To look at this world between ideals and reality
Mizuki Shinozuka
4th year, College of Arts and Sciences,
The University of Tokyo
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come”—remarked Victor Hugo, author of Les Misérables, and such a contemporary idea must be human rights, which seems to have reached a major crossroads. Last year marked the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since its origin, the concept of human rights has broadened the scope of its application to include pivotal areas such as environmental and gender issues. Furthermore, we can often see the power of these ideas in the remarkable way that people take action in order to promote human rights problems as seen by the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements. In contrast to these positive aspects, it is important to note that the Russia–Ukraine war, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and many other conflicts have resulted in significant loss of life and persecution. Additionally, the recent global democratic backsliding has accelerated the deterioration of the human rights situation. In this context, the theme of the third Owada Chair is “Human Rights and Global Diversity,” which attempts to reexamine what human rights has been like and what human rights ought to be.
The most significant feature of the Owada Chair is that it puts an emphasis not on lectures delivered by Professor Owada and professors at both universities of Tokyo and Leiden but on transboundary and flexible discussions taken initiative by students in the next generation. Here, “transboundary” refers to the nationality of students (not just Japanese and Dutch but also Filipinos, Chinese, and Colombians), their academic interests (e.g., international law, international politics, philosophy), and academic and vocational history (from undergraduate and Master students to PhD candidates, some of whom are lawyers and activists). These varied backgrounds enable multifaceted analyses of unanswered questions, laying the groundwork for pathways to answers. Despite the third Owada Chair scheduling a generous two-hour time slot for the student discussion, the session was unable to address all of the intended discussion questions due to the heated and diverse opinions shared from theoretical and practical perspectives.
Before reviewing the discussion, I try to recapitulate briefly the keynote speech by Professor Obiora Okafor. He is a specialist in Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), and TWAIL is an approach which criticizes the extant international law as Western-dominant. Specifically, though existing international law has been defined as universal, it is just universal for the West, and therefore TWAIL aims to incorporate the outlook of the Third World which had excluded from its enactment into international law. If I may be so bold as to point out his argument, it might be that it is necessary that international law must become globalized based on the approach.
The real world consists of the interface between normative international law and political international politics. TWAIL has the former aspect and there may well be a need to consider the possibility of TWAIL. Problems arise when applying TWAIL to the real world, and this seems to be a major premise of the discussion. I have two interesting points here. The first one is about the dilemma between tolerating new approaches to international law, such as TWAIL, and sustaining the order of international law. Indeed, admitting new interpretations might make international law more relevant to the requirements of a broader range of people. This, however, encompasses the danger of eroding the core components of international law, and also diversifying international law may cause arbitrary use of international law. Moreover, if being added an identity-politics aspect, human rights might increasingly become less universal. In this way, diversifying international law is a double-edged sword, and thus multidimensional consideration will be needed for its introduction. Secondly, TWAIL highlights how people-centered it is. Then, who precisely are “people” here? For instance, people cannot be grouped together as peoples in terms of ethnicity, religion, language, etc., much less as belonging to the Third World or Global South as is often used in TWAIL. In relation to the first point, another major question might be to what extent the element, “people” should be or can be subdivided, taking into account political factors and obstacles to its actual implementation as international law.
I thoroughly enjoyed participating in the third Owada Chair as well as preparation sessions. Every single word by Professor Owada made me ponder, and I found it stimulating to discuss with those whose values and ideas are completely different from my own. Yet, I could not help but feel a lack of not only English skills but also knowledge and practical experience. However, Professor Owada reiterated that one of the objectives of the Owada Chair is that Japanese students in the young generation accumulate experience in English discussion in the global world. In this sense, since I learned the distance between myself and global young leaders through this Owada Chair, I unintentionally might have achieved the aim. Certainly on the basis of this experience, I will in the future look at the real world critically as an apologist and at the same time, envision ideals in my mind as a utopian. In so doing, while devoting myself to my studies day to day, I intend to actively dive into the global world.
Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude from the bottom of my heart to Professor Owada, Professor Okafor, other professors, including Professor Kawakita and Kihara-Hunt, as well as students at both universities of Tokyo and Leiden, and everyone involved in the third Owada Chair for giving me such an invaluable opportunity.
