WORLD, SOCIETIES, AND CULTURES 1COM3
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS NEXT
WHAT IS
Human rights are universal freedoms and protections
rooted in the principles of dignity, equality, and fairness,
belonging to all people simply because they are human.
Human
Rights
Human rights ensure that every individual, regardless of
nationality, race, gender, or background, is entitled to
protections like the right to life, freedom of speech,
education, and safety from violence or discrimination.
They also limit government power by establishing moral
and legal standards that uphold justice and
accountability in societies.
INTRODUCTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Sovereignty
THE EVOLVING CONCEPT
OF
TRADITIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY is referred to the
state’s supreme authority over its
territory and population, with a firm
boundary separating domestic
jurisdiction from external interference
A COUNTRY’S OTHER COUNTRIES
OWNGOVERNMENT AND THEIR PEOPLE
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF RIGHTS NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Sovereignty
THE EVOLVING CONCEPT
OF
LEVY AND SZNAIDER
SOVEREIGNTY has become less about a state’s
unchallenged control over its territory and more
about the responsibility of states to protect the
rights of individuals.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF RIGHTS NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Sovereignty
THE EVOLVING CONCEPT
OF
LEVY AND SZNAIDER
SOVEREIGNTY has become less about a state’s
unchallenged control over its territory and more
about the responsibility of states to protect the
rights of individuals.
A COUNTRY’S
OWNGOVERNMENT
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF RIGHTS NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Relational
SOVEREIGHTY AS
RATHER THAN ABSOLUTE
A key argument in Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human Rights is the redefinition of sovereignty as
relational rather than absolute. Levy and Sznaider emphasize that sovereignty, traditionally seen as inviolable, is now
understood as a dynamic relationship between the state and the global community. Sovereignty is no longer defined
solely by territorial boundaries and the authority of the state to govern without external interference. Instead, it is
increasingly shaped by a state’s willingness to adhere to international human rights standards. In the contemporary
global system, however, sovereignty is increasingly evaluated based on a state’s compliance with human rights norms.
States that fail to protect the rights of their citizens, engage in violations, or refuse to uphold international human rights
standards face international consequences such as sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or even military intervention in
extreme cases.
THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF RIGHTS NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Sovereignty
HUMAN RIGHTS
AND
The relationship between human rights and sovereignty
Human rights, as universal principles, have become an
has become more complex in recent decades. Levy and
essential aspect of state legitimacy. The traditional view
Sznaider argue that sovereignty and human rights are no
of sovereignty—where states had the right to govern
longer separate or opposing concepts but are
without outside interference—is increasingly being
intertwined. States that violate human rights, they
replaced by a view that emphasizes accountability.
contend, undermine their own legitimacy and authority.
Sovereignty, therefore, must be conditional on a state’s
ability to protect and promote the rights of its citizens.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF Human Rights Norms
THE GLOBALIZATION
The globalization of human rights also means that human
Levy and Sznaider highlight the globalization of human
rights violations are no longer seen as purely internal
rights norms as a major factor in the transformation of
matters. International bodies like the United Nations
sovereignty. Human rights have become a global
(UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are now
language, with norms that are shared across nations and
empowered to address human rights violations that
cultures. This global consensus on human rights has led
occur within a state’s borders, especially in cases of
to the development of international treaties, institutions,
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
and norms that hold states accountable for their human
rights practices.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF State Legitimacy
THE CHANGING NATURE
The legitimacy of states has undergone a profound shift In this context, sovereignty is no longer a matter of
in the era of human rights. Levy and Sznaider argue that territorial integrity or military power; it is about the
state legitimacy is no longer derived solely from the ethical responsibility of the state to protect human
control a state exercises over its territory. Instead, state dignity and rights. A state that fails to protect the rights
legitimacy now hinges on a state’s commitment to of its citizens, or that engages in widespread violations,
human rights and its ability to protect the rights of its risks losing its legitimacy and its sovereignty. This shift
citizens. reflects a broader moral revolution in how sovereignty is
viewed in the global system.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY NEXT
SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFORMED: A SOCIOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AS Responsibility
SOVEREIGNTY
Levy and Sznaider conclude that the transformation of sovereignty is best understood as the evolution of
sovereignty as responsibility. Sovereignty is no longer seen as an absolute right; it is now a responsibility to protect
human rights both within a state’s borders and in its relationships with other states. This transformation reflects
the growing global consensus that the protection of human rights is a fundamental duty of all states.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
ORIGINS OF REVOLUTIONARY U.S. BILL OF
MODERN RIGHTS MOVEMENTS AND RIGHTS RIGHTS
DISCOURSE
Enlightenment thinkers American and French Aimed to constrain federal
(16th–18th centuries) laid Revolutions advanced the authority and protect
the foundation for modern idea of inherent human rights. individual liberties.
rights. Key documents:
Translated Enlightenment
John Locke’s Social Contract Declaration of
ideals into enforceable
Theory emphasized natural Independence & Bill of
legal protections.
rights to life, liberty, and Rights (U.S.)
Complemented
property. Declaration of the Rights
Locke introduced the State
constitutional checks and
of Man and Citizen
of Nature and the idea that balances.
(France)
governments derive power Marked a shift toward limiting
from the consent of the state power and securing
governed. individual freedoms.
THE EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
CRITIQUES OF LIMITATIONS AND
UNIVERSAL RIGHTS EXCLUSIONS
Jeremy Bentham: Rights are Early U.S. rights excluded many,
social constructs, not natural including Black people and Native
entitlements. Americans.
Edmund Burke: Warned against Founders like Jefferson held
abandoning traditional contradictory views on universal rights.
institutions for abstract ideals. Civil War amendments (13th & 14th)
Karl Marx: Argued individual expanded rights, but full equality
rights under capitalism remained elusive due to systemic
obscure economic inequalities. racism and states’ rights arguments.
THE EMERGENCE OF THE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
THE STATE’S THE U.S. CAPITALISM AND GLOBAL
POWER IS BECOMES A MULTINATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
CHANGING GLOBAL CORPORATIONS GROW
SUPERPOWER RISE
National After WWII, the U.S. Institutions like the
Big companies
governments are became extremely (multinationals) IMF, World Bank,
losing some control powerful-
due to globalization are now hugely and WTO stabilize
economically,
Organizations like powerful globally economies and help
politically, and
the European Union Modern capitalism businesses
culturally
share power Although the U.S. has spreads through The United Nations
Example: taken a leadership role (UN) promotes
corporations
Countries give in advocating the human rights but
up some control reaching every
human rights doctrine, depends on
over money corner of the
it has been reluctant powerful countries
States are still to accept certain world
for support
powerful but no human rights
longer completely principles as applying
dominate to itself
CHANGES IN THE GLOBAL ARENA SINCE WORLD WAR II NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
NEW
CONFLICTS THE SPREAD OF RISE OF NGOS (NON- THE SHIFT
AND THE ROLE DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENTAL TOWARD
OF HUMAN ORGANIZATIONS) INDIVIDUALISM
RIGHTS Democracy is now NGOs are powerful new Around the world, there’s a
Internal conflicts common worldwide players in global life—not growing focus on individual
based on race and (with some
tied to governments or rights and identities.
ethnicity are not exceptions).
businesses. As society gets more
always the root cause The debate over what
“real” democracy is: Is Two main types of NGOs: complex, people move
of genocide, but are
it just elections? Or Professional Associations away from old national or
still important to
discuss and fight more? and Civic Associations. group-based identities.
against as well. Democracy and
Both should be In the future, it will be
Human rights human rights are narrow-minded to blame
considered in human
principles help bridge related but not the only governments for
same. True protection rights conversations
divides between human rights problems—
groups, offering ways for minorities requires NGOs are crucial in
big organizations can and
to resolve deep combining BOTH fighting for issues like
democracy and will violate human rights
conflicts. these.
human rights. too.
CHANGES IN THE GLOBAL ARENA SINCE WORLD WAR II NEXT
SOCIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: ELABORATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK
UNIVERSALISM CULTURAL HISTORICAL
Universalism is the belief that Human rights discourse has
Sociology tends to
certain ideas, principles, or values Western origins but elements of it
emphasize cultural variation
have universal application and existed in non-Western traditions.
over universal moral claims.
are true or applicable to all Global dissemination of rights
people, cultures, times, or There's concern over the reflects both Western advocacy
situations without exception. Western imposition of and local adaptation.
human rights values on The application of human rights
The concept serves as a principles varies over time and
other societies.
normative ideal, even when not across societies.
fully realized in practice. Local cultural norms may The gap between legal standards
differ from or resist and real-world violations
The U.S. promoting human rights highlights the historical and
while limiting treaty obligations
externally imposed rights
situational complexity of
challenges its universalist stance. frameworks.
implementation.
UNIVERSALISM VS. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL PARTICULARITY NEXT
SOCIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: ELABORATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK
THE NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE
Utilitarianism: a philosophical belief that all people are individualistic but
together build a community
John Dewey and George Herbert Mead on Pragmatism
Pragmatism: a philosophical belief that states people are heavily
influenced and shaped by others (social and cultural environments)
Regarding human rights, PRAGMATISM is the better approach
Mind, Self, and Society by George Herbert Mead
What we think about and how we think about things are heavily
influenced and developed through our interactions with others.
Connection can be created through shared morals and beliefs.
THE NATURE OF HUMAN NATURE NEXT
SOCIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: ELABORATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK
In order for us to formulate a set of universal human rights, it is crucial to consider a
rationality that encompasses the divergent others, rather than being simply grounded in
some cultural and historical particularity.
Communicative Rationality
People are influenced by the “WE” but they also need to understand the “THEM”
Dewey (1985) implies that in order to understand universal human rights principles, we munst
recognize common elements
An alternative conception of rationality calls for human agents to think in terms of not only
their own community but also other very different social contexts wherein they learn how
to take the roles of divergent others and forge basic understandings of others
THE NATURE OF RATIONALITY
THE NATURE OF RATIONALITY NEXT
SOCIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: ELABORATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK
Human rights are social claims made on formal
organizations, including both state and non-state
institutions.
These organizations can both uphold and violate rights
through structured hierarchies and systems.
Focus on individual responsibility often overlooks the
systemic role of organizations in harm.
Organizations have a dual nature: essential for social
function but capable of enabling large-scale violations.
A complete human rights framework must address
THE NATURE organizational accountability and structural reform
OF FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS
THE NATURE OF FORMAL ORGANIZATIONS NEXT
SOCIOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: ELABORATIONS ON THE FRAMEWORK
UNDERSTANDING HUMAN DEMOCRACY AND RIGHTS ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RIGHTS GLOBAL POWER
Human rights are claims Elections alone are not enough. Organizations (not just
Risk of oppression of the individuals) must be held
against organized power
majority if minority rights are accountable.
(states, corporations). ignored. NGOs and international
Women’s rights = human Rights should be institutionalized courts play a critical role in
rights (1995 Beijing in laws and norms. rights enforcement.
Conference). Democracy is strongest when it Human rights serve as
Genocide and includes economic, social, and external moral standards to
cultural rights. judge organizational actions.
discrimination occur when
“Democracy needs rights to be “Rights are the global
groups are seen as less than
just and inclusive.” language for justice and
human. accountability.”
HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY NEXT
APPLICATION ON THREE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH THE LENS OF
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
• Human rights function as norms promoting social stability and cohesion.
• They help integrate individuals by reinforcing values like justice, equality, and
legitimacy.
• Institutions provide mechanisms for dispute resolution and protection of the
vulnerable .
• Structures may also preserve existing power dynamics, limiting rights for
marginalized groups
• Effectiveness of human rights depends on institutional inclusivity and
equity.
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM NEXT
APPLICATION ON THREE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH THE LENS OF
CONFLICT THEORY
Sees society as characterized by inequality and power struggles, where groups with less power
make claims against dominant groups to improve their position and rights.
Conflict theory views such abuses not as anomalies but as consequences of unequal power
distribution, where dominant groups use their power to maintain control, often at the expense of
marginalized populations.
Understands social change as often arising from the struggles of subordinate groups
challenging the power and privileges of dominant groups.
The most serious violations involve individuals acting as agents of organized power relationships.
This focus on holding powerful organizations responsible for systemic injustices is a direct
application of conflict theory's concern with how institutions perpetuate inequality and how
structural changes are necessary to address root causes of conflict and oppression.
CONFLICT THEORY NEXT
APPLICATION ON THREE SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH THE LENS OF
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Human rights are socially constructed through symbols, language,
and interaction.
Key Example: 1995 Beijing Conference – women declared,
“Women’s rights are human rights.”
In symbolic interactionism, we learn to “take the role of the other”
to understand their humanity.
Dehumanization (e.g., in the Holocaust) happens when people are
symbolically seen as less than human.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
TO SUM THIS UP….
• From control to responsibility -
• Democracy isn't enough - Majority
Sovereignty means protecting
rule must respect minority rights to
citizens' rights, not just territorial
be legitimate.
power.
• Power is shifting - Corporations,
• Global institutions hold power -
NGOs, and international bodies
UN, ICC, and NGOs challenge state
influence state sovereignty.
authority over human rights
• States lose legitimacy if they violate
violations.
rights, facing sanctions or
• Human rights and global norms -
intervention.
They're socially constructed,
• Conflict, function, & symbols -
universal values, not just legal
Different theories show how rights
concepts.
reshape power, order, and dignity.
CONCLUSION NEXT
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
SOVEREIGNTY NOW DEPENDS
ON HUMAN RIGHTS-MAKING
STATE POWER, BOTH
limited and responsible.
CONCLUSION
A SOCIOLOGY ON HUMAN RIGHTS
REFERENCES:
Levy, D., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Sovereignty transformed: a sociology of human rights 1. The
British journal of sociology, 57(4), 657-676.
Sjoberg, G., Gill, E. A., & Williams, N. (2001). A sociology of human rights. Social problems, 48(1),
11-47.
MEMBERS:
AGBAYANI, Samantha CLAVIO, Julianna
BUNGUBUNG, Fender NAVARRO, Elizabeth
BURGOS, Gabrielle PANGANIBAN, Maejriya
CONCLUSION