scholarly journals A Diplomacia Cultural como meio para a Promoção da Interculturalidade no Brasil

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 522-542
Author(s):  
Taís Vasconcelos Cidrão ◽  
Antonio Walber Muniz ◽  
Bianca Viana Thomaz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Diplomacy ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Intercultural Dialogue ◽  
De Se ◽  
Bibliographic Study

Procurou-se através de um estudo predominantemente bibliográfico a correlação entre institutos da interculturalidade e da diplomacia cultural. O objetivo primordial do presente artigo é apresentar esta última como um instrumento de promoção do diálogo intercultural entre os países. A determinação do tema adveio da necessidade de promoção e da proteção das especificidades culturais de cada Estado e também o que cada um deles entende por direitos humanos. Busca-se, então, superar a polêmica acerca da dicotomia “universalismo x relativismo cultural”, propondo-se a interculturalidade como solução. Como a cultura não deve ser entendida como uma imposição de valores de um grupo sobre o outro, também não deve ser vista como um empecilho à preponderância dos direitos humanos. Dessa forma, a diplomacia cultural representa um instrumento ideal para a efetivação desse diálogo intercultural a fim de se alcançar uma confluência de chegada, e não de partida. A diplomacia cultural, por sua vez, é capaz de promover um diálogo sobre direitos humanos pautado no respeito e, sobretudo, na diversidade cultural. Defende-se aqui que a interculturalidade, entendida sob a perspectiva da hermenêutica diatópica. Palavras-chave: Brasil. Interculturalidade. Diplomacia cultural.     Abstract: It was sought through a predominantly bibliographic study the correlation between the institutes interculturality and cultural diplomacy. The primary objective of this article is to present the last as an instrument to promote intercultural dialogue among countries. The determination of the theme came from the need to promote and protect the cultural specificities of each State and also what each one understands by human rights. It seeks, then, to overcome the polemic about the dichotomy "universalism vs. cultural relativism", proposing interculturality as a solution. Since culture should not be understood as an imposition of values from one group to another, it should not be seen either as a hindrance to the preponderance of human rights. In this way, cultural diplomacy is an ideal instrument for the realization of this intercultural dialogue in order to reach a confluence of arrival, not departure. Cultural diplomacy is capable of promoting a dialogue on human rights based on respect and, above all, on cultural diversity. It is argued here that interculturality, understood from the perspective of diatopic hermeneutics. Keywords: Brazil. Interculturality.Cultural diplomacy.     Recebido em: julho/2017 Aprovado em: dezembro/2017

scholarly journals Direitos Humanos, Interculturalidade e Diplomacia Cultural / Human Rights, Interculturality and Cultural Diplomacy

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antônio Walber Matias Muniz ◽  
Bianca Viana Thomaz ◽  
Taís Vasconcelos Cidrão
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Diplomacy ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Intercultural Dialogue ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
De Se ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Engagement

Resumo: Através de um estudo predominantemente bibliográfico acerca da correlação entre os institutos dos direitos humanos, da interculturalidade e da diplomacia cultural, o propósito primordial do presente trabalho é apresentar esta última como um instrumento de promoção do diálogo intercultural entre os povos. A escolha do tema adveio da necessidade impreterível da promoção e da proteção eficaz dos direitos humanos sem, contudo, desconsiderar as especificidades culturais de cada Estado. Busca-se superar a polêmica acerca da dicotomia "universalismo x relativismo cultural", propondo-se no seu lugar a interculturalidade. Tendo em vista que a cultura não deve ser utilizada como um empecilho à preponderância dos direitos humanos, tampouco pode ser aceita como uma imposição de valores. Dessa forma, a diplomacia cultural representa um instrumento ideal para a efetivação desse diálogo intercultural a fim de se alcançar uma confluência de chegada, e não de partida. A diplomacia cultural, por sua vez, é capaz de promover a compreensão mútua, a confiança e o respeito entre os povos e, assim, construir um engajamento internacional favorável entre os Estados e um diálogo sobre direitos humanos pautado no respeito e, sobretudo, na diversidade cultural. Defende-se aqui que a interculturalidade, sistematizada na hermenêutica diatópica, no respeito e na valorização da diversidade cultural, é a melhor forma de se propagar os direitos humanos sem causar conflitos secundários e inoportunos, sendo a diplomacia cultural um ótimo instrumento para alcançar esse propósito.  Abstract: Through a predominantly bibliographical study on the correlation between human rights, intercultural and cultural diplomacy, the main purpose of this paper is to present the cultural diplomacy as an instrument to promote intercultural dialogue among people. The choice of theme stemmed from the urgent need for the promotion and effective protection of human rights without, however, disregarding the cultural specificities of each State. It seeks to overcome the polemic about the dichotomy "universalism vs. cultural relativism", proposing instead the interculturality. Given that culture should not be used as a hindrance to the preponderance of human rights, it cannot be accepted as an imposition of values. In this way, cultural diplomacy represents an ideal instrument for the realization of this intercultural dialogue in order to reach a confluence of arrival, not departure. Cultural diplomacy, in turn, is capable of promoting mutual understanding, trust and respect among people and thus building a favorable international engagement among States and a human rights dialogue based on respect and, above all, on the cultural diversity. It is argued here that interculturality, systematized in diatopic hermeneutics, respect for and appreciation of cultural diversity, is the best way to propagate human rights without causing secondary and inopportune conflicts, and cultural diplomacy is an excellent instrument to achieve this.

Bioetica e culture: imperialismo, relativismo o transculturalismo?

2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Palazzani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Pluralism ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cultural Imperialism ◽  
Intercultural Dialogue ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Opposite Trend ◽  
Pragmatic Principle ◽  
Social Product

L’articolo analizza, nella prospettiva filosofica, i percorsi intrapresi dalla bioetica in rapporto al pluralismo culturale, discutendo criticamente i principali orientamenti di pensiero del dibattito attuale. Il punto di partenza è l’imperialismo culturale, quale posizione etnocentrica che assolutizza la cultura (ritenuta, in modo unilaterale, la migliore) marginalizzando le altre. L’orientamento opposto è quello del relativismo culturale che considera la bioetica il prodotto storico-sociale della cultura di appartenenza, proponendo il principio di tolleranza inteso nel senso di sopportazione pragmatica di ogni cultura, ritenuta equivalente rispetto a qualsiasi altra. Alla luce delle incongruenze dell’imperialismo culturale (che finisce con imporre arbitrariamente la propria come la cultura dominante) e del relativismo culturale (che accettando acriticamente ogni cultura non evita anzi acuisce i conflitti e porta alla separazione delle culture), l’articolo cerca le linee argomentative per giustificare una prospettiva bioetica trans-culturale (nell’orizzonte dei diritti umani fondamentali) che consenta il dialogo interculturale in bioetica come ricerca costruttiva dell’integrazione tra le culture nella ricerca della verità comune nel riconoscimento della dignità umana. ---------- The article analyses, in a philosophical perspective, the bioethical theories as regards cultural pluralism, discussing in a critical way the must important trends of actual debate. It identifies cultural imperialism as the ethnocentrical perspective which makes one culture as absolute (considered the best one), marginalizing the other cultures. As opposite trend, the articles discusses cultural relativism which considers bioethics as an historical and social product of a culture, emphasizing tolerance as a pragmatic principle of acceptance of every culture, without condition. In the light of the objections to imperialism (which impose in an arbitrary way one culture as the best one) and cultural relativism (which accepts any culture without condition with conflicts and separation of cultures as consequences) the article looks for arguments able to justify a transcultural bioethics (in the perspective of fundamental human rights) which permits intercultural dialogue in bioethics as a constructive research of integration of cultures in search of a common truth recognized in respect of human dignity.

The International Committee of the Red Widget? The Diversity Debate and International Humanitarian Law

2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 614-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
René Provost
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
The Impact

This article asserts there has been a lack of attention to the impact of cultural diversity within the field of international humanitarian law. Discussions surrounding culture in international humanitarian law have nearly always avoided the central issue of cultural particularism. This has been so in relation to the debate surrounding the emblem, in general surveys of humanitarian law, and in discussions of the laws of war in distinct legal and cultural traditions. The emblems debate, in particular, signals the elusiveness of rigid universality within international humanitarian law. Five elements are suggested to explain the resistance of humanitarian law to contagion by the cultural relativism debate in human rights: the nature of human rights, the distinct normative frameworks of human rights and humanitarian law, the unified conventional basis of humanitarian law, the very broad participation in the humanitarian regime, and the unique role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. While these reasons might explain the fact that the relativism debate in human rights did not readily transfer to humanitarian law, they offer no substantive basis for immunity for humanitarian law to the challenges posed by cultural diversity. Ultimately, the article proposes a legal pluralist approach that recognizes the role of actors in the cultural process of norm-creation. Given the continued violation of the laws of war, the author suggests a need to open the door to cultural diversity in order to generate greater compliance. Without cultural legitimacy, there is a danger that humanitarian law aspires to self-defeating universalism.

scholarly journals Understanding Cultural Relativism: A critical Appraisal of the Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Yohannes Eshetu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Intercultural Dialogue ◽  
Moral Progress ◽  
Ethical Relativism ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Moral Argumentation ◽  
Intercultural Comparison

The aim of this review article is to reveal the cons and pros of ethical relativism, especially conventionalism. This article is written with the intention of showing some of the practical upshots of conventionalism without totally denying some of its virtues in a world where diversity of cultures and customs is apparent. The article inquires the question: Is ethical relativism tenable? The review article relies on reviewing secondary sources. What I am arguing in this article is that despite the attraction of ethical relativism as an intellectual weapon to fight against ethnocentrism and cultural intolerance, the view still goes against the idea of intercultural comparison, criticism and moral argumentation, so that it would have serious disastrous implication on practice, especially on the universal character of human rights and shutters all together any sort of moral progress and reform. The article concludes that we can set forth certain objective moral codes, discovered through rational intercultural dialogue and discussion which could be applied regardless of cultural specificities upon which cultural inter-comparison, discussion and moral argumentation is possible.

KEBIJAKAN MODERASI PIDANA MATI

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
Mei Susanto ◽  
Ajie Ramdan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Moderation Model ◽  
The Right

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 2-3/PUU-V/2007 selain menjadi dasar konstitusionalitas pidana mati, juga memberikan jalan tengah (moderasi) terhadap perdebatan antara kelompok yang ingin mempertahankan (retensionis) dan yang ingin menghapus (abolisionis) pidana mati. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana kebijakan moderasi pidana mati dalam putusan a quo dikaitkan dengan teori pemidanaan dan hak asasi manusia dan bagaimana kebijakan moderasi pidana mati dalam RKUHP tahun 2015 dikaitkan dengan putusan a quo. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian doktrinal, dengan menggunakan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder, berupa peraturan perundang-undangan, literatur, dan hasil-hasil penelitian yang relevan dengan objek penelitian. Penelitian menyimpulkan, pertama, putusan a quo yang memuat kebijakan moderasi pidana mati telah sesuai dengan teori pemidanaan khususnya teori integratif dan teori hak asasi manusia di Indonesia di mana hak hidup tetap dibatasi oleh kewajiban asasi yang diatur dengan undang-undang. Kedua, model kebijakan moderasi pidana mati dalam RKUHP tahun 2015 beberapa di antaranya telah mengakomodasi amanat putusan a quo, seperti penentuan pidana mati di luar pidana pokok, penundaan pidana mati, kemungkinan pengubahan pidana mati menjadi pidana seumur hidup atau penjara paling lama 20 tahun. Selain itu masih menimbulkan persoalan berkaitan dengan lembaga yang memberikan pengubahan pidana mati, persoalan grasi, lamanya penundaan pelaksanaan pidana mati, dan jenis pidana apa saja yang dapat diancamkan pidana mati.Kata kunci: kebijakan, KUHP, moderasi, pidana mati. ABSTRACTConstitutional Court’s Decision Number 2-3/PUU-V/2007, in addition to being the basis of the constitutionality of capital punishment, also provides a moderate way of arguing between retentionist groups and those wishing to abolish the death penalty (abolitionist). The problem in this research is how the moderation policy of capital punishment in aquo decision is associated with the theory of punishment and human rights and how the moderation policy of capital punishment in the draft Criminal Code of 2015 (RKUHP) is related with the a quo decision. This study is doctrinal, using primary and secondary legal materials, in the form of legislation, literature and research results that are relevant to the object of analysis. This study concludes, firstly, the aquo decision containing the moderation policy of capital punishment has been in accordance with the theory of punishment, specificallyy the integrative theory and the theory of human rights in Indonesia, in which the right to life remains limited by the fundamental obligations set forth in the law. Secondly, some of the modes of moderation model of capital punishment in RKUHP of 2015 have accommodated the mandate of aquo decision, such as the determination of capital punishment outside the main punishment, postponement of capital punishment, the possibility of converting capital punishment to life imprisonment or imprisonment of 20 years. In addition, it still raises issues regarding the institutions that provide for conversion of capital punishment, pardon matters, length of delay in the execution of capital punishment, and any types of crime punishable by capital punishment. Keywords: policy, criminal code, moderation, capital punishment.

Self-Determination Through Autonomy or Independence? – On the Current and Future Position of New Caledonia

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-105
Author(s):  
Markku Suksi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
New Caledonia ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
European Court ◽  
Determination Process ◽  
The Right

Abstract New Caledonia is a colonial territory of France. Since the adoption of the Nouméa Accord in 1998, a period of transition towards the exercise of self-determination has been going on. New Caledonia is currently a strong autonomy, well entrenched in the legal order of France from 1999 on. The legislative powers have been distributed between the Congress of New Caledonia and the Parliament of France on the basis of a double enumeration of legislative powers, an arrangement that has given New Caledonia control over many material fields of self-determination. At the same time as this autonomy has been well embedded in the constitutional fabric of France. The Nouméa Accord was constitutionalized in the provisions of the Constitution of France and also in an Institutional Act. This normative framework created a multi-layered electorate that has presented several challenges to the autonomy arrangement and the procedure of self-determination, but the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee have resolved the issues regarding the right to vote in manners that take into account the local circumstances and the fact that the aim of the legislation is to facilitate the self-determination of the colonized people, the indigenous Kanak people. The self-determination process consists potentially of a series of referendums, the first of which was held in 2018 and the second one in 2020. In both referendums, those entitled to vote returned a No-vote to the question of ‘Do you want New Caledonia to attain full sovereignty and become independent?’ A third referendum is to be expected before October 2022, and if that one also results in a no to independence, a further process of negotiations starts, with the potential of a fourth referendum that will decide the mode of self-determination New Caledonia will opt for, independence or autonomy.

scholarly journals Diversity and citizenship in the curriculum

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Starkey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Shared Humanity ◽  
Definition Of

This article comments on keynote speeches given by Keith Ajegbo and Audrey Osler. The programme of study for citizenship derived from the Crick report and did not emphasise race equality and national unity for security. Osler argues that the Ajegbo review addressed teaching of ethnic, religious and cultural diversity but did not confront the inadequacies of British democracy or reassert social justice, a sense of shared humanity and a commitment to human rights. Proposing, let alone imposing, a definition of Britishness is futile, but it is possible to promote cosmopolitan patriotism supported by explicit principles, concepts and values.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document