My Disability Law / Human Rights Law LLM Dissertation Possibilities:
So, I’m considering doing a part time LLM while I complete my articling requirements to become a fully fledged lawyer, so I can also open up the possibilities of a Ph.D/ J.S.D down the road, or even teaching right off the bat after I finish my requirements/ pay off student loans for my B.A/J.D. If you have any opinions on any of these, or any of them stick out to you as a particularly viable topic for me to explore, I have to write a thesis proposal, so if there’s any suggestions/ particular one you lean towards, your comments would be greatly appreciated. <3
1. Analyse and critically assess the claim that Human Rights require a universal set of moral foundations.
Any claim to human rights has the potential to justify almost any act on the assumption that it enhances and protects a specific right or set of rights. But exactly wherein are these rights grounded, and how can they make a claim to justify the actions involved in detaining suspected terrorists, for example? Can human rights be based upon universal moral principles, and if so, can this prevent abuses of such rights? This study will seek to argue that while rooting human rights within universal moral principles should seek to strengthen the duties created by them, a real account of universal moral foundations is not possible to achieve on any practical basis. In order to accomplish true universality, a level of simplicity or generality is required which is unable to withstand the application of the rights it upholds on any specific or practical level.
Suggested Reading
Dworkin, R 1989. ‘Rights as Trumps’ in J Waldron (ed), Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finnis, J 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights, New York: Oxford University Press.
Gewirth, A 1989. ‘Are There Any Absolute Rights?’ in J Waldron (ed), Theories of Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Rather than an aberration of civilisation, Bauman argues that modernity provided the necessary conditions for the Holocaust, including the necessary distancing from preternatural morality.
It is commonly stated without question that the occurrence of the Holocaust under the Third Reich was a peculiarity, or at least a unexplained departure from civilisation. Yet closer examination and dissection of the elements of the Holocaust and how it was executed uncovers an entirely different result. Bauman indeed claims that the Holocaust was not only a normal social event, but similarly that without modernity and all that it embodies, the Holocaust could not have advanced as far as it did. This study will analyse the occurrences of the Holocaust beyond preconceptions concerning it being a product of extreme discrimination and hatred. The study will conduct an analysis based upon modernity as contained in the conglomerated elements of industrialisation, bureaucracy and rationality; all of which were notably present during the Holocaust. A critical assessment of Bauman’s theory of modernity will be undertaken, concluding in general support of his claim that the Holocaust was the embodiment of modernity.
Suggested Reading
Bauman, Z 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Garland, D 2001. The Culture of Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilberg, R 2003. The Destruction of the European Jews: Volume 3, 3rd edn, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matravers, M 2005. Managing Modernity: Politics and the Culture of Control, Oxon: Routledge.
3. Is it ever justifiable to sacrifice individual rights for collective security?
Theories focusing upon the importance of individual and collective rights have often sought to justify the prevalence of one over the other. In view of modern-day state infringements of individual rights, the issue has become increasingly heated. This is particularly the case in the context of threats to individual privacy and freedom in response to terrorism. State infringements of individual rights all too easily quote the prevailing importance of collective security which apparently functions to justify coercion. The quest to ensure the security and safety of the collective has become committed to the assumption that individual rights can not only justifiably, but also necessarily be infringed or sacrificed. This study will explore existing theories in relation to the difficult conflict between individual and collective rights, touching upon theories such as the social contract and utilitarianism. These theories, by being applied to contemporary issues such as recent terrorist attacks, will test the assumption that collective security is more important than individual rights. Yet, it will be concluded that there must be stringent limits on the extent to which the latter can be infringed in the quest for the former, lest individual rights become so fragile that collective security is rendered a distant historical fallacy.
Suggested Reading
Dworkin, R 1989. ‘Rights as Trumps’ in J Waldron (ed), Theories of Rights, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T 1969. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, Oxon: Routledge.
Mill, JS 1859. ‘On Liberty’ in J Gray & JS Mill (eds), On Liberty and Other Essays, New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J 1993. Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia Press.
Riddall, JG 2005. Jurisprudence, 2nd edn, London: Butterworths.
4. The Question of ‘Humanitarian’ Intervention:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/intervention/int10.htm
https://www.crf-usa.org/war-in-iraq/military-intervention.html
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1449&context=ilj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention