Brandeis University, Philosophy Department
Fall 2011
Brandeis University Web Stite

HUMAN RIGHTS

International Global Studies
Philosophy and Legal Studies
Peace and Conflict Studies

Professor Andreas Teuber
Andreas Teuber


FINAL PAPER TOPIC
"The Future of Human Rights"


A PAPER TOPIC IN TWO PARTS


The Final Paper comes in parts: two parts.

PART ONE is on "negative" v. "positive" rights. PART TWO is on cosmopolitanism and human rights.

You may focus the final paper, your final paper, on PART ONE or PART TWO: indeed you are encouraged to do so, to focus your attention and construct your paper in answer to the question or questions in PART ONE or PART TWO, but not both.

In other words, you are asked to write on issues emanating from the debate about "negative" v. "positive" rights OR on issues emanating from thinking of oneself as being not merely a member of this or that state, but as being "a citizen of the world," from thinking of human rights from a cosmopolitan perspective and asking oneself whether the rights found in the U.S. Constitution ought to be in certain jurisdictions extended beyond U. S. borders to citizens from other countries, non-citizens and stateless persons.

So, you can focus on PART ONE or PART TWO, writing a paper on "negative v. positive rights" or a paper on "cosmopolitan law and human rights" but we would also like you to say a word or two - in addition to your writing on PART ONE or PART TWO - we would also like a paragraph or two, stating what you believe the implications of your view are for addressing the issues arising in the part you chose not to focus on.

So, for example, if you choose to focus on PART ONE, what implications does your view about "negative v. "positive" rights, have for an argument for or against treating human rights from a cosmopolitan perspective? And, if you decide to write on PART TWO, on cosmopolitanism and human rights, what implications does your view on that score have for the negative v. positive rights debate?

In stating the implications of your view for answers to questions arising from the part of the final paper topic you chose not to focus on, you do not need to make a full-fledged argument or give a knock-down treatment of the issues raised in the part, that part, that you decided not to write about. You merely need to write a paragraph or two laying out what you think the implications of your view are for addressing the issues and answering the main question(s) raised by or rather in the "other" part.


GOOD LUCK!


CLICK FOR PART ONE


CLICK FOR PART TWO


 



CLICK TO CONTINUE




[PHIL 19A] [Syllabus] [Reading] [Home] [Bio] [CV] [PHIL DEPT.] [E-MAIL]

Send comments to: Andreas Teuber
URL:   http://phils7.dce.harvard.edu/
Last Modified: 11/03/11
Instructor's Toolkit
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College