Recognising rights and wrongs in practice and politics

human rights organisations and Cambodia’s ‘Law Against the Non-Recognition of Khmer Rouge Crimes’

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

89 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Human rights organisations (HROs) are the principal arbiters of the social problems that are documented and decried as human rights issues. They do so, however, within specific contexts, and through lenses that render some social and political problems more visible and amenable to human rights advocacy than others. This article examines the case of a controversial atrocity denial law passed in Cambodia in 2013 to reflect on how rights-based organisations think about and intervene in the social and political worlds that they inhabit. The law was a response to statements from an opposition leader that questioned the authenticity and ‘staging’ of a key site of atrocities perpetrated under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), circumscribing the opposition’s ability to tap popular strands of anti-Vietnamese feeling. Rights groups, in theory, were confronted with a classical dilemma within human rights: the curtailment of free expression against the potential harm of hate speech. I situate the responses of HROs in context and explore three questions about the work and worldviews of HROs: the politicisation of human rights techniques and interventions; the (in)visibility of forms of structural violence in relief of abuses by the state; and the solubility of rights-based advocacy within prevailing populisms.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)778-797
Number of pages20
JournalInternational Journal of Human Rights
Volume23
Issue number5
Early online date12 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Cambodia
human rights
offense
Law
politics
opposition
structural violence
hate
staging
politicization
worldview
Social Problems
authenticity
abuse
leader
ability

Keywords

  • Cambodia
  • Civil society
  • Denial
  • Human rights
  • Khmer Rouge

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

@article{ddfda3fe66c0420e90a0a3d68cd41789,
title = "Recognising rights and wrongs in practice and politics: human rights organisations and Cambodia’s ‘Law Against the Non-Recognition of Khmer Rouge Crimes’",
abstract = "Human rights organisations (HROs) are the principal arbiters of the social problems that are documented and decried as human rights issues. They do so, however, within specific contexts, and through lenses that render some social and political problems more visible and amenable to human rights advocacy than others. This article examines the case of a controversial atrocity denial law passed in Cambodia in 2013 to reflect on how rights-based organisations think about and intervene in the social and political worlds that they inhabit. The law was a response to statements from an opposition leader that questioned the authenticity and ‘staging’ of a key site of atrocities perpetrated under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), circumscribing the opposition’s ability to tap popular strands of anti-Vietnamese feeling. Rights groups, in theory, were confronted with a classical dilemma within human rights: the curtailment of free expression against the potential harm of hate speech. I situate the responses of HROs in context and explore three questions about the work and worldviews of HROs: the politicisation of human rights techniques and interventions; the (in)visibility of forms of structural violence in relief of abuses by the state; and the solubility of rights-based advocacy within prevailing populisms.",
keywords = "Cambodia, Civil society, Denial, Human rights, Khmer Rouge",
author = "Peter Manning",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/13642987.2017.1314647",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "778--797",
journal = "International Journal of Human Rights",
issn = "1364-2987",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Recognising rights and wrongs in practice and politics

T2 - human rights organisations and Cambodia’s ‘Law Against the Non-Recognition of Khmer Rouge Crimes’

AU - Manning, Peter

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Human rights organisations (HROs) are the principal arbiters of the social problems that are documented and decried as human rights issues. They do so, however, within specific contexts, and through lenses that render some social and political problems more visible and amenable to human rights advocacy than others. This article examines the case of a controversial atrocity denial law passed in Cambodia in 2013 to reflect on how rights-based organisations think about and intervene in the social and political worlds that they inhabit. The law was a response to statements from an opposition leader that questioned the authenticity and ‘staging’ of a key site of atrocities perpetrated under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), circumscribing the opposition’s ability to tap popular strands of anti-Vietnamese feeling. Rights groups, in theory, were confronted with a classical dilemma within human rights: the curtailment of free expression against the potential harm of hate speech. I situate the responses of HROs in context and explore three questions about the work and worldviews of HROs: the politicisation of human rights techniques and interventions; the (in)visibility of forms of structural violence in relief of abuses by the state; and the solubility of rights-based advocacy within prevailing populisms.

AB - Human rights organisations (HROs) are the principal arbiters of the social problems that are documented and decried as human rights issues. They do so, however, within specific contexts, and through lenses that render some social and political problems more visible and amenable to human rights advocacy than others. This article examines the case of a controversial atrocity denial law passed in Cambodia in 2013 to reflect on how rights-based organisations think about and intervene in the social and political worlds that they inhabit. The law was a response to statements from an opposition leader that questioned the authenticity and ‘staging’ of a key site of atrocities perpetrated under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979), circumscribing the opposition’s ability to tap popular strands of anti-Vietnamese feeling. Rights groups, in theory, were confronted with a classical dilemma within human rights: the curtailment of free expression against the potential harm of hate speech. I situate the responses of HROs in context and explore three questions about the work and worldviews of HROs: the politicisation of human rights techniques and interventions; the (in)visibility of forms of structural violence in relief of abuses by the state; and the solubility of rights-based advocacy within prevailing populisms.

KW - Cambodia

KW - Civil society

KW - Denial

KW - Human rights

KW - Khmer Rouge

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019182906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13642987.2017.1314647

DO - 10.1080/13642987.2017.1314647

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 778

EP - 797

JO - International Journal of Human Rights

JF - International Journal of Human Rights

SN - 1364-2987

IS - 5

ER -