obedience to authority (Milgram)

strength/threat ratio (Poe)
trade-offs: equity, liberty (Donnelly article)
just-worldthinking (Staub)
Threat to regime (Poe, et al.)
Rwandan genocide (Staub, film)
difficult life conditions (Staub)
in-group/out-group (Staub)
role of bystanders (Staub, Arendt, various)

economic rights and democracy(Sen)
National Security Doctrine (Donnelly chapter and NuncaMásexcerpt)
Stories of the Kindertransport (DVD)
Better-world ideology (Staub)
Personal integrity rights (Poe, et al.)
Role of international law (Hathaway, Koh)
Elite vs. mass ideology (various: Staub, Haritos-Fatouros, Donnelly)

1.    Essay Question.One(and only one) of the following questions will appear on the final exam.  Note: Integrate material from class sessions, films, and readings to answer the essay

question.  When you refer to a specific reading, cite the author by name.  Give concrete examples if possible.

Q.  Discuss ideological and psychological explanations for human rights violations, contrasting the different types of ideology that have been associated with violations of human rights and

genocide, as well as the psychological issues associated with taking part in abuses.  When and how does an abstract ideology or human tendency become translated into the actual violence of

human rights abuse?

Q.  Studies of rescuers seem to suggest that banality of goodness may be possible, in which unthinking, helpful behavior is the norm, while Milgram’s work, among others, seems to confirm that

unthinking obedience to the demands of authority is the norm.  Discuss the psychological and cultural factors that may contribute to rescuing vs. complicity in human rights abuses, referring to

particular authors.  Do certain conditions or experiences make some individuals more likely to speak out against human rights violations or to become rescuers?

Q. The essayist Kate Millett has said that the sovereignty of the nation-state itself is the greatest obstacle to the abolition of torture,echoing Donnelly’s observation that the nation-state is

both the principal protector and the principal violator of human rights.  Many (but not all) of the causes of human rights abuse we have discussed stem from within nation-states, yet many

attempted remedies have their sources in international law or external criticism of state behavior. Discuss the relationship between sovereignty and human rights, whether positive or

negative.Does this mean that international pressure for human rights is not enough to fix human rights problems? If not, what else is needed?  Explain your answer, based on what you have

learned about the causes of human rights abuse, referring to course readings, lectures, and films.