{"title":"学者、国家和人权","authors":"Yanik Weingand","doi":"10.24437/globaleurope.i122.1109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the similarities between different critiques towards the international human rights system from academia and state-actors. On the one hand, there are the critiques from scholars of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement. On the other hand, there are critical points raised towards the international human rights system by China, Cuba, and Egypt in the reports from the first three cycles of their respective Universal Periodic Review (UPR) within the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Through a literature review, the TWAIL critiques were first categorized and then worked into a framework of three basic pillars: the culture critique, the rhetoric critique, and the model critique. This framework was subsequently applied to the reports by way of a simplified Qualitative Content Analysis in order to extrapolate the similarities of the critiques from these two unlikely groups of actors.","PeriodicalId":446952,"journal":{"name":"Global Europe – Basel Papers on Europe in a Global Perspective","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scholars, States, and Human Rights\",\"authors\":\"Yanik Weingand\",\"doi\":\"10.24437/globaleurope.i122.1109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article investigates the similarities between different critiques towards the international human rights system from academia and state-actors. On the one hand, there are the critiques from scholars of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement. On the other hand, there are critical points raised towards the international human rights system by China, Cuba, and Egypt in the reports from the first three cycles of their respective Universal Periodic Review (UPR) within the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Through a literature review, the TWAIL critiques were first categorized and then worked into a framework of three basic pillars: the culture critique, the rhetoric critique, and the model critique. This framework was subsequently applied to the reports by way of a simplified Qualitative Content Analysis in order to extrapolate the similarities of the critiques from these two unlikely groups of actors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":446952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Europe – Basel Papers on Europe in a Global Perspective\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Europe – Basel Papers on Europe in a Global Perspective\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24437/globaleurope.i122.1109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Europe – Basel Papers on Europe in a Global Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24437/globaleurope.i122.1109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了学术界和国家行为体对国际人权体系的不同批评之间的相似性。一方面,有来自第三世界国际法方法(TWAIL)运动学者的批评。另一方面,中国、古巴和埃及分别在联合国人权理事会普遍定期审议的前三个周期报告中对国际人权体系提出了批评。通过文献综述,首先对TWAIL的批评进行了分类,然后将其归纳为三个基本支柱的框架:文化批评、修辞批评和模式批评。随后,通过简化的定性内容分析将这一框架应用于报告,以推断这两个不太可能的行为者群体的批评的相似之处。
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
Scholars, States, and Human Rights
This article investigates the similarities between different critiques towards the international human rights system from academia and state-actors. On the one hand, there are the critiques from scholars of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) movement. On the other hand, there are critical points raised towards the international human rights system by China, Cuba, and Egypt in the reports from the first three cycles of their respective Universal Periodic Review (UPR) within the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Through a literature review, the TWAIL critiques were first categorized and then worked into a framework of three basic pillars: the culture critique, the rhetoric critique, and the model critique. This framework was subsequently applied to the reports by way of a simplified Qualitative Content Analysis in order to extrapolate the similarities of the critiques from these two unlikely groups of actors.
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
EU Sanctions Policy Vis-à-Vis Russia Judging Climate Change Mitsprache oder Mitbestimmung? Citizenship, Time and Crisis Method and Subject
×
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