The right to science or to Wissenschaft? Five lessons from the travaux préparatoires

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.1177/09240519241246129
Sebastian Porsdam Mann
{"title":"The right to science or to Wissenschaft? Five lessons from the travaux préparatoires","authors":"Sebastian Porsdam Mann","doi":"10.1177/09240519241246129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies novel insights from a detailed analysis of the travaux préparatoires of the right to science provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It makes five main contributions. First, it demonstrates the bidirectional influence between the UDHR and the earlier American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in the formulation of the right to science, as opposed to unidirectional borrowing. Second, it traces the origins of Article 15 ICESCR to the UNESCO Constitution and argues that Article 15, specifically subclauses 2–4, were intended as implementation measures, though Article 15(3) was elevated into a separate and additional obligation due to its perceived importance for scientific and creative progress. Third, it clarifies an apparent conflict between drafting history and subsequent instruments concerning scientific purpose by distinguishing the development and use of science. Fourth, it suggests facilitating the search for truth as an unarticulated object and purpose of these provisions. Finally, it shows that many drafters acknowledged a broad scope of ‘science’ beyond the natural sciences. Overall, this article elucidates overlooked aspects of the travaux to inform contemporary debates on this important yet obscure right.","PeriodicalId":44610,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09240519241246129","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article identifies novel insights from a detailed analysis of the travaux préparatoires of the right to science provisions in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). It makes five main contributions. First, it demonstrates the bidirectional influence between the UDHR and the earlier American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in the formulation of the right to science, as opposed to unidirectional borrowing. Second, it traces the origins of Article 15 ICESCR to the UNESCO Constitution and argues that Article 15, specifically subclauses 2–4, were intended as implementation measures, though Article 15(3) was elevated into a separate and additional obligation due to its perceived importance for scientific and creative progress. Third, it clarifies an apparent conflict between drafting history and subsequent instruments concerning scientific purpose by distinguishing the development and use of science. Fourth, it suggests facilitating the search for truth as an unarticulated object and purpose of these provisions. Finally, it shows that many drafters acknowledged a broad scope of ‘science’ beyond the natural sciences. Overall, this article elucidates overlooked aspects of the travaux to inform contemporary debates on this important yet obscure right.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学权还是知识权?从准备工作文件中汲取的五条教训
本文通过详细分析《世界人权宣言》(UDHR)和《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》(ICESCR)中有关科学权条款的准备工作文件,提出了新颖的见解。它有五大贡献。首先,它证明了《世界人权宣言》和早先的《美洲关于人的权利和义务宣言》在制定科学权方面的双向影响,而不是单向借鉴。其次,它追溯了《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》第 15 条与教科文组织《组织 法》的渊源,并认为第 15 条,特别是第 2-4 款,本意是作为实施措施,但第 15(3)条因其对 科学和创造性进步的重要性而被提升为一项单独和额外的义务。第三,它通过区分科学的发展和利用,澄清了起草历史与随后有关科学目的的文书之间的明显冲突。第四,它建议促进对真理的探索,将其作为这些条款未阐明的目标和宗旨。最后,文章表明许多起草者承认 "科学 "的范围广泛,超出了自然科学的范畴。总之,本文阐明了这些著作中被忽视的方面,为当代关于这一重要而又模糊的权利的辩论提供了参考。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Human rights are universal and indivisible. Their fundamental importance makes it essential for anyone with an interest in the field to keep abreast of the latest developments. The Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (NQHR) is an academic peer-reviewed journal that publishes the latest evolutions in the promotion and protection of human rights from around the world. The NQHR includes multidisciplinary articles addressing human rights issues from an international perspective. In addition, the Quarterly also publishes recent speeches and lectures delivered on the topic of human rights, as well as a section on new books and articles in the field of human rights. The Quarterly employs a double-blind peer review process, and the international editorial board of leading human rights scholars guarantees the maintenance of the highest standard of articles published.
期刊最新文献
Recent publications September 2024 Religious dress in the healthcare setting: Unpacking legal arguments and balancing individual rights Sounding the alarm for digital agriculture: Examining risks to the human rights to science and food Cross-border surrogacy and the European Convention on Human Rights: The Strasbourg Court caught between “fait accompli”, “ordre public”, and the best interest of the child Berlin techno goes intangible cultural heritage: Modern music, the cultural appropriation debate, and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination
×
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