Federation of International Human Rights Museums Conference, International
Slavery Museum, Liverpool, U.K.
October 10-13, 2011
Fighting for equality: Social change through human rights activism
The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Jennifer Carteri and Jennifer Orangeii
i
Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada;
jenniferj.carter@utoronto.ca
ii
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; j.orange@utoronto.ca
The geopolitical turning-points that have characterized the second half of the twentieth
century and now the twenty-first – the Holocaust and WWII, the Cold War, and more
recently, acts of global terrorism (Falk 2004, 33) – have undeniably influenced the
museological landscape. By the nature of their collections and exhibitions, museums are
integral sites in the representation of past abuses, and they are becoming increasingly
responsive to human rights violations in their programming. There are now important
museums dedicated to genocide and the Holocaust, slavery, torture and political or social
oppression. Many of these are national museums, relating narratives that are
geographically and time specific, such as the Museum of Genocide Victims in Vilnius,
Lithuania, established in 1992 in a former KGB headquarters and prison for human rights
activists, and the Museo de la memoria y los derechos humanos (Museum of Memory and
Human Rights) that opened in Santiago, Chile, in 2010, which document the human
rights abuses experienced by Lithuanians and Chileans under repressive regimes. With
the establishment of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) in Winnipeg,
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Canada, in 2008 and projected to open in 2012, we have a museum more broadly
dedicated to the subject of human rights in Canada and beyond (Canada 1990; CMHR
2010). These examples of museums directing their work to human rights issues
demonstrate that this is not only an emergent trend in museology, it is a global
phenomena, and one in which the subject of human rights is taken up in profoundly
different ways, and, as we will discuss, to different ends.
This new generation of human rights museums has called into question the social
purpose of public museums, and this in response to observations that the institution has
“unrealized potential” as an essential social institution and a key agent in civil society
(Janes 2009, 18). This shift in purpose is demonstrated by museums that go beyond the
representation of human experiences to take a campaignist approach, advocating for
progressive change (Fleming 2010). Similarly, museum scholars Sandell and Dodd seek
an “activist practice” recognizing that “cultural representations are constitutive as well as
reflective of ways of seeing, thinking and talking” about issues (Sandell and Dodd; 2010,
3). Finally, Ott speaks of how museums can, through the process she calls “modelling
inclusion” – demonstrate by example the manner in which to bring about social change,
dwelling, as they do, “on the boundary between advocacy and scholarship” (Ott: 2010,
270). The call from both scholars and practitioners for museums to enact profound social
change underscores the tremendous potential for these institutions to rethink their
relationship with the publics they serve, their approaches to collecting, exhibiting and
programming, their sustainability efforts and, perhaps most significantly, the social
purpose or mission they embrace (Abram 2005; Janes 2009; Sandell 2002; Silverman
2010).
2
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Yet in a way, museums have always had the concept of “right” at their core: in the
manner they have disseminated knowledge through purposeful collecting and display
strategies, museums have supported, and in some instances, advocated for, in the
language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a right to “participate in the
cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement
and its benefits” (Art. 27). Furthermore, museums have buttressed cultural participation
as a key part of the formation of a national citizenry. We are thinking specifically of the
role that museums played in the late 18th century during the French Revolution, when
some of the world’s first public museums were quite deliberately used to construct and to
project specific notions of identity and citizenship in a newly formulated public sphere.
The alliance between citizens having the right to culture and the notion of how culture
has been taken up politically, is historically contingent. What we are witnessing now, and
what has evolved over the past decade, is a different approach to thinking about the role
of museums in citizenship formation, and, we would argue, a different understanding of
the museum’s role in relationship to “rights.” This is both a result of how the institution
has evolved historically (e.g. the new museology movements of the 1980s and calls for
the intensified social and political roles of the museum), as well as how the institution has
evolved in relation to broader societal forces.
Our research differentiates between human rights museums – that is, museums
that explicitly take up the subject of human rights as central to their mission – and human
rights museology. Human rights museums proclaim themselves to be about human rights
whereas human rights museology is about a form of practice: one that proclaims the
social vocation of the museum and incorporates practices other than those traditional to
3
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
the museum: ie. teaching about citizenship practices and methods of activism. For our
own purposes, we have come to define human rights museology as an evolving body of
theory and professional practices underlying the global phenomenon of museums
dedicated to the subject of social injustices, one that is fundamentally changing the form,
and nature, of museum work. Human rights museology acknowledges the potential for
museums to engage in campaigns against human rights violations, at the local, national
and international levels.
Defining the purposes of a human rights museology
A brief examination of the founding mission statements of a range of institutions
dedicated to human rights is telling not only for what it reveals about the range of
purposes that these museums are committed to performing, but equally for the breadth
and scope of institutional intent in three key ways.
Many human rights museums embrace education, dissemination of knowledge and
documentation as primary goals, while also encouraging moral reflection about civic duty
and citizen behaviour. Moreover, some seek to make explicit the contemporary legacies
of historic injustices while others incite social activism. These specific educational
orientations are important features of human rights museums. Such institutions are
dedicated not only to engaging in the memory work of historical struggles but also to
addressing in constructive ways the present and the future in light of those struggles. The
reformist intention of incitement to social activism must be distinguished for its explicit
intent not only to change thinking and promote greater individual responsibility but also
to mobilize communities into taking action. The work of the South African Holocaust and
4
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Genocide Foundation in overseeing the Cape Town Holocaust Centre is an excellent case
in point. Their mission not only commits to supporting a human rights culture, but in a
more proactive way, it strives to “encourage social activism and a greater individual
responsibility to building the community” (SAHF 2011).
Second, some human rights museums link the separate activities of teaching and
memorialization, as is the case of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
(USHMM) in Washington, DC. The memorial museum has drawn on an evolving
tradition that combines commemoration with the activities of research, representation,
and interpretation, demonstrating “an increasing desire to add both a moral framework to
the narration of terrible historical events and more in-depth contextual explanations to
commemorative acts” (Williams 2007, 8). These dual functions – education and
memorializing – are fundamentally different forms of practice, and their co-existence
within the museum can be problematic for the manner they call upon different forms of
human engagement in memory work, so it is imperative to realize these ethically. At the
USHMM, the museum’s architectural program includes a memorial space that follows
the dense chronological narrative of the building’s exhibitions.
Yet a third purpose of the human rights museum may well prove to be evidentiary.
Human rights museums may choose to collect preserve and document material about
events that can later be used by truth and reconciliation commissions or international war
crimes tribunals in their fight for social justice. Museum collections of artefacts
(photographs or weapons, for example) may conceivably be used as evidence toward
pursuing accountability of the perpetrators of genocide and other legal transgressions.
This particular intention is quite distinct from the many human rights museums that
5
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
already focus on the victims of injustice in their collecting and programming practices. In
this way, museums are called upon to do what they already do well – to collect and to
preserve evidence of material culture – and this material is used to help correct the past
wrongs of social abuses of power. The activities of truth and reconciliation commissions
around the globe have traditionally provided an excellent forum for archival work in
countries where such commissions have been mandated to uncover injustices perpetrated
by governments against their own people. In an ironic twist of fate, the genocide abuses
committed by the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, meticulously documented by the
regime itself, are a strong example. The records of Khmer Rouge activities are now
contained at the Tuol Sleng Museum and former S-21 Prison of the regime. These records
of the regime’s use of mass torture, rape, murder, and starvation, in concert with those
housed by the Documentation Center of Cambodia, have become “the primary pieces of
physical evidence…in a hybrid tribunal called the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts
of Cambodia, which is jointly operated by the United Nations and the Royal Government
of Cambodia” (Caswell 2010, 26). It is not inconceivable that more human rights
museums will serve this archival function and be called upon to document human rights
abuses in countries with active truth and reconciliation commissions– Canada, Argentina,
and South Africa among them. Museum work, for example, has been recognized by the
South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission as “[s]ymbolic reparation” for harm
done to South African society (Mégret 2010, 44).
Political positioning, agency and the “issue” of human rights
6
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Human rights shape political society, so as to shape human beings, so as to realize the
possibilities of human nature, which provided the basis for these rights in the first place.
– Jack Donnelly (2003, 15–16)
We pause here to consider some of the ethical and moral implications of a museology of
human rights. While the premise that a museum should champion human rights may
seem not only appropriate but necessary if museums are to remain socially relevant and
responsive to societal change, broader issues arise with respect to institutional concerns
about relationships with funders, programmatic and representational scope and narrative
voice. This leads us to question not only the purpose of the human rights museum but
also how it achieves that purpose. We now increasingly confer to the museum some of
the tasks that were formerly (and continue to be) performed by memorial sites, research
institutes, non-profit advocacy organizations and social justice centres. For this reason, it
is important to consider how the museological enterprise intervenes in issues surrounding
human rights.
At the inaugural conference of FIHRM in 2010, members probed necessary
questions that touched upon institutional values of human rights museums. To what
extent should museums actively campaign on behalf of issues rather than facilitate the
dissemination of these issues through more traditional models of information
representation? And, acknowledging that sensitive subject matter can be difficult subject
matter, what pedagogical models exist to best work with human rights histories? More
fundamental, however, is the basic question that we must ask ourselves as museums and
cultural heritage sites increasingly take up the work of human rights. What ethical and
moral issues do human rights museums encounter as they refashion themselves as
7
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
institutions of social change, and – equally important – how do museums define human
rights and violations thereof?
Museums play a unique role as an intermediary between governments on the one
hand and individuals and civil society organizations1 on the other. The middle space the
museum occupies can be valuable if used for certain issues such as the promotion of
human rights. Museums can provide a means by which powerful institutions such as state
agencies can exchange information and interact with individuals and civil society
organizations through programmed forums. However, when it presents exhibitions and
programs on human rights, the museum provides its own interpretation of the historical
events and current standards of the rights in question. It is important, therefore, to
deconstruct the museum’s task of representing and advocating for human rights. In
preparing an exhibit or program regarding human rights, perhaps the most obvious first
step for a museum professional is to determine what rights are at issue. For example, does
the exhibit concern the right not to be enslaved or the right to free speech? While in
common parlance the term human rights is frequently used by our media, schools,
employers, and religious and social institutions, its definition is continually debated by
jurists in both domestic and international legal systems.
Three main hurdles confront museum professionals as they develop exhibits to
represent the substance of human rights. First, there is no single agreed-upon definition or
even conception of human rights. While the United Nations promotes a universalist
conception of human rights, that position is constantly challenged by those who see
religion or culture as the “true” foundation for rights, as well as by the positivists who
deny that there are any rights other than those that are legally enforceable. Second,
8
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
despite these challenges, the international community has endeavoured to set legally
binding norms for a wide range of human rights. The process of creating and defining
enforceable human rights standards is complex; at times this has led to vague legal
language that is interpreted differently by various judicial and government bodies and
civil society groups across the globe. Third, museum workers must be aware that their
chosen representations of human rights have the potential to contribute to interpretations
that could influence the legal status of a right in the future. Museums not only reflect
historical and current human rights but are also participating in the prospective shaping of
those rights.
For example, if the CMHR were to advocate for the right of indigenous peoples to
the highest attainable standard of health by developing a program and exhibit showing the
present poor health conditions of indigenous peoples, it might affect the public’s view of
what is acceptable practice in Canada and abroad. It would not be unreasonable to expect
that a dialogue between civil society and governments would ensue. The museum’s
advocacy might cause a ripple effect that could lead to a change in citizen and then state
behaviour.
On the other hand, if the museum were to create an exhibit taking the position that
Native Canadians’ rights have made incredible progress in the past half-century, its
visitors might not consider taking action to address current rights violations. Both the
progress in aboriginal rights and the poor standards of health on reserves might be
factually accurate, but the museum’s approach could create vastly different effects on
Canadian society. In the first case, the exhibit could lead to people’s questioning
government policy and demanding improved standards, perhaps through domestic
9
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
legislation and international treaties. In the second case, the exhibit might lead visitors to
find the status quo acceptable and, even more, an achievement to be commended.
Museum practice must live up to its new responsibilities
The purpose of this discussion is to show that there is a complexity in the museum’s
involvement in human rights work both in method and potential effect. A museum’s work
can affect the public opinion of one locale, which may then have the ripple effect of
affecting its government’s domestic laws and perhaps foreign policy. If several states are
involved then we may see a shift toward a new international legal custom, or perhaps a
call for the formation of a new treaty. We should be inspired by the opportunity the
museum has to create positive social change. However, there are grave consequences of
“getting it wrong.” If we see the relationship between human rights and politics as
dialectical (Donnelly 2003, 15), it follows that museums that actively engage in political
society are in turn shaping the very basis for human rights.
A more serious concern about the unique position of the museum is whether the
human rights–based museum is actually situated to promote human rights, with its doors
open to the public, but its walls supported by the state. Is the state-funded museum able to
freely criticize state actions and policies, including those of its present-day government?
And if it does not, is it in effect producing propaganda that entrenches power in a
government that violates human rights? The issue of museum governance is particularly
important when dealing with human rights. Human rights museums must address the
complexity of their mandate and their funding in order to ascertain whether they can truly
speak for those who are entrenched in battle against oppressive governments.
10
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Contentious terrain: The work of human rights museology
The manner in which museums select, frame and address human rights can conceivably
have an afterlife in human rights legislation and shape future government policy.
Therefore the current generation of museum professionals, stakeholders and patrons must
cope with potentially contentious terrain, carefully considering the array of ethical and
moral implications that this worthy pursuit will undoubtedly bring to the fore. Museums
are no longer primarily representational institutions, if ever they were. They are, through
an altered institutional ethos and mission, engaging in new modes of practice and the
work of social change in civil society.
We may view human rights museology as part of a broader societal shift in which
museums perform with an attention to and an expanded sense of social responsibility
greater than ever embraced before. However, we may also understand it as an opportunity
for partnership between two historically distinct disciplines: museology and human
rights. Where Duffy describes an actual practice for museums as custodians – if not
activists – of a “human rights culture” (2004, 122), perhaps it is more accurate to call for
a museology of human rights. In fact, international human rights law professor Jack
Donnelly refers to human nature as a “social project” and to human rights more
specifically as a “social practice,” one that “aims to realize a particular vision of human
dignity and potential by institutionalizing basic rights” (1989, 18). Donnelly’s insistence
on the practice and aims of human rights reminds us of what we should be aspiring to
achieve, but what in contemporary society sadly eludes us on a global scale. This is the
work of human rights, in other words, the work that remains to be done. “Human rights,”
11
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
he writes, “point beyond actual conditions of existence; they are less about the way that
people are, in the sense of what has already been realized, than about how people might
live, a possibility that is viewed as a deeper moral reality.” (1998, 18). What lessons,
then, can museum professionals draw from the models and successes of human rights
practices, and what is the appropriate work of museums as they continue to engage in the
arena of human rights museology?
As museums work to advance human rights, they may draw on the tough lessons
previously learned by human rights advocates and scholars. As with all cultures and
discourses, human rights are continually evolving, and human rights history has shown us
that there is no room for complacency. As Koskenniemi wrote, “As soon as we are safely
installed in a social order that promises to guarantee our rights, that order starts to appear
oppressively totalitarian. We need new rights, or new interpretations of old rights.”
(Koskenniemi: 2002, 79). Human rights museology, as human rights activism, will
require a constant re-evaluation of who the museum is representing, what interpretation
of rights is supported, and how those rights are going to be advanced. And once you think
you have success, think again. As Mark Twain so aptly commented on the dangers of
power, “As soon as you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and
reflect.”
The unending cycle of human rights advocacy presents a unique opportunity to the
museum. It allows us to return to the founding educational roles of museums and to think
pedagogy widely. In other words, we must be sensitive to the different pedagogical forms
and practices that learning can take – particularly within an environment taking up
difficult and unsettling subject matter – and develop a number of strategies by which
12
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
people might engage with this subject matter, especially in what is evolving as the activist
museum. George Steiner writes that “Language can only deal meaningfully with a
special, restricted segment of reality. The rest, and it is presumably the much larger part,
is silence.” When thought in this context, we return to the notion that the museum is a
productive space for thinking, and not only “acting.” This important difference opens up
the space for different critical approaches for human rights museums. We might think of
these forms as the distinction between didactic, cognitive, affective, and associative
forms of learning. There is the sense that when any one activity dominates in the
museum, it can become problematic. When we recognize that memorial and reflective
spaces enable different forms of learning from didactic or informational ones, the need
for incorporating a multiplicity of presentation styles becomes evident.
A human rights museology has the opportunity to provide the intellectual space to
ground human rights activism in a never-ending reflection on the advances and set-backs
of our work. This self-evaluation is critical if we are to realize human rights in a
progressive and meaningful way. This, we argue, is the work of the museum.
Notes
1. Civil society is another term with contested meanings. Perhaps the definition with the
broadest acceptance is “the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit
organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of
their members and others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or
philanthropic considerations. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) therefore refer to a
13
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based
organizations, professional associations, and foundations” (World Bank 2011).
Notes on contributors
Jennifer Carter is Assistant Professor in the Museum Studies program at the University
of Toronto, Faculty of Information. Her research explores the intersecting areas of
museology, representation, architecture and human rights, and considers how these
practices mediate, and are mediated by, the cultural institutions that frame them. She has
published essays in National Museums: New studies from around the world (Routledge,
2011); La revue de l'Association québécoise d'interprétation du patrimoine (Montréal,
2010); and Chora Five: Intervals in the philosophy of architecture (McGill-Queen's
Press, 2007).
Jennifer A. Orange, B.A. (UPenn) 1993, LL.B. (Toronto) 1998, LL.M. (NYU) 2003,
Barrister and Solicitor (Ontario). From 2000 to 2007 Ms. Orange litigated cases in the
areas of Corporate/Commercial Law, Administrative Law, International Human Rights
and International Trade. In 2003 she received her LL.M. in international law from New
York University and has published articles in the areas of International Human Rights
and International Trade. She is currently an Adjunct Professor at the University of
Toronto, Faculty of Law teaching International Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law.
References
Abram, Ruth. 2005. History is as history does: The evolution of a mission-driven museum. In Looking
reality in the eye: Museums and social responsibility, ed. Robert Janes and Gerald Conaty, 19–42.
Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
Adam, Dawne. 1998. The Tuol Sleng archives and the Cambodian Genocide. Archivaria 45 (Spring): 5–26.
Barria, Lilian and Steven Roper, eds. 2010. The development of institutions of human rights: A comparative
study. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brownlie, Ian. 2008. Principles of public international law. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canada. Museums Act, S.C. 1990 c. 3, as amended.
Canadian Museum for Human Rights. 2010.
http://www.humanrightsmuseum.ca/about-museum
14
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Canadian Museum for Human Rights. 2011. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights responds to
misconceptions in the media. Press release. January 6, 2011. Winnipeg Manitoba.
http://humanrightsmuseum.ca/about-museum/news/canadian-museum-human-rights-respondsmisconceptions-media
Caswell, Michelle. 2010. Khmer Rouge archives: Accountability, truth, and memory in Cambodia. Archival
Science 10: 25–44.
Donnelly, Jack. 1989. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
———. 2003. Universal human rights in theory and practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Dueck, Judith. 2010. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights gathering project: Setting the stage. Paper
presented at the inaugural conference of the Federation of International Human Rights Museums,
September 15–16, Liverpool, UK.
Duffy, Terence M. 2004. Museums of “human suffering” and the struggle for human rights. In Museum
Studies: An anthology of contexts, ed. Bettina Carbonell, 117–22. Oxford: Blackwell.
Falk, Richard. 2004. Human rights and global civil society: on the law of intended effects. In Fighting for
human rights, ed. Paul Gready, pp.33–53. London: Routledge.
Federation of International Human Rights Museums (FIHRM). 2010. http://www.fihrm.org/ (accessed
February 2011).
Fleming, David. 2009. The diverse museum. Stephen Weil Memorial Lecture, presented at the 2009 annual
INTERCOM meeting, November 10–13, Torreón, Mexico.
Fleming, David. 2010. The role of human rights museums. Paper presented at the inaugural conference of
the Federation of International Human Rights Museums, September 15–16, Liverpool, UK.
Freedman, Richard. 2010. Creating a voice for human rights: The work of the South African Holocaust
Foundation in holocaust education in South Africa. Paper presented at the inaugural conference of the
Federation of International Human Rights Museums, September 15–16, Liverpool, UK.
Green, Leslie C. 2008. The contemporary law of armed conflict. 3rd ed. Manchester, UK: Manchester
University Press.
15
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Grotius, Hugo. 1655. The illustrious Hugo Grotius: Of the law of warre and peace with annotations, III
parts, and memorials of the author’s life and death. Trans. Clement Barksdale. London: William Lee.
Online version, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Digita Library Production Service, 2001.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A42234.
Hathaway, James C. 2005. Rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hawkins, Joyce M. and Robert Allen, eds. 1991. The Oxford encyclopedic English dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hein, Hilde. 2000. The museum in transition: A philosophical transition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
International Coalition of Sites of Conscience (ICSC). 2011. http://www.sitesofconscience.org/issues/en/
(accessed March 2011).
International Council of Museums International Committee on Management. INTERCOM 2009.
www.intercom.museum/mexico2009.html (accessed February 28, 2011).
International Court of Justice. 1969. North Sea Continental Shelf, Re, [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3.
Janes, Robert R. 2009. Museums in a troubled world: Renewal, irrelevance or collapse? London:
Routledge.
Koskenniemi, Marti. 2002. Human Rights, Politics, and Love. Finnish Yearbook of International Law XIII:
79-94.
Levy, Daniel and Natan Sznaider. 2010. Human rights and memory. University Park, PN: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Mégret, Frédéric. 2010. Of shrines, memorials and museums: Using the International Criminal Court’s
Victim Reparation and Assistance Regime to promote transitional justice. Buffalo Human Rights Law
Review 16: 1–56.
National Museums Liverpool.
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/learning/projects/makethelinkbethechange/ (accessed April 22,
2011).
Oppenheim, L. 1955. International law: A treatise, ed. H. Lauterpacht. 8th ed. London: Longman Group.
16
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
Ott, Katherine. 2010. Collective Bodies: What museums do for disability studies. In Representing
disability: Activism and agency in the museum, ed. Richard Sandell, Jocelyn Dodd and Rosemarie
Garland-Thomson, 269–79. London: Routledge.
Sandell, Richard. 2002. Museums and the combating of social inequality: Roles, responsibilities, resistance.
In Museums, society, inequality, ed. Richard Sandell, 3–23. London: Routledge.
Sandell, Richard and Jocelyn Dodd. 2010. Activist practice. In Representing disability: Activism and
agency in the museum, ed. Richard Sandell, Jocelyn Dodd and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, 3–22.
London: Routledge.
Shestack, Jerome J. 1998. The philosophic foundations of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly 20: 201–
34.
Shivji, Issa. 1999. Constructing a new rights regime: Promises, problems and prospects. Social and Legal
Studies 8: 253–76.
Silverman, Lois. 2010. The social work of museums. London: Routledge.
Skartveit, Hanne-Lovise, and Katherine Goodnow, eds. 2010. Changes in museum practice: New media,
refugees and participation. New York: Berghahn Books.
South African Holocaust & Genocide Foundation (SAHF). 2011.
http://www.ctholocaust.co.za/pages/about-the-foundation-vision_mission.htm (accessed March 23,
2011).
Tuol Sleng Museum. 2011.
http://www.tuolslengmuseum.com/History.htm (accessed April 28, 2011.
United Nations. 1945. UN 46. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. 993, 3
Bevans 1179, Art. 38(1).
———. 1948. Universal declaration of human rights, G.A.Res. 217, U.N. GAOR, (III
1948).
———. 1967. International convention on civil and political rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967).
———. 1969. Vienna convention on the law of treaties (VCLT), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.39/27 (1969), 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969) Article 84(1).
———. 1985. Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer, 1513 U.N.T.S. 293, March 22.
17
Carter and Orange, The work of museums: The implications of a human rights museology
———. 1987. Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, 152 U.N.T.S. 3, September 16.
———. 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 151/5/Rev/ 1, June
13.
———. 1997. Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework on climate change, December 11 .
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
———. 2005. World Summit outcome, A/Res/60/1, 24 October.
———. 2010. The human right to water and sanitation, A/RES/64/292.
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 2007. Report on the thirty-sixth and
thirty-seventh sessions (May 1–19, 2006, November 6–24, 2006), Economic and Social Council
Official Records 2007, Supp. 2: E/2007/22 E/C.12/2006/1 at para. 168.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. 1982. General comment no. 6: The right to
life (art. 6), 04/30/1982.
———. 1984. General comment no. 14: Nuclear weapons and the right to life (art. 6),
11/09/1984.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR). 2004.
Teaching human rights: Practical activities for primary and secondary schools.
Geneva: United Nations.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx (accessed
February 17, 2011).
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2011.
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/mission/ (accessed April 28, 2011).
Williams, Paul. 2007. Memorial museums: The global rush to commemorate atrocities. Oxford: Berg.
World Bank. 2011.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/CSO/0,,contentMDK:20101499~menuPK:
244752~pagePK:220503~piPK:220476~theSitePK:228717,00.html (accessed March 17, 2011).
18