Human rights represent an open legal and political concept with a very wide value variable. Academic discussions on human rights nature have mostly commenced after the World War II during the trend ...of human rights internationalization, reaching their climax after the Cold war. This paper examines actual theories on human rights, from those accepting them as universal, up to those marking another pole, favoring idea of absolute relativity of human rights. The author asserts that the most acceptable should be a middle solution, standing of moderate relativism or position of relative universalism of human rights. He claims that only a very limited circle of basic, 'substantial' human rights, having been accepted through an intercultural consensus, may pretend to be treated as universal. Out of that narrow sphere, there are many other human rights whose meaning and interpretation depend strongly upon concrete cultural context. The author points that in those cases it is important to respect a relativistic discourse and that the only solution should be explored within an intercultural and inter-civilizational dialogue, where non-western values should be equally treated as the western ones.
Abstract
This article develops a critique of the monopoly of liberal ideology in the field of human rights by considering how law, morality and politics are related to each other. The author argues ...that the constructive potential of international human rights law does not lie in its being understood and practiced as a positive law. On the contrary, to focus on human rights law as positive law is to conceal the political nature of human rights and to prevent effective development of its moral and political potential. Further, the author considers the case of Sharia law and argues that Sharia, for it to be implemented concretely in the social, political, and legal spheres, must be understood as a moral and religious 'way'. These interpretations of human rights law and Sharia are used as the basis for a critique of the idea that human rights law and Sharia contradict each other.
While human rights are meant to represent a secular morality, there are surprising parallels to be drawn with religions. Perhaps most striking is the realization that human rights are actually based ...on faith, as was already recognized at the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This dependence on faith has deep implications for the way we understand and propagate them, because it puts rights in situations of epistemological stalemate vis-à-vis other cultural, religious, or ideological moral systems. This paper proposes to compare human rights doctrine to a religion to identify potential threats to its long-term credibility, and how to address them. In particular, it explains why coercive propagation of rights risks degenerating into a form of self-contradictory fundamentalism. Ultimately, the article argues for a return to the values of tolerance and mutual respect that rights actually stand for.
Ancrée d’abord dans la charité, se métamorphosant dans la philanthropie libérale, dans la fraternité révolutionnaire, puis dans la solidarité républicaine, la fondamentalisation de l’accès aux soins ...des pauvres a finalement trouvé refuge dans les droits de l’Homme. Depuis la loi d’orientation relative à la lutte contre les exclusions du 29 juillet 1998, elle se traduit ainsi en France par l’affirmation d’un droit fondamental à la protection de la santé. Cette mutation est loin d’être anodine. L’action des pouvoirs publics et la responsabilité de la société dans la lutte contre l’exclusion sociale en santé s’en trouvent déportées du terrain économique et caritatif vers le terrain juridique. L’accès aux soins des pauvres ne relève plus seulement d’un devoir moral, mais aussi d’une obligation juridique en vertu du droit international des droits de l’Homme et des exigences constitutionnelles françaises. Mais quel est donc le contenu de cette obligation juridique ? Quelles sont la nature et la portée réelle de la notion juridique de droit fondamental à la protection de la santé, et de son emploi en lieu et place de celle de pauvreté ? Comment peut-elle s’inscrire dans un processus dynamique et pragmatique d’universalisation de l’accès aux soins ?C’est ainsi à une étude critique de la juridicisation contemporaine de l’accès aux soins des pauvres que la recherche s’attelle. Certes, la fondamentalisation de l’accès aux soins des pauvres se déploie désormais sur la base d’un droit fondamental à la protection de la santé. Mais le choix des moyens et des voies de réalisation de ce dernier ne fait pas consensus, et les juges hésitent toujours à sanctionner et contrôler pleinement le respect de son application. L’universalité de sa proclamation ne s’est pas encore muée en universalité de sa concrétisation. L’émergence d’un droit fondamental pour garantir l’accès aux soins des pauvres n’est en effet pas sans poser de difficultés. Ces dernières qui s’expriment de façon de plus en plus criante aujourd’hui tiennent à la tension irréductible entre son horizon d’universalité et sa pratique discriminatoire et ségrégative, mais aussi à son interactivité avec les autres droits jugés fondamentaux dans un monde où la santé est devenue un marché globalisé et la solidarité peut être assimilée à un délit.Malgré son inscription au sommet de la hiérarchie des normes, le droit à la santé reste en effet l’un des plus inégalement appliqués. S’il induit un principe d’égal accès aux soins, sa mise en œuvre catégorielle et différenciée pour les plus démunis entre en tension avec l’universalisme des droits de l’Homme. Aussi, l’effectivité des droits créances aux soins dépend fortement des finances publiques et donc des volontés politiques. Elle pose la question des devoirs de solidarité à imposer aux citoyens. Or, l’importance politique prise par l’économie dans le monde actuel vient particulièrement entraver les développements juridiques de la solidarité dans l’accès aux soins, en réduisant le rôle et les capacités de l’État providence. S’institue progressivement une forme de précarité sociale généralisée qui compromet l’accès aux soins de nombreuses personnes. En réintégrant les droits de l’Homme dans le débat, les nouvelles politiques de lutte contre la pauvreté tendent cependant à redonner sens au projet humaniste. L’éthique politique moderne en particulier, et la notion qui la traverse aujourd’hui, l’inclusion sociale, influencent les réflexions doctrinales, et avec elles les représentations du droit comme outils de la justice distributive. Désormais, les juristes se préoccupent des notions d’effectivité, de justiciabilité et d’exigibilité des droits sociaux aux soins. De nouvelles réponses sociales et juridiques émergent afin de donner aux personnes précaires et pauvres les capacités d’exercer pleinement leur droit fondamental à la protection de la santé.
Be in motivated by group or individual interest, the desire to help the poor appears as a constant around the world and throughout history. Originally anchored in charity, then reincarnated in liberal philanthropy, in the fraternity of the revolution, and in republican solidarity, the fundamentality of healthcare access for the poor finally found its home in Human Rights. Since the Framework Act on Measures to Combat Exclusion of 29 July 1998, the protection of health has been considered a fundamental right in France.This new incarnation is far from anodine. Government action and social responsibility in the fight against social exclusion in healthcare, have moved from an economic and charitable framework to a legal one. Healthcare access for the poor is no longer considered as just a moral duty, but also a legal obligation enshrined in international Human Rights law and the French Constitution. But what is the real content of this legal obligation? What is the nature and real application of the legal notion of a fundamental right to the protection of health, and how is this used to reduce poverty? How can we take poverty into account in the dynamic and pragmatic process of the universalisation of access to healthcare.This research thus attempts a critical study of contemporary legislation on healthcare access for the poor. Certainly, the fundamentality of healthcare access for the poor follows naturally from the fundamental right to the protection of health. But there is no consensus on the manner and means of its implementation, and the judiciary has hesitated to fully sanction and control its application. The universality of the proclamation has not yet been translated into universality of its realization. The emergence of a fundamental right guaranteeing access to healthcare for the poor is not without its difficulties. These difficulties, today more visible than ever, arise from the irreducible tension between the theoretical universality of this right and its discriminatory and segregative practice. Challenges also arise from the interaction of this and other rights considered fundamental in a world where health has become a globalized market and solidarity perhaps akin to a crime.Despite its place at the summit of the hierarchy of norms, the right to health remains one of the most unequally applied. If it demands a principle of equal access to healthcare, its discriminatory and segregational implementation among the poorest is at odds with the universalism of Human Rights. Moreover, the ability to claim the right to healthcare is highly dependent on public finances and political will. It requires that a duty of solidarity be imposed on citizens. However, the political importance given to the economy in the world today impedes on the legal development of solidarity in healthcare access, reducing the role and capacity of the welfare state. A generalized form of social precariousness is gradually being established, compromising access to healthcare for many people. By reintroducing Human Rights to the debate, new policies in the fight against poverty are beginning to bring meaning back to this humanist project. Modern political ethics in particular, and the current drive for social inclusion, are influencing doctrinal reflections, and with them the perception of the law as a tool for redistributive justice. Thus, lawyers now consider the notions of effectiveness, justiciability and accountability when addressing social rights to healthcare. New social and legal responses are emerging to empower people living in poverty or insecurity to fully exercise their fundamental right to the protection health.
The most important characteristics of human rights are enumerated in a clear and concise discussion that analyzes the problem of making human rights real, and not just hypothetical, worldwide. ...Building on definitions of human rights used by the United Nations and other international bodies, and without being sidetracked by nettlesome discussions of specific troubling cases of rights abuses, the author describes the main characteristics of the system of human rights. He focuses on universality, interdependence, differences between types of rights, absolute or limited rights, the subjects of rights (individuals or groups), and the links between rights and the judicial system and between rights and democracy. He then discusses some of the instruments we can use to promote respect for human rights, the means by which we might make these rights real for a greater portion of humanity. Along the way, he analyzes some of the related controversies regarding sovereignty versus international intervention, globalization, and questions of cultural imperialism as they bear upon human rights. When do we have a right to impose rights Â- or to defend ourselves from intervention?. This systematic discussion presents a complex and difficult topic in an understandable framework accessible to the general public, and will stand as a useful foundation for readings of more specialized scientific, legal and philosophical works. Where most human rights books for the nonspecialist focus on specific instances of rights abuses, this work provides a more general approach focused on the logic in the system of human rights.
When does the universality of human rights and freedoms conflict with the legality of humanitarian intervention? This article explores the history of and problems with this issue. In addition, it ...pursues the problems of when and how to intervene to prevent humanitarian crises and how to reestablish peace after a military intervention. Three key responsibilities are identified: to prevent, to react, and to rebuild. This thorny ethical, political, and legal problem has been one of the most difficult in international law, and the author does not envision it being solved soon; however, the author points to real progress in multilateral conventions as hope for the future.
Nowadays globalization and sustainable development are interconnected economic factors having positive and negative effects on various aspects of human rights. Although the internationalization of ...human rights and the birth of their so-called third generation can be attributed to globalization, it has increased disparities regardless of anti-discrimination principles of human rights. There is a minimum level of economic development and resources essential for providing full-scale human rights coverage, for this reason both IMF and World Bank has on several occasions been charged with prescribing structural reform projects and shock therapy measures on state budgets, that significantly deteriorated the conditions in the population's economic and social rights. The active participation in the global problem's solution is also an important element of the UN Secretary General's strategy which aims at turning the UN into an international organization that does not watch mass scale human rights abuses silently, is able and willing to act to promote development, security and human dignity in order to achieve global freedom. Not only the active role of the international organizations, but also the decision-making process closer to the levels accessible to people must also be reinforced to improve the human rights dimension of sustainable development.
이 논문의 목적은 ‘인권의 보편성’에 관한 세 가지 논의에 기초하여, 북한의 ‘우리식 인권론’을 비판적으로 평가하고, 통일교육에 주는 함의를 제시하는 데 있다. 통일교육은 북한 인권문제를 둘러싼 논리적 대립이나 이념적 갈등의 연장선에서 이루어져서는 안된다. ‘인권의 보편성’에 대한 진지한 이해에 기반한 함의가 통일교육의 기초가 되어야 한다. 인권의 ...보편성이 지닌 보편주의와 역사성에 대한 인식을 바탕으로 북한이 내세우는 인권관의 오류에 대해 평가할 수 있어야 한다. 인권개선을 위한 북한의 자구적인 노력에는 분명한 한계가 있다. 우리는 지속적으로 북한 인권문제에 관심을 갖고 지혜롭게 관여해 가야 한다. 통일교육을 통해 북한 인권개선을 위한 국내외의 사회적 연대가 중요하다는 점이 환기되어야 하며, 인권문화의 형성과 확산이 이루어져야 한다는 점도 강조되어야 한다. 최근의 보호책임 논의에서 보듯이, 국가주권을 제약하는 국제인권규범의 중요성은 갈수록 부각되고 있다. 통일교육은 인권 담론의 틀을 확장시켜 가는 데도 일조해야 한다. 북한의 인권 상황은 숙명적인 특수주의에 속해 있지 않다. 우리는 북한의 인권 상황에 담겨야 할 보편적 인권의 가치를 확인하고 적용해가는 데서 인권의 실천적 의미와 통일교육의 역할을 찾아야 할 것이다.
This article will critically evaluate the view of ‘our way’ on human rights of North Korea and suggest implications for unification education, based on the three issues on universality of human rights. Unification education should not be affected by logical opposition or ideological conflict surrounding the human rights issues in North Korea. The Implications based on serious understanding on the ‘Universality of human rights’ should be foundation of unification education. On the basis of univerality and historicity of human rights, we shall be able to evaluate about mistakes of the viewpoint on human rights of North Korea. North Korea`s self-rescue efforts are clearly limited. We should have an interest in human rights issues of Korth Korea and be involved wisely. Through unification education, the importance of internal and external social solidarity for the improvement of human rights in north korea should be paid attention and building and expanding of human rights culture should be emphasized. As the recent discussion on ‘Responsibility to Protect’(R2P) has shown, the importance of international human rights norms that constrain national sovereignty is increasingly being magnified. Unification education should contribute to expand the framework of human rights discourse. The situations of human rights in North Korea is not fatefully involved in cultural relativism. We need to find practical meaning of human rights and the role of unification education while checking and applying the values on human rights of the universality of human rights.
For more than a half a century the world community has been developing a universal human rights standard. At the same time there has been a strong tendency towards relativism, and hence regionalism, ...in the field of human rights. There is a degree of tension between regionalism and the struggle to find a common human rights standard but, thanks to several changes in the concept of universality over the last 15 years, this tension can now abate. This article focuses on the essence of these changes, with special emphasis on the new elements, which may reduce the tension between universalism and relativism. It progresses in two steps. First, it analyses the universality of human rights from a historical perspective. It identifies the basic arguments of the adherents and adversaries of universal human rights between the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the end of 1980s. Second, it turns to the new elements in understanding the universality of human rights that have been emerging since the 1990s. It draws particular attention to the new points of contact that help bring the struggle for universality and relativist tendencies closer together.
PDF
