On February 28, 2025, the HRUG regular seminar on “The Issue of Human Rights in a Multipolar World” was successfully held. The seminar was chaired by Professor Peter Herrmann (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center) and lectured by Stephen Brawer, chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden. Professor Mehmet Okyayuz from the Department of Political Science at Middle East Technical University in Türkiye, Associate Professor Li Juan (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), Visiting Assistant Professor Theophilus Edwin Coleman from the State University of New York at Buffalo, and Tunahan Ali Usta (a doctoral student in political science at the Middle East Technical University in Türkiye) participated in the discussion. They deeply explored the complexity of human rights issues in a multipolar world, with a particular focus on the policy trends of the Trump administration and its far-reaching impacts on the global human rights governance system. While politicians are wrangling over the Ukraine crisis in front of the cameras, this academic dialogue unexpectedly and vividly reflects real-world politics.
Stephen Brawer first pointed out that since the Trump administration took office, the pattern of international relations has been undergoing profound changes. After the end of the Cold War, the international power structure dominated by the United States and NATO has been gradually broken, and a new multipolar trend is emerging. The rise of Asia, especially the rapid development of China and India, is reshaping the global political and economic landscape. Human rights issues have become more complex in a multipolar world. Traditional Western theories emphasize individual freedom, while Asian countries such as China and India attach more importance to collective interests, economic development and social justice. For example, in their recent statements at the UN Human Rights Council, China and India emphasize the importance of poverty alleviation and common development, which forms a sharp contrast with traditional Western human rights concepts, especially American human rights claims.
In the discussion session, the participants conducted in-depth discussions. Peter Herrmann raised the following questions. First, although we pursue universal human rights, there are huge conceptual differences among different cultures and countries. How can we balance the contradiction between “universality” and “diversity” in current international cooperation under globalization? Second, how to deal with the dual crisis of increasing economic inequality and the expansion of far-right forces within Western societies? Third, there are cognitive conflicts between the East and the West–China regards energy transformation and digitization as cooperation issues, while America and Europe strengthen technological geopolitical competition, leading the global industrial cooperation system into an adversarial state. So how to bridge this contradiction? Finally, how does the transformation from the “comparative advantage” to the “cooperative advantage” paradigm promoted by emerging mechanisms such as BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative affect the global communication and cooperation model? Can they provide a path to solve geopolitical competition?
Stephen Brawer responded that global cooperation should go beyond geopolitical confrontation and shift to a new model that truly takes the common well-being of humankind as the core. He pointed out that the geopolitics long-dominated by the West has intensified global division. In contrast, BRICS countries and the Belt and Road Initiative emphasize sovereign equality, economic win-win results and human development, representing a new trend of international cooperation. He called for discarding the old ideological confrontation and exploring new paths of global cooperation from the perspective of the overall well-being of humankind. He specifically mentioned that Chinese traditional ideological culture represented by the I Ching and Confucianism echoes the thoughts of the German philosopher Leibniz. That is, the happiness pursued by humanity includes not only the satisfaction of material needs but also spiritual pursuits and the exploration of the meaning of life.
Mehmet Okyayuz questioned whether more attention should be paid to material-level inequality and injustice, and whether discussing human rights only from a philosophical perspective can solve the existing problems. Stephen Brawer responded that his views didn’t neglect the material aspect but emphasized that the historical and philosophical perspectives are equally important. He advocated combining economic justice with the worldview and starting from the common foundation of humanity and civilization to realize the common future of human society.
Li Juan continued to ask whether the Trump administration’s actions of putting domestic interests above international cooperation, such as successively announcing its withdrawal from the WHO, the Paris Agreement and other international cooperation groups, mean that there has been a clear divergence in the philosophical thoughts on human rights protection within the West. How will these divergences affect the trend of international human rights discussions? Regarding the withdrawal actions of the Trump administration, Stephen Brawer expressed his concerns, proposing that these foreign policies may aggravate the rift between the East and the West. However, he also mentioned that the Trump administration’s efforts to end the Ukraine war may bring hope for global peace. Stephen Brawer believed that if we borrow Leibniz’s thoughts, we may be able to break the ideological gap between the East and the West and promote a comprehensive understanding of human rights issues in both Eastern and Western countries.
Finally, Stephen Brawer called on the international community to abandon the Cold War mentality, strengthen communication and collaboration, and build a community with a shared future for mankind, with an open, inclusive, and cooperative attitude to jointly address global challenges and promote the progress of the global human rights cause. Peter Herrmann emphasized the importance of the transformation of international relations from “comparative advantage” to “cooperative advantage”, and advocated replacing the zero-sum game mindset with international cooperation. Stephen Brawer fully agreed with this and wished all parties to jointly promote the realization of global development goals based on clear cooperation standards.
2025年2月28日，HRUG定期研讨会之“多极化世界中的人权问题”主题会议顺利召开。本次会议由瑞典“一带一路”研究所所长Stephen Brawer主讲，中南大学人权研究中心研究员Peter Herrmann教授主持，土耳其中东科技大学政治学Mehmet Okyayuz教授、中南大学人权研究中心研究员黎娟副教授、纽约州立大学布法罗分校访问助理教授Theophilus Edwin Coleman、土耳其中东科技大学政治学博士生Tunahan Ali Usta等学者参与讨论。会议深入探讨了多极化世界格局下人权问题的复杂性，特别关注特朗普政府的政策走向及其对全球人权治理体系的深远影响。当政客们在镜头前撕扯乌克兰危机时，这场学术对话意外地成为了现实政治的生动注脚。
Stephen Brawer首先指出，特朗普政府上台后，国际关系格局正发生深刻变化。冷战结束后，美国和北约主导的国际权力结构逐渐被打破，新的多极化趋势正在形成。亚洲的崛起，尤其是中国和印度的快速发展，正在重塑全球政治经济格局。人权问题在多极世界中变得更加复杂，西方传统理论强调个体自由，而中国和印度等亚洲国家更注重集体利益、经济发展和社会公平。例如，中国和印度近期在联合国人权理事会的发言中强调消除贫困和共同发展的重要性，这与西方传统人权观念，尤其是美国的人权主张，形成了鲜明对比。
在讨论环节，与会人员进行了深入探讨。Peter Herrmann提出了以下几个问题。首先，尽管我们追求普遍人权，但不同文化和国家间存在巨大观念差异，如何在当下全球化下的国际合作中平衡“普遍性”和“多样性”的矛盾？其次，如何应对西方社会内部经济不平等加剧与极右翼势力扩张的双重危机？再者，针对东西方认知冲突——中国将能源转型、数字化等视为合作议题，而美欧强化技术地缘竞争，导致全球工业合作体系陷入对抗逻辑，应如何弥合这种矛盾？最后，“金砖国家”和“一带一路”等新兴机制推动的“比较优势”向“合作优势”范式转型如何影响全球沟通与合作模式，能否为解决这类地缘竞争提供路径？
Stephen Brawer回应，全球合作应超越地缘政治对抗，转向真正以人类共同福祉为核心的新模式。他指出，西方长期主导的地缘政治加剧全球分裂。相比之下，“金砖国家”和“一带一路”倡议强调主权平等、经济共赢与人类发展，代表着新的国际合作趋势。他呼吁抛弃旧有意识形态对立，从人类整体福祉的视角，探索全球合作新路径。他特别提到，以《易经》与儒家思想所代表的中国传统思想文化，与德国哲学家莱布尼茨的思想形成呼应。即人类追求的幸福不仅是物质需求的满足，更包括精神追求和对人生意义的探索。
Mehmet Okyayuz质疑是否应更多关注物质层面的不平等与不公，以及仅从哲学视角探讨人权是否能够解决现有问题。Stephen Brawer回应称，他的观点并非忽视物质方面，而是强调历史和哲学视角同样重要。他主张将经济正义与世界观相结合，以人类和文明的共同基础为出发点，推动人类社会共同未来的实现。
黎娟继续追问，特朗普政府自执政后将国内利益凌驾于国际合作之上，陆续宣布退出世界卫生组织、《巴黎协定》等“国际合作群”，这些行为是否意味着西方内部对人权保障的哲学思想已经出现了明显的分歧？这些分歧将如何影响国际人权讨论的走向？对于特朗普政府退出巴黎气候协定和世界贸易组织等“退群”行为，Stephen Brawer表示担忧，认为这些外交政策可能加剧东西方裂痕。然而，他也提到，特朗普政府试图结束乌克兰战争的努力可能为全球和平带来希望。Stephen Brawer认为，如果借用莱布尼茨的思想，或许可以打破东西方之间的意识形态隔阂，推动东西方国家对人权问题的全面理解。最后，Stephen Brawer呼吁，国际社会应摒弃冷战思维，加强沟通与协作，以开放、包容、合作的态度构建人类命运共同体，共同应对全球性挑战，推动全球人权事业的进步。
最后，Peter Herrmann着重强调了国际关系从“比较优势”向“合作优势”转变的重要性，主张用国际合作来取代零和博弈的思维模式。Stephen Brawer对此深表认同，并呼吁各方在明确合作标准的基础上，共同推动实现全球发展目标。
(Transcription: Tiantian Yu, Ying Li; Translation: Yaxing Bai)