On March 1, 2024, the HRUG regular seminar on “A Crisis of the Political and Legal System Concerning Human Rights” was successfully held. The seminar was chaired by Joe Finnerty (a social policy analyst, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland) and reported by Mehmet Okyayuz (a professor of political science at Middle East Technical University, Turkey). Professor Peter Herrmann (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), Professor António Duarte (a professor of psychology at the University of Lisbon, Portugal), Associate Professor Li Juan (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), and Wang Huiru (the Assistant Researcher, Institute of International Law of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
participated in the discussion, and shared, reported and supplemented some corresponding views. This seminar centered on freedom and order, the state and the individual, and the “crisis of the political and legal system”.
According to Professor Mehmet Okyayuz, an important aspect of the “crisis” is the tension between freedom and order. As the society becomes more individualized and “de-organized”, people begin to see their own well-being (although its true meaning is unclear) as the absolute measure of order. In the nineteenth century and before, the legal order was seen as the order of the state. This is somehow playing out as a crisis, though perhaps not a factual one. In addition, he argued that new forms of communication, such as social media, have made the views of individuals more explicit and objective, but have also weakened social solidarity. In the so-called freedom-oriented “civil society dialogues”, individual visions of (quasi-) ideal societies have become dominant, and social solidarity is no longer seen as a necessity. In the human rights debate, participants are more rational and autonomous, but this also leads to higher expectations for an ideal society or state order. Finally, he referred to the dilemma of the disconnect between freedom and order. In the absence of order and the combination of freedom and order, there would be a “pre-political” phase in which human rights at the universal level would not be guaranteed and the State would respond only to human rights at the particular, individual level. Reinventing the concept of the state is the key to solving the current crisis, and we must re-examine the relationship between freedom and order and combine them in order to discuss human rights in a universal sense.
In response to Professor Joe Finnerty’s question on “how broad electoral mechanisms and popular democracy can balance freedom and order”, Professor Mehmet Okyayuz thought that traditional forms of participation, such as election, are no longer sufficient to create a rational understanding of collectivism. The decline of social organization has led to a weakened understanding of the oppressive order of the state and the gradual absence of human rights debate in politics and society. He argued that social organization should be re-established, state power redefined, and individual freedoms balanced with the public interest of society to create a more egalitarian and meaningful society. In response to Professor António Duarte’s question about the role of the individual in using mechanisms to compensate for the tendency towards fragmentation of social organization, Professor Mehmet Okyayuz believed that the individual can not define his or her vision in isolation, and that despite the idealization of civil society as a stand-alone mechanism, it remains closely linked to the State that remains the only real mechanism, especially in areas such as education, although its role has changed.
Prof. António Duarte, citing the theory of mathematician John Nash, suggested that there is collaboration between the individual and the state. If everyone focuses on personal interests, goals will not be reached, so a balance needs to be found between individual and group interests. Prof. Peter Herrmann argued that individual’s self-awareness and self-control are limited. Nowadays, artificial intelligence and digitalization are replacing individual cognition and we lose control over our own consciousness. It is important to think about what we can do in terms of the law to address these challenges. To respond the above points, Prof. Mehmet Okyayuz mentioned that the law is so closely linked to the state that individuals cannot make important changes to it directly, but intermediary organizations can. He emphasized the interrelationships between individuals, social organizations and the state, arguing that these are the key to understanding the dynamics of modern law and politics. Prof. António Duarte concluded that there are other types of cooperation between individuals to influence the practice of human rights, which requires avoiding fragmentation. Individuals are not monolithic identities. They should go beyond the psychological dimension and emphasize the importance of cooperation and collective action.
Dr. Wang Huiru mentioned the methods of the Third World international law in the discussion. In the new international legal order, there are state sovereignty and international organizations, but it cannot guarantee equality among countries. This is an inherent structural problem–the First World is still exploiting the people of the Third World in a colonial way. Groups with resource privileges can accumulate wealth in a very covert but legal way. When it comes to human rights in the era of AI, she remained that how to identify rights and laws is a new topic that we will face. The role of human rights law or international law is unquestionable. She also proposed that in terms of recognizing emerging rights in the digital field and the relationship between humans and non-humans, international environmental law provides many mechanisms to reflect on the human-centered way of thinking.
Finally, Associate Professor Li Juan insisted that in the context of platform governance, power imbalance caused by information asymmetry may trigger a power crisis. Although platform power may appear as a new form of political power, it will not necessarily replace state power. At the same time, this does not mean that the role of state power will undergo fundamental changes. In many empirical analyses, the state still has strong control over platforms, such as through legal regulation. Nowadays, many countries adopt a cooperative governance model between the state and platforms. In the governance process, the two constantly test the boundaries of their powers and also influence and reshape each other’s power content. However, in the digital economy and platform governance, the participation of individuals still needs to be improved, especially in terms of privacy protection issues.