So therefore you presumably agree with Gonzalo Schwarz that he doesn’t have a right to decent work.

Carla: the idea behind freedom of speech, voting, etc, is that the right to vote plus freedom of speech will encourage governments to stop people from starving to death, with the intent of avoiding being thrown out of government. Amatrya Sen’s observation is that famines don’t happen in democracies. This implies that foreign entities should push for politically-responsive governments (eg voting, freedom of speech, etc). That’s enough work to be going on for.

The problem with accountability in most developing nations is that there is no real relationship between a citizen and the government. In America, we don’t have that problem but if you go elsewhere in the world where you have nations that have been colonized or occupied for years and they gain independence, you have NGOs and nonprofits who manage the food, shelter and healthcare. With international aid, the relationship between state and citizen is not allowed time to develop into one in which they can be held responsible.

There isn’t one. There isn’t a universally accepted definition of what is torture, or due process either. That doesn’t mean any of those stop being rights.

Terminological ambiguity in the law is unavoidable. It is true of domestic law as it is of international law. It has to do with the texture of language itself, and unless you hope for a wittgensteinean, tractatus-like ’scientific language’ to emerge, this will remain so for the foreseeable future.

More importantly, however, a certain degree of ambiguity serves two positive purposes. One is to guarantee to states ratifying (human rights) treaties enough flexibility as to how to implement legal obligations in accordance with national preferences. So even if all European countries have healthcare, and consider it a human right (European Social Charter), each has established different systems of delivery, and achieve different levels of satisfaction of the right.

The other positive function of ambiguity is to guarantee to the judiciary a role in balancing conflicting rights, and principles. Although couched in absolute terms, most fundamental rights allow for restrictions in the interest of ensuring other rights or reasonable public policy goals (one notable exception is the prohibition of torture). There would be no space for such balancing of conflicting principles if the ‘language of rights’ were absolutely unambiguous (or there would have to be built in conflict of norm rules, and these would reintroduce ambiguity).

And to answer your second question, a minimum wage is not a consequence of the prohibition of slavery (although there are international treaties that establish a right to ‘fair remuneration’ for a job). But even if a minimum wage were a human right, it would tell us nothing of the level of wages, or who would be entitled to it. These are fundamentally interpretative and policy questions, that are routinely discussed by the legislative, the executive and the judiciary.

It’s funny how ambiguity in other sectors of legal regulation — say tort law — receives so little attention, as compared to human rights. And yet, the law of torts is directly applicable to every single person in the territory of the state, has serious individual and social consequences, and entails (litigation) costs for both private actors and the state. Why do we treat these areas of legal activity so differently?

What is a universally accepted definition of “slave labour”? Does it include a minimum wage?

You do have a right to decent work, however. That means you have the right to be protected by the territorial state from practices such as forced labor, slave-like work conditions, and work in unsanitary, hazardous conditions. The State should protect you from such things.

So don’t drop out of your graduate studies just yet. But while you’re at it, do try to spend more time reading up on subjects you don’t know enough about, before commenting blindly on them.

First, it is not a fair account of what Hillary said, in the interview you quote. For instance, she follows the comment you object to with:

“we have very strong differences with the Chinese. We have stood up and talked about that and pointed it out and they will continue to disagree with us. We know that”

Furthermore, your take on Hillary’s position avoids the crucial point made in that interview: that the US’s foreign policy goals with China and Russia are varied, and that this administration is ‘re-engaging’ with these great powers on matters of crucial importance, from nuclear non-proliferation, to economic issues. There has been progress in that, which would not have taken place if the US continued the previous administration patronizing and inconsistent ‘human rights rhetoric’ (and I call it rhetoric because, as a matter of fact and of policy, the previous administration had very little regard for human rights at home or abroad).

Second, your post simply ignores the breadth of the US diplomatic agenda, and acts as if the focus should be, predominantly, on human rights issues. As much as I would like to have a US foreign policy promoting human rights vigorously and consistently, I realize that this is not – and never has been – the case.

What can be accomplished through negotiations depends not only on interests, but on the relative positions of different players: the US has considerably more clout in Africa than it has in China. What purpose does preaching human rights to China actually accomplish? Does it further the cause of human rights? Not really. But it certainly makes engagement with China on a range of other, equally imperative issues less likely. Diplomacy is not ‘moral discourse’ by other means.

Third, you consider that it is the promotion of other rights – to shelter, food, or decent working conditions – that is diluting the effectiveness of US foreign policy. You seem to imply that ‘if only’ Hillary kept preaching about real rights, the US could make a difference. That is patently absurd.

China will ignore US criticism on rights because, unlike most of Africa, it can afford to. This is not because the the US has embraced ‘fuzzy social rights’ rather than real civil and political rights. If the US were to criticize China on the right to health, it would be ignored just the same.

Finally, I think it really is time you overcome this fixation with the idea that it is not possible to hold someone accountable for violations of rights such as shelter, or food. Not only is it possible, but it has been done by both national and international adjudicatory bodies, repeatedly.

Finally, you make an empirical claim that — for someone who prizes fact-based knowledge — is somewhat surprising in its scope:

“…shifting emphasis from the first to the second slows down progress on the first, while doing little on the second…”

I would really like to know your empirical basis for claiming that (i) there is a shift in emphasis between categories of rights; (ii) that this shift entails slower progress on civil and political rights; and, (iii) that affirming economic, social and cultural rights has ‘done little’ to promote better access to those entitlements.

PS. Since you seem to be interested in the role of rights, I strongly recommend you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Routledge-Contemporary-Political-Philosophy/dp/0415281156

Memo to Hilary: Entitlements aren’t rights. Confusing the two doesn’t increase anyone’s access to food, healthcare or education.