‘Law and language’ is even more diverse.
Recently, talk of ‘Linguistic justice’ or more appropriately in my view, ‘language diversity and social
injustice’ have become quite fashionable in socio-lingistics. Two stimulating general books have been
published in this area by OUP: P. van Parijs, and Ingred Pilar, Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the
World (2011), and Ingred Pilar, Linguistic Diversity and Social Injustice (2016). Unfortunately, they hardly
deal directly with law. There is an emerging sub-discipline called Forensic linguistics, but at first sight
this is fragmented in much the same way as discussions of ‘law and language’ and ‘law in multi-lingual
societies’. So there is a gap. My personal view is that ‘linguistic injustices’ will work better as an
organizing category and following, Upen Baxi, one might start with map geographies of injustice in
relation to law.
A future conference for Warwick?
William Twining
2