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.
2024年3月1日，HRUG定期研讨会之“关于人权的‘政治法律制度危机’”主题会议顺利召开。本次会议由爱尔兰国立科克大学应用社会研究学院政策分析家Joe Finnerty主持，土耳其中东科技大学政治学Mehmet Okyayuz教授进行汇报，中南大学人权研究中心研究员Peter Herrmann教授、葡萄牙里斯本大学心理学António Duarte教授、中南大学人权研究中心研究员黎娟副教授以及中国社会科学院国际法研究所助理研究员王惠茹参加会议并进行相应观点的分享、汇报和补充。本次讨论主要围绕自由与秩序、国家与个人及“政治法律制度危机”展开。
Mehmet Okyayuz教授认为，“危机”的一个重要方面是自由与秩序之间的紧张关系。随着社会的个体化程度以及“去组织化”特征的增加，人们开始将自身福祉（虽然其真正含义不明）视为对秩序的绝对衡量标准，而在19世纪及以前，人们视法律秩序为国家秩序。这在某种程度上演变成了一种危机，虽然可能不是事实性的危机。此外，他认为，社交媒体等新形式的交流使得个人的观点更加明确和客观，但也削弱了社会团结。所谓以自由为导向的“民间社会对话”中，个体对于（准）理想社会的构想成为主导，而不再将社会团结视为必需。在人权辩论中，参与者更加理性和自主，但这也使得其对理想社会或国家秩序的期望更高。最后，他提到自由与秩序脱节的困境，如果缺乏秩序以及自由与秩序的结合，将进入一个“前政治”（pre-political）阶段，普遍层面的人权将无处保障，国家将只回应特殊层面、个人层面的人权。重塑国家概念是解决当前危机的关键，我们必须重新审视自由与秩序之间的关系并将其结合起来，以在普遍意义上讨论人权。
就Joe Finnerty教授提出的“广泛选举机制与大众民主如何平衡自由与秩序”的问题，Mehmet Okyayuz教授认为，选举等传统的参与形式已不足以形成对集体主义的理性认识。社会组织的减少使得对国家压迫秩序的认识被削弱，人权辩论也逐渐在政治和社会中缺失。他指出，应重新建立社会组织、重新定义国家权力，平衡个人自由与社会公共利益以创造更加平等、更有意义的社会。就António Duarte教授提出的“个人在利用机制弥补社会组织分散的趋势中发挥何种作用”的问题，Mehmet Okyayuz教授认为，个人无法在孤立的状态下确定其愿景，尽管公民社会被理想化为一个独立机制，但其与国家仍然有着紧密的联系——国家仍然是唯一的真正的机制，尤其是在教育等领域，尽管其角色已经发生变化。
António Duarte教授引用数学家约翰·纳什的理论提出，个人与国家之间存在协作模式。如果每个人都关注个人利益，目标将无法达成，需要找到个人利益与群体利益之间的平衡。Peter Herrmann教授认为，个人对自身的认知和控制具有局限性，如今，人工智能与数字化正在替代个人的认知，我们失去了对自身意识的控制。应当思考的是，在法律方面我们能做些什么来应对这些挑战。基于对以上观点的回应，Mehmet Okyayuz教授提到，法律与国家紧密联系，个人无法直接对其进行重要变革，需要通过中介组织来实现。他强调个人、社会组织与国家之间的相互关系，认为这些是理解现代法律与政治动态的关键。António Duarte教授总结认为，存在其他类型的个人之间的合作影响人权的实践，这需要避免各自为政的考虑。个人并不是单一的身份，应当超越心理层面，重视合作与集体行动的重要性。
王惠茹博士在讨论中提到第三世界国际法的方法。新的国际法秩序中存在国家主权和国际组织，但它并不能保证国家之间的平等。这是结构性的固有问题，即第一世界仍在以殖民方式剥削第三世界人民，拥有资源特权的群体可以通过非常隐蔽但合法的方式来积累财富。谈及人工智能时代的人权，她表示，如何识别权利和法律是应当面对的新课题，而人权法或国际法的作用是无需置疑的，并提出，在看待数字领域新兴权利、人与非人之间的关系方面，国际环境法提供了很多机制以反思以人类为中心的思考方式。
最后，黎娟副教授提到在诸如平台治理的背景下，信息不对称导致的权力失衡可能引发权力危机，尽管平台权力可能呈现为一种新的形式的政治权力，但平台权力并不一定会取代国家权力，同时这也并不意味着国家权力的角色会发生根本性的改变。在不少实证分析中，国家仍然对平台有很强的控制能力，比如通过法律规制的方式等。如今，很多国家采用国家与平台的合作治理模式，两者在治理过程中不断地试探其权力的边界，同时也彼此影响和重塑权力内容。不过，在数字经济和平台治理中，个人的参与度仍需提高，特别是就隐私保护问题而言。