天易网

 找回密码
 注册
楼主: 郭国汀

The theory of Human Right

[复制链接]
 楼主| 发表于 2/10/2018 03:13:26 | 显示全部楼层
The dominant concept of human rights entails: (1) the right to
be free from what are often called "atrocities," such as torture
and genocide; and (2) political and civil rights, including elec-
tions and judicial process and freedom of thought, speech and
          press.


The UN Charter, which entered into
force in 1945, provided that all signatory governments would
promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human
          rights and fundamental freedoms."[1]

the Universal Declaration is extremely broad. It pro-
vides that "[everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security
of person;"[1] that "[no one shall be held in slavery;"[2] that
"[all are equal before the law;"[3] that "[no one shall be sub-
jected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment."[4] It states that "[everyone is entitled ... to a
fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribu-
nal in the determination of his rights and obligations and of
any criminal charge against him;"[5] that everyone has the
"right to own property;"[6] that everyone has the "right to a
nationality;"[7] and that men and women have the "right to
marry and to found a family."[8] It provides that everyone has
the right to work;[9] that everyone has the right "to free choice
of employment,"[10] and to "just and favourable conditions of
work;"[11] and that everyone has the right to "freedom of opin-
ion and expression,"[12] "freedom of thought,"[13] freedom of
"conscience,"[14] and freedom of "religion."[15] Finally, it guaran-
tees that everyone has the "right to a standard of living ade-
quate for the health and well-being of himself and of his fami-
ly, including food, clothing, housing and medical care;"[16] that
everyone has the "right to rest and leisure, including reason-
able limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with
pay;"[17] that everyone has the right to education;[18] that every-
one has the right to free elementary education[19] and to higher
education accessible to all on the basis of merit;[20] and that
everyone has the right "to enjoy the arts and to share in scien-
tific advancement.[21]


[1] . Id. art. 3, at 72.

[2] . Id. art. 4, at 73.

[3] Id. art. 7, at 73.

[4] Id. art. 5, at 73.

[5] Id. art. 10, at 73.

[6] Id. art. 17(1), at 74.

[7] Id. art. 15(1), at 74.

[8] Id. art. 16(1), at 74.

[9] See id. art. 23, at 75.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. art. 19, at 74.  

[13] Id. art. 18, at 74.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. art. 25(1), at 76.

[17] Id. art. 24, at 75.

[18] See id. art. 26(1), at 76.

[19] See id.

[20] See id.

[21] Id. art. 27, at 76.




[1] U.N. CHARTER art. 55(c).



 楼主| 发表于 2/10/2018 12:31:46 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/10/2018 16:37 编辑

Under the Optional Protocol,
individuals claiming a violation of rights under the ICCPR,
who have exhausted all available domestic remedies, may
           submit a statement to the Human Rights Committee.[1]
Underthe Optional Protocol,
the Human Rights Committee shall then
bring such claims to the attention of the state party alleged to
be violating the covenant and the state party must within six
months provide a written explanation or statement regarding
the remedial action taken by that state.[2]

Civil and political rights consisted
of entitlements to judicial and political processes, belief and
expression, as well as freedom from torture, enslavement and
execution-and the covenant regarding civil and political rights
contained mechanisms for both investigation and enforcement.

under the Nuremberg principles,
state officials can be guilty of human rights violations for
their acquiescence or failures to act.

A state which consents
or acquiesces to acts of genocide or torture by paramilitary
death squads, for example, may be deemed to be in violation of
human rights for its failure to intervene. Thus, the human
right of freedom from torture in fact requires not only that the
state abstain from torturing individuals, but that it act affir-
matively to prohibit and prevent non-state actors from engag-
ing in these practices.

Maurice Cranston. In
his influential critique of the Universal Declaration, Cranston
argued that the criteria for determining what constitutes hu-
man rights are "practicability" and "paramount importance."[3]
It is more practical to assert the existence of political rights
than economic rights, he suggests: political rights "can be
readily secured by legislation," whereas economic and social
rights can rarely, if ever, be secured by legislation alone.
Cranston points out that the legislation by which political
rights are secured is more straightforward than that needed
for economic rights. Often political rights can be achieved by
restraining governmental conduct.[4]
the Enlightenment gives us one of the fundamental notions of
modern political thought: that there are such things as rights
and that they are universal," inherent, self-evident and in-
alienable.[5]



[1] Convention on


the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted Dec. 9, 1948,
78 U.N.T.S. 277; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, opened for signature Mar. 7, 1966, 660 U.N.T.S. 195; Inter-
national Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,
adopted Nov. 30, 1973, 1015 U.N.T.S. 245; Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women, opened for signature Mar. 1, 1980,
1249 U.N.T.S. 13; Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De-
grading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Feb. 4, 1985, S. TREATY
Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 23 I.L.M. 1027. However, what is known as "the Interna-
tional Bill of Human Rights" consists of the Universal Declaration, supra note 14;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 19, 1966, SEN.
EXEC. Doc. E, 95-2, at 23 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR]; Interna-
tional Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966,
993 U.N.T.S. 3 [hereinafter ICESCRI; Optional Protocol to the International Cove-
nant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 302 [here-
inafter Optional Protocol]; Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, adopt-
ed Dec. 15, 1989, GA. Res. 44/128, U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 49 at 206, U.N. Doc
A1441824 (1989). art. 2, 999 U.N.T.S. at 302.
[2]  art. 4, 999 U.N.T.S. at 303.
[3] MAURICE CRANSTON, WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS? 66, 67 (1973).

[4] See id. at 66.


[5] . As has been pointed out on many occasions, the "universe" for the En-
lightenment thinkers was in fact limited to white males of European descent. See,
e.g., CAROL PATEMAN, THE SEXUAL CONTRACT 221 (1988) (observing that "[t]hrough
the mirror of the original contract, citizens can see themselves as members of a
society constituted by free relations. The political fiction reflects our political selves
back to us-but who are" we'? Only men-who can create political life-can take
part in the original pact."); see also DIANA H. COOLE, WOMEN IN POLITICAL THEO-
RY 71-132 (1988) (discussing Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau). For a discussion of the
implicit and explicit racism in the revolutionary thought of the Enlightenment, see
RONALD T. TAKAKI, IRON CAGES: RACE AND CULTURE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA 1-15 (1979). My interest here lies in addressing the notion of universal
rights as such.





 楼主| 发表于 2/10/2018 16:49:18 | 显示全部楼层
Thomas Hobes,
life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The
"right of nature," consists in "the Liberty each man hath,
to use his own power ... for the preservation of his own Na-
ture; that is to say, of his own Life" and to anything he con-
ceives to be useful toward that end.




the sovereign does not rule by divine right
or a right of tradition; rather, sovereign power is conferred by
consent of individuals living in the warlike state of nature.

he has a right to destroy anyone who threatens him
with destruction or enslavement.[1] The "Natural Liberty of
Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth," Locke
says, "but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule."[2]
Thus, legislative power over man within the commonwealth
can be established only by consent.

Locke says that "men
being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and indepen-
dent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the
Political Power of another, without his own Consent.[3]
Rousseau reiterates the conception of a state of nature as
the origin of rights and consent as the basis for legitimate

sovereignty. "Man is born free, and everywhere is in chains,"

since force does not give rise to any
right, conventions therefore remain the basis of all legitimate
authority among men."[4]
     The transition from the state of nature to the civil state
takes place when each individual alienates his rights to the
whole community, which is expressed in the general will.[5]
Declaration of Independence, it is a "self-evident" truth that
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights," which include "Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."[6] These rights are
prior to government and legitimate government is a convention
based upon consent: "to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed."[7] The people retain the right to
dissolve a government: 'That whenever any Form of Govern-
ment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it."[8]










[1] See id. at 278-79.

[2] Id. at 283
[3] Id. at 330.
[4] Id. at 20.

[5] See id. at 26-27.
[6] . Id.

[7] . Id. The Virginia Declaration of Rights of June 12, 1776, is, interestingly,
both more explicit and more concrete. It states:
     1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have
     certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society,
     they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity;, namely,
     the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and pos-
     sessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
     2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the Peo-
     ple; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times
     amenable to them.
     3. That Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit,
     protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; . . . and
     that, whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to
     these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalien-
     able, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it ....
VIRGINIA DECLARATION OF RIGHTS arts. 1-3, reprinted in 1 THE FOUNDERS' CONSTITUTION 6 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987).

[8] See DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND CITIZEN [hereinafter DECLA-
RATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN], reprinted in, THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER DOCUIMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE HISTORY OF FRANCE 1789-1907 15 (2d ed. 1908).






 楼主| 发表于 2/12/2018 01:03:13 | 显示全部楼层
Jeremy Bentham in 1796 wrote an essay against the natural right today call human rights : it consists of "execrable trash," that its purpose is "resistance to all laws" and "insurrection," that its advocates "sow the seeds of anarchy broadcast," and, most memorably, that any doctrine of natural rights is "simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,-nonsense upon stilts."[1]


[1] Anarchical Fallacies, supra note 3, at 501. We do know what Bentham thought of the natural rights mentioned in the American "Declaration of Independence." In a letter to John Lind in September 1776, he denounces it for the "extravagance" of its "tenets," notably its reliance upon "inalienable" rights. Letter (1 79a) from Jeremy Bentham to John Lind (2(?) Sept. 1776), in 1 JEREMY BENTHAM, THE CORRESPONDENCE OF JEREMY BENTHAM 341, 343 (Timothy L.S. Sprigge ed., 1968). I am indebted to Catherine Fuller for drawing this letter to my attention.



 楼主| 发表于 2/12/2018 01:43:41 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/12/2018 01:50 编辑

   In A Matter of Principle, Dworkin offers the premise that two dominant
themes in twentieth-century jurisprudence have distorted the concept of
law: legal positivism and utilitarianism. Legal positivism asserts that the
only existing rights and duties are those explicit in positive law-that is,
legislative statutes or past judicial decisions. This assumes that law exists
only because of human action. Utilitarian theories go further. They argue
that what is good for society is the foundation of law-in other words,
whatever constitutes the greatest good for the greatest number should
            dictate what laws exist.


Dworkin's work, as I understand it,
stands primarily for two things: (1) the primacy of individual human rights,
and (2) the reality of principles that provide a moral context for interpreting
the Constitution and adjudicating "hard cases." His jurisprudence also
opposes all forms of positivism and utilitarianism as adequate justifications
for law.


In the name of the
majority rule, utility ignores the individual, rights are not taken seriously,
and law is nothing more than the possibility of tyranny by the party in
power.
 楼主| 发表于 2/12/2018 13:11:11 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/12/2018 13:32 编辑

the importance of the right of equality

the most fundamental element in Catholic social doctrine concerns the principle
of the dignity and worth of every individual: Human life is sacred.[1] I also
indicated my belief that human dignity is the basis for the development of
public policy.[2] Dworkin seemingly would agree with this belief, but he
discusses it more specifically in terms of equality,[3] indeed a particularly
fundamental conception of equality: "Individuals have a right to equal
concern and respect in the design and administration of the political
institutions that govern them.[4] At the most basic level, individual women
and men have the right to treatment as equals. All other claims to rights
or entitlements can be derived from this right, including claims to equal
treatment. Although these other claims may be secondary, they are often
put forward as more important than treatment as equals.[5]

Equal
concern and respect-the fundamental conception of equality derived from
Rawls's theory, and the root from which all other rights are derived-are
the very rights protected by the equal protection clause.[6]

Dworkin demonstrates that law is much more than the mechanical ap-
plication of rules and the search for legislative intent. Law is, in some
important ways, the vehicle for the decision of important questions of
politics and moral principle. This is especially true for constitutional law,
lawyers must be the philosopher.



[1] See Bernardin, Marty & Adams, The Role of the Religious Leader in the Development
of Public Policy, 34 DEPAUL L. REV. 1, 3 (1984).
[2] Id.
[3] R. DWORKIN, supra note 6, at 184, 198-99.
[4] Id. at 180.
[5] The point is made clear in the general moral example involving two persons suffering
from the same disease when there is only one dosage of treatment available. Equal concern
and respect requires that the dosage be given to the individual who is dying rather than to the
one who is only uncomfortable. Id. at 227.
[6] Id. at 229.


 楼主| 发表于 2/12/2018 14:40:33 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 2/12/2018 16:01 编辑

The old value system of our society was based on Darwinian and free
market principles which assume that all units are autonomous or inde-
pendent. A belief in competition is central to this value system, which
            explains individual behavior in terms of self-interest.[1]
Coordinated activities among people require a social contract.
The concept of justice based upon the competitive value system is
classic utilitarianism, which assumes that the propensities and desires of
individual human beings are given. It is assumed that if each individual
does what is right for that individual, the good of all is maximized.

McGregor and Sarason and
           point toward a value system based upon collaboration.[2]
caring has to become a central human value if people
are to have a basic stability in their lives and to find a place in the world.
Collaboration can succeed only if those who work together care about
            and for each other.

the reasons for women's lack of achievement as compared to men.
Homer's research led her to explain woman's achievement difficulties as
due to a "motive to avoid success."[3] Her data were widely accepted as
            proof that women suffered from anxiety over expectation of success.
a motive to avoid success was in fact anxiety regarding competitive success.[4]
the economic
system based upon competition is no longer viable and that it is important
that we seek new solutions. We have suggested that collaboration offers
an attractive alternative. Furthermore, we believe that the competitive
system, which most have come to accept as the outcome of natural law
and the very qualities that the system requires of human beings-egotism,
selfishness and greed-are destructive of basic human rights and inimical
to survival. We have also tried to show that this same value of competi-
tion is psychologically oppressive of women and that it must be discarded



[1] M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: Oxford Universit Press, 1947).
[2] D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960); S. Sarasen, The Creation of Settings (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972).
[3] M. S. Homer, "Sex Differences in Achievement Motivation and Performance in Competitive and Noncompetitive Situations," (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan,1968).
[4] M. Zuckerman and S.N. Aleson, "An Objective Measure of Fear of Success: Construction and Validation," Journal of Personality Assessment (1976)40:424-27.

 楼主| 发表于 2/12/2018 16:49:15 | 显示全部楼层
John Finnis in Natural Law and Natural Rights to show that the liberal morality of human rights can be derived from the requirements of reason, without having to invoke any special Divine revelation or metaphysics; he contends that every moral obligation, every ought and its cognates, is derivable from practical reason, Practical reasonableness,  amounts to the human capacity for exercising freedom and reason which are the characteristics of human personality. These characteristics enable one to grasp the requirements of practical reasonableness, which is the ability to express, shape, and select one's participation in what he calls the "basic goods" or "basic values."If one behaves in accordance with the principles of practical reasonableness and promotes the basic goods, i.e., if one acts in a manner which is self-evidently reasonable, human rights and minimal morality will result.
1) "respect every basicvalue in every act, 2) "show no arbitrary preferences amongst persons, and 3) the requirement of practical reasonablenessthat one should favor and foster "the commongood of one's communities."










您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 10/23/2018 07:55 , Processed in 0.727006 second(s), 10 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表