Construing Human Rights

This research develops the emerging socialpsychological study of human rights claims inresponse to perceived injustice. The assertion ofunique subgroup rights seemspsychologically-different to claims of individualrights that can be held by all humans. Preferencesfor use of particular human rights claims werestudied by presenting participants with scenariossuggestive of human rights violations: possibleviolations of privacy rights, civil and politicalrights under mandatory sentencing schemes, refugeerights and reproductive rights of lesbians and singlewomen seeking access to assisted reproductivetechnology. The research drew on real Australianpolicy debates. Quantitative and qualitative datafrom five studies reveal, even amongst activists, apreference for an equality-driven construal of thepurpose of human rights law: that all Australians betreated equally regardless of subgroup membership, incontrast to the belief that the purpose of humanrights law is to protect unique interests ofvulnerable subgroups within a broader collective(vulnerable groups construal).

Autorentext
Dr Mark Nolan (BSc(hons) LLB PhD (ANU)) completed this PhD thesisinsocial psychology at the School of Psychology, The AustralianNational University in Canberra. Mark is currently a SeniorLecturer at the ANU College of Law, teaching criminal law as wellas law and psychology since 2002. More professional details athttp://law.anu.edu.au.

Klappentext
This research develops the emerging social psychological study of human rights claims in response to perceived injustice. The assertion of unique subgroup rights seems psychologically-different to claims of individual rights that can be held by all humans. Preferences for use of particular human rights claims were studied by presenting participants with scenarios suggestive of human rights violations: possible violations of privacy rights, civil and political rights under mandatory sentencing schemes, refugee rights and reproductive rights of lesbians and single women seeking access to assisted reproductive technology. The research drew on real Australian policy debates. Quantitative and qualitative data from five studies reveal, even amongst activists, a preference for an equality-driven construal of the purpose of human rights law: that all Australians be treated equally regardless of subgroup membership, in contrast to the belief that the purpose of human rights law is to protect unique interests of vulnerable subgroups within a broader collective (vulnerable groups construal).