This special issue examines the diverse realities created by the intersection of emerging technologies, new scientific knowledge, and the human being. It engages with two key questions: how is the human being shaped and constructed in new ways through advances in science and technology? and how might these new ways of imagining the subject shape present and future human rights law and practice? The papers examine a variety of scientific technologies—personalized medicine and organ transplant, mitochondrial DNA replacement, and scaffolds and regenerative medicine—and their implications for our conceptualization of the human subject. Each is then followed by a commentary that both brings to light new dimensions of the original paper and presents a new theoretical take on the topic. Together these papers offer a serious challenge to the vision of the human subject at the root of human rights law. Instead of the autonomous, rational, unique, and physically discrete individual who owns herself and her body, the subject that emerges from the human technology assemblage has physically porous boundaries and a relational self. This depiction of the human being as a relational subject enmeshed in her technoscientific environment requires that we reconceptualize human rights law and practice.
Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. 2008. Las Abuelas y la Genética: El Aporte de la Ciencia en la Búsqueda de los Chicos Desaparecidos. Buenos Aires, Argentina. ISBN: 978-987-23866-3-4.
2.
Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo. unknown. Derecho a la identidad y prosecución de crímenes de lesa humanidad. Buenos Aires, p. 286.
AnnasGeorge. 2010. “Human Rights and the American Bioethics: Resistance Is Futile.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics19 (1): 133–41; discussion141–50.
6.
ArdittiRita. 1999. Searching for Life: The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Disappeared Children of Argentina. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
BaxiUpendra. 2009. Human Rights in a Post Human World: Critical Essays. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
BruggerWinfried. 1996. “The Image of the Person in the Human Rights Concept.” Human Rights Quarterly18 (3): 594–611.
9.
BusbyCecilia. 1997. “Permeable and Partible Persons: A Comparative Analysis of Gender and Body in South India and Melanesia.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute3 (2): 261–78.
10.
CollierJaneBillMaurerLilianaSuárez-Navaz. 1995. “Sanctioned Identities: Legal Constructions of Modern Personhood.” Identities2 (1-2): 1–27.
DondaVictoria. 2009. Mi Nombre es Victoria. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Sudamericana.
15.
DonnellyJack. 1982. “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-western Conceptions of Human Rights.” The American Political Science Review76 (2): 303–16.
16.
DonnellyJack. 2007. “The Relative Universality of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly29 (2): 281–306.
17.
DouzinasCostas. 2000. The End of Human Rights: Critical Legal Thought at the Turn of the Century. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
18.
HaimesEricaToomVictor. 2014. “Hidden in Full Sight: Kinship, Science and the Law in the Aftermath of Srebrenica Genocide.” New Genetics and Society33 (3): 277–94.
19.
HarawayDonna. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
20.
HarrisJohn. 2011. “Taking the Human Out of Human Rights.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics20 (1): 9–20.
JohElizabeth. 2006. “Reclaiming ‘Abandoned’ DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy.” Northwestern University Law Review100 (2): 857–84.
23.
JohElizabeth. 2011. “DNA Theft: Recognizing the Crime of Nonconsensual Genetic Collection and Testing.” Boston University Law Review91 (2): 665–700.
24.
KarpinIsabel. 2005. “Genetics and the Legal Conception of the Self.” In Ethics of the Body: Postconventional Challenges, edited by ShildrickMargritMykitiukRoxanne, 195–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
KirkseyEben S.HelmreichStefan. 2010. “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography.” Cultural Anthropology25 (4): 545–76.
26.
MerrySally Engle. 2009. “Relating to the Subject of Human Rights: The Culture of Agency in Human Rights Discourse.” In Current Legal Issues, Vol. 12, edited by FreemanMichaelNapierDavid, 1–22. Oxford, UK: Oxford Scholarship Online.
27.
MeyersDiana Tietjens. 2016. “Recovering the Human in Human Rights.” Law, Culture and the Humanities, 12 (3): 474–84.
28.
MurphyThérèse, Ed. 2009. New Technologies and Human Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
MurphyThérèseCuinnGearóid O.. 2013. “Taking Technology Seriously: STS as a Human Rights Method.” In European Law and New Health Technologies, edited by FlearM.FarrellA. M.HerveyT.MurphyT., 285–308. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
NedelskyJennifer. 1989. “Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism1 (1): 7–36.
31.
NedelskyJennifer. 1990. “Law Boundaries and the Bounded Self.” Representations30 (Spring): 162–89.
32.
NedelskyJennifer. 2011. Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy and the Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
OhlinJens David. 2005. “Is the Concept of the Person Necessary for Human Rights?” Columbia Law Review105 (1): 209–49.
34.
PenchaszadehVictor. 2011. “Forced Disappearance and the Suppression of Identity of Children in Argentina: Experiences in Genetic Identification.” In Racial Identities, Genetic Ancestry and Health in South America: Argentina, Brazil Colombia and Uruguay, edited by GibsonSahraSantosRicardo VenturaSansMónica, 213–43. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
PerryMichael J.1998. The Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
RegueiroSabina. 2013. Apropiación de Niños, Familias y Justicia: Argentina 1976-2012. Rosario: Prohistoria Ediciones.
37.
RichardsonJanice. 2007. “The Law and the Sublime: Rethinking the Self and its Boundaries.” Law Critique18 (2): 229–52.
38.
SándorJudit. 2013. “Protecting Persons v. Protecting Humans in Biobanks” In New Technologies and Human Rights: Challenges to Regulation, edited by CunhaMario Viola de AzevedoAndradeNorberto Nuno Gomez deLixinskiLucasFéteiraLúcio Tomé, 143–68. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.
39.
SaratAustinKearnsThomas, Eds. 1995. Identities, Politics and Rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
ShestackJerome. 1998. “The Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly20 (2): 201–34.
41.
ShildrickMargrit. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)Ethics. New York: Routledge.
42.
StrathernMarilyn. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
StrathernMarilyn. 2004. “Losing (Out On) Intellectual Resources.” In Law Anthropology and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and Things, edited by PottageAlainMundyMarta, 201–33. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights. UNESCO Gen. Conf. Res. 29 C/Res.16, reprinted in UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, 29th Sess., 29 C/Resolution 19, at 41 (1997) (Adopted by the UN General Assembly, G.A. res. 152, U.N. GAOR, 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/53/152 (1999)).
46.
VaismanNoa. 2013. “Shedding Our Selves: Perspectivism, the Bounded Subject and the Nature-Culture Divide.” In Biosocial Becomings: Integrating Social and Biological Anthropology, edited by IngoldTimPalssonGisli, 106–22. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
47.
VaismanNoa. 2014. “Relational Human Rights: Shed-DNA and the Identification of the ‘Living Disappeared’ in Argentina.” Journal of Law and Society41 (3): 391–415.
48.
VaismanNoa. n.d. “Kinship Knowledge and the State: The Case of Argentina’s Adult ‘Living-disappeared’.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Kinship Studies, edited by BamfordSandra.
49.
Vázquez Sarmiento, Juan Carlos s/sustracción de menores de 10 años (art 146). (8/9/2009—V 587 XLIII).
50.
YeatmanAnna. 2000. “Who Is the Subject of Human Rights?” American Behavioral Scientist43 (9): 1498–513.
