Matter of justification : A study on how Human Rights NGOs interpret, prioritize and justify human rights

Sammanfattning: The emergence of Human Rights NGOs continue to influence the practice of human rights domestically and internationally. In connection with this development, as scrutinizers of human rights and human rights violations, the Human Rights NGOs must in turn be scrutinized. Guided by a theoretical framework consisted of theories of justification by Rainer Forst, Martha Nussbaum and Michael Ignatieff, a critical analysis of how Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reveal the state of human rights in the respective annual report of 2017 is carried out. The aim is to scrutinize how the Human Rights NGOs interpretation, prioritization and justification of human rights affect the validity of human rights. The validity of human rights in turn, argues the thesis, presupposes that we must assess whether these strategies are reasonable. The thesis finds that human rights are understood as universal claims for the respect and protection of the underpinning values of human rights: dignity, freedom and equality. Human rights, interpreted in this sense, must have an abiding effect and protect human rights, but also to hold human rights violations accountable through means of justice. Accordingly, justice has a double meaning for the purpose of human rights in the sense that it firstly set out conditions for when human rights are protected and secondly, make this task possible.