He has mentioned that there are 3 criterions for the rationing of intrusions which are (a) human right abuses issues which are pervasive (b) military intervention to stop human rights abuses and (c) international threat to peace and security. (1)
According to Michael Ignatieff, he wants more than the government claiming accountability; nongovernmental organizations are campaigning for human rights and reporting against human rights abuses such as Human Rights Watch at the global level to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan at the local level.
Ignatieff believed in the strategy of bringing together the core claim of human rights with the moral implication of cultural diversity by defining appropriate international standards. Ignatieff states in his book that advocators always would face resistance to any universal human right. Ignatieff concedes that people in all cultures should draw lines between human rights and religion. Instead, as Diane rightly pointed those universal norms like prohibition of torture would require counties’ initiative to undertake transformation. She states that there should be more efforts taken to advocate human rights in the Middle Eastern countries and create corresponding transformation in the society’s legal and political culture.
Ignatieff claims that the human rights instruments should protect human agency and to be minimalist as apposed to expansionist vision. Another appealing part of Ignatieff’s argument is that more than moral rules, communication form the basic essence of human right norms. He also criticizes that human rights are used as trump cards whose function is to bring in political disputes and misunderstanding and that human rights are considered as politics where one party needs to reconcile moral ends and compromises to situations.(1)
Another problem that he has pointed is the hypocrisy and