Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: In this presentation I am going to concentrate on the human rights (HR) discourse and its political function. The centre of attention is the discourse on the right to work and the Decent Work (DW) Agenda and its political function in current international and trans-national relations. The political function of this discourse within the sphere of the HR discourse is least understood. It is rather dominated by labour lawyers and economists alike .
However, HR politics involve the examination of issues such as development, economic efficiency, national security or conflict resolution and consequently involve the examination of the HR paradigm and other political and social paradigms, movements and discourses. As a result, HR politics explores the political functioning of HR and therefore the relation of HR to power.
What derives from this core problem is the question how we can actually understand the political function of the HR discourse, and more specifically the employment discourse, as well as its implications.
When addressing the political functions of the HR discourse and specifically the global employment discourse, we should always be cautious not to regard the discourse as an undifferentiated whole. While the present paper is motivated by the wish to formulate general comments on the issue, the heterogeneity inside the discourse remains and will be examined in more detail in particular case studies within the framework of subsequent PhD studies.
The general hypothesis of this paper is that the discourse on the right to work and the DW agenda add legitimacy to the embattled HR and global employment discourse, yet the discourse does not contribute to universal political action. The questions, I wish to unfold in this paper with the aim to approach and finally verify or disapprove the above hypothesis are as follows:
1) When, where and how does the HR discourse strengthen or weaken the legitimacy of actors?
2) How does the right to work strengthen or weaken the legitimacy of the HR discourse as such?
3) What are the political implications of the employment discourse?
