Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities
in the Asia-Pacific: The Establishment of SEAHRN and AUN-HRE

Mike Hayes

Human rights as a subject taught at university is now establishedin a number of curriculums around the Asia-Pacific. While there
are still glaring gaps in the teaching and research on human rights,
there is no question that it is a legitimate subject with both students having
interest in it, and many academics identifying it as their area of expertise.
Looking at the landscape of human rights at universities in the Asia-Pacifictwenty years ago, this was far from the case. In the 1990s, human rights had
little presence in the classrooms and lecture halls in the Asia-Pacific. There
were no degrees in human rights, though there may have been some individual courses, mainly in law degrees. Research on human rights coming
out of Asia-Pacific universities was rare, and there was little demand fromstudents to study it. A huge change has occurred over the last twenty years
because of a handful of reasons, and this article describes the contributionof a university network to this development.
Before detailing the emergence of human rights as a subject at the university, it is important to first justify why this is a positive development. It
is still common to see human rights not as a university subject but rather
an activity of civil society. Some civil society actors can be heard demarcating the tasks of non-governmental organizations (ngos) from that of universities, with the division of labor commonly seeing universities as doing
the less important conceptual work and civil society doing the activities in
the real world, the actual protection of rights. Or, there are others who see
universities as quasi-State agencies, and thus on the wrong side for humanrights protection. This attitude is far less common now than it was some decades ago, and people realize that neglecting universities in the promotion
and protection of right comes at a cost. While ngos are far better suited toprogramming activities and working directly with human rights stakeholders, the university can, and should, play a critical role. Though university
Human Rights Education in Asia-Pacific | Volume 9, 2019201

HURIGHTS OSAKA202

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

work is more conceptual, this is needed for human rights to evolve. The development of human rights should come from evidence-based ideas, fromnew and critical thinking, and from understanding and evaluating current
processes in promotion, protection and prevention. Greater protection does
come from greater understanding. Further, the people now working in thehuman rights and related sectors (such as the environment, democratization, peace and development sector) continue the work with more capacity
because they have been able to study the sector through the increasing number of available degrees. And while it is true that most universities are government bodies and therefore face challenges to their academic freedom,academics, students, and programs rarely are the voice of government.
As this paper details, through establishing a network of universities active in human rights, the study of human rights has been legitimized, theacademic freedom for students and academics has been growing, and currently there is an increasing capacity of stakeholders across all sectors to promote and protect human rights. This paper examines the foundation of thetwo main Southeast Asian human rights university networks, the Southeast
Asian Human Rights Network (seahrn) and the asean University Network,
Human Rights Education Focal Point (aun-hre).1 While the discussion on
universities covers the broad Asia-Pacific region, for reasons detailed laterin the paper, the focus will be on networks in Southeast Asia. The paper also
addresses the benefits of a human rights network, what these networks do,
and importantly what they should be doing. Some of the points raised inthis paper are also reflected in the larger study: The Mapping and Analysis
of Human Rights and Peace Education in Southeast Asia conducted by the
aun-hre in 2013.2 Though this study was conducted during 2011-12 andpublished in 2013, the main findings are similar, such as the challenges faced
when teaching and researching human rights.
Emergence of Human Rights at Asia Pacific Universities
Human rights courses emerged from the Asia-Pacific Universities in the
1990s. For the most part, up to this time human rights was taught in law
degrees, sometimes as a stand-alone course, or as a part of a public international law course. It may have appeared in some universities in politics
or international relations, but the footprint of human rights in the 1990s
was extremely limited.3 This was not a reflection of what was occurring inDeveloping Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific203

the world: human rights were a topic in the media; there were many human rights ngos, and in international politics human rights were frequently
mentioned. The significant global events, such as the Rwandan genocide,
the Asian Financial Crisis and the imf (International Monetary Fund) bailout, the war in Yugoslavia, and the anti-globalization movement were all
spoken about in terms of human rights. Civil society throughout the AsiaPacific actively advocated for human rights (leading to their inclusion in theThai Constitution, the establishment of a number of national human rights
institutions, and the increase in ratified conventions4). These achievements
were undoubtedly from an engaged civil society as universities at this time
had little influence. It was clear that universities needed to catch up.
The reason universities engaged with human rights is open to debate.
Perhaps the rise in human rights education in the 1990s was student-driven, with a politically engaged student movement wanting to discuss more
about human rights. Or it could have been lecturer-driven with more activist lecturers in the region pushing for the inclusion of human rights in curriculum and research. Regardless, the politics of the post-Cold War society
demanded a greater knowledge of human rights. It can also be debated if thegrowth was indigenous to the region or led by European funding. While human rights ngos in the region mostly predate more recent European ngos,
there is a longer history of the study of human rights in Europe and usa.
Initial developments at universities were funded by, for example, the Raoul
Wallenberg Institute (rwi) and Open Society Foundation, who were funding universities in the late 1990s. But on the other hand institutes and programs were opening to deal directly with national issues, such as the founding of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at Colombo University in1991 to address violations occurring as a consequence of the on-going Sri
Lankan civil war.
Though this debate is interesting, this paper is not about the origins
of human rights education at university, nor why it took so long for universities to bring it into the curriculum, but the impact of having humanrights at Asia-Pacific universities. In the 1990s, human rights courses began
to be established at research centers, in Master’s degrees, or as majors instudy programs. By the early 2000s, there were enough centers and programs established at universities such as Colombo University, the Universityof Calcutta, Mahidol University, Ateneo de Manila University, Universityof the Philippines, Hong Kong University and Soochow University, that

204

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

clearly it was not a coincidence, but region-wide phenomena. An importantdevelopment was the offering of the first degrees in human rights in theregion at Mahidol University,5 which opened about the same time as thellm in Human Rights at Hong Kong University. Alongside these degrees
were a handful of human rights centers and other activities at other universities. Around 2006, staff at Mahidol University began a conversation withpartners about developing links with other universities in response to thegrowth of university initiatives on human rights. It seemed that a criticalmass has been reached where human rights were not a trend that was goingto disappear, but rather it was expanding as a discipline.
Why a Human Rights Network?
In the early days, there was an obvious question in the discussion about developing relationships between universities teaching human rights: for what
reason? Most universities function perfectly on their own: they are autonomous, self-regulating, administrative bodies. How could partnerships add
value? While at the time the value of a network may not have been apparent, as soon as the network began to develop clear reasons for its existence
manifest. There was a clear strategic importance of such a network from thestart. The answer lies in the fact that teaching human rights is unlike anyother university course.
At most, human rights constituted a fringe course at the university. The
fact that only a handful of students in the whole Asia-Pacific region would
graduate with a basic knowledge of rights was of no concern in universities
and education ministries, regardless that human rights education is a humanright in itself. Human rights as a subject was entirely ignored in Myanmar,
Lao pdr, Malaysia, and Singapore (though later, sometimes through the
network, degrees or compulsory course are now available in nearly all thesecountries). As a fringe topic, it was not seen as serious enough to deserve
research or space on the curriculum. Basically, human rights lacked legitimacy. It was seen as a civil society thing, or something done for advocacy
only and not for academic careers. The task of establishing human rights
as a legitimate discipline to university administrators, students, academics,
and researchers was a task that could be assisted by a network. The factthat human rights was international, taught across different universities by
academics with international profile helped it gain this. More universities

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific205

teaching similar courses, and producing more graduates, would prove it wasa serious discipline.
A second reason for a network is that it can address the fact that for
many countries in the Asia Pacific human rights remain a sensitive topic that
attracts attention from the government, conservative groups, or the security
sector. Academic freedom is already challenged at many Asia Pacific universities especially for a more politicized discipline like human rights. It needs
much greater support than simply the university administration itself andthere is safety in numbers. Not only are there international networks such as
Scholars at Risk, but through a network threats to academic freedom can be
responded to at a regional level where advocacy may be stronger. More recently the teaching of human rights itself is not often denied academic freedom as most threats to academic freedom stem from the study of cultural or
religious issues, or of history.6 This does not mean that academic freedom
is not an issue. Firstly, there is the challenge of self-censorship, where academics or students do not want to engage with human rights because they
perceive it as a sensitive topic. There is also the case where discussion of human rights has to be modified to comply with national norms, for instance
where human rights discussion is reduced to rights of women and children(such as in Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei which have ratified the relevant
treaties). A network of universities does add to the ability of universities toprotect the teaching of human rights in the subregion.
A further reason for the network is due to the multidisciplinary perspective of human rights as a subject. If taught well, human rights covers
the basics of law, philosophy, political science, development, and a range ofother disciplines, according to the interest of the educator. This is a significant demand for the new lecturer. While it can be a single topic in law, mosthuman rights is taught outside the law faculty, and to students who do notwant to study law but want to work on peace, development, the environment, social welfare, public health and other issues. The capacity demands
on human rights academics are greater than many other disciplines, andthere is a greater need for capacity development in this area. These gaps
in capacity can be addressed in a couple of ways: either to bring in guest
lecturers to teach courses, or to develop programs training lecturers in human rights teaching. Both these responses have been a central feature of thehuman rights networks.

206

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9Finally, as a new topic, there are limited resources for teaching andresearching human rights. Initiating the teaching and research in humanrights in a university is not a simple task. There are no textbooks, curriculum, student interest or body of research available to lecturers, as in othermore established disciplines. Only a handful of textbooks exist on humanrights, and none of them directly addressing the Asia-Pacific. The tendency
is for European and North American courses and textbooks to focus on human rights as a legal discipline. While currently there are a number of new
multidisciplinary textbooks, there were few, if any, textbooks from the AsiaPacific region. Similarly, there is little in the way of established curriculums.
While most academics prefer to develop their own course structures andoutlines, it does help to see how others structure their course outlines anddegrees for ideas on the best way to teach human rights. Developing courses
afresh is very much a trial and error process, but errors can be reduced bylearning from the experience of others in developing and delivering theircourses. As was the case in the Asia-Pacific, some MA degrees started off
being based on the Mahidol University degree before evolving into theirown degree suitable for the student interest and relevant issues. Pooling resources, developing capacity, and learning from each other would become
central activities of the human rights network.
A second question at the inception phase was of what form should therelationship between universities take? There are a wide variety of interuniversity relationships. The most common form of university relationshipis the Memorandum of Understanding (or MoU), which is a simple, nonbinding document indicating university interest on research partnerships,
student exchanges, academic visits and so on. MoUs are easy to do, andenhances the international profile of a university, and yet they rarely resultin anything significant. MoUs after all are non-binding and rarely commit
any resources for their implementation. At the other end of the scale is thejoint degree, where universities agree on a curriculum and jointly teach students, a deal which demands the coordination of curriculum, teaching, assessment, and academic standards. Somewhere in-between is the network.
It is not as weak as a MoU, for it must exist as an established body, but it is
not as demanding as a joint/double degree. The network is the most suitableform of relationship to take; where a range of activities such as academic andstudent exchanges, joint research projects, or short course trainings can beDeveloping Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific207

done. The network structure is loose and flexible, and with it come advantages and disadvantages, which will be addressed next.
Challenges of a Network
The challenge of establishing a network is clear for human rights, as the firstattempt to do so was a failure. With funding from the Japan Foundation7 thefirst meetings between human rights teaching universities across the AsiaPacific occurred in 2006. Representatives from a range of Asia-Pacific countries attended.8 There were discussions on the status of human rights education, on the needs, and what could be the benefits of a network. However,
without further funding, and with no university having the capacity to takeon hosting a network, the plan was dropped. It was decided that there would
be no attempt to found a network. Among the reasons reached at that meeting were that the goals of establishing a network were not universal. It was
unclear if the network should work towards collaborating human rights research, assist in student recruitment, be an information portal on humanrights education, or be an alert system for human rights issues. The purposeof a network was not clear. Also, most institutions were more concernedwith the viability of human rights education in their own institution, before thinking about how to network with outside institutions, given mostprograms were less than ten years old and still not established. Further, theinfrastructure for a network was not ready. A network needs a web page ora regular publication, and most universities had neither of these. However,there were positive outcomes. Participants gained much knowledge fromtalking about the issues of human rights education at university and in particular, learning about the breadth of human rights and the common difficulties of teaching human rights. Informal networks were set up between
institutions which formed the basis of the next attempt to found a subregional network three years later.
There are many common faults made when networks are established,which at this point are useful to consider. The first is that many assume themain task is to establish a network alone, and from this good things will flow.
The “build it and they will come” attitude means most networks fail before
even getting started. It is not difficult to start a network; it can be as simple
as an e-mail list or a single document acknowledging a relationship. The
structure of technology and media today means that establishing a network

208

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

can be done in seconds. What is forgotten in the rush to establish a network
is its function: to distribute a commodity, most commonly information but
also finance, access, people, legitimacy, and so on, between the members of
the network.
A network is only as useful as the resource it distributes to its members.
In the first attempts to establish a network between human rights teaching
universities there was a connection between universities, but not much to
distribute. With little finances for research or training, and few available lecturers, what could be distributed? Most human rights programs were struggling to established themselves let alone develop their international profile.
They were also more deeply involved in local human rights issues and did
not have the expertise or resources to take on human rights concerns of aninternational nature, or in other countries.
The second important fault with many networks is misunderstanding if
it is really needed by the community. A simple measure of a network’s worth
is to ask: what can the network do that Google cannot? Networks which areestablished merely so members are aware of each other, or to show there is abody of experts across different universities are done much better by Google
than it is done by a network. Rather than having a database which must be
periodically updated and cleaned, for most people a simple google search
will provide answers much quicker and easier.
A third common mistake is assuming a network will produce something. They do not produce but they distribute. A network will not provide the missing resources unless members themselves are capable, andwilling, to produce the resources and allow them to be distributed throughthe network. And when it comes to producing something in a network, the80/20 rule is very common: that 20 percent of the actors will produce 80
percent of the products. The other 80 percent of the actors will be largely
passive.9 Some actors may be upset by this, feeling they are doing most of
the work while many of the participants are idle. However, this is the natureof networks.
Establishing a Network: Birth of SEAHRN and AUN-HRE
The early problems in establishing a network were to change quite quickly with the establishment of the Southeast Asian Human Rights Network(seahrn) and the asean University Network (Human Rights Education

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific209

Focal Point) aun-hre in 2009. These networks were to become successful bodies and strengthen human rights education in the subregion. The
reason they succeeded where the first attempts failed was that, firstly, theycame with funding. The seahrn network was established with funding
from rwi, Sweden,10 which underwrote the costs of travel for universities
to send representatives to the meetings founding the network, and funding
for activities. Secondly, the networks were more focused on a subregion, in
this case Southeast Asia. Establishing networks across the Asia-Pacific was
too broad, and the human rights issues did not have the focus as they did
in Southeast Asia. The standards and styles of Northeast Asian, Southeast
Asian, and South Asian universities were diverse enough to challenge any
attempt at a unified human rights discipline. Lastly, the umbrella of the asean University Network (aun) gave legitimacy to the network to establish it
as a discipline at the university and not an advocacy project of a group ofacademics.

First meeting of the SEAHRN members, 2009, Bangkok.

A word on these networks. seahrn is a network of currently nineteen
universities which teach or research human rights in Southeast Asia, with
universities from Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and
the Philippines. There currently is interest from Timor Leste, Lao pdr,
and Myanmar to join, though some administrative issues hold them back.
Singapore and Brunei are the only countries not active (though individual
academics from these universities do participate). The requirements to join
are the active teaching or researching of human rights at a program, cen-210

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

ter, Department or Faculty. With originally nine members, seahrn now has
twenty-two members at both public and private universities that have human rights programs, centers and courses. The aun-hre is a focal point forhuman rights of the thirty universities who are part of the aun – which isa network of around three selected universities per asean country. Most
universities are members of both networks, which lead to confusion. It is
important to explain why this structure, though it is confusing to some, hasbeen kept.
The difference between them is that the aun-hre is only open to theselected thirty universities, and not all of them are actively teaching human rights. Simply put, seahrn is inclusive, while aun-hre is exclusive.
aun-hre offers access to university administrations, and adds legitimacy
to the network, and seahrn can reach all tertiary education bodies active
in human rights. Through aun-hre, human rights curriculum can be instituted and validated at the subregional level. However, the limit is that theaun-hre is exclusive to the thirty member-universities, leaving hundredsof other universities out. A mixture of both networks enables both inclusive
participation and access to university administrations.
What Can a Network Do?
Early meetings of these networks focused on needs. As noted above, teaching human rights at university was not easy. A number of priorities were
established. Firstly, teaching was difficult because of the lack of resources;
basically there were few textbooks to use in the classroom. So the production of a textbook on human rights in Southeast Asia was given priority.
Second, many lecturers wanted to teach or improve their knowledge of human rights, so training was identified as a second priority. Third, there was
not enough support for academic research on human rights, and this wascaused by a number of deficiencies. Many academics had minimal training
in research, let alone in human rights. There was little support to researchon rights, or to present their research work. The identified priority of the
networks was the development of the capacity of researchers, and preparation of spaces to present research, such as seminars and conferences. This
paper looks briefly at each of these priorities, and how they were met by the
seahrn/aun-hre networks.

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific211

Classroom Resources
Developing a curriculum, topics to teach, and student resources is mademuch easier by having established textbooks. Well known courses such as
an Introduction to International Relations, International Law, or Sociology
are made easier to teach because of the large number of textbooks and student materials available. A new lecturer to any of these topics can accessmany course outlines through a google search, identify many textbooks,
and teach themselves how to deliver the course. An introduction to human rights, especially in Southeast Asia is more challenging. While there
are more textbooks available now (and a rough guess of about six to ten
textbooks which could be used in a classroom),11 the novice lecturer facessome difficult questions. Firstly, the texts are often limited to their discipline: either law or political science textbooks. Secondly, all textbooks are
written for a North American or Western Europe student audience. Whilethese alone will not disqualify the texts, they do limit what can be taught.
Some simple examples: the civil society sector is probably the most important body in human rights in Southeast Asia, as most students entering acareer in human rights will most commonly work either at an ngo or aninternational organization. Yet few textbooks address human rights workat ngos in any systematic way. Secondly, human rights teaching in the subregion is closely linked to the disciplines of development, democratization,and more recently peace and the environment. There are available printed
materials on civil and political rights, yet little on the developing field of
economic, social, and cultural rights. Most texts teach human rights withthe legal discipline, focusing on legal standards and cases. While this is still
relevant, human rights work in the subregion mostly does not involve thejudiciary, but involves community development, government administrations, or education. Again, these are topics not covered in the textbooks.
This is not to say these textbooks are not of any worth, because they teachmany critically important topics in rights such as an understanding whatrights are, and what they mean. Finally, and most importantly, the texts were
not accessible. A textbook costs about forty US dollars, too expensive formost lecturers, let alone students. On top of this is the problem that mostundergraduate teaching in the subregion is done in national language, andfew textbooks are translated.

212

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9In response, seahrn developed the textbook An Introduction to Human
Rights in Southeast Asia. With fifteen chapters over two volumes, the textbook was authored by Southeast Asia academics teaching human rights
in the subregion. The textbook has been downloaded thousands of times
and will soon be available in four asean languages.12 When seahrn developed the human rights textbook, two simple priorities were established: thetextbook must be freely and widely available, and that it is relevant to theSoutheast Asian universities.
In the process of developing the textbook there were regular debates
about the content in the textbook. There are so many topics in human rightsthat an early discussion was which ones to focus on. Should the textbook
focus on civil rights, or rights in the court room, or should issues such as democracy and development be chosen? A list of twenty chapters were drawn
up and divided into three volumes, and some topics given priority by appearing in the first volume. Migration was chosen for the first volume as animportant topic (covering refugees, migrant workers, trafficking, and statelessness), with business, environment, sexuality and women’s rights among
the topics for the second volume. The textbook also was structured morearound topic ideas (like business or the environment) and not focused on
specific rights as a way to address its interdisciplinary nature. Students inbusiness or environmental studies could select the relevant chapter to understand how human rights relate to their discipline. See Annex A for thecontents of the two volumes.

The English and Burmese versions of Human Rights in Southeast Asia.

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific213

Another issue was how critical a textbook should be of human rights
standards. In the worst case, a textbook can become just another form of
human rights advocacy which lists violations and shows the failure of States.
As truthful as this view may be, it does not necessarily mean the textbook
achieves its purpose. Not only are there threats that the textbook will not be
supported or distributed because it is seen as too political – by both governments and lecturers – but it may be seen not as an educational text but apolitical one. This was addressed by the selection of case studies to capture
the ways human rights are used. Sometimes there are clear cases of rights
violations, such as systemic rape of ethnic women in Myanmar or forced
evictions in Cambodia. But mostly cases looked at the application of rights,
such as how the United Nations Universal Periodic Review process worked
or an examination of ngo activities.

Human rights textbook editorial meeting.

Another issue was about the kind of violations to focus on. The opening of the textbook describes two examples of human rights violations – thegenocide during the Pol Pot Regime in Cambodia, and a homeless woman
begging. Often gross human rights violations are emphasized as if these are
the main, and most important, category of rights. There is a tendency forpeople to consider human rights as stopping torture, slavery and genocide.
While these are very important, a much more common violation across theregion is access to health, education, and work. Everyday discrimination of
women, children, people with a disability, non-citizens is pervasive. For atextbook to have an effect and to reach its purpose, students should be able
to recognize how they can contribute to a more tolerant world, and how
they can contribute to everyone in their country having their human rights
met.

214

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9In reality there has been little, if any, criticism or government concern
about the textbook. Most likely this is because the textbook is not widely
read by governments and being widely accepted by the academic community. There are some concerns voiced around two chapters. The first is thehistory chapter where sensitive events such as the Indonesian 1965 massacreof suspected communists, the genocide by the Khmer Rouge, and impact of
the Vietnam War are discussed. Governments have official histories which
may not match a human rights history and in these cases the textbook contradicts these official histories. The second area is in the chapter on politicalrights and freedom of expression. Given widespread censorship in the region, and the lack of democracy in most Southeast Asian countries, any human rights account would directly conflict with government’s official views.
Again, there has never been any direct criticism of these chapters from governments. However, translations have sometimes left sections out because
they may face government protest.
The textbook had to be widely distributed and free and also available
for translation to ensure that it is accessible. To accomplish this, the textbook was written under a creative commons of free non-commercial use,
and the freedom of readers to adapt it (for example, taking out sections fora workbook, or producing their own translation) to their context or subject.
Allowing anyone to download and use the textbook is the first step. The
format of the book also fits this – it can be easily printed because it is A4
size. An obvious challenge is that the textbook cannot raise any revenue.
Since the writers, editors, and page layout people have to be paid somehow,
international funding was sought.13
The translation of the textbook was more challenging. Translation ismore expensive, with a translation of the whole textbook costing up to 5,000
US dollars. Further, it is difficult to assess the quality of a translation. Manyterms in human rights do not have established translations (such as degrading treatment, inalienable, or rights-based approach), and different authors
may translate terms differently. People organizing the translation may notwant some sensitive issues translated, so the textbook is not exactly thesame in the national language. While some attempts were made to assess
quality by peer review and translating back the texts (some paragraphs aretranslated back to English from the national language), ultimately the quality of translations cannot be assured by the textbook editors and authors.

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific215

For the textbook to be relevant to the Southeast Asian classroom it uses
Southeast Asian cases, examples, and exercises. This was achieved thoughmobilizing the resources of the network, and asking the academics to suggest and write up case studies of rights issues. These varied from debates
about the Chinese lion dance in Indonesia to cases of trafficking in Malaysia.
The textbook has a focus on issues relevant to the subregion, which is reflected in the chapter structure, with chapters on the environment, business, migration, sexuality, and political rights. The textbook is the productof seahrn, as it involves around thirty writers, editors, fact-checkers, andpeer reviewers from around fourteen universities in Southeast Asia. It isalso distributed through the network. The first two volumes of the textbook
are widely taught across Southeast Asia.14 They have proved useful to lecturers, graduate students, and even the civil society sector to explain key
features of human rights and show relevant Southeast Asian examples.
Developing Lecturers to Teach Human Rights
A textbook alone does not guarantee that human rights will get taught, eventhough its format and local content make it easier for lecturers to teach human rights. There are still issues of how to develop a human rights curriculum, how to design classes, and how to adapt human rights to the discipline
it is taught in. In response, the networks started a lecturer training program.
As a standard four-day short course, lecturers were given a background andupdate on human rights, discussed curriculum structure and learning objectives, and also went over useful texts, classroom exercises, and methods ofassessment. However, training lecturers alone does not guarantee a course
will be taught. There must be curriculum approval for the course and also
student interest; which are growing in the subregion. Human rights courses
are not only found in law faculties but also as components of courses onpolitics, international relations, social welfare, and development.
A further challenge is the standard of teaching across Southeast Asianuniversities. With basic facilities, and in some countries a history of poor
funding and marginalization, universities are not a venue for innovative
thinking, or widespread participation. Rote learning and memorizing text
books are still common. Many lecturers have not been taught to teach, andtheir only experiences of learning are classrooms where rote learning is the
predominant pedagogical methodology. It is not only the content of human216

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

rights which has to be learned, but the process of teaching, including learning activities which promote participation (say small group work), or innovation (studying problem solving, debating, or simulations). Learning about
these are additional values for the lecturers in training, because they enablelecturers to be better teachers in any subject as they have developed theirskills in learning activities and managing the classroom.
Developing Research
Research on human rights in the subregion was dominated by researchers based outside the subregion, or working for international organizations such as the United Nations, Human Rights Watch or the International
Commission of Jurists. There is nothing wrong with this research as it is highquality, and has an impact. However, there are advantages for more researchcoming from within the subregion. There are obvious interests for academics and universities in the subregion, as university standards and reputation
are often based on the research produced.15 Part of the attraction of working as an academic is undertaking research, and academics throughout thesubregion want to undertake this activity. Other advantages of having theuniversities active in research on human rights include the ability to engage
with emerging issues. Research driven by international organizations orfrom universities outside the subregion tends to be prescriptive, they are responding to an already identified issue. Hence certain topics like trafficking,
women’s rights, and refugees receive much attention. But other topics may
not receive attention because they are not as apparent. Having local academics working on local issues can open up issues to research. Further, local
researchers may have the language and the access to reach topics which are
not so accessible to international researchers. These points are overly generalized, and are not meant to imply that local researchers are better and are
more in tune with human rights issues. Rather, there is much value in having
a skilled and active local body of researchers in responding to human rights
issues, and also in the prevention of human rights violations.
The networks are well situated to develop the capacity of local university researchers. In 2014, the project Strengthening Human Rights andPeace Research in Southeast Asia (shape sea) was founded by seahrn andaun-hre. The main program of this project was to fund graduate students,
emerging academics, and subregional research programs in Southeast Asia.

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific217

In the first four years, around sixty research projects were undertaken including about ninety graduate students and academic researchers. During
the implementation of this project, it became clear that academics in thesubregion needed development in their research skills. Many academics
had not designed and undertaken large research projects. While data collection skills were strong, the analysis and writing up of research findings
were challenging for many researchers. Similar to developing the capacity
to teach, workshops were run in methodology and research design. Support
was given for the presentation of research findings at events such as thebi-annual regional conference on human rights,16 or the variety of national
forums organized through shape sea.17 This project is still ongoing so the
outputs and their impact as yet are not published. The ultimate aim is tohave more academics publishing more research to a broader audience. The
work of shape sea is complemented by the handful of human rights journals and growing number of human rights academics in the subregion.18
What’s Next?
While seahrn has been important in establishing and energizing researchand teaching on human rights, there is still more to do. The problem of academic freedom in the subregion needs to be addressed. Lecturers are stillreporting that their administration requests them not to criticize the humanrights situation in their own country when teaching human rights. Students
still see human rights as a “political” and “sensitive” subject rather than a
topic like any other. Importantly, some lecturers face harassment, security
threats, and job insecurity because of what they say and write about somesubjects. Much protection of academic freedom occurs at the international
level, and can work successfully. But the subregional networks recognizethat more should be done at the national level.
The success of a Southeast Asia network has triggered interest fromneighboring subregions. Academics from Northeast Asia have piggy-backed
on seahrn activities to have their own Northeast Asian subregional meeting. While it may be sensitive for Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, Korean
and Mongolian academics to meet and discuss human rights in their own
subregion, they can meet as an outreach of the Southeast Asian networks.
As yet, the need for a Northeast Asian network has not been demandedby the universities, but there is a widespread interest in human rights at

218

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

Northeast Asian universities, though with little cross fertilization between
them. Having a network would mean greater subregional student and academic mobility and closer cooperation, all of which are beneficial for thesubregion. Through seahrn and aun-hre there are seeds for a Northeast
Asian subregional university network.

SEAHRN Plus Northeast Asia meeting on human rights education, 2016, Bangkok.

As a final point, the next stage in human rights education at the university is mainstreaming human rights in the curriculum. Sometimes it isgood to have human rights courses in disciplines where students have a
specific interest (especially in law, development, and political science). But
given that so few students graduate without having been exposed to humanrights in the classroom, it is important that human rights be mainstreamedin the curriculum, appearing in all disciplines. Whether students are doing nursing, teaching, engineering, or physics, a knowledge of the basics ofrights will ensure that there is less discrimination, more respect of others,
better treatment of women, and a collective sense that the goal of education
for communities, countries and regions is not just about creating wealthor knowledge, but ensuring a world fairer for everyone. This has not beenachieved in Southeast Asia, but it is a goal which the networks are moving
towards. Given that when the networks were established just over ten years
ago human rights was a fringe topic, the realization of human rights being anecessary part of a university curriculum is now a realistic goal.

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific219

Annex A
Introduction to Human Rights in Southeast Asia:
A Textbook for Undergraduates (14 February 2018)
Southeast Asia Human Rights Network (SEAHRN)
Volume 1:
Chapter 1: Fundamentals
Chapter 2: International Standards
Chapter 3: International Treaties
Chapter 4: Protecting Human Rights in Southeast Asia
Chapter 5: Protection: The International System
Chapter 6: Refugees and Stateless
Chapter 7: Migrant Workers and Trafficked Persons
Volume 2:
Chapter 8: History
Chapter 9: Women’s Human Rights
Chapter 10: Children’s Human Rights
Chapter 11: Sex and Gender Diversity
Chapter 12: Human Rights and Development
Chapter 13: Business and Human Rights
Chapter 14: The Environment and Human Rights
Chapter 15: Political Rights, Democracy and the Media in Southeast Asia
Endnotes
1 Both networks were founded and are currently based at Mahidol University.
2 IHRP and AUN-HRE. The Mapping and Analysis of Human Rights and Peace
Education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: IHRP. This larger study performs a country
by country assessment of human rights and peace studies. In much greater depth,
it shows the variety of ways human rights are introduced into curriculums, and thechallenges faced.
3 A point such as this is very difficult to verify. Records on university curriculum are rare. While there are a number of noted human rights academics, not all ofthem taught, or had subjects on human rights.
4 Thailand’s 1997 Constitution, called the People’s Constitution, is also known
for its strong human rights provisions. In the 1990s, three national human rights
institutions were established (Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand); and there were220

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c · V o l u m e 9 , 2 0 1 9

nineteen treaties ratified across Southeast Asia (nearly tripling the number of ratified treaties).
5 At that time, the degree was taught at the Office for Human Rights and Social
Development (OHRSD) from 1998-2006, which changed to the Centre for Human
Rights and Social Development (CHRSD) from 2006-2012, before becoming theInstitute for Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP).
6 Examples are about teaching religion in Malaysia or Indonesia, teaching
about sensitive historical events such as the 1966 massacres in Indonesia, or teaching politics in Vietnam or Laos.
7 This is under the Grant Program for Intellectual Exchange of the JapanFoundation.
8 The full list of people attending: Suzannah Linton, PhD, Faculty of Law, LL.M
Programme in Human Rights, University of Hong Kong; Prof. Linda Briskman,
Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University, Australia; Atty. Amparita
Sta. Maria, Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), Law School of the Ateneo deManila University, Philippines; Prof Buddhadeb Chaudhuri, International Post
Graduate Program in Human Rights, University of Calcutta; Mariko Akuzawa, PhD,
University of Hyogo, Japan; Nguyen Thi Xuan Son, International Law Department,
Law Faculty of the National University of Vietnam; Prof. Sharya Scharenguivel,
Centre for the Study of Human Rights, University of Colombo; Ms. Hesti Armiwulan,
Human Rights Studies Center, University of Surabaya, Indonesia; Yang Yumin,
Research Center for Human Rights, Peking University Law School; Chia-Fan Lin,
Chang Fo-Chuan Center for the Study of Human Rights, Department of Political
Science, Soochow University, Taiwan.
9 More commonly known as the Pareto Principle, it has been found to beroughly accurate in networks such as Wikipedia editors, Facebook contributors, andso on.
10 This is the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and HumanitarianLaw, for more information visit https://rwi.lu.se/about/.
11 Well known textbooks include Henry Steiner and Philip Alston’s Human
Rights in Context, thought intended for law students. Manfred Novak’s Introduction
to the International Human Rights Regime is extremely useful in explaining humanrights, but over half the text is about the European system. Good free undergraduate textbooks include Magdalena Sepulveda, et al., Human Rights Reference Book
from the University for Peace in Costa Rica, and Wolfgang Benedek’s Understanding
Human Rights. Other important textbooks, such as Rhona Smith’s Textbook on
International Human Rights and Michael Goodhardt’s Human Rights: Politics andPractice are excellent but out of the price range for many students in the region.
12 The textbook is available in multiple formats, either as individual chapters or
by volume. In total, there are about five hundred downloads a month. The textbook
is available in English, Burmese and Khmer languages from the SHAPE SEA website,with Vietnamese and Thai versions to be made available soon. For the files of the
English version of the two volumes, please visit the following url:Introduction to Human Rights in Southeast Asia: A Textbook for Undergraduates
Volume 1 - http://shapesea.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HR-TextbookEd-1-Complete-low-rez.pdf;

Developing Networks of Human Rights Teaching Universities in the Asia-Pacific221

Volume 2 - http://shapesea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Textbook-Vol2complete.pdf.
13 The textbook has been funded by RWI in Sweden, and The NorwegianCentre for Human Rights (NCHR).
14 There is no data on the number of courses or classes that use the textbook,
but around eight courses are known to the author which use the textbook, and partsof it are translated and used in the Myanmar university curriculum.
15 This is even more so with many universities now engaged in academic rankings, where somewhere between 30-60 percent of a university’s rank (depending on
the ranking system), is judged by its research output.
16 The Conference on Human Rights and Peace in Southeast Asia has been
held every two years since 2010 starting with Bangkok (2010), Indonesia (2012),
Malaysia (2014), Bangkok (2016) and the Philippines (2018).
17 Regional Forums through the SHAPE SEA project have occurred in all
Southeast Asian countries except Myanmar, Singapore, and Brunei.
18 The Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights is based at Jember University
in Indonesia, and Mahidol University has the Human Rights and Peace Journal.