scholarly journals Ronald Dworkin and Human Dignity as Highest Constitutional Value: Philosophical Theorization of Rights and Human Dignity in a Comparative Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-89
Author(s):  
Sherzad Ahmed Ameen Al-Najjar ◽  
Hemn Ghani Saeed

This paper focuses on the study of Ronald Dworkin and Human dignity as the highest constitutional value. Ronald Myles Dworkin (1931-2013), a famous American philosopher, jurist, and scholar of the United States constitutional law believes that constitutional provisions are permeated with moral principles and that human dignity is an intrinsic constitutional value, and that it must be considered in judicial decisions. Dworkin has his concept of rights, arguing that rights constitute claims against the state, and he espouses the idea that it is forbidden to sacrifice individual needs and preferences to achieve the public interest. That is, there are rights that the state cannot derogate from or violate, whatever the rationalizations and justifications. Dworkin categorically affirms that people have the right to be treated with dignity and that rights have an exceptional moral force that stems from the importance of human dignity, and that leads to preventing the formulation and implementation of specific policies even if they aim to enhance the general welfare of society. Consequently, his thoughts and reflections in this regard constitute a solid philosophical basis for the recognition of human dignity as the highest constitutional value.

Author(s):  
Kenneth Bo Nielsen ◽  
Alf Gunvald Nilsen

The chapter examines the fairness claim of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. The author uses the utilitarian fairness standard proposed by one of the most influential American constitutional scholars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Frank Michelman, whose study of judicial decisions from an ethical perspective by introducing the concept of “demoralization costs” has shaped the interpretational debate on takings law in the United States. Michelman’s analysis is particularly relevant for the land question in India today since there is a widespread feeling that millions of people have been unfairly deprived of their land and livelihoods. The chapter looks at the role of the Indian judiciary in interpreting the land acquisition legislation since landmark judgments affect the morale of society. It concludes that using Michelman’s standard would help in bringing about greater “fairness” than what the new legislation has achieved.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-38
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Rosow

Contestation over war memorialization can help democratic theory respond to the current attenuation of citizenship in war in liberal democratic states, especially the United States. As war involves more advanced technologies and fewer soldiers, the relation of citizenship to war changes. In this context war memorialization plays a particular role in refiguring the relation. Current practices of remembering and memorializing war in contemporary neoliberal states respond to a dilemma: the state needs to justify and garner support for continual wars while distancing citizenship from participation. The result is a consumer culture of memorialization that seeks to effect a unity of the political community while it fights wars with few citizens and devalues the public. Neoliberal wars fought with few soldiers and an economic logic reveals the vulnerability to otherness that leads to more active and critical democratic citizenship.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-21
Author(s):  
Niccolo Milanese

The right of audience, in common law, is the right of a lawyer to represent a client in a court. Royalty, the Pope and some Presidents grant audiences. What does the power to grant an audience consist in? And what does it mean to demand an audience (with)? Through a reading of the way in which the vocabulary of theatre, acting and audience is involved in the generation of a theory of state by Hobbes and Rousseau, this paper looks to reopen these questions as a political resource for us to re-imagine and refigure our ways of being together. Through readings of Hobbes and Rousseau, it looks at the ways in which the performance of politics creates the public, the representative and the sovereign and the ways these figures interact. It proposes an alternative role for theatre as places of affective learning and a civic ethics of playfulness, in which the auto-institution of the state as an imagined collectivity is fully assumed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Salem Salem Juber ◽  
Muhammad Awad Saker

The Sharia Hisba is an integrated Islamic system of pillars and construction whose theme is enjoining good and forbidding evil, and aims at stabilizing societies and the supremacy of virtue and high morals in it, and rejecting vice and bad morals from it. The legal public prosecution system is an accusatory system that seeks to safeguard the right of the state and the right of the individual to the public order to ensure a society free from apparent crimes, and a regular picture of the state and individuals is formed in a coherent body without chaos. The Hisba system is a symbiotic social system that moves through the community’s control of the community, while the public case system and its tools from the Public Prosecution and other institutions is a deterrent institutional system that moves in the light of the law and deals in accordance with its principles and limits.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (70) ◽  
pp. 33-49
Author(s):  
Sebastian Czechowicz

The article is devoted to determine the authority competent to carry out the execution of the obligation to vaccinate, as well as the authority competent to apply for punishment of those who persistently evade preventive vaccinations on the basis of the Code of Misdemeanours in Poland. After analysing the competencies of the public administration bodies and comparing them with the judicial decisions of the administrative courts and the Supreme Court issued in cases involving mandatory preventive vaccination, which present an inconsistent line of jurisprudence, the author concludes that the enforcement body is the province governor. However, it is necessary to postulate legislative changes, primarily in the area of the possible transfer of competencies from the province governor to the State Sanitary Inspection.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1952 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-129
Author(s):  
LOUIS H. BAUER

The American Medical Association was organized in 1847. Its original aim was the improvement of medical education in the United States. This still remains one of its important activities but the Association has expanded tremendously since its formation. It now consists of 2,011 component county and district societies and 53 constituent associations in the States, Territories and Possessions. County and district societies elect delegates to the state associations and the whole membership of these county societies takes part in their election. These delegates form a State House of Delegates which in turn elects delegates to the American Medical Association. The A.M.A. House of Delegates is the legislative body of the Association and is responsible for all official policies. All reports, resolutions and recommendations are referred by the House to several Reference Committees who hear testimony on both sides of every question and then render reports to the House. Here all reports are debated again and brought to a vote. Any member of the Association, whether or not a member of the House, can appear before a Reference Committee and state his opinions and recommendations on the matter under discussion. Between sessions of the House of Delegates, the Board of Trustees is the governing body.


Author(s):  
Donald Cohen

This chapter focuses on the right wing's astonishingly successful efforts to privatize public goods and services. Privatization has been one of the highest priorities of the right wing for many years, and the chapter shows how it threatens both labor and democracy. Intentionally blurring the lines between public and private institutions, private companies and market forces undermine the common good. This chapter documents the history of privatization in the United States, from President Reagan's early efforts to Clinton and Gore's belief in private markets. Showing how privatization undermines democratic government, the chapter describes complex contracts that are difficult to understand, poorly negotiated “public–private partnership” deals, and contracts that provide incentives to deny public services. With huge amounts of money at stake, privateers are increasingly weighing in on policy debates—not based on the public interest but rather in pursuit of avenues that increase their revenues, profits, and market share. Privatization not only destroys union jobs but also aims to cripple union political involvement so that the corporate agenda can spread unfettered. Nevertheless, community-based battles against privatization have succeeded in many localities, demonstrating the power of fighting back to defend public services, public jobs, and democratic processes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document