Human Rights Theory, 2: What Reason Do We Have, If Any, to Take Human Rights Seriously? Beyond 'Human Dignity'

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Perry
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-241
Author(s):  
Mirko Pecaric

This paper explores recent notions in public administration, which are intertwined and addressed to the administration of public affairs. On this basis it demonstrates that content of legal system is filled through the static legal principles and rules, but they receive their real content through the informal practices and conditions of the human mind. The paper concludes that discussed notions could have only one name, because they all are the synonyms of reciprocal relation between the human dignity and efficient administration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-36
Author(s):  
Wojciech Szczerba

This article aims to examine how the concept of Imago Dei can serve as a symbol for the broadly understood idea of religious inclusion and human dignity. The article explores the concept of Imago Dei primarily from a protological perspective, analyzing its usage in biblical writings, theological tradition and modern philosophy. The substantial, relational and functional—which three usages of the concept can be found in the inclusive theology of Gregory of Nyssa—are analyzed in this article. Arguably, in the context of religious inclusion, the relational angle of Imago Dei seems to be the most important. Similarly contemporary Protestant theologian, Jürgen Moltmann states in his book, God in the Creation, that the “relational” concept of Imago Dei underscores the fundamental dignity of every person. In his book, God for Secular Society, Moltmann states that properly understood human rights should include democratic relationships between people, cooperation between societies, concern for the environment in which people live, and responsibility for future generations. From these perspectives, the concept of Imago Dei can be utilized as a symbol indicating the dignity of every person and human community, but also a symbol against any types of racism, nationalism or xenophobia.


Author(s):  
William Durch ◽  
Joris Larik ◽  
Richard Ponzio

Security and justice are both essential elements in humanity’s quest not only to survive but to thrive with dignity; neither is sustainable alone. Security is merely the appearance of order in a framework of structural violence unless tempered or leavened by concepts of justice that include human rights, human dignity, and other normative limits on the use of power. The pursuit of justice, whether at the personal, community, national, or international level can be crippled if not matched, in turn, by means to sustain security at each level. This complementarity of security and justice—despite their inherent tensions—is the core conceptual framework of the book. Achieving “just security,” we argue, is essential to the success of any global governance enterprise or architecture.


2008 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Man Yee Karen Lee

AbstractThe idea of “human dignity” is accorded a prominent status in domestic constitutions and international human rights law. Its symbolism as a universal ground of human rights sits awkwardly with the absence of a precise definition. The concept has evolved over history and has been interpreted in various ways by people holding different worldviews. The elusive nature of human dignity creates challenges when it is evaluated across cultures. Despite its common association with the concept of liberal democracy, the idea of human worthiness is not necessarily absent in Asian societies, many of which function under alternative political systems.A cross-cultural perspective requires putting aside ethnocentrism and exploring the convergence of views from different belief systems. Examples from Confucianism and Islam may provide insights on how human dignity is understood and realized in various Asian contexts.


2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID LUBAN

AbstractMilitary and humanitarian lawyers approach the laws of war in different ways. For military lawyers, the starting point is military necessity, and the reigning assumption is that legal regulation of war must accommodate military necessity. For humanitarian lawyers, the starting point is human dignity and human rights. The result is two interpretive communities that systematically disagree not only over the meaning of particular law-of-war norms, but also over the sources and methods of law that could be used to resolve the disagreements. That raises the question whether military lawyers’ advice should acknowledge any validity to the contrary views of the ‘humanitarian’ community. The article offers a systematic analysis of the concept of military necessity, showing that civilian interests must figure in assessing military necessity itself. Even on its own terms, the military version of the law of war should seek to accommodate the civilian perspectives featured in the humanitarian version.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 118-137
Author(s):  
Tatiana Vasilieva ◽  

This article explores the evolution of the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to the application of the concept of human dignity in constitutional equality cases. Traditionally, in human rights cases, this concept serves only to strengthen the argument, to show that the violation affects the person’s intrinsic worth. It is only in Canada and in South Africa that there is experience in applying the concept as a criterion for identifying discrimination. In 1999, in Law v. Canada, the Supreme Court recognized the purpose of Article 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 to be the protection of human dignity and stated that discrimination must be established based on assessment of the impact of a program or law on human dignity. However, in 2008, in R. v. Kapp, the Court noted that the application of the concept of human dignity creates difficulties and places an additional burden of prove on the plaintiff. It is no coincidence that victims of discrimination have preferred to seek protection before human rights tribunals and commissions, where the dignity-based test is not used. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of the concept of human dignity as a criterion for identifying discrimination. The unsuccessful experience of applying the concept of human dignity as legal test has demonstrated that not every theoretically correct legal construction is effective in adjudication.


European View ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Leveringhaus

This article discusses the need for an ethical framework for emerging robotic technologies. The temptation, arguably driven by sci-fi treatments of artificial intelligence, is to ask whether future robots should be considered quasi-humans. This article argues that such sci-fi scenarios have little relevance for current technological developments in robotics, nor for ethical approaches to the subject: for the foreseeable future robots will merely be useful tools. In response to emerging robotic technologies, this article proposes an ethical framework that makes a commitment to human rights, human dignity and responsibility a central priority for those developing robots. At a policy level, this entails (1) assessing whether the use of particular robots would result in human rights violations and (2) creating adequate institutions through which human individuals can be held responsible for what robots do.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Ahmad Purebrahim ◽  
Iraj Goldozian

Human dignity, and respect and commitment to it, is considered as one of fundamental principles of divine religions and international instruments on human rights. Benefit from valuable moral and theological virtues in order to provide of human growth and development exclusively is in the light of fundamental rights and the principle of preserving human dignity. Accordingly, today the concept of human rights and commitment to follow it in the international and national legal systems has a very important position. Rejection of all forms of exploitation humiliation and torture is one of the first underlying layer of human rights which known as negative human rights or social Don'ts. Although as the interpretation of the famous French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth century, human is born free but in the process of social life and adapting to social situations in different ways to be distracted from their pure nature. Countless people in the world today are subject to oppression, even are subject to varying degrees of slavery instances including humiliation and degradation and prostitution. This research attempts to analyze the irreparable consequences of this phenomenon on human society, and also to look beyond national and transnational criminal measures and policies on this phenomenon.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document