American Gothic in Sleepy Hollow, Ligeia and They Got a Hell of a Band

American Gothic in Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Poe's Ligeia and Stephen King's You Know They Got a Hell of a Band      Ã‚  Ã‚   America is haunted, by headless horsemen and bloody battles, by addiction and a self gratifying obsession with immortality. America has a long-standing tradition with the gothic, and some of our most widely recognized authors, such as Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, and Stephen King, a more recent author borrowed from popular literature, utilize it frequently if not wholly in their writing. The gothic is an intrinsic part of our national identity, inhabiting our folklore, our literature, and influencing the way in which we view our celebrities and ultimately, ourselves. In his commentary on the gothic, Nightmare on Main Street, Mark Edmunson offers his take on the relationship between national identity and the form: Unsentimental, enraged by gentility and high-mindedness, skeptical about progress in any form, the Gothic mind is antithetical to all smiling American faiths. A nation of ideals, America has also been, not surprisingly, a nation of hard disillusionment, with a fiercely reactive Gothic Imagination. (4-5) There is much to American Gothicism. It lies deeply in the conscious awareness of the culture. Its roots are as diverse as the witch trials and the knowledge that one race of people committed genocide against another in order to obtain the land where our most illustrious universities and homogenous strip malls now sit. The character of America is in itself a gothic one. We hold aloft one set of ideas about freedom and equality, while graciously looking the other way when the savage hypocrisy that keeps the daily functions of life on an even keel rears its ugly ... ...st beneath the surface of our every day realities. Works Cited Edmunson, Mark. Nightmare on Main Street. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Lauter, Paul, et al., eds. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. 3rd ed. Vol 1. New York: Haughton Mifflin Co., 1997. Irving, Washington. "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." Lauter et al. 1354-1373. Poe, Edgar Allan. "Ligeia." Lauter et al. 1450-1461. Ringe, Donald A. American Gothic: Imagination and Reason in Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Lexington KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1982. Savoy, Eric. "The Face of the Tenant: A Theory of American Gothic." American Gothic: New Interventions in a National Narrative. Ed. Robert K. Martin et al. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 1998. 3-19. White, Craig. Lecture. University of Houston-Clear Lake. Clear Lake, TX, 6 March. 2001    American Gothic in Sleepy Hollow, Ligeia and They Got a Hell of a Band American Gothic in Washington Irving's The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Poe's Ligeia and Stephen King's You Know They Got a Hell of a Band      Ã‚  Ã‚   America is haunted, by headless horsemen and bloody battles, by addiction and a self gratifying obsession with immortality. America has a long-standing tradition with the gothic, and some of our most widely recognized authors, such as Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, and Stephen King, a more recent author borrowed from popular literature, utilize it frequently if not wholly in their writing. The gothic is an intrinsic part of our national identity, inhabiting our folklore, our literature, and influencing the way in which we view our celebrities and ultimately, ourselves. In his commentary on the gothic, Nightmare on Main Street, Mark Edmunson offers his take on the relationship between national identity and the form: Unsentimental, enraged by gentility and high-mindedness, skeptical about progress in any form, the Gothic mind is antithetical to all smiling American faiths. A nation of ideals, America has also been, not surprisingly, a nation of hard disillusionment, with a fiercely reactive Gothic Imagination. (4-5) There is much to American Gothicism. It lies deeply in the conscious awareness of the culture. Its roots are as diverse as the witch trials and the knowledge that one race of people committed genocide against another in order to obtain the land where our most illustrious universities and homogenous strip malls now sit. The character of America is in itself a gothic one. We hold aloft one set of ideas about freedom and equality, while graciously looking the other way when the savage hypocrisy that keeps the daily functions of life on an even keel rears its ugly ... ...st beneath the surface of our every day realities. Works Cited Edmunson, Mark. Nightmare on Main Street. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Lauter, Paul, et al., eds. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. 3rd ed. Vol 1. New York: Haughton Mifflin Co., 1997. Irving, Washington. "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." Lauter et al. 1354-1373. Poe, Edgar Allan. "Ligeia." Lauter et al. 1450-1461. Ringe, Donald A. American Gothic: Imagination and Reason in Nineteenth-Century Fiction. Lexington KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1982. Savoy, Eric. "The Face of the Tenant: A Theory of American Gothic." American Gothic: New Interventions in a National Narrative. Ed. Robert K. Martin et al. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 1998. 3-19. White, Craig. Lecture. University of Houston-Clear Lake. Clear Lake, TX, 6 March. 2001   

Love at the Cornhusk

Love at the Cornhusk – Aida Rivera Ford Tinang stopped before the Senora’s gate and adjusted the baby’s cap. The dogs that came to bark at the gate were strange dogs, big-mouthed animals with a sense of superiority. They stuck their heads through the hogfence, lolling their tongues and straining. Suddenly, from the gumamela row, a little black mongrel emerged and slithered through the fence with ease. It came to her, head down and body quivering. â€Å"Bantay. Ay, Bantay! † she exclaimed as the little dog laid its paws upon her shirt to sniff the baby on her arm. The baby was afraid and cried. The big animals barked with displeasure. Tito, the young master, had seen her and was calling to his mother. â€Å"Ma, it’s Tinang. Ma, Ma, it’s Tinang. † He came running down to open the gate. â€Å"Aba, you are so tall now, Tito. † He smiled his girl’s smile as he stood by, warding the dogs off. Tinang passed quickly up the veranda stairs lined with ferns and many-colored bougainville. On landing, she paused to wipe her shoes carefully. About her, the Senora’s white and lavender butterfly orchids fluttered delicately in the sunshine. She noticed though that the purple waling-waling that had once been her task to shade from the hot sun with banana leaves and to water with mixture of charcoal and eggs and water was not in bloom. â€Å"Is no one covering the waling-waling now? † Tinang asked. â€Å"It will die. † â€Å"Oh, the maid will come to cover the orchids later. † The Senora called from inside. â€Å"Tinang, let me see your baby. Is it a boy? † â€Å"Yes, Ma,† Tito shouted from downstairs. â€Å"And the ears are huge! † â€Å"What do you expect,† replied his mother; â€Å"the father is a Bagobo. Even Tinang looks like a Bagobo now. † Tinang laughed and felt warmness for her former mistress and the boy Tito. She sat self-consciously on the black narra sofa, for the first time a visitor. Her eyes clouded. The sight of the Senora’s flaccidly plump figure, swathed in a loose waist-less housedress that came down to her ankles, and the faint scent of agua de colonia blended with kitchen spice, seemed to her the essence of the comfortable world, and she sighed thinking of the long walk home through the mud, the baby’s legs straddled to her waist, and Inggo, her husband, waiting for her, his body stinking of tuba and sweat, squatting on the floor, clad only in his foul undergarments. â€Å"Ano, Tinang, is it not a good thing to be married? the Senora asked, pitying Tinang because her dress gave way at the placket and pressed at her swollen breasts. It was, as a matter of fact, a dress she had given Tinang a long time ago. â€Å"It is hard, Senora, very hard. Better that I were working here again. † â€Å"There! † the Senora said. â€Å"Didn’t I tell you what it would be like, huh? . . . that you would be a slave to your husband and that you would work a baby eternally strapped to you. Are you not pregnant again? † Tinang squirmed at the Senora’s directness but admitted she was. â€Å"Hala! You will have a dozen before long. † The Senora got up. Come, I will give you some dresses and an old blanket that you can cut into things for the baby. † They went into a cluttered room which looked like a huge closet and as the Senora sorted out some clothes, Tinang asked, â€Å"How is Senor? † â€Å"Ay, he is always losing his temper over the tractor drivers. It is not the way it was when Amado was here. You remember what a good driver he was. The tractors were always kept in working condition. But now . . . I wonder why he left all of a sudden. He said he would be gone for only two days . . . .† â€Å"I don’t know,† Tinang said. The baby began to cry. Tinang shushed him with irritation. â€Å"Oy, Tinang, come to the kitchen; your Bagobito is hungry. † For the next hour, Tinang sat in the kitchen with an odd feeling; she watched the girl who was now in possession of the kitchen work around with a handkerchief clutched I one hand. She had lipstick on too, Tinang noted. the girl looked at her briefly but did not smile. She set down a can of evaporated milk for the baby and served her coffee and cake. The Senora drank coffee with her and lectured about keeping the baby’s stomach bound and training it to stay by itself so she could work. Finally, Tinang brought up, haltingly, with phrases like â€Å"if it will not offend you† and â€Å"if you are not too busy† the purpose of her visit–which was to ask Senora to be a madrina in baptism. The Senora readily assented and said she would provide the baptismal clothes and the fee for the priest. It was time to go. â€Å"When are you coming again, Tinang? † the Senore asked as Tinang got the baby ready. â€Å"Don’t forget the bundle of clothes and . . . oh, Tinang, you better stop by the drugstore. They asked me once whether you were still with us. You have a letter there nd I was going to open it to see if there was bad news but I thought you would be coming. † A letter! Tinang’s heart beat violently. Somebody is dead; I know somebody is dead, she thought. She crossed herself and after thanking the Senora profusely, she hurried down. The dogs came forward and Tito had to restrain them. â€Å"Bring me some young corn next tim e, Tinang,† he called after her. Tinang waited a while at the drugstore which was also the post office of the barrio. Finally, the man turned to her: â€Å"Mrs. , do you want medicine for your baby or for yourself? † â€Å"No, I came for my letter. I was told I have a letter. † â€Å"And what is your name, Mrs.? † He drawled. â€Å"Constantina Tirol. † The man pulled a box and slowly went through the pile of envelopes most of which were scribbled in pencil, â€Å"Tirol, Tirol, Tirol. . . .† He finally pulled out a letter and handed it to her. She stared at the unfamiliar scrawl. It was not from her sister and she could think of no one else who could write to her. Santa Maria, she thought; maybe something has happened to my sister. â€Å"Do you want me to read it for you? † â€Å"No, no. † She hurried from the drugstore, crushed that he should think her illiterate. With the baby on one arm and the bundle of clothes on the other and the letter clutched in her hand she found herself walking toward home. The rains had made a deep slough of the clay road and Tinang followed the prints left by the men and the carabaos that had gone before her to keep from sinking mud up to her knees. She was deep in the road before she became conscious of her shoes. In horror, she saw that they were coated with thick, black clay. Gingerly, she pulled off one shoe after the other with the hand still clutching to the letter. When she had tied the shoes together with the laces and had slung them on an arm, the baby, the bundle, and the letter were all smeared with mud. There must be a place to put the baby down, she thought, desperate now about the letter. She walked on until she spotted a corner of a field where cornhusks were scattered under a kamansi tree. She shoved together a pile of husks with her foot and laid the baby down upon it. With a sigh, she drew the letter from the envelope. She stared at the letter which was written in English. My dearest Tinay, Hello, how is life getting along? Are you still in good condition? As for myself, the same as usual. But you’re far from my side. It is not easy to be far from our lover. Tinay, do you still love me? I hope your kind and generous heart will never fade. Someday or somehow I’ll be there again to fulfill our promise. Many weeks and months have elapsed. Still I remember our bygone days. Especially when I was suffering with the heat of the tractor under the heat of the sun. I was always in despair until I imagine your personal appearance coming forward bearing the sweetest smile that enabled me to view the distant horizon. Tinay, I could not return because I found that my mother was very ill. That is why I was not able to take you as a partner of life. Please respond to my missive at once so that I know whether you still love me or not. I hope you did not love anybody except myself. I think I am going beyond the limit of your leisure hours, so I close with best wishes to you, my friends Gonding, Sefarin, Bondio, etc. Yours forever, Amado P. S. My mother died last month. Address your letter: Mr. Amado Galauran Binalunan, Cotabato It was Tinang’s first love letter. A flush spread over her face and crept into her body. She read the letter again. â€Å"It is not easy to be far from our lover. . . I imagine your personal appearance coming forward. . . . Someday, somehow I’ll be there to fulfill our promise. . . .† Tinang was intoxicated. She pressed herself against the kamansi tree. My lover is true to me. He never meant to desert me. Amado, she thought. Amado. And she cried, remembering the young girl she was less than two years ago when she would take fo od to Senor in the field and the laborers would eye her furtively. She thought herself above them for she was always neat and clean in her hometown, before she went away to work, she had gone to school and had reached sixth grade. Her skin, too, was not as dark as those of the girls who worked in the fields weeding around the clumps of abaca. Her lower lip jutted out disdainfully when the farm hands spoke to her with many flattering words. She laughed when a Bagobo with two hectares of land asked her to marry him. It was only Amado, the tractor driver, who could look at her and make her lower her eyes. He was very dark and wore filthy and torn clothes on the farm but on Saturdays when he came up to the house for his week’s salary, his hair was slicked down and he would be dressed as well as Mr. Jacinto, the schoolteacher. Once he told her he would study in the city night-schools and take up mechanical engineering someday. He had not said much more to her but one afternoon when she was bidden to take some bolts and tools to him in the field, a great excitement came over her. The shadows moved fitfully in the bamboo groves she passed and the cool November air edged into her nostrils sharply. He stood unmoving beside the tractor with tools and parts scattered on the ground around him. His eyes were a black glow as he watched her draw near. When she held out the bolts, he seized her wrist and said: â€Å"Come,† pulling her to the screen of trees beyond. She resisted but his arms were strong. He embraced her roughly and awkwardly, and she trembled and gasped and clung to him. . . . A little green snake slithered languidly into the tall grass a few yards from the kamansi tree. Tinang started violently and remembered her child. It lay motionless on the mat of husk. With a shriek she grabbed it wildly and hugged it close. The baby awoke from its sleep and cries lustily. Ave Maria Santisima. Do not punish me, she prayed, searching the baby’s skin for marks. Among the cornhusks, the letter fell unnoticed.

Human Rights in Theory and in Practice - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 1991 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Argumentative essay Tags: Human Rights Essay Did you like this example? Human rights are based on values, which are broadly, if not universally, shared and are gradually converging towards a common set of standards that can be accepted and enforced. Nonetheless some query whether these ambitions, however admirable, are reflected in the realities of practice. Jeremy Bentham stated that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary lawsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦come imaginary rightsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[1] This led Marie-BÃÆ' ©nÃÆ' ©dicte Dembour to suggest from a realist perspective that the ECHR offers neither à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"realà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ nor à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"imaginaryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ rights but instead provides à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"relative protectionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[2] Dembour argues that the ECtHR is enmeshed in state interests[3] and in practice à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the Commission and the Court have proved strong allies of government and order right from the beginningà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[4] To discuss Dembourà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s views it is necessary to compare her thoughts on the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"realistà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ critiques, which Bentham mounted against the 1789 French Declaration and which international relations (IR) realists provide on human rights. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Human Rights in Theory and in Practice" essay for you Create order Both theories reject human rights as emanating from à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"aboveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ or à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"outsideà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ the state but propose they originate from, and are enmeshed within the state itself, and reject there is a natural law governing the state, existing outside of social recognition, which surpasses positive national law or is able to regulate the way states interact. This will be tied to N v United Kingdom.[5] Bentham is best known as the founder of utilitarianism. He did not think that the Declaration provided real rights, for him real rights have a positive source in government. He did not believe in the existence of natural rights, which are assumed simply to exist therefore come from nowhere. He is of the view natural rights sound good but fail to deliver. For example, people are evidently not born equal, contrary to what the Declaration states. But if the rights of the Declaration are not to be taken literally, then they still mean nothing as th ey will need to be given restrictions and it is the government who sets these restrictions. What has been given with one hand (Declaration) will instantly be taken away with the other (government). Bentham as a utilitarian believes government is there to help society and should create the law. He opposes the view that rights emanate from à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"aboveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ or à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"outsideà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ the state, providing higher universal moral norms. Bentham favours rights existing in the positive world, over rights that are the product of the minds of utopian dreamers.[6] Bentham stated the rights in the Declaration were à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"nonsense upon stiltsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[7] and a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"mere effusion of imbecilityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[8] Contrary to Bentham, it is argued that there is human rights norms, therefore human rights exist to the extent and in the sense that justified moralities contain such norms regardless of what legal norms a given legal sy stem may provide.[9] Societyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s conceptions as holders of moral rights do not perhaps originate from the principle of utility.[10] It may be difficult to believe that rights in the Convention are grounded in utilitarian considerations, because they emerged as important moral concepts designed to enhance liberty, privacy and dignity à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" as Kant asserted within a few years of Benthamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s critique.[11] It may be more plausible to derive rights from societyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s idea of the common good and morality. Realism can be described with three Ssà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢: statism, survival and self-help.[12] The state is the main player in IR, not civil society, international corporations or religion. Realism does not see that improvement is possible in international politics.[13] The idea is that state sovereignty is of principal importance. The state will always follow its own interests, do anything that is necessary to ensure its surviva l and will not be swayed by an alleged universal morality.[14] Forsythe examined whether realists are correct to think that human rights policy is subordinated to state interests. His conclusion is positive where he finds realism in IR à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"largely irrelevantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[15] He has the view progress can be achieved in IR. However Pierre-Henri Imbert, the Director of Human Rights at the Council of Europe, does not believe human rights have fundamentally affected IR.[16] For him, human rights are instruments that allow states to pursue politics without safeguarding the dignity of the individual. Article 3 provides: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. To decide whether the treatment violates the Convention, the court considers the facts to establish if suffering to which the individual has been or will be subjected reaches a threshold of ill treatment, called a minimum threshold of severity. Prior to N, the sole example of a medical asylum application where the court found that the threshold of severity was attained was D v United Kingdom;[17] a decision extensively discussed in N.[18] The applicant was a national of St Kitts, serving a prison sentence in the UK. While in prison, he contracted HIV. When he completed his sentence he was due to be deported and his illness was at an advanced stage. He claimed deportation to his home country would breach Article 3. The court stated that, when an individual claimed asylum for medical reasons: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the court must subject all circumstances surrounding the case to a rigorous scrutinyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[19] In D, it was held the conditions were à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"very exceptionalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[20] The applicantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s immune system was irreparably damaged and his life was drawing to a close; in St Kitts he had no family or any other social support; and the medical treatment was inadequate. The m inimum level of severity was reached. Mrs N, a Ugandan national was diagnosed as HIV-positive upon arrival in the UK and submitted an application for asylum, alleging that, should she be returned to her country, the National Resistance Movement would endanger her life and bodily integrity, this was rejected. Then she argued that returning her to Uganda would breach Article 3, since Uganda did not have the necessary infrastructure to treat her disease. The UK was found not to be in breach. The claim in N was approached in a manner similar to D, implying that both cases involved the same principles, but perhaps a line could be drawn to separate them based on the level of the applicantsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ misfortune. The court suggested that, unlike Mr D, Mrs N did not face an extreme degree of suffering at the time of her case: she was not close to death; she was fit and able to travel, thanks to the medical treatment that she had received and she would at least have some family by her side. For these reasons, her situation was not very exceptional and therefore did not reach the minimum level of severity. Perhaps what led to the rejection in N, i.e. the real reason why the treatment was said not to reach the minimum level of severity, was not explicitly articulated in the reasoning of the majority, but was implied in the judgment when the court suggested that the Convention did not impose on Member States a duty to alleviate poverty through the provision of medical treatment to foreigners, as this would be extremely burdensome,[21] known as the floodgates argument. This point was stressed with regret: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the real concern that the majority of the court had in mind was that if the applicant were allowed to remain in the UK to benefit from the care that her survival requires then the resources of the state would be overstretchedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[22] A comparative reason was put forward by Lord Hope, who considered a violation of Article 3 à ¢Ã¢ ‚ ¬Ã‹Å"would result in a very great and no doubt unquantifiable commitment of resourcesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[23] Mahoney JA stated in the Supreme Court of Canada that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the possibility of a flood of refugees may be a legitimate political concern, but it is not an appropriate legal consideration. To incorporate such concerns implicitly within the Convention refugee determination process, however well meaning, unduly distorts the judicial-political relationshipà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[24] This supports Dembourà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s when she sums up her argument: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"I have shown how human rights remain enmeshed in state interests; allow us to evade important moral dilemmas which must be confrontedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[25] This is a prime instance when rights cannot really be above the state, as it would appear the state is ultimately still the source of these rights, not natural law, and the state is following its own interests by not having to overcompensate to accommod ate refugees. It has been supported that there is no evidence that refugees easily flee their countries in order to enjoy privilege in an affluent but distant state.[26] Perhaps the majority was worried finding the UK in violation of Article 3, because this might reduce Member States power to turn away refugees in the future, which is in accordance with Imbertà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s view that human rights have not fundamentally affected international relations and supports the view that the ECtHR is enmeshed in state interests and in practice the Commission and ECtHR prove to be strong allies of government. In conclusion, there are those who disagree with Dembourà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s views about Bentham in terms of morality and also suggest realism is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"largely irrelevantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ in IR. However other evidence points towards human rights being enmeshed in state interests. It is evident that human rights do not provide ideal rights, suggesting that it is like any o ther area of the law, which is in a permanent position of tension and debate between varies parties, and Dembourà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s argument that the Convention acts as a very limited constraint on state power is widely received.[27] To believe that total harmony may emerge one day would disregard human nature.[28] The Convention does not and potentially could not sustain a position, which would be completely above realist considerations. It is likely realist considerations will continue to pervade human rights, and what is clear is that although human rights may sometimes differ in theory and practice, and have conceivably not fundamentally affected IR, there is little reason to suggest that society is now not better off than without their principles.[29] Dembour is matter-of-fact to declare that human rights provides à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"relative protection against the sandbagà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, which is illustrated by the cases of N and D with N eluding the sturdy but not impenetrable barricade. Dembour rightly points out human rights have allowed states to dodge moral dilemmas but this hard reality does not make the concept of human rights completely ineffective. [1] J. Bentham, Selected Writings on Utilitarianism, (Hertfordshire: Wordsworth, 2000), p.458. [2] M. Dembour, Who Believes in Human Rights? Reflections on the European Convention, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p.59. [3] Ibid, p.272. [4] Ibid, p.47. [5] App. No. 26565/05, (ECtHR, 27 May 2008). [6] Dembour, op.cit., p.31. [7] Bentham, op.cit., p.405. [8] Ibid at 441. [9] H.A. Bedau, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Anarchical Fallaciesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ : Benthamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Attack on Human Rightsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, Human Rights Quarterly, (2000), p.276. [10] Ibid. [11] I. Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, (J.W. Ellington tr, 3rd edn, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993). [12] T. Dunne and B.C. Schmidt, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Realismà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p.141. [13] R. Jackson and G. SÃÆ' ¸rensen, Introduction to International Relations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p.68. [14] C. Sylvest, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Realism and international law: the challenge of John.H. Herzà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, International Theory, vol.2, no.03, (2010), p.439. [15] D. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). [16] P.H. Imbert, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Là ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ des droits de là ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢homme dans les relations internationalesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, in SociÃÆ' ©tÃÆ' © franÃÆ' §aise pur le droit international, La protection des droits de là ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢homme et là ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢evolution du droit international, (Paris: Pedone, 1998), pp.282-285. [17] App. No. 30240/96, (ECtHR, 2 May 1997) [18] Ibid at 32-34. [19] Ibid at 49. [20] Ibid at 54. [21] N at 44. [22] Ibid at 8. [23] N (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 31 at 20. [24] Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1995] 3 SCR 593 at 57. [25] Dembour, op.cit., p.272. [26] M. Foster, International Refugee Law and Socio-Economic Rights, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp.344-348. [27] W. Twining, General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p.184. [28] C. Tomuschat, Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, (3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p.431. [29] C. Douzinas, The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the Turn of the Century, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000), p.2.