Pub Date : 2018-06-11DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-011
Julian Velasco
: In this essay, I will argue that even when there are important difficulties concerning the possibility of a human right to health that must be ad-dressed, it is nonetheless a better strategy for promoting global health than the ones relying entirely on States ’ duties or on a duty to charity. The idea that there is such thing as a right to health is very controversial. One of the most important difficulties has been to determine if a right to health can be considered as a human right, as an institutional right or just as a humanitarian charitable cause.Which of these we take it to be will shape the possibility of a global demand for health. The idea that there is such thing as a right to health is very controversial, and “ there is no single universally agreed-upon interpretation of the right to health. of the most important difficulties has been to determine if a right to health can be considered as a human right, as an institutional right or just as a humanitarian charitable cause. Which of these we take it to be will shape the possibility of a global demand for health.
{"title":"From a Bounded View to a Globalized Perspective: Considerations on a Human Right to Health","authors":"Julian Velasco","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-011","url":null,"abstract":": In this essay, I will argue that even when there are important difficulties concerning the possibility of a human right to health that must be ad-dressed, it is nonetheless a better strategy for promoting global health than the ones relying entirely on States ’ duties or on a duty to charity. The idea that there is such thing as a right to health is very controversial. One of the most important difficulties has been to determine if a right to health can be considered as a human right, as an institutional right or just as a humanitarian charitable cause.Which of these we take it to be will shape the possibility of a global demand for health. The idea that there is such thing as a right to health is very controversial, and “ there is no single universally agreed-upon interpretation of the right to health. of the most important difficulties has been to determine if a right to health can be considered as a human right, as an institutional right or just as a humanitarian charitable cause. Which of these we take it to be will shape the possibility of a global demand for health.","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123215400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
此外,也许更重要的是,前者的战争行为标准(例如,在保护平民或战俘方面)并不更高;也就是说,对普遍规范的法律和道德承诺既不能提高民主国家军事行为的质量,也不能提高军事行为的数量。我们如何解释这个假设的失败呢?毫无疑问,声称具有普遍有效性的原则是西方世界日常生活的一面镜子,西方世界将尊重他人作为他者纳入其实践。它正日益转化为自由民主国家的政治结构和制度。包括边缘化和少数群体在内的所有人的参与和尊重的法典化和制度化的理想,要求社区作为社区进行不断的自我构成的民主进程。这一过程是在每个人的审议和参与中进行的。根据定义,这种对过程包容性的规范性承诺具有全球适用性。在国际上,这一主张在国际人道主义法的不干涉原则中得到了编纂。但是,规范层面不仅仅是(正如民主和平理论所主张的那样)指导全球民主化与和平合作的程度和范围的增加。正是将普遍的要求结合起来,创造了一种使侵略非民主国家合法化的新功能。自由主义具有咄咄逼人的一面,即使在援引这些标准的同时,它也恰恰废除了这些标准。Oliver Eberl甚至发现了一种“新自由主义反多元主义”(Eberl 2016, p. 364,我的译本)。他认为它是基督教化和殖民化的继承者。在国际上,自我建构的民主实践是以不民主的他者、非理性的和危险的形象的建构为中介的。这种说法利用并同时违反了具有普遍要求的准则(如上文提到的不干涉国际人道主义法)。它们被重新制定并转化为统治和权力的工具。西方国家作为民主国家的重建和自我肯定正是通过这种排斥发生的。乔治·w·布什(George W. Bush)创造的“流氓国家”(rogue state)一词的历史,充分说明了国际法保护动机的借口如何转变为权力利益执行的功能。事实上,在程序性自治增加的民主借口下,国家边界的接受度和相关性正在下降。但是,这种民主立场是与西方世界民主国家发起的和平、全球经济合作的概念相结合的。这第二个方面改变了自由国家过程重构的意义。其结果是在市场理性的条件下合作的典范,提出了对民主化和全球化非暴力关系延伸的假定效果的怀疑。在这里,全球化并没有通过无所不包的政治实践导致日益同质化的世界主义。为了符合民主原则的普遍规范,自由主义对自由的包罗万象的承诺及其非自由的影响,人们被用作由既得利益驱使的排斥、压迫和暴力的合法化工具,他们帮助掩盖了这些既得利益。将这些普遍原则纳入自由和民主国家的政治结构和制度,会带来其自身的压制和压迫倾向,这必须得到反思和批评。在资本主义晚期,对平等和全民参与的民主理想的经济学解释是非常有影响力的。因此,一方面为权力而战,另一方面为合法化而战变得模糊不清。在这里,对所有人的包容意味着利用所有人的贡献和自己激进的排斥。从这种利用中减损的任何部分都被排除在外;它首先被想象为完全的他者,然后在所有概念层面上被想象为被排除在人性和理性之外。这就不可能有个人和集体“代理人”的概念,武装冲突的规则和自治自治的权利不适用于这些人。“新战争”和“失败国家”——是国家能力失调的案例,还是新自由主义监管形式的极端例子?我现在想看看所谓的“新战争”及其与全球化的关系。 新战争通常被认为是全球化世界的一种外围现象——一种完全不规则的战争活动形式。国际政治理论倾向于将这些现象描述为功能失调的例外,与具有雄心勃勃的规范的民主国家能力形成对比。但这种说法忽视了甚至掩盖了《新战争》在20世纪60年代的典型特征