On  March 26, 2022, during the 49th session of the United Nations Human  Rights Council, the International Symposium on The Side Meeting on the  Cloud: The American View of Human Rights and Its Harm to Global Human  Rights Governance hosted by the Chinese Rights Research Association and  hosted by the Institute of Human Rights Research of Southeast University  was held in Nanjing. A total of experts and scholars from China, Japan,  South Korea and other Asian countries discussed the two topics of  American one-sided concept of human rights and its embodiment and global  human rights governance and the development of human rights theory, and  actively contributed to the reform and development of global human  rights governance.

The  opening ceremony of the conference was presided over by Professor Gong  Xianghe, Executive Dean of the Institute of Human Rights Studies of  Southeast University and Professor of the Law School. President Gong  pointed out that in view of the unprecedented changes in a century and  the superimposed effect of the epidemic of the century, global human  rights governance is facing many new problems and challenges. Among  them, the American concept of human rights and its human rights practice  have had a long-term negative impact on the development of the global  human rights cause and caused serious harm to today's global human  rights governance. In order to accurately understand and correct in a  timely manner the one-sidedness and paranoia of the American-style  concept of human rights and promote the establishment of a more just,  reasonable and inclusive global human rights governance, the 49th  session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, sponsored by the  Chinese Rights Research Association and undertaken by the Institute of  Human Rights Research of Southeast University, was solemnly held at  Southeast University.
Zuo  Wei, Secretary of the Party Committee of Southeast University and Dean  of the Institute of Human Rights Studies, delivered an opening speech  for the meeting. Secretary Zuo first expressed his heartfelt  congratulations on the convening of the side meeting and expressed his  gratitude to all experts and scholars for their participation and  support for this meeting. Secretary Zuo briefed the participants on the  history, fine traditions and development status of Southeast University,  as well as the research characteristics and construction goals of the  Institute of Human Rights of Southeast University. In view of the theme  of this meeting, Secretary Zuo pointed out that the American concept of  human rights not only deviates from the international human rights  consensus, but also ignores the objective fact that blacks, Latinos and  other ethnic minorities have long been in extreme economic and social  inequality, disrupting the international human rights order and causing  fatal harm to global human rights governance. We should adhere to the  consensus reached by all mankind on the issue of human rights, adhere to  the adoption of a universal and objective attitude on the issue of  human rights, adhere to multilateralism, promote constructive dialogue,  international solidarity and cooperation, and firmly safeguard the  achievements made in global human rights governance.
Professor Lu  Guangjin of Jilin University, Secretary General of the Chinese Rights  Research Association, delivered a keynote speech on the topic of The  Non-Inclusiveness of American-Style Human Rights and Its Practical  Dilemmas. Professor Lu first proposed the non-inclusiveness of the  American concept of human rights. He believes that the non-inclusiveness  of American-style human rights was born in the history of the United  States, and there were three major defects at the beginning, namely,  god's election, white supremacy and individual liberalism, which just  violated the basic spirit of human rights such as equality and freedom,  and the result was the non-inclusiveness of American-style human rights,  that is, exclusivity. It is precisely on the basis of this theory that  the United States, far from being able to face up to its own problems in  human rights, has tried to push the American concept of human rights to  the world and create a universal view of human rights that the world  recognizes. Second, Professor Lu analyzed the practical harm of the  American concept of human rights. The American concept of human rights  replaces historical and concrete human rights with an abstract and  absolute human rights, which not only seriously restricts the progress  of human rights in the United States itself, but also greatly hinders  the development of human rights in the world. The non-inclusiveness of  American-style human rights has three main harms to global governance:  1. It has undermined the common global pursuit of values on human rights  issues; 2. It has obstructed global governance actions; and 3. It has  created many new human rights problems in the world. Therefore, from the  upward view of the concept of time and space, the American concept of  human rights has lagged far behind the times, which is an unevolved  concept of human rights and lagging behind the new requirements and new  trends in the development of human society.Finally, Professor Lu  believes that global human rights governance should be promoted in an  inclusive spirit. Human rights are historical and evolving. Human rights  do not fall from the sky, but are the product of a certain social  history, and human rights cannot be talked about in isolation from the  political conditions and historical and cultural traditions of different  countries. Human rights are concrete and real. Human rights are linked  to the actual needs of each individual, and human rights should address  the issue of freedom of expression and belief, as well as the problem of  survival and development. Human rights are realistic and long-term.  Human rights are the great dream of human society, but at the same time,  human rights are all around us all the time, there is no best, only  better. Therefore, to promote global human rights governance, all  countries should treat human rights with an attitude and spirit of open  and inclusive exchanges, dialogues, and cooperative development. Human  rights is a civilization that is the preserve of all mankind and is not  the preserve of a country, and it is not a civilization to frame a rich  and colorful human civilization. At the same time, it is also necessary  to promote the coordinated development of all human rights and to  advocate the commonality of human rights.Finally, Professor Lu believes  that global human rights governance should be promoted in an inclusive  spirit. Human rights are historical and evolving. Human rights do not  fall from the sky, but are the product of a certain social history, and  human rights cannot be talked about in isolation from the political  conditions and historical and cultural traditions of different  countries. Human rights are concrete and real. Human rights are linked  to the actual needs of each individual, and human rights should address  the issue of freedom of expression and belief, as well as the problem of  survival and development. Human rights are realistic and long-term.  Human rights are the great dream of human society, but at the same time,  human rights are all around us all the time, there is no best, only  better. Therefore, to promote global human rights governance, all  countries should treat human rights with an attitude and spirit of open  and inclusive exchanges, dialogues, and cooperative development. Human  rights is a civilization that is the preserve of all mankind and is not  the preserve of a country, and it is not a civilization to frame a rich  and colorful human civilization. At the same time, it is also necessary  to promote the coordinated development of all human rights and to  advocate the commonality of human rights.

The  first phase of the conference was chaired by Professor Gong Xianghe,  Executive Dean of the Institute of Human Rights Studies of Southeast  University. Professor Zhu Liyu, Center for Human Rights Studies of  Chinese University and Executive Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Human Rights,  delivered a keynote speech on the theme of Different Human Rights  Concepts and the Reform of Un United Nations Human Rights Institutions.  Professor Zhu believes that from China's participation in the United  Nations human rights bodies, including the Commission on Human Rights  and the Human Rights Council, it can be seen that the debate on human  rights issues between China and the United States and other Western  countries in the international community is caused by the difference  between the socialist concept of human rights with Chinese  characteristics and the liberal human rights concept of the United  States and other Western countries. This difference stems from the  different levels of economic development, ideologies, social systems,  development paths, cultural inheritance and social backgrounds of  different countries. In fact, these differences can be summarized into  the following points: the universality and particularity of human  rights, civil political rights and economic and social rights,  individual human rights and collective human rights, sovereignty and  human rights, and the pan-politicization and non-politicization of human  rights. The United States and other Western internationals cannot deny  the achievements made by our country in the economic and social fields  since the reform and opening up, but they continue to criticize and  condemn China under the pretext of human rights issues, and regard their  own human rights theories, human rights systems, and human rights  standards as an absolute and unique yardstick to measure and judge the  human rights situation in developing countries.Professor Zhang Yonghe,  Executive Dean of the Institute of Human Rights Of Southwest University  of Political Science and Law, delivered a keynote speech on the theme of  Human Rights is a Holistic Concept. Professor Zhang believes that human  rights are first and foremost an ideal concept. Human beings are the  subjects of human rights enjoyment, and the specific content of human  rights is the enjoyment of life, freedom and personal security. However,  in the eyes of the so-called political elite in the United States,  human rights are considered to be narrow civil and political rights,  which is one-sided. Over the years, black Americans have been vigorously  fighting for human rights, that is, life, freedom and personal rights  mentioned above, but their demands for human rights have been fruitless  again and again, and they have not really obtained the right to  subsistence and development, because they do not care about economic,  social and cultural rights at all. China recognizes civil and political  rights as an important part of human rights, but it also recognizes  economic, social and cultural rights, so China is committed to improving  the economic, social and cultural situation of its people, which should  be the most important thing for the protection of human rights.  However, the United States and other Western countries do not recognize  such a practice, especially for China's vigorous poverty alleviation  measures, which is a malicious interpretation of the concept of human  rights and a malicious division of the concept of human rights. If a  country has a phenomenon in which everyone is hungry, clothed and in an  extremely poor physical condition, then of course it is a human rights  issue. Therefore, the concept of human rights in the United States and  other Western countries is fragmented and disease-bearing, and the  Interpretation of the Concept of Human Rights by the United States  obscures the deepest nature of human rights and will lead the world's  human rights astray.Professor Choi Heng-yong, Vice President of the  Korea Legal Research Institute, delivered a speech entitled The Human  Rights Rule of Law in Korea. Professor Choi first gave a brief account  of the history of human rights development in Korea. South Korea had a  long colonial history, and it was not until it was released from  colonial status that laws on human rights protections began to be  enacted. But before 1980, south Korea had legal norms that protected  human rights, but the government often chose to ignore them. In 1993,  the Republic of Korea participated in the Vienna World Conference on  Human Rights, and the people began to actively promote and require the  government to establish an independent human rights protection  institution; in 1998, When President Kim Dae-jung took office, he began  to establish the Korean National Human Rights Commission, but because  the boundaries between powers and responsibilities were unclear, the  National Human Rights Commission and the traditional legal departments  such as the Ministry of Justice, the Procuratorate, and the Courts of  the Republic of Korea had a series of contradictions over the division  of powers. It was not until 2001 that the Republic of Korea enacted the  National Human Rights Commission Act, formally establishing the  independent status and boundaries of power of the National Human Rights  Commission. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea is  specifically responsible for the implementation and relief of legal  norms related to human rights, its members are jointly nominated and  confirmed by the President and the National Assembly, and its internal  decision-making process adopts a collegial system.However, when the  National Human Rights Commission of Korea investigates ongoing cases, it  only proposes non-mandatory improvements, and the specific practices  have to be implemented by the government itself. Finally, Professor Choi  pointed out that the Korean people's awareness of human rights is very  high, and the trust in their legislatures and government agencies is  relatively low, so the question now is how to actively promote the  implementation of government human rights laws and policies while  ensuring that the people have a high awareness of human rights.  Professor Wang Lifeng of the Department of Politics and Law of the Party  School of the CPC Central Committee delivered a keynote speech entitled  The Ethical Limitations of Us Human Rights Diplomacy. Professor Wang's  analysis of the action logic of the Biden administration's human rights  diplomacy has three characteristics: 1. The realist aspect. The United  States pursues value diplomacy to achieve the purpose of maintaining its  own power status, which takes advantage of the problems existing in  developing countries to a greater or lesser extent, but the human rights  diplomacy of the United States is not as noble as it advertises; 2. The  confrontational nature of US human rights diplomacy. The Biden  administration views China's human rights concepts, policies, and  practices from a confrontational perspective. The United States  mistakenly believes that China's human rights path threatens American  values, shifting from a little exchange in the past to confrontation; 3.  The Biden administration's human rights diplomacy is durable. The Biden  administration has repeatedly emphasized that the United States has  lasting American superiority, and that U.S. human rights diplomacy is  not a whim, but a lasting diplomatic strategy.

The  second phase of the conference was moderated by Professor Youwu Chen,  vice president of the Southeast University. Professor Zhang Wanhong,  Dean of the Wuhan University, delivered a keynote speech entitled The  Human Rights Paradox of American individualism. Professor Zhang believes  that American human rights is a kind of jungle competition type of  human rights. Then, from the observation of American literary works,  Professor Zhang leads to the criticism of the American Dream and the  doubt and negation of the so-called American Spirit. He argues that  there are three problems with the American view of human rights: first,  it seems that individual success can be achieved through individual  effort, but in reality, the marginalized and disadvantaged groups in the  United States are in a situation of great inequality. On the contrary,  the liberal elites in the United States believe that many poor people  fail because of their own reasons, not because of the oppression and  injustice of the institutional environment, this is particularly  reflected in the situation of older Americans in the context of the new  crown epidemic; second, the quagmire of identity treatment. A variety of  identity factors such as gender, sexual orientation, Aborigines,  ethnicity, and so on, have led to the rise of individualistic solipsism  in the United States, and their political aspirations are often reduced  to a political show, third, the bourgeois theory of right advocates  individual freedom, which is often extended to the international level  by Western countries, and is often used as an excuse to point fingers at  other countries. Professor Tian Shoumi of Chongshi University of Korea  made a keynote speech on the topic Western one-sided view of human  rights and global human rights governance. Based on the theory of moral  capital, Professor Tian analyzes how the American Revolution of  Independence gained the moral legitimacy of the revolution by shaking  the moral authority of the British colonists. At the same time, she  said, it also shows that the current human rights policies of the Biden  administration are based on the political and religious beliefs of the  United States, which gain so called moral assets by criticizing the  human rights situation in China and North Korea, to Serve America's  political and economic purposes. So, after the US threatened its own  dominant international order because of China's rise, it hoped to gain  moral capital through its strong national power and value diplomacy that  attacked the human rights situation in China and North Korea, american  criticism of human rights in China, North Korea and other countries is  more likely to be based on domestic religious and moral policies. It can  be seen that the United States is pursuing its national interests  through the value diplomacy of human rights, a moral capital. Professor  Qian Jinyu, executive deputy director of the Northwest University of  Politics and Law on human rights, delivered a keynote speech on the  dilemma of american-style human rights concepts in the age of risk  globalization: a reflective critique. Professor Qian believes that the  concept of human rights is the product of social development, with  distinctive characteristics of the times. In the 21st century, the risk  of modernization has posed a great challenge to the traditional security  and non-traditional security of all countries. Among them, the  challenge to the right of national security mainly includes three  aspects. First, the risk of global stop-loss, integrity. Stopping risk  requires global co-ordination, and no country can do it alone. Second,  the secondary and cross-cutting nature of risk communication. The crisis  in different fields will lead to the risk in various fields. Only  cooperation and interaction can solve the crisis. Third, regional risks  spread globally. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine proves that it  is the world that is affected by heightened regional risks. Professor  Qian believes that the idea of human rights in the final analysis is to  protect human dignity and achieve human well-being. However, when we  look at the current international human rights system, we find that the  western human rights values based on liberalism can not adapt to the  current global practice. Professor Xiao Junyong, executive deputy  director of the Center for Science, Technology and Human Rights at  Beijing Institute of Technology, delivered a keynote speech on the theme  China and the United States respect each other and strengthen  cooperation is the only right direction for global human rights  governance. Professor Shaw argues that the United States did play a  positive role in the early development of human rights, but that since  the Cold War the concept of human rights has been used as a tool of  American style diplomacy to engage in political vilification of other  countries. The United States often uses its own human rights discourse  to launch a political offensive to serve its own international  interests, but the double standard of American human rights has torn the  Skin of American human rights discourse. Professor Xiao believes that  now that the global situation is becoming increasingly uncertain,  China's proposal of a human rights discourse with Chinese  characteristics has actually increased the diversity of perspectives on  global human rights governance, in particular, the Belt and Road  strategy and the community of human destiny concept. Therefore,  professor Xiao hopes that the United States will respect and accommodate  different concepts of human rights and adjust its position so as to  push China and the United States back to the track of mutual cooperation  and respect. Professor Meng Qingtao, Vice President of the Southwest  University of Political Science and Law, delivered a keynote speech on  the concept of a community of human destiny has broken the practical  logic of ‘imperialism'of human rights. Meng believes that the concept of  imperialism behind the structure of the international order,  capital-driven low-level operation of the logical mechanism has been  human rights discourse hidden. Therefore, in addition to providing moral  justification and support for the external intervention of the Empire,  human rights as universal are viewed from the perspective of imperialist  logic, to a large extent, the concept of human rights also plays a role  in masking its imperialist nature. Therefore, the great contrast  between American discourse and practice of human rights can open a gap  for us to see the imperialism logic of American human rights. Professor  Deng Shibao, director of the Human Rights Research Institute of  Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, delivered a keynote  speech on the theoretical and practical logic of human rights. Professor  Deng believes that building an inclusive human rights dialogue  mechanism is the trend of global human rights governance today, but  there are problems with methodology, which is the theoretical and  practical logic of human rights. First of all, the theoretical logic of  human rights refers to the platform for foreign cooperation and  exchange, which is our common understanding of human rights. The  practical logic refers to the realistic conditions and the concrete road  map for the realization of human rights, and is the aim of sovereign  states to realize human life, value and dignity, : : The approach to be  taken and the human rights to be given priority based on the country's  economic, social and cultural conditions. Secondly, in the global  governance of human rights, we must distinguish between the theoretical  and practical logic of human rights, because we can only communicate and  dialogue on the same logical track. Based on the theoretical logic of  human rights, we can discuss the different needs of safeguarding human  rights in different times. Based on the practical logic of human rights,  we must enumerate the realistic conditions for the realization of human  rights, find the shortcomings and the most prominent problems of human  rights development, and define the short-term and long-term goals of  human rights development. Finally, because of cultural differences and  practical needs of different countries, human rights development  practice can not only have a discourse system, one country's human  rights development can not evaluate another country's human rights  situation, we can not apply double standards to the human rights  development of other countries with the development of our own human  rights. Xu Shunfu, a research fellow at the South China Normal  University, gave a keynote speech on the difference between Chinese,  Japanese and Korean views on human rights and american-style views on  human rights. Professor Xu mainly introduced the Japanese view of human  rights, comparing the Asian view of human rights with the American view  of human rights. According to Professor Xu, the human rights view of  Asian countries is totally different from that of the European and  American countries, and the characteristics of the Asian human rights  view are the duty of state protection and the group view of human  rights. In Japan, the Three Principles listed in the constitution are  respect for human rights, sovereignty for the people and pacifism. The  concept of universal human rights was formed in Japan in 1993, when the  World Conference on human rights in Vienna proposed that the  universality of human rights should be taken as a benchmark for the  relationship between rights and obligations, and between individuals and  states. In the 1980s, when the liberal economy was in crisis, Japanese  citizens began to despair of the individualistic view of human rights,  but they were still influenced by the United States. At present, Japan's  human rights consciousness relies on the state especially, emphasizes  the state protection duty theory. Professor Xu believes that Asian  countries have a good idea of the group of human rights, emphasizing the  obligation to protect the state, to the country as a whole. Asian  countries really want to claim social rights and have a duty to protect,  but Japan and South Korea want a collective view of human rights on the  one hand, and can not resist the U.S. view of human rights on the  other, which is completely different from China's. Associate Professor  Tian Fang of the Nanjing University School of Law delivered a keynote  speech on the theme the falsification of the right to vote in the United  States. Professor Tian believes that in contrast to the perfection of  the US Constitution and laws on the right to vote, in reality, it is  difficult for US citizens to truly participate in public  decision-making, while Americans are still keen to vote, because for  most citizens, elections are a long-held tradition, and the end result  is less important than a sense of procedure and ritual. Therefore,  Americans'understanding of rights is extremely capricious, and so is  their understanding of human rights. Professor Tian pointed out that the  concept of human in the United States and China's understanding of the  great difference. The American understanding of human beings falls into  three categories: those represented by Roch, who holds that human beings  are God ordained, pre existing rationalities; and those represented by  Immanuel Kant, who holds that human beings are God ordained, pre  existing rationalities, emphasis is a common sense of ownership;  represented by Dewey, emphasis is placed on the individual character.  This last view is so prevalent in the United States that Americans are  especially self-conscious. In the aspect of rights, the American right  consciousness is based on the negative liberalism. Although some  American scholars emphasize fairness, fundamentally, Americans are  unwilling to shake the most fundamental negative liberalism.

The  second phase of the conference was moderated by Professor Youwu Chen,  vice president of the Southeast University. Professor Zhang Wanhong,  Dean of the Wuhan University, delivered a keynote speech entitled The  Human Rights Paradox of American individualism. Professor Zhang believes  that American human rights is a kind of jungle competition type of  human rights. Then, from the observation of American literary works,  Professor Zhang leads to the criticism of the American Dream and the  doubt and negation of the so-called American Spirit. He argues that  there are three problems with the American view of human rights: first,  it seems that individual success can be achieved through individual  effort, but in reality, the marginalized and disadvantaged groups in the  United States are in a situation of great inequality. On the contrary,  the liberal elites in the United States believe that many poor people  fail because of their own reasons, not because of the oppression and  injustice of the institutional environment, this is particularly  reflected in the situation of older Americans in the context of the new  crown epidemic; second, the quagmire of identity treatment. A variety of  identity factors such as gender, sexual orientation, Aborigines,  ethnicity, and so on, have led to the rise of individualistic solipsism  in the United States, and their political aspirations are often reduced  to a political show, third, the bourgeois theory of right advocates  individual freedom, which is often extended to the international level  by Western countries, and is often used as an excuse to point fingers at  other countries. Professor Tian Shoumi of Chongshi University of Korea  made a keynote speech on the topic Western one-sided view of human  rights and global human rights governance. Based on the theory of moral  capital, Professor Tian analyzes how the American Revolution of  Independence gained the moral legitimacy of the revolution by shaking  the moral authority of the British colonists. At the same time, she  said, it also shows that the current human rights policies of the Biden  administration are based on the political and religious beliefs of the  United States, which gain so called moral assets by criticizing the  human rights situation in China and North Korea, to Serve America's  political and economic purposes. So, after the US threatened its own  dominant international order because of China's rise, it hoped to gain  moral capital through its strong national power and value diplomacy that  attacked the human rights situation in China and North Korea, american  criticism of human rights in China, North Korea and other countries is  more likely to be based on domestic religious and moral policies. It can  be seen that the United States is pursuing its national interests  through the value diplomacy of human rights, a moral capital. Professor  Qian Jinyu, executive deputy director of the Northwest University of  Politics and Law on human rights, delivered a keynote speech on the  dilemma of american-style human rights concepts in the age of risk  globalization: a reflective critique. Professor Qian believes that the  concept of human rights is the product of social development, with  distinctive characteristics of the times. In the 21st century, the risk  of modernization has posed a great challenge to the traditional security  and non-traditional security of all countries. Among them, the  challenge to the right of national security mainly includes three  aspects. First, the risk of global stop-loss, integrity. Stopping risk  requires global co-ordination, and no country can do it alone. Second,  the secondary and cross-cutting nature of risk communication. The crisis  in different fields will lead to the risk in various fields. Only  cooperation and interaction can solve the crisis. Third, regional risks  spread globally. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine proves that it  is the world that is affected by heightened regional risks. Professor  Qian believes that the idea of human rights in the final analysis is to  protect human dignity and achieve human well-being. However, when we  look at the current international human rights system, we find that the  western human rights values based on liberalism can not adapt to the  current global practice. Professor Xiao Junyong, executive deputy  director of the Center for Science, Technology and Human Rights at  Beijing Institute of Technology, delivered a keynote speech on the theme  China and the United States respect each other and strengthen  cooperation is the only right direction for global human rights  governance. Professor Shaw argues that the United States did play a  positive role in the early development of human rights, but that since  the Cold War the concept of human rights has been used as a tool of  American style diplomacy to engage in political vilification of other  countries. The United States often uses its own human rights discourse  to launch a political offensive to serve its own international  interests, but the double standard of American human rights has torn the  Skin of American human rights discourse. Professor Xiao believes that  now that the global situation is becoming increasingly uncertain,  China's proposal of a human rights discourse with Chinese  characteristics has actually increased the diversity of perspectives on  global human rights governance, in particular, the Belt and Road  strategy and the community of human destiny concept. Therefore,  professor Xiao hopes that the United States will respect and accommodate  different concepts of human rights and adjust its position so as to  push China and the United States back to the track of mutual cooperation  and respect. Professor Meng Qingtao, Vice President of the Southwest  University of Political Science and Law, delivered a keynote speech on  the concept of a community of human destiny has broken the practical  logic of ‘imperialism'of human rights. Meng believes that the concept of  imperialism behind the structure of the international order,  capital-driven low-level operation of the logical mechanism has been  human rights discourse hidden. Therefore, in addition to providing moral  justification and support for the external intervention of the Empire,  human rights as universal are viewed from the perspective of imperialist  logic, to a large extent, the concept of human rights also plays a role  in masking its imperialist nature. Therefore, the great contrast  between American discourse and practice of human rights can open a gap  for us to see the imperialism logic of American human rights. Professor  Deng Shibao, director of the Human Rights Research Institute of  Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, delivered a keynote  speech on the theoretical and practical logic of human rights. Professor  Deng believes that building an inclusive human rights dialogue  mechanism is the trend of global human rights governance today, but  there are problems with methodology, which is the theoretical and  practical logic of human rights. First of all, the theoretical logic of  human rights refers to the platform for foreign cooperation and  exchange, which is our common understanding of human rights. The  practical logic refers to the realistic conditions and the concrete road  map for the realization of human rights, and is the aim of sovereign  states to realize human life, value and dignity, : : The approach to be  taken and the human rights to be given priority based on the country's  economic, social and cultural conditions. Secondly, in the global  governance of human rights, we must distinguish between the theoretical  and practical logic of human rights, because we can only communicate and  dialogue on the same logical track. Based on the theoretical logic of  human rights, we can discuss the different needs of safeguarding human  rights in different times. Based on the practical logic of human rights,  we must enumerate the realistic conditions for the realization of human  rights, find the shortcomings and the most prominent problems of human  rights development, and define the short-term and long-term goals of  human rights development. Finally, because of cultural differences and  practical needs of different countries, human rights development  practice can not only have a discourse system, one country's human  rights development can not evaluate another country's human rights  situation, we can not apply double standards to the human rights  development of other countries with the development of our own human  rights. Xu Shunfu, a research fellow at the South China Normal  University, gave a keynote speech on the difference between Chinese,  Japanese and Korean views on human rights and american-style views on  human rights. Professor Xu mainly introduced the Japanese view of human  rights, comparing the Asian view of human rights with the American view  of human rights. According to Professor Xu, the human rights view of  Asian countries is totally different from that of the European and  American countries, and the characteristics of the Asian human rights  view are the duty of state protection and the group view of human  rights. In Japan, the Three Principles listed in the constitution are  respect for human rights, sovereignty for the people and pacifism. The  concept of universal human rights was formed in Japan in 1993, when the  World Conference on human rights in Vienna proposed that the  universality of human rights should be taken as a benchmark for the  relationship between rights and obligations, and between individuals and  states. In the 1980s, when the liberal economy was in crisis, Japanese  citizens began to despair of the individualistic view of human rights,  but they were still influenced by the United States. At present, Japan's  human rights consciousness relies on the state especially, emphasizes  the state protection duty theory. Professor Xu believes that Asian  countries have a good idea of the group of human rights, emphasizing the  obligation to protect the state, to the country as a whole. Asian  countries really want to claim social rights and have a duty to protect,  but Japan and South Korea want a collective view of human rights on the  one hand, and can not resist the U.S. view of human rights on the  other, which is completely different from China's. Associate Professor  Tian Fang of the Nanjing University School of Law delivered a keynote  speech on the theme the falsification of the right to vote in the United  States. Professor Tian believes that in contrast to the perfection of  the US Constitution and laws on the right to vote, in reality, it is  difficult for US citizens to truly participate in public  decision-making, while Americans are still keen to vote, because for  most citizens, elections are a long-held tradition, and the end result  is less important than a sense of procedure and ritual. Therefore,  Americans'understanding of rights is extremely capricious, and so is  their understanding of human rights. Professor Tian pointed out that the  concept of human in the United States and China's understanding of the  great difference. The American understanding of human beings falls into  three categories: those represented by Roch, who holds that human beings  are God ordained, pre existing rationalities; and those represented by  Immanuel Kant, who holds that human beings are God ordained, pre  existing rationalities, emphasis is a common sense of ownership;  represented by Dewey, emphasis is placed on the individual character.  This last view is so prevalent in the United States that Americans are  especially self-conscious. In the aspect of rights, the American right  consciousness is based on the negative liberalism. Although some  American scholars emphasize fairness, fundamentally, Americans are  unwilling to shake the most fundamental negative liberalism.

Also  present at the conference were the party secretary of the Law School of  Southeast University, Mao Huixi; the dean of the law school, Ouyang  benqi; the Deputy Director of the Social Studies Department of Southeast  University, Wang Lusheng; the Deputy Secretary and Deputy Dean of the  law school, Liu Qichuan; Chen daoying; Zhang Yue; Zhang Xuelian; Wan  Qianhui; postdoctoral fellow, Li Anqi; secretary Wang Chunyan; and all  doctoral and master students of the Institute of Human Rights. The  meeting also received wide media attention. People's daily, Xinhua News  Agency, CCTV, China News Service, Jiangsu Satellite TV, Xinhua Daily,  Litchi news and other news media carried a live report.