Between Globalization of Human Rights and Territorial Protection of Civil One

Q4 Arts and Humanities Analiza i Egzystencja Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.18276/aie.2023.61-02
R. Wonicki
{"title":"Between Globalization of Human Rights and Territorial Protection of Civil One","authors":"R. Wonicki","doi":"10.18276/aie.2023.61-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main aim of the article is to show that axiological and anthropological dimensions of human rights in the globalized world do not fit together. Such tension – between universally understood human rights and territorially perceived citizens’ rights – is unavoidable. By making the term “human” strictly biological people are being perceived not as members of a particular community but as members of the species. In the political paradigm these collectivities are distinguished by political rules, in the biological paradigm they are perceived as natural. In this situation, from political perspective the life of the others (non-citizens) in effect ceases to be treated as a human life or as a life associated with any ethical requirements, because the normative dimension that metaphysics, religion or politics give to the notion of being human has been excluded. Hence, human rights cannot be enforced with the same effectiveness as the laws enforced in the area of state jurisdiction. They constitute an ethical norm by which the international community judges a given procedure, rather than an enforceable legal norm. In order to justify my reasoning, I will refer to the two philosophically important categories - space and border – that play an important role in understanding the processes of globalization that affect the legitimation and enforcement of human rights.","PeriodicalId":37710,"journal":{"name":"Analiza i Egzystencja","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analiza i Egzystencja","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2023.61-02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The main aim of the article is to show that axiological and anthropological dimensions of human rights in the globalized world do not fit together. Such tension – between universally understood human rights and territorially perceived citizens’ rights – is unavoidable. By making the term “human” strictly biological people are being perceived not as members of a particular community but as members of the species. In the political paradigm these collectivities are distinguished by political rules, in the biological paradigm they are perceived as natural. In this situation, from political perspective the life of the others (non-citizens) in effect ceases to be treated as a human life or as a life associated with any ethical requirements, because the normative dimension that metaphysics, religion or politics give to the notion of being human has been excluded. Hence, human rights cannot be enforced with the same effectiveness as the laws enforced in the area of state jurisdiction. They constitute an ethical norm by which the international community judges a given procedure, rather than an enforceable legal norm. In order to justify my reasoning, I will refer to the two philosophically important categories - space and border – that play an important role in understanding the processes of globalization that affect the legitimation and enforcement of human rights.
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
论人权全球化与公民权利的属地保护
本文的主要目的是表明,全球化世界中人权的价值论和人类学维度是不一致的。这种普遍理解的人权与领土上公认的公民权利之间的紧张关系是不可避免的。通过将“人类”一词严格地定义为生物学意义上的人,人们不再被视为某个特定群体的成员,而是被视为这个物种的成员。在政治范式中,这些集体被政治规则区分开来,在生物学范式中,它们被认为是自然的。在这种情况下,从政治角度来看,他人(非公民)的生活实际上不再被视为人的生活或与任何伦理要求有关的生活,因为形而上学、宗教或政治赋予人的概念的规范维度已被排除在外。因此,人权的执行不能象在国家管辖范围内执行的法律那样有效。它们是国际社会评判某一特定程序的道德规范,而不是可执行的法律规范。为了证明我的推理是正确的,我将提及两个哲学上重要的范畴- -空间和边界- -它们在理解影响人权合法化和执行的全球化进程方面发挥着重要作用。
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
Analiza i Egzystencja
Analiza i Egzystencja Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: «Analysis and Existence» is a quarterly published in paper version (the basic version) and electronically (in Open Access system); licence CC BY-SA. The Journal is included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The Journal has been published since 2005, at the beginning twice a year, and since 2011 as a quarterly. Since 2007 the Journal has been listed in the DOAJ, since 2015 in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS), and since 2016 in the SCOPUS. The Journal has been publishing articles in Polish, English and German. In 2017 there were 40 volumes of the Journal «Analysis and Existence». Among the authors who have published their articles in the Journal there were such celebrities as Rae Langton, Graham Oppy, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Richard Rorty, John Skorupski, Richard Swinburne, and Michael Teunissen. We invite to cooperate with the Journal all the scholars who investigate existential problems, as well as the ones who concentrate on analysis and arguments. We aspire to a philosophy that is solid and reliable as much as possible, a philosophy that deals with important existential questions. We proceed only papers submitted on this webside by "Suggest article".
期刊最新文献
Libertarianism, Defense of Property, and Absolute Rights Between Globalization of Human Rights and Territorial Protection of Civil One The Problem of Culture and Nature in Carl Gustav Jung’s Psychoanalytical Concept Phantasms of a "Pole" or reflections from the area of existential philosophy of religion Real Deletion, Time, and Possibility
×
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