Equality Restricted: The Problematic Compatibility between Austerity Measures and Human Rights Law.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health and Human Rights Pub Date : 2023-12-01
Michael George Marcondes Smith
{"title":"Equality Restricted: The Problematic Compatibility between Austerity Measures and Human Rights Law.","authors":"Michael George Marcondes Smith","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Economic policies that concentrate wealth and aggravate socioeconomic inequalities often have negative impacts on human rights. For example, evidence points to the unequal impact of austerity measures-such as the defunding and privatizing of health care-on already disadvantaged groups and individuals. Despite its detrimental impacts, austerity often appears as a necessary evil in times when difficult choices must be made. Justified through arguments of trickle-down economics to support growth, the realization of human rights is postponed. Human rights are sidelined as guidelines that inform rather than limit such measures. The assumption that wealth concentration and the consequent reduction of human rights standards may be justified suggests a problematic conception of equality in human rights law. In this paper, I critically examine the way that this assumption informs the exclusion of distributive considerations from the scope of equality within human rights law. I identify and evaluate the emerging interpretations of equality beyond the legal-technical notion of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination and the extent to which equality in human rights may take on a distributive function in combating policies of wealth concentration such as austerity.</p>","PeriodicalId":46953,"journal":{"name":"Health and Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Economic policies that concentrate wealth and aggravate socioeconomic inequalities often have negative impacts on human rights. For example, evidence points to the unequal impact of austerity measures-such as the defunding and privatizing of health care-on already disadvantaged groups and individuals. Despite its detrimental impacts, austerity often appears as a necessary evil in times when difficult choices must be made. Justified through arguments of trickle-down economics to support growth, the realization of human rights is postponed. Human rights are sidelined as guidelines that inform rather than limit such measures. The assumption that wealth concentration and the consequent reduction of human rights standards may be justified suggests a problematic conception of equality in human rights law. In this paper, I critically examine the way that this assumption informs the exclusion of distributive considerations from the scope of equality within human rights law. I identify and evaluate the emerging interpretations of equality beyond the legal-technical notion of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination and the extent to which equality in human rights may take on a distributive function in combating policies of wealth concentration such as austerity.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平等受限:紧缩措施与人权法的兼容性问题。
财富集中和加剧社会经济不平等的经济政策往往会对人权产生负面影响。例如,有证据表明,紧缩措施--如取消医疗资金和私有化--对已经处于不利地位的群体和个人产生了不平等的影响。尽管紧缩措施具有不利影响,但在必须做出艰难抉择的时候,紧缩措施往往被视为必要之恶。以涓滴经济支持增长为理由,推迟了人权的实现。人权被搁置一旁,成为指导而非限制此类措施的准则。财富的集中和随之而来的人权标准的降低是合理的,这一假设表明人权法中的平等概念是有问题的。在本文中,我批判性地研究了这一假设是如何将分配因素排除在人权法的平等范围之外的。我确定并评估了在平等待遇和禁止歧视的法律技术概念之外新出现的对平等的解释,以及人权中的平等在多大程度上可以在打击诸如紧缩等财富集中政策的过程中发挥分配功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health and Human Rights
Health and Human Rights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
5.40%
发文量
22
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Human Rights began publication in 1994 under the editorship of Jonathan Mann, who was succeeded in 1997 by Sofia Gruskin. Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners In Health, assumed the editorship in 2007. After more than a decade as a leading forum of debate on global health and rights concerns, Health and Human Rights made a significant new transition to an online, open access publication with Volume 10, Issue Number 1, in the summer of 2008. While continuing the journal’s print-only tradition of critical scholarship, Health and Human Rights, now available as both print and online text, provides an inclusive forum for action-oriented dialogue among human rights practitioners.
期刊最新文献
"It's about Rights": The Bunya Project's Indigenous Australian Voices on Health Care Curricula and Practice. "Reducing the Treatment Gap" Poses Human Rights Risks. "They Had to Catch Me Like an Animal": Exploring Experiences of Involuntary Care for People with Psychosocial Conditions in South Africa. Are Rights-Based Services Important? An Adolescent PrEP Demonstration Project in Brazil. Law, Human Rights, and Pandemic Response: Reflecting on the South African HIV Response 25 Years Later.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1