This brief survey educates one about human rights while advocating a very liberal interpretation of them.



In truth, I was torn between assigning this book four stars or three. The book itself is quite good, but I found myself getting impatient with it by the end, and I wasn't sure whether it was because of the presentation, or because I found I didn't agree with Mr. Clapham's eagerness to stretch the concept of human rights to cover the widest possible set of circumstances.



This is the only volume of the "Very Short Introduction" series I've read so far, and I find this publishing idea very attractive. I bought the book because I was drawn to the idea of a high-level "briefing document" approach. What I was hoping for and expecting was a completely balanced treatment, and this is what I feel I did not get.



I really appreciated the short potted history of human rights early in the book, and learned many interesting things, such as the role H. G. Wells played in formulating and popularizing the idea of human rights. But as the book goes on to treat various social-justice issues, such as food, education, housing, work, and discrimination, I felt that I was really reading a progress report on how the human-rights movement has helped to promote a left-wing social agenda worldwide.



While there's nothing wrong with being politically progressive, I sense danger in the idea of having "human rights" overtaken by any one political point of view. For my part, I'm a passionate believer in human rights, but in a much more restricted set of rights than what is envisaged in this book and, apparently, in the human-rights movement generally. But Mr. Clapham is dismissive of those who criticize the "politicization" of human rights; to him, human rights are about politics, and those who don't see this just don't get it.



By the end of the book Mr. Clapham finally takes explicit aim at those who are more reserved in their definition of human rights:



"Those who insist on a narrow meaning seek to confine human rights to an historically based determination of specific governmental duties to refrain from infringing traditional liberties; the wider vision of human rights allows for consideration of the problems of hunger, poverty, and violence facing billions of people."



I suspect that not many people who question Mr. Clapham's liberal interpretation of human rights would accept his characterization of their viewpoint. In a "briefing document" of this kind, more balance is essential. Also, it would have been good to begin the book with this sentence, so that we could know from the start just how committed the author is to one side of the question.



Maybe I'm being too harsh. Mr. Clapham does make efforts throughout to present other views, noting that "critics say..." But it was as though by the end he just could not bear to wear the "impartial" mask any more.