Human Rights or Global Capitalism examines the application of neoliberal policies from a human rights perspective and asks whether states, by outsourcing to the private sector many services with a direct impact on human rights, abdicate their responsibilities to uphold human rights and violate international law.

After the Tiananmen Square massacre, a vigorous international debate erupted, not only about human rights in China, but also about the role of multinational firms. Should corporations do business in China at all? Should corporations take a stand on such issues? Revelations about serious and pervasive human rights violations in Chinese factories raised even more questions about the clash of profits and principles in China.Michael Santoro investigates these and other dilemmas, exploring the democratic values firms impart to their employees and the values firms often compromise in pursuit of profits. His interviews with foreign business executives, Chinese employees of foreign firms, human rights advocates, and foreign consular officials provide a range of perspectives. His examination of business responsibility for human rights in China also serves as a unique framework for assessing the broader social trends—both positive and negative—arising from globalization.Santoro discusses the implications of business activities for U.S. foreign policy and provides practical management advice for business executives operating in China and for those considering doing so. Surprisingly, he finds that President Clinton's program of "comprehensive engagement," which has drawn severe criticism, may in fact create a positive human rights "spin-off." Santoro's "fair-share" theory is a unique and thoughtful effort to draw the line between what moral principles do and do not require of businesses operating in China.

Using the theoretical tools drawn from historical materialism and deconstruction, Tzouvala offers a comprehensive history of the standard of civilisation.

Much has been written about growing global disparities in wealth and resources, how global capitalism has adversely affected human populations and the environment, and the dangers that a unipolar world order poses to peace and global pluralism. After summarizing the evidence for these arguments, the authors develop two main themes: first, that there is a growing transformative peoples' movement that challenges global capitalism and the imperial superpower; and, second, there is an extraordinary worldwide shift underway in human consciousness that accompanies practical global interdependencies and connectedness. The authors provide evidence for an emerging foundation of what philosopher Peter Singer describes as a "one-world ethic," and they show how this ethic is closely connected with what is called the "human rights revolution." They compare the western, liberal conception of freedom with conceptions of freedom found in the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre and Amartya Sen, and draw from Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition to clarify that freedom has both collective and individual dimensions. They build on these foundations to address the following topics: positive human rights, collective goods, cosmopolitanism, social and cultural pluralism, and they pose alternatives to capitalism and liberal democracy. The authors work in the tradition of critical social science, but go beyond that to encourage readers to engage in emancipatory projects and utopian thinking. The worlds' peoples face too many terrifying prospects not to engage such projects and thinking.

There is growing recognition around the globe that people's fundamental human rights are being imperiled in a world economy that is being driven by multinationals, investors, and banks. The 'race to the bottom' and insatiable greed has intensified poverty and economic inequalities, fueled migration, and rapidly accelerated environmental degradation. The fates of all nations are interdependent and even though the U.S. is the prime driver of the new economy, Americans have likewise experienced declines over the past decades. Blau and Moncada outline the fundamental human rights that all people are entitled to and the important role that nations have in upholding these rights. Americans find it somewhat difficult to accept the basic premise of human rights because liberalism, as a social, political, and economic ethos powerfully undercuts the premise of human rights. American liberalism highlights the efficacy of individual achievement and individual autonomy, thereby promoting the idea that people have no rights to security. . Human rights, in contrast to the liberal ethos, asserts that all humans have inalienable rights, including rights to a job, housing, social security, education, and a cultural, racial or ethnic identity. Under the conditions of a turbulent global economy, human rights need to be granted the highest standing. The authors consider global capitalism, as well as the role of the global media, and the problematic relationship between the state and society in America. In the final chapter, we review the many currents of transformative movements that are promoting a more equitable, fairer, and more egalitarian world.

Human Rights and Capitalism brings together two important facets of the globalization debate and examines the complex relationship between human rights, property rights and capitalist economies. Human rights issues have become increasingly important in this debate and their place as harbingers of justice or as an instrument of oppression is fiercely contended. Both sides of this issue are considered in the contributions to this book and the complex relationships between human rights, human dignity and capitalist economies are the themes running throughout the work. Appearing at a time when these issues are a subject of extreme controversy, this book is distinguished by its balanced and academic approach.

Through the lens of global capitalism theory, William Avilés examines democratization and civil-military relations in Colombia to explain how social and international forces led to the ostensibly contradictory outcome of democratic and economic reform coinciding with political repression. Focusing on the administrations in power from 1990 to the present, Avilés argues that the reduction in the institutional powers of the military within the state reflected changes in the structure of the global economy, the emergence of globalizing technocrats and politicians, and shifts in U.S. foreign policy strategies toward "democracy promotion." These same factors explain Colombia's establishment of a low-intensity democracy—a structure of elite rule in which the strategies of coercion (state and para-state repression) and consensus (competitive elections, civilian control over the military) maintain control and legitimacy. In the age of capitalist globalization, a low-intensity democracy is most concomitant with neoliberalism, establishing the political and economic environment most suitable to the investments of transnational corporations.