Defending rights. Between parliaments and courts

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1177/01914537231166868
G. Amato
{"title":"Defending rights. Between parliaments and courts","authors":"G. Amato","doi":"10.1177/01914537231166868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In principle, it should be for the Courts, which are not majoritarian institutions, to stand for the rights, even more for the new rights, that are minoritarian by definition. How far can the Courts safely go, when the recognition of such rights raises intense divergencies of opinion, confrontations between different collective identities, that populist movements can support and amplify? When should they leave the decision to the parliaments, which represent the will and the opinions of the citizens?","PeriodicalId":46930,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537231166868","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In principle, it should be for the Courts, which are not majoritarian institutions, to stand for the rights, even more for the new rights, that are minoritarian by definition. How far can the Courts safely go, when the recognition of such rights raises intense divergencies of opinion, confrontations between different collective identities, that populist movements can support and amplify? When should they leave the decision to the parliaments, which represent the will and the opinions of the citizens?
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
辩护的权利。在议会和法院之间
原则上,法院不是多数派机构,应该代表权利,更应该代表新的权利,这些权利在定义上是少数派的。当承认这些权利引发了强烈的意见分歧,不同集体身份之间的对抗,民粹主义运动可以支持和扩大这种分歧时,法院能安全地走多远?他们什么时候应该把决定权交给代表公民意愿和意见的议会?
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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
105
期刊介绍: In modern industrial society reason cannot be separated from practical life. At their interface a critical attitude is forged. Philosophy & Social Criticism wishes to foster this attitude through the publication of essays in philosophy and politics, philosophy and social theory, socio-economic thought, critique of science, theory and praxis. We provide a forum for open scholarly discussion of these issues from a critical-historical point of view. Philosophy & Social Criticism presents an international range of theory and critique, emphasizing the contribution of continental scholarship as it affects major contemporary debates.
期刊最新文献
The cosmopolitan imperative: Or how to avoid wars through more democracy Problems some deliberative democrats have with authority Marcusean resources to think coloniality Resistance as desubjectivation in Foucault The paradox of possibility: A temporal reading of Thomas Hobbes
×
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