Abstract

In this reply to Kate Nash's "State of Human Rights" I argue, having agreed with her over whether or not human rights are justiciable, that the problems facing the enforcement of human rights are far more complicated than she suggests. I raise three objections to her position. Firstly I suggest that human rights discourse is too quick to reject the rights of citizens - however exclusive these may be. Secondly, there is a problem of correlativity namely that there are no human duties and hence human rights are Rawlsian "urgent rights." Thirdly, juridical states in her typology can also suppress human rights and we need to examine the distinction between legality and legitimacy.