Dialogue and Dialogic Mechanisms: Creating a Global Framework for Deliberative Democracy, Human Rights, and Cultural Pluralism

2017 ◽  
pp. 196-238
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Cultural Pluralism

Interpreting Human Rights Law

2018 ◽  
pp. 115-150
Author(s):  
Sandra Fredman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Living Tree ◽  
Original Intention ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Face ◽  
Changing Times

On the face of it, judges are tasked with applying the law, not making it. Yet human rights are framed in general terms, requiring judges to draw on external values to interpret. Some regard judicial interpretation as gaining legitimacy only when true to the original intention of the drafters; or the text’s natural meaning. Others regard the human rights instruments as necessarily responsive to changing times. This is the ‘living tree’ or purposive approach. This chapter explores different approaches to interpretation of human rights in a comparative context. Section II examines judges’ own values. Section III discusses originalism or the intention of the drafters; section IV considers the natural meaning of the text; while section V examines the ‘living tree’ or purposive approach. Section VI explores the notion of transformative constitutionalism. The final part draws on the ‘bounded deliberative democracy’ developed in earlier chapters to point to the way forward.

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.

scholarly journals MULTICULTURAL VALUES IN INDONESIAN NOVELS OF THE 2000s

LITERA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suminto A Sayuti ◽  
Wiyatmi Wiyatmi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Society ◽  
Cultural Pluralism ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

AbstractThis study was aimed at describing multicultural values, ways of expressing multicultural values, and the dynamics of multicultural values in Indonesian novels ofthe 2000s. The study purposively selected a sample of six novels that intensely carried thetheme of multiculturalism. These were Laskar Pelangi, Larung, Jendela-jendela, Ayat-ayat Cinta,Jepun Negerinya Hiroko, and Partikel. The study used the descriptive qualitative method.The study obtained the following findings. First, there were four main multiculturalvalues:  (a) apreciasion of cultural pluralism, (b) valuing of the principles of humanismand fundamental human rights (FHR), (c) responsibility of the international society, (d)responsibility of the planet earth. Second, multicultural values are expressed throughnarrative elements and become an integral part of the entire story. Third, multicultural values move in the dynamics of locality to nationality and nationality to globality. Indonesian novels of the 2000s express Indonesian people in the contexts of world nationand citizens who are multicultural, having appreciative minds towards cultural pluralism,upholding humanism and FHR, taking responsibilities of sustaining the entirety of theworld and planet earth. Keywords: multicultural, Indonesian novel, nasionality, globality, plurality

What Is a Human Right? Dealing with Disagreement

2018 ◽  
pp. 29-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Fredman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Moral Relativism ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
Universal Principles

While the notion of fundamental human rights attracts general respect, there is little agreement on how we identify rights or their substantive content and application. This chapter addresses several ways of addressing these foundational disagreements. One is to formulate a moral principle, from which human rights can be derived. The chapter critically assesses possible moral foundational principles, including autonomy, dignity, basic interests, and capability theory. A second approach rejects the possibility of formulating universal principles. The chapter evaluates theories of pluralism and moral relativism in relation to human rights as well as the liberal response to relativism. The chapter then canvasses various ways of resolving such disagreements. The conclusion sets out the approach in this book. Rather than aspiring to achieve absolute answers across time and place, the book draws on the insights of deliberative democracy, aiming to engage in constant reasoned attempts to develop the understanding of human rights.

scholarly journals Intersectional Dialogue - A Cosmopolitical Dialogue of Ethics

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Adami
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Philosophical Ground ◽  
Absence Of Power ◽  
Common Understanding

The article is based on a critical cosmopolitan outlook on dialogue as not aimed at reaching consensus, but rather keeping dialogue of difference open, with the ability to reach common understanding of human rights on conflicting grounds. Intersectional dialogue is used as a concept that opens up possibilities to study, in a pragmatic sense, the ‘cosmopolitan space’ in which different axles of power met in the historical drafting of human rights. By enacting analysis of United Nations (UN) documents from 1948 on the process of drafting the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) the conceptualization of intersectional dialogue is put to work. The utopian foundation for deliberative democracy as dialogue in the absence of power and interest does not acknowledge the reality in which the human rights were negotiated and debated. The paper questions the dominant narrative of a western philosophical ground for the universality of human rights.

scholarly journals Formalised Church-State Dialogue in Ireland: A Critique of Concept

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-69
Author(s):  
Kenneth Houston
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Cultural Pluralism ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Politics Of Recognition ◽  
Interest Representation ◽  
Official Discourse ◽  
Historical Role ◽  
Point Of Departure ◽  
Experimental Level

In February 2007, then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern established a provision for formalised dialogue between the political institutions of the state (chiefly the Department of an Taoiseach) and religious bodies. This provision for dialogue was consciously modelled on Article 17.3 of the Functioning of the Lisbon Treaty. It was couched in terms of mutual respect and a need for a mature acceptance and recognition of contemporary socio-cultural pluralism. This official discourse reflected the ideals of deliberative democracy, the politics of recognition and identity, and the predominant norm of consensus-building. A conventional critique of the dialogue provision through the prism of deliberative democratic theory is presented, and the Irish instance is subsequently utilised as a point of departure for a reflective examination of the normative ideal. We argue that ideals of deliberation do not readily overcome embedded realities of power asymmetries and structural domination. As a result, public policy initiatives that seek to address the demands of various social movements for greater equality remain vulnerable to the interests and preferences of those religious bodies opposed to such reform. While recent revelations concerning the Catholic Church’s historical role within Ireland have gone some way to highlighting the need for a recalibration of the state’s relationship with corporate religion, the new dialogue provision entrenches a neo-corporate-style of interest representation. While this dialogue initiative has an expanded number of interlocutors, it is still substantially closed in practice to wider interested and affected parties. The deliberative modality is absent, replaced instead – as in EU praxis – with generally bilateral modes of state-religious engagement that lacks real deliberation and transparency. The Irish example exemplifies significant challenges to the realisation of deliberative democracy beyond the experimental level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document