Justice, Migration and Human Rights

driven by a deeply-held belief in personhood as the defining, and universal, basis for legal entitlement. The argument is attractive and is hard to fault as the normative underpinning for a theory of law and politics. The internationalism which is at its core is appealing to academics, and others, who can avail of the opportunities created by the new cosmopolitan world order. Beyond these considerations there are sound reasons of principle in support of the moral universalism which guides the human rights movement. The evidence is stacked not against universal principles (now widely reflected in international legal instruments), but against the ability to translate these into practical action. The reality for large numbers of the world's marginalized groups is of a tightly regulated public space where the chance to develop an autonomous life is seriously impeded. In many parts of the world, access is denied to the resources which might guarantee an autonomous life. As a result people move, or at least attempt to do so. Movement is also triggered by the threat of persecution, or other serious human rights abuses. Forced migration thus reflects a basic failure of the human rights movement to achieve its international objectives. It is the initial abuse of human rights (social, economic, civil, political or cultural) which is the principal problem and the prime injustice. Exile is not a romantic condition.1