Localizing Human Rights: Modeling Human Rights Cities

Abstract

In recent years, increasing numbers of cities have begun addressing global threats to human rights. By cultivating a local version of citizenship (city-zenship), cities foster a collective ethos shaped around universal principles of freedom, equality, and dignity, declaring themselves human rights cities. However, despite its varied manifestations, this label remains broad, accommodating a range of interpretations. This study distinguishes between two primary models, which I conceptualize as thin and thick human rights cities, and two nested sub-models. The models encompass the efforts of city-zens and local political actors to assimilate the human rights ethos within the city through both declarative and practical approaches. Subsequently, the typology is applied to characterize the South Korean city of Gwangju, renowned as a pioneering human rights city. Drawing on documents and interviews conducted in the city, I illustrate how the specific mechanisms via which a city engages with human rights can be classified into a model, facilitating comparison with other cities.

Introduction

In December 2019, the mayors of Prague, Warsaw, Bratislava, and Budapest formed the “Pact of Free Cities”: they rejected the populist, illiberal policies enacted by their states and affirmed their commitment to human rights, liberal democracy, and pluralism (Budapest, 2019). Although impressive, this was not the first instance of cities declaring their dedication to human rights. Globally, many cities have adopted human rights as fundamental principles, aligning with the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1948), in recognition of their pivotal role in shaping the space wherein a huge majority of individuals spend most of their lives (De Feyter et al., 2011; Lampard, 1955). This trend reflects cities’ increasing efficacy in addressing global challenges, such as climate change, immigration, terrorism, and pandemics, often outperforming states in terms of innovation and pragmatism (Barber, 2013; de Shalit, 2018; Gordon, 2013; Oomen et al., 2018).

In this dynamic, cities complete or even challenge state agendas and policies by devising local solutions to ensure the well-being of their residents, adapting to the city’s collective “spirit” and its inhabitants’ unique ways of life. Scholars refer to this as a city’s ethos, a shared way of life that shapes its inhabitants’ perspectives and judgments (Bell and de Shalit, 2011, 2022). This is evident across various aspects of the city’s political, cultural, and economic life. Examples include Montreal’s deeply ingrained multiculturalism (Picco, 2008), Madrid’s implementation of an age-friendly city approach (Buffel et al., 2019), and the pioneering stance on gender rights in San Francisco (Ezer, 2022), which began issuing same-sex marriage licenses as early as 2004, well ahead of the US Supreme Court’s approval.

The process via which cities evolve into social and political spheres that interact with human rights has led some cities to be labeled―mostly by themselves―human rights cities (HRCs). However, this title includes various modes of engagement with human rights, leaving much room for interpretation. Within this conceptual gap, the current study explores and maps the diversity of approaches to integrating human rights principles in the city. Drawing on literature concerning local human rights implementation (Davis, 2017; Grigolo, 2019; Oomen et al., 2016) and the conception of urban citizenship (city-zenship) based on local recognition of rights (Oomen, 2019a; Vrasti and Dayal, 2016), I suggest that HRCs should be characterized based on the extent to which they embody a human rights ethos in their daily functioning rather than primarily focusing on their interaction with international legal frameworks and policy construction (Davis, 2021; Durmuş, 2020; Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014), which potentially overlooks the nuanced aspects of cities’ commitment to human rights. The human rights ethos―understood in a broad sense that includes the interplay between discursive, normative, legal, and institutional dimensions, manifest among inhabitants on the civic and local political levels―can contribute to the portrayal of the city as an entity that interacts with and upholds human rights to different degrees.

The article employs this framework to contend that, as city-zens, individuals not only recognize their right to shape their lives through the city (Harvey, 2008; Lefebvre, 1996) but also take pride in their urban environment because it is unique (Bell and de Shalit, 2012). Both city-zens and local political actors “see” human rights principles, despite their global nature and susceptibility to “homogenization,” from a city-level perspective (Magnusson, 2011), continually adapted to and shaping the city’s “intrinsic logic” (Löw, 2012). In this sense, cities possess collective identities that are constructed through the meanings accorded to intangible and physical elements within their urban space (Cresswell, 2014; Hubbard and Kitchin, 2010), contributing to the city’s distinctiveness. Therefore, while HRCs may share common values, they do not necessarily share a single ethos. Cities exhibit varied nuances and emphasize different aspects of human rights, shaping their unique urban collective identity. Consequently, this study demonstrates that (1) Cities are increasingly assuming a prominent role in safeguarding their residents’ human rights. (2) This process should be conceived as fostering an ethos of human rights involving city inhabitants at all levels who implement both declarative and practical measures to embed this ethos in the urban environment. Accordingly, (3) this ethos may vary in thickness, giving rise to thin and thick HRCs, with two nested sub-models: thinner and thicker cities.

I employ this theoretical framework to define an HRC as a local community that upholds a human rights ethos, which in turn serves as a cornerstone for organizing everyday life in the city. This inclusive definition draws on earlier conceptions of the HRC, such as that proposed by the People’s Movement for Human Rights Learning (PDHRE, 2007: 3), which describes an HRC as “a city or community where people [. . .] try and let a human rights framework guide the development of the life of the community,” and Grigolo’s (2016: 277) definition of a city as “organized around norms and principles of human rights.” By employing the notion of ethos, the suggested definition recognizes the significance of cities’ collective identities and narratives in relation to human rights principles and the cultural context they embody. Conceiving the city’s ethos as encompassing both the authorities and civil society, it broadens the scope beyond definitions that focus on the legal aspect of local human rights implementation (Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014: 163) or define a declarative threshold to be considered an HRC (National Human Rights City Alliance ¹ ). Beyond its conceptual contribution in recognizing the cultural diversity of HRCs, by integrating this literature with the notion of ethos, this study could have practical implications, encouraging local actors, from city residents and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to the local government, to engage with human rights as part of a collective ethos that is worthwhile defending and integrating in local manifestations. This accords with evidence suggesting that cities care about cultivating a genuine ethos, recognizing that nurturing a sense of communal particularity is essential for fostering a sense of responsibility (Bell and de Shalit, 2022: 638; Bevir, 2022; Godrej, 2022). This could be used as a framework to address poverty (Baumgärtel, 2021), promote urban solidarity, and resolve conflicts (Schou, 2014).

I thus offer a distinction between thin and thick HRCs ² based on the notion of local ethos. An exploration of the depth or “thickness” of this ethos should consider the city’s proactive efforts to protect and deliver human rights, from declarations of intentions to practical implementation of informal initiatives, norms, and formal policies. This evaluation encompasses the visibility of this ethos in the public sphere, determining its prevalence among both city residents and the local government, and their collaboration to achieve common objectives. In accordance, thin HRCs primarily rely on a declarative framework, often enhanced by a particular group of actors. Thick HRCs primarily utilize practical measures, often complementing the declarative framework with formal policies and informal initiatives that typically involve civil and political actors, thereby integrating human rights into everyday contexts.

I begin by examining the evolution of the HRC within the context of globalization and its integration into the discourse regarding urban citizenship. Subsequently, I expand this theoretical framework to include the “seeing like a city” perspective (Magnusson, 2011), contextualizing human rights interpretations locally. Next, I present an overview of the typology and apply it to Gwangju, a South Korean city classified as a thick(er) HRC. Finally, I discuss the model’s limitations and potential contributions.

HRCs in a Global Context

The resurgence of localism, evidenced by the city-centric approach, is deeply linked to the rapid globalization of the past century. With urban populations increasing worldwide (UN-Habitat, 2008), cities’ responsibility for their residents’ well-being has become undeniable. Fueled by neoliberal agendas promoting decentralization (Glaeser, 2011), cities shifted from mere state-subdivisions to independent actors empowered by the delegation of authority from state to local levels (Frerks et al., 1996).

Large metropolises and megacities have become associated with the term “global cities,” originally coined by Sassen (1991) to describe significant urban centers of political, economic, and cultural activities, emphasizing cities’ role as units that organize global capital (Brenner and Keil, 2006; Friedmann, 1995; Harvey, 1995).

The prominence of cities within globalization processes is intertwined with a parallel cultural dimension that nurtures local distinctiveness. As globalization fosters international similarities emerging into a “cosmopolitan culture” (Marden, 1997), a counter-trend of “localization” has emerged, drawing individuals toward the uniqueness of their own localities (Scholte, 2017; Touraine, 1984). Cities have begun to serve as sources of local identity and pride, developing unique characteristics and values that form their distinct ethos (Bell and de Shalit, 2011, 2022) while simultaneously engaging with the global concepts of diversity and liberalism. Within this universal perspective, cities leverage their global stature to promote local agendas, forming transnational municipal networks (Kern and Bulkeley, 2009) like the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and engaging in climate-related initiatives, such as the C40 Climate Leadership Group and Metropolis (Martins and Ferreira, 2011).

Cities’ interactions with global human rights principles, manifest through local agents’ endeavors to “localize” human rights (De Feyter et al., 2011), are rooted in the notion of urban citizenship, often referred to as city-zenship (Barak and de Shalit, 2021; Oomen, 2019a; Vrasti and Dayal, 2016). This term connects the core meaning of citizenship, which necessarily embodies the recognition of rights (Isin et al., 2008; Maas, 2017), to the urban rather than national level. City-zenship is “glocal” in nature (Oomen, 2020): it interacts with the global framework of human rights (e.g. conventions, institutions, and organizations), drawing inspiration and knowledge from other local-level actors abroad (Berends et al., 2013; Gready, 2004; Oomen et al., 2018), but, at the same time, human rights are interpreted, delivered, and secured by the local political establishment.

Unlike national citizenship, urban citizenship is not a legally defined status, nor is it stipulated by any other legal categorization; rather it is based on equal entitlement to choose to reside in a specific city (Bauböck, 2003; de Shalit, 2018). From the right to the city perspective (Harvey, 2008, 2012; Lefebvre, 1996; Mitchell, 2003; Purcell, 2002) city-zenship offers both a conceptual and practical framework to intertwine local participation, membership, and political identity with the urban sphere and the construction of its collective ethos (Dikec and Gilbert, 2002). This does not imply that cities necessarily possess a singular definitive ethos, or that every individual in the city identifies with it and takes part in its formation. Rather, it signifies a prevailing “argument” that the city exemplifies (Bell and de Shalit, 2022: 643), reflecting complex questions and predicaments rather than fixed conclusions (Weinstock, 2012). Concurrently, the notion of city-zens shaping their urban ethos necessitates alignment between the city’s political institutions and its residents. An ethos grounded in human rights principles cannot be limited to a minority within the city but rather requires “collaborative activism” (Gready, 2004: 18–20) among diverse city actors and, at times, international organizations to ensure longevity and effectiveness (Aguilar, 2008).

The global nature of human rights and their evolution within international frameworks (Donnelly, 2006) may lead to an inclination to label any city projecting a liberal image as an HRC. However, many cities fail to substantiate this notion. For instance, various cities in the United States, including Chapel Hill, Richmond, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Seattle, have adopted resolutions proclaiming their commitment to human rights, yet these declarations remain largely symbolic (Jain, 2010; Neubeck, 2017). Cities sometimes utilize human rights as a rhetorical tool or branding strategy to signify transparency and accountability (Aguilar, 2008; Grigolo, 2017b; Kamuf Ward, 2016). For example, organizing LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) pride parades, such as those in Manchester, Amsterdam, and Tel Aviv, can garner significant media coverage, international attention, and stimulate local tourism. While safeguarding human rights and reaping political and economic rewards can be complementary rather than contradictory, it is essential to contextualize these actions within the broader framework of the city’s overall stance vis-à-vis human rights. This consideration offers a nuanced perspective, recognizing cities’ endeavors while distinguishing them from those that implement more substantive measures to protect and uphold human rights.

Seeing Human Rights Like a City

Reading about cities’ independent stances might suggest that the city-centered approach regards the city as a potential substitute for or an autonomous political entity separate from the state. Despite their compelling arguments, Barber’s (2013) proposal regarding a global parliament of mayors along with academic discussions of whether urban citizenship should be emancipated from the state (Bauböck and Orgad, 2020) and forecasts suggesting that the twenty-first century will be dominated by cities (Khanna, 2010) underscore this perspective. Therefore, it is essential to delineate the general framework within which cities establish their interaction with human rights and elucidate its constraints from two main perspectives.

First, from a legal-institutional perspective, local governments (are expected to) operate within the state’s constitutional framework. From this perspective, city officials, including mayors and local politicians, should be responsible for advocating human rights because the city, as a sub-state entity (Aust, 2015; Nijman, 2016), must operate within the international framework of human rights, extending the state’s authority in this domain (Mayer, 2009). This article, however, focuses on cities that diverge from the state’s main line by cultivating their particular local ethos and assuming somewhat independent stances regarding the extension of the state’s responsibility to protect human rights, challenging its policies, or adapting them to unique local needs, exhibiting varying degrees of local autonomy vis-à-vis the central government. ³ While interacting with the traditional human rights legal framework, cities manage to establish a distinct normative system parallel to international law (Aust and Nijman, 2021; Durmuş, 2020). For instance, cities’ global conventions, like the Global Charter-Agenda for Human Rights in the City ⁴ and the European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City, ⁵ have moved beyond the conventional list of human rights outlined in global agreements that emphasize civil, political, economic, and cultural rights to incorporate the rights of children, women, migrant workers, and people with disabilities (Oomen, 2016: 2). This has prompted cities to establish their own local norm systems centered on specific values and principles, such as immigrants’ rights (de Shalit, 2018; Lasch and et al, 2018; Miellet, 2019; Oomen, 2021), gender rights, exemplified by women’s rights initiatives in San Francisco (Davis, 2016; Grigolo, 2019; Kamuf Ward, 2016; Lozner, 2004) and Vienna, ⁶ as well as LGBTQ rights and anti-discrimination efforts in Barcelona (Grigolo, 2010, 2019) In addition, cities have addressed the rights of people with disabilities, as seen in Middelburg (Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014), and tackled poverty, as evidenced by initiatives in Utrecht, Graz, and York (Baumgärtel, 2021).

Before delving into the classification of the various ways in which cities interact with human rights, it is important to note that while cities encounter constructed barriers in implementing their agendas, particularly if they surpass the state’s legal policies or challenge its authority (Davis, 2017: 29; Oomen et al., 2021), they find alternative paths to reshape their normative and institutional local systems to meet their needs. For instance, although a city lacks the authority to grant citizenship to asylum seekers, it can still offer them shelter (Oomen, 2019a, 2021), voting rights in local elections (in some countries), or accessible platforms to learn about their rights―such as translating documents into relevant languages, as in Barcelona (Berends et al., 2013: 44). In Israel, where the law permits marriage only through religious institutions―thereby excluding individuals not viewed as Jewish according to orthodox principles, same-sex couples, as well as secular or atheist individuals―Tel Aviv’s municipality introduced a “local marriage system” that allows city-zens to register as married within the city, granting them access to local municipality benefits. By decoupling policy at the local level from the national level (Oomen, 2019b; Scholten, 2016), cities can achieve a degree of autonomy to form their own stance vis-à-vis a certain policy domain (Barak and Mualam, 2022), openly demonstrating their shared values and aspirations and collectively adhering to them.

Second, from social and cultural perspectives, the mitigating effect of the local should be regarded more carefully as a filter of human rights principles from the global to the local level. This “glocal” interaction can be conceived as a refraction (Roudometof, 2016: 399), wherein the globalization of an element, such as human rights principles, diffuses across various localities and fosters heterogeneity. In other words, perspectives are shaped differently in the city, even concerning the substance of human rights; the distinction between “seeing like a city” (Magnusson, 2011) and “seeing like a state” (Scott, 1998) highlights the unique conceptual processing applied to the city (associated with diversity and complexity) versus the state (linked to issues of territory, policy, and domination). Notably, national and urban lenses offer varying interpretations of concepts, such as equality (Wolff and de Shalit, 2024), democracy, and freedom (Barak and de Shalit, 2021) that should be considered when examining the ethos, spirit, and culture of cities, which may not always align with established legal frameworks but are often encapsulated in fostering social inclusiveness and solidarity among city-zens. This has been exemplified by distinctive local pluralism and increased empathy for the rights of marginalized groups at the city level, in contrast to the approach typically observed at the state level (de Shalit, 2018), nurturing the “welcoming culture” of cities of refuge (Oomen, 2019a) and emphasizing city-zens’ “rightful presence” (Squire and Darling, 2013). This inclusive dynamic is also evident in certain ethnically contested communities within cities that strive to cultivate harmonious and peaceful urban citizenship, distinct from the national level (Lehrs et al., 2023).

The value of adopting the notion of ethos to evaluate cities’ engagement with human rights, considering how the historical narratives, symbols, and traditions that shape cities’ collective identities (Buttimer and Seamon, 2015; Okaty, 2002; Solesbury, 2021) manifest through their declarative and practical frameworks, will be further elucidated via the analysis of Gwangju, a city with a unique democratic tradition molded by historical events. This particularly noteworthy case illustrates how the city’s human rights ethos, shaped through the commemoration of the May 18 uprising―symbolizing civil society’s strength and catalyzing the formation of social pressure groups―motivated the local government to champion human rights principles actively, positioning it as a key player in this realm and, to some extent, responsible for setting the agenda for civil society organizations. Therefore, comprehending Gwangju’s status as an HRC today requires an understanding of this city’s socio-cultural fabric, which not only gave rise to local NGOs but also spurred them to advocate for governmental, institutionalized action, with the local government spearheading this process.

Previous typologies characterized HRCs based on their interaction with international law, recognizing that cities both draw from and challenge it (Durmuş, 2020); distinguished between cities according to their connections and interactions with actors at various levels (Davis, 2021); and differentiated cities based on the functions human rights fulfill for local actors, especially with regard to legal aspects (Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014). While these typologies made a valuable contribution to understanding and categorizing HRCs, it is vital to consider a broader range of factors that make the city “what it is,” while also avoiding stretching the concept excessively. Recognizing the importance of institutional mechanisms and legal procedures in embodying the HRC ethos, this typology additionally incorporates broader cultural aspects that shape these mechanisms. Despite past recognition of the interaction between culture, law, and human rights (Oomen, 2019a), this has not been clearly translated into a distinction between HRC models. The analysis of Gwangju illustrates that while the city is distinguished by its robust legal and institutional frameworks, as indicated also by other typologies, this aspect alone does not provide a complete understanding of the particular dynamic of the HRC project. Arguably, this manifests through both declarative and practical frameworks that connect the city’s historical narratives with this project. The following section demonstrates how the current typology aims to define a spectrum for classifying the HRC ethos.

Thin and Thick HRCs

We can understand the construction of a city’s ethos around human rights principles based on how city-zens and local political actors ensure the presence of human rights in the urban sphere by expressing their commitment, values, and future intentions and taking proactive steps to achieve these goals. Based on this conception, we can discern two main models of HRCs. The models are somewhat flexible and can manifest to greater or lesser degrees (sub-models), reflecting different interpretations of the city’s role vis-à-vis the state in protecting human rights.

Thin HRCs focus mainly on the declarative aspect. As such, they may implement some of their plans, but their major interactions with human rights are via declarations and statements

At its lower extreme, the thinner HRCs model includes cities that implement minor actions regarding human rights but do not avoid them completely. Such cities often embrace human rights rhetorically or make symbolic gestures yet go no further. For example, the municipality of Haifa, Israel’s mixed (Jewish-Arab) city, launched a “human rights square,” exhibiting a long list of human rights to commemorate a local activist and encourage Arab and Jewish citizens to respect each other’s rights (Bar, 2021). Significantly, while this act was not followed by practical steps, its public acceptance was contingent upon alignment with the city’s culture, famed for coexistence, and a welcoming spirit. ⁷ This example illustrates that cities need not always formally identify themselves as HRCs; instead, they can engage consistently with the HRC notion as a means to cultivate the city’s ethos vis-à-vis its particular narratives (e.g. Haifa as a mixed city). Other cities embrace existing declarations, for example, the European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City or the Asian Human Rights Declaration. This serves as a source of stability and accountability, enabling the municipality to express its commitment to the process (Davis, 2016; Starl, 2016). However, cities’ declarations regarding human rights often do not result in actions; examples include some cities in the United States (Davis, 2016), while in Europe, multiple cities adopted the European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights but have not translated it into practice (Chueca, 2016: 105–109). ⁸

Considering that cities are more likely to employ explicit human rights terminology based on its perceived effectiveness in conveying the desired messages (Gready, 2004), those that do so generally share and uphold these values to some extent. Nonetheless, remaining at this level sometimes indicates a limited breadth of the human rights ethos. Usually, such minor declarative steps are taken by either the political or civic layers, without extensive representation of voices (e.g. the municipality ratifies an existing declaration). Therefore, such cities could be classified as “Thinner” HRCs to differentiate them from those that engage more deeply with human rights.

Accordingly, thin HRCs adopt more substantial declarative steps that provide a solid vision and infrastructure for the city’s normative and discursive platform and outline future steps to develop the HRC project. This pertains particularly to cities that articulate their own human rights declarations independently of the state, considering the city’s distinctive symbolic features. The first HRC to do so, Rosario (Argentina), adopted a formal covenant obligating governmental and NGOs to guarantee human rights in the city, inspiring additional cities, for example, Barcelona, Montreal, Graz, Nuremberg, Utrecht, Mexico City, and Gwangju. Although largely symbolic, intended to anchor human rights in the normative rather than legal sense, these declarations are often perceived as the foundational step toward broader incorporation of human rights at the local level (Neubeck, 2017). In this regard, a certain extent of collaboration between local actors is key. This does not mean that one should expect equal power-sharing in the process, given that human rights initiatives are often spearheaded by single individuals, local stakeholders, politicians, or activists (Oomen and Leenders, 2020). Rather, it requires some level of partnership along the way that would signify support of shared values and goals for the HRC project. For example, Mexico City’s Charter for the Right to the City (2010) ⁹ is a result of cooperation between the Urban Popular Movement (MUP), a UN organization, the local government, and an extensive number of citizens. Similar cooperation characterizes Graz, Austria (Berends et al., 2013), and York in the United Kingdom (Graham et al., 2016). If we consider collaborative efforts part of the city’s ethos, cities manifesting such partnerships in constructing their declarative framework could be considered “thin” rather than “thinner” versions, and vice versa.

Although the declarative framework is associated with the “thin/ner” version of HRCs, it is important to note that cities’ declared intentions to integrate human rights into the fabric of urban life are nonetheless important, reflecting residents’ expectations vis-à-vis the municipality, increasing its accountability, and applying international standards of commitment to human rights principles. Yet some would argue that these verbal or written declarations of intent―genuine as they might be―are not the sole indicator of commitment to human rights, and they must be accompanied by practical implementations that indicate the assimilation of this ethos by different actors and city-zens. As the HRC agenda states in the World Human Rights Cities Forum (2011),

(A human rights city is) not just a social and political process operated by the philosophy in which human rights is the most fundamental principle as well as the principle to be abided by, but also human rights governance in which members of the community cooperate to improve quality of living for all based on human rights norms (OHCHR, 2013).

Thick HRCs primarily emphasize practical measures, often through regulations or policies, although not exclusively. This practical aspect provides a supplementary or alternative route to the declarative approach, embodying a more established human rights ethos that is integrated into daily practices. It can be demonstrated by participating and collaborating in international fora about HRCs, such as the World Human Rights Cities Forum (WHRCF) held annually in Gwangju, South Korea, enacting policies (Oomen et al., 2018), establishing special institutions to maintain residents’ human rights, and increasing residents’ awareness of their rights through local educational events and communal initiatives. Often, human rights serve as platforms for actively empowering local communities rather than shaping urban policy (Grigolo, 2016, 2019: 4). For example, cities like Bihac (Bosnia), Thies (Senegal), Korogocho (Kenya), Musha (Rwanda), Porto Alegre (Brazil), and many more embrace human rights as a set of values and norms via the educational framework of the PDHRE program (Marks et al., 2008: 11) without necessarily translating them into policy or institutional enforcement mechanisms.

Just as not all declarations of commitment to human rights are automatically followed by implementation, some cities opt to take practical steps to uphold human rights without formal declarations. This may indicate that the human rights ethos and its terminology are not widely shared by all city-zens because some lack of awareness about human rights or due to the specific connotations associated with human rights discourse in the country or a significant conservative population that finds such language politically charged. This was the case in some Dutch cities, where the human rights discourse was used only implicitly (Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014). On occasion this is more of a political consideration than a reflection of city-zens’ values; as in states, the promotion of human rights in cities is a political process requiring a supportive coalition and a hospitable cultural environment. In Barcelona, for instance, the HRC project was possible thanks to a progressive political climate and a left-leaning coalition in the municipality (Berends et al., 2013: 42). Despite their narrower declarative platform, these cities clearly assimilate human rights practices and are therefore considered thick HRCs.

This point highlights the importance of comprehensive representation of political and civic parties and their collaboration, which becomes even more vital in the practical context. This stage frequently results in counterproductive effects and decision-making dilemmas that lead to trade-offs of rights and compromises (Dudai, 2014). Excluding either the local government or civil society from the process of human rights implementation diminishes the potential for full implementation and long-term sustainability of this ethos. When human rights institutionalization starts within a centralized local government, it gains greater control over these rights (Grigolo, 2017a: 15). Conversely, if a human rights initiative is solely driven by city residents and local organizations, without local government involvement, it may lack an anchor in regulation or institutional policies, thereby limiting its effectiveness in promoting and enforcing human rights standards and policies (Starl, 2016). For instance, the 2013 protests in support of asylum seekers in Manchester and other British cities illustrated that while the human rights discourse spread rapidly, translating demands into policy required municipal support (Darling, 2016: 136). As mentioned in the context of the declarative framework, collaboration among actors should be considered when classifying cities as “thick” or “thicker,” with the latter entailing closer and more fruitful cooperation between local parties.

In accordance, “Thicker HRCs” refer to well-established HRCs wherein actors collaborate vis-à-vis both declarations and actions, reforming institutions and educational programs while combining moral and legal aspects in the pursuit of human rights. This model may also encompass cities that actively seek to realize positive human rights, meaning they not only respect individuals’ autonomy and freedoms but also take proactive steps to guarantee these rights. For example, Barcelona has developed a wide array of tools to secure human rights proactively, particularly regarding equality and non-discrimination policies (Grigolo, 2010). In 1995, it established the Office for Non-Discrimination (OND), which analyzes residents’ complaints and addresses them through mediation, legal assistance, psychological support, or victim support.

Gwangju: A Thick(er) HRC

Gwangju, the birthplace of modern democracy in Korea, serves as an instructive example of how social, political, and geographical historical circumstances can shape the political atmosphere of cities, significantly influencing the understanding of human rights. The hub of the southwestern region in Korea, and renowned for its agricultural activity, in Gwangju landlords historically exploited peasants, compelling them to develop self-defense skills and fostering political awareness and activism, as was later evidenced in their resistance to Japanese colonial occupation in 1929 (Lee, 2007: 340). Local Korean students spearheaded the Gwangju Independence Movement through a series of demonstrations in the city, rapidly spreading its influence across the country and resulting in multiple individuals being imprisoned and tortured. ¹⁰ Gwangju reached its pinnacle in urban and national history in the May 1980 uprising against the military dictatorship, underscoring the significance of its resilient civil society. After enduring several years of heightened restrictions imposed by the regime (1970–1980), the people of Gwangju rebelled against the government, forming an army of citizens. This resulted in a brutal massacre perpetrated by the military regime, successfully quelling the determined uprising. Recognized as the most tragic event in modern Korean history (Lee, 2007: 341), Gwangju transcended its past to become a powerful symbol of democracy and human rights. The city’s spirit is intricately woven around the May 18 uprising, evident in public spaces, ¹¹ artistic elements, businesses and hotels, as well as in the structured tours and demonstrations conducted at the May 18 Commemoration Center. ¹² This pivotal event not only ingrained a profound respect for human rights, helping Gwangju become the HRC it is today, but also played a pivotal role in shaping the political and institutional frameworks established during Korea’s democratization process. This evolution is notably manifest in the demilitarization efforts and the establishment of civilian supremacy (Cheol, 2003). In a wider context, Gwangju’s democratic ideology aligns with that of the contemporary regime, with human rights safeguarded under the 1987 constitution. Cities in Korea not only enjoy a level of independence comparable to OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) cities (OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, 2017: 45) but the national government also actively contributes to sustaining Gwangju as an HRC, along with other cities in South Korea, such as Seoul, Chungnam, Daegu, inspired by Gwangju’s success.

The following analysis is based on extensive evidence regarding the ethos of Gwangju as an HRC: 15 primary sources, a pool of local regulations enacted or revised in 2019–2020, and four in-depth interviews with key local and international activists. The sources analyzed include formal human rights declarations published by Gwangju and by NGOs, as well as hundreds of local regulations concerning human rights promotion in Gwangju metropolitan city ¹³ during the years 2019–2020. In addition, I utilized formal reports published by Gwangju or by an external formal entity―the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and PDHRE―in evaluating the extent to which initiatives and policies were implemented via Master Plans, educational programs, committees, and so on. In addition to multiple informal discussions with city residents, four semi-structured interviews with local and international activists who worked closely with the local government were conducted in 2019 in Gwangju. The interviews were analyzed thematically to grasp fully the agenda guiding human rights practitioners in Gwangju and to shed light on the relationships between groups of actors in the field.

In the following sections, I analyze the efforts of local actors at all levels to sustain the human rights ethos, considering declarative and practical actions, and argue that the city is an example of a thicker HRC.

Actors’ Joint Efforts to Create a Solid Declarative Framework

Gwangju has published numerous conventions and declarations covering a wide range of human rights: the Gwangju Human Rights Charter (Gwangju City, 2012) ¹⁴ defines the scope of the human rights-based approach and includes commitments to protect and promote the rights of “all citizens of Gwangju [. . .] without distinction of any kind, such as race, gender, age, religion, disability, nationality, region of birth, economic and social status” (Gwangju City, 2012: 1). Likewise, Gwangju Guiding Principles for the Human Rights City (2014) ¹⁵ specifies commitments to respecting cultural diversity and promoting gender, migrants, and minority rights, as well as social rights, “food, education, housing, energy, mobility (. . .) adequate, affordable, acceptable and adaptable public facilities” (p. 1), and pursuing “universal [. . .] welfare for all citizens.” ¹⁶

Gwangju acknowledges the crucial role of a strong civil society in the HRC project. Aligned with the Gwangju Human Rights Declaration, ¹⁷ which states that “a fundamental principle of participation in building HRCs is that a bottom-up approach involving genuine and meaningful participation by all inhabitants is preferable to a top-down approach by city officials” (Gwangju, Republic of Korea, 2011: 2), the Gwangju Human Rights Charter stipulates city-zens’ entitlements to participate in the decision-making process and their access to public information and administration (Article 2). Similarly, the Gwangju Principles (2014) include a commitment to involving “all actors [. . .] in the decision-making and implementation process” (p. 1) and acknowledge city-zens’ entitlement to participate “in all stages of municipal governance including planning, policy formulation, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation” (Principle 4).

Varied Practical Steps, Shifts in Power-sharing

The city uses legislative tools to further implement its commitment to human rights. In 2019–2020 alone it enacted or revised dozens of regulations in numerous fields: gender (18), people with disabilities (19), migrants (5), social rights (54), children (30), the elderly (9), environmental issues (12), and other general, inclusive ordinances (18). Moreover, Gwangju enacted the central, comprehensive Human Rights Protection and Improvement Ordinance (HRPIO), which yielded the Human Rights Impact Assessment in 2017 (The Republic of Korea, 2019: 7), ensuring that all new regulations and policies will accord with the human rights-based approach.

Gwangju has adopted additional practical steps to ensure the rights of specific groups via focused initiatives. For example, the 24-hour activity support service for severely disabled people, upgrading labor conditions by initiating the Gwangju Job Model, ¹⁸ and establishing tools to monitor and respond to human rights violations, such as the Human Rights Ombudsman team (2013) (National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK), 2017) and the Gwangju Human Rights Indicators (2012) (Gwangju City, 2019: 1; Gwangju Democracy and Human Rights Division, 2019; Shin et al., 2019).

In the educational realm, Gwangju operates several programs, for example, the Human Rights Community Project, Democracy and Human Rights Portal, alongside a national program for human rights education (OHCHR, 2013; The Republic of Korea, 2019: 6), and a local office of education. ¹⁹ Furthermore, Gwangju runs programs that increase awareness of human rights, among them the Gwangju International Center (GIC), ²⁰ a nonprofit organization founded by local activists and now supported by the local government that provides counseling services for newcomers, translation services into several languages, and Korean language classes. These activities express some of Gwangju’s proactive commitments to migrants and minorities who are unaware of their rights due to the language barrier. GIC became “the pivot” on which minor organizations can focus their human rights activities, with many employees and young volunteers injecting “professional experience and awareness of human rights into the local community.” ²¹

A major practical aspect is the WHRCF, ²² held annually in Gwangju since 2011, which hosts human rights experts, stakeholders, scholars, activists, and NGOs from around the world, providing a platform to exchange ideas, policies, and information; it has become the main meeting point for the practice of human rights locally. As the product of a joint effort by global organizations, such as UCLG and the Metropolitan Government of Gwangju, it includes successful cooperation with Korean and international citizens selected to represent Gwangju’s residents at the forum. Since 2011, the forum has been organized by the GIC, in which many young volunteers work alongside local government officials, playing an integral role in defining and expanding the concept of the HRC and its declarative framework.

An interesting facet in Gwangju’s collaborative model is that despite the city’s active civil society, in recent years, the local government has become the driving force behind many human rights programs and maintains close cooperation with, and significant power over, local activists and NGOs. The latter have become increasingly reliant on the local government, leading to governmental supervision of civic actors, as evidenced by the Human Rights Civil Committee (Ahn, 2010), and a lack of necessary financial support, as in the case of the GIC ²³ and the Participatory Budget (Kim, 2019: 110). Nowadays, local NGOs provide the moral basis for human rights and function more as advisors and supporters of the human rights project, mediating between the local government and the community. This situation stems from the local government’s vigorous efforts to take control over human rights institutional initiatives, albeit still acknowledging the value of incorporating city-zens in decision-making processes. Examples are the Human Rights Improvement Citizen Committee (HRPIO, Article 24), the Community Support Team, and the Citizen Participation Budget System (Kim, 2016). In 2012, Gwangju launched Human Rights Policy Joint Meetings in collaboration with citizens and experts, and in 2017, the city also founded a Citizens’ Assembly (gathers twice annually). Furthermore, Gwangju holds public Human Rights Roundtables on different topics once a month (OHCHR, 2013).

While acknowledging the virtue of a local authority that invests in promoting human rights and the volunteers who help execute these goals, ²⁴ the continued sidelining of civil society participation entails a risk that the human rights ethos might change or lose its significance, as local activists caution. ²⁵ Nevertheless, from the broad perspective of this analysis, this ongoing dynamic can be viewed as a fluid process highlighting the institutional strength of the local political authority rather than indicating inherent weaknesses within Gwangju’s civil society, which remains an integral part of the human rights ethos.

Discussion and Conclusion

This article presents a conceptual framework for understanding cities’ increasing engagement with global human rights principles while tailoring them to local contexts. By conceiving city-zens as active participants in shaping their urban environment (Harvey, 2008; Holston, 2009; Holston and Appadurai, 1996; Lefebvre, 1996; Mayer, 2009; Oomen, 2020; Squire and Darling, 2013; Vrasti and Dayal, 2016) and constructing its collective identity in a way that can give them meaning and pride (Bell and de Shalit, 2011, 2022; Jenks, 2012; Löw, 2012, 2013), the article investigates how local actors at the civic and political levels jointly develop and realize their city’s collective ethos vis-à-vis human rights principles.

The focus on ethos entails a distinction between two main models, which exhibit some flexibility, resulting in thin/ner and thick/er HRCs. The classification necessitates consideration of the specific manifestations of the human rights ethos adopted by local actors through both declarative and practical frameworks. The typology, however, is not exhaustive, and the challenge of mapping cities’ engagement with human rights leaves some issues unresolved. First, the models cannot fully encompass all the aspects that shape human rights mechanisms and their varied forms of conjunction: some cities’ characteristics and circumstances are unique, making the models suggested here insufficiently sensitive in such cases. Like any typology, it cannot cover all the possible particularities of HRCs, thereby simplifying complex mechanisms to some degree. Another challenge is the method’s somewhat interpretative style; indeed the boundaries between the models may blur in some cases. Accordingly, the proposed distinction between declarative and practical frameworks should be viewed more as a guiding principle for assessing the depth of the human rights ethos through its varied manifestations rather than as a rigid formula.

While the case study of Gwangju may not be representative of other cities, the analysis echoes previous observations underscoring cities’ ability to engage with international human rights entities and exert reciprocal influence (Aguilar, 2008; De Feyter, 2006) as well as to develop normative frameworks independently of international law (Aust and Nijman, 2021; Durmuş, 2020). While some would argue that Gwangju is not centrally located or globally prominent according to global city theories, it nevertheless serves as a compelling illustration of how the global becomes truly observable through the local (Robertson, 1994). Here, global human rights principles are tailored to the local context (Barber, 2013) and interpreted through local lenses (Barak and de Shalit, 2021; Magnusson, 2011), for example, the construction of the human rights ethos through the commemoration of the May 18 events, highlighting democracy, inclusiveness, and human dignity, as well as the emphasis on addressing a wide range of rights resulting from the city’s diverse population (artists, people with disabilities, the elderly, etc.). Moreover, by transcending institutional and legal frameworks, the approach taken here elucidates that Gwangju’s ethos endorsing democracy and human rights is intrinsic to its social fabric and predates institutionalized and legal processes, despite their current prominence above the surface. To some extent, Gwangju’s democratic ethos serves as an inspiration for the national system rather than the other way around. Civil society’s moral support of the human rights mechanisms promoted by the local government is crucial in understanding the depth of the city’s commitment to human rights and the willingness of all actors to uphold it and shape the collaborative style of the city.

In addition to the insights gleaned from this analysis, other forms of inquiry could be conducted based on the proposed principles. Extending this classification method to additional cities could facilitate comparative analysis, providing deeper insights into human rights implementation. However, the scope of this article precludes such a comprehensive examination, underscoring the need for future scholarship to refine evaluation techniques, in addition to the profound HRC typologies suggested in the literature (Davis, 2021; Durmuş, 2020; Van den Berg and Oomen, 2014). Further research could identify more nuanced distinctions in how global human rights manifest through the local ethos and shape HRC models, considering their shared and unique characteristics.