This book has been an exercise in de lege ferenda, what the law ought to be. It explores what human rights law could and should be if an entirely new theoretical approach is taken, an approach that calls into question a vast majority of previous political and legal theory. This book has laid the framework for what Benhabib called a new normative map, a new type of legal judgment, one that is consistent with the underlying fundamental principle of human rights: respect for the marginalized. Concurring with Rene Cassin, I argue that human rights should be “the voice of millions [of] human beings, victims of oppression, misery and ignorance, who aspire to live under conditions of greater justice, freedom and simple dignity” (Cassin 1970).

This concluding chapter first reviews the theoretical argument that I used to develop this “new normative map” based on my phenomenology of the Saturated Other. I will then ask, why law? Is law the proper tool for responding to the Saturated or Marginalized Other? To address this question, I review the examples of judges and others discussed in this book who were able to suspend the hegemonic system and respond to the Marginalized Other. Then I will end with some takeaway points designed for human rights practitioners to consider in their own work. What does it mean to work with the Marginalized Other as recommended in this work?