ABSTRACT
In human rights scholarship, however, the mainstream appears normative and progressive. "Human rightism" is a broader phenomenon than just the United States, also existent in European human rights scholarship, irrespective of the common or civil law tradition. The comparative law approach asserts that human rights may be drawn from the forum domesticum, be it from constitutions or "regular" domestic law. Philip Alston and Bruno Simma themselves concede that general principles of law do not set out as the most promising candidate for human rights as a non-treaty source of international law. Theodor Meron turns full-on "human rightist" and openly advocates "blurring" sources doctrine altogether, in order to promote non-treaty human rights law. In addition to the question of state interest, humanitarian intervention suffers from the fact that the humanitarian motive may simply not be discernible. State practice and even statements are indeterminate, as the Kosovo example shows.
