{"title":"人权的神话","authors":"G. Beck","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumptionthe idea that there are some human values that deserve special protectionimplies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are essentially contested concepts. The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mythology of Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"G. Beck\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumptionthe idea that there are some human values that deserve special protectionimplies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are essentially contested concepts. The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00393.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在西方自由民主国家,人权被赋予了一种特殊的法律地位:人权比其他人类商品享有优先权,不受多数主义原则的约束。潜在的假设是,有些人类价值值得特别保护,这意味着需要规范性和概念性的辩护。本文声称两者都不能提供。我们需要规范性的理由来支持人权优先于其他人类商品,并对相互冲突的人权进行排序和平衡,但由于普遍存在的价值多元主义的事实,即人类价值是多种多样的、不相容的和不可通约性的,因此无法提供规范性的理由。为了避免在审判阶段对人权的解释出现任意性,需要概念上的正当性。然而,这种辩解是不可能的,因为人权的概念以及用来辩解人权和解决其冲突的概念本质上是有争议的概念。本文的结论是,如果对人权的解释以价值判断和政治选择为前提,那么给予人权的特殊法律地位是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Mythology of Human Rights
A special legal status is accorded to human rights within Western liberal democracies: They enjoy a priority over other human goods and are not subjected to the majoritarian principle. The underlying assumptionthe idea that there are some human values that deserve special protectionimplies the need for both a normative and a conceptual justification. This paper claims that neither can be provided. The normative justification is needed to support the priority of human rights over other human goods and to rank and balance conflicting human rights, but it can't be provided because of the fact of pervasive value pluralism, the fact that human values are many, incompatible and incommensurable. The conceptual justification is needed to avoid arbitrariness in the interpretation of human rights at the adjudication stage. Such a justification is impossible, however, as the concept of human rights, and the concepts used to justify them and to solve their conflicts are essentially contested concepts. The paper concludes that, provided that the interpretation of human rights presupposes value judgements and political choices, the special legal status accorded to human rights is not justified.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social Protection Instruments and Women Workers in the Informal Economy: A Southern African Perspective Using the Risk-Based Approach To Curb Modern Slavery in the Supply Chain: The Anglo American and Marks and Spencer Example From Creative Destruction to Destructive Creation Economic Analysis of Ethnic Conflicts Why Is Law Central to Public Policy Process in Global South?
×
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