{"title":"人权与法律中的“人”","authors":"Rowan Cruft","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 9 examines what differing conceptions of ‘the human good’ underpinning pre-legal rights imply for such rights’ relation to positive law. Three models are compared: a varied, specific model on which each party’s good might be different from anyone else’s, a shared specific model on which certain things (e.g. education, sustenance, freedom) are good for each and every human, and a generic model on which the good of ‘the generic human’ grounds human rights. Problems for each approach are outlined, as are their differing implications for the relation between pre-legal ‘natural’ human rights and human rights law, criminal law, and other branches of law. A central argument defends the view that the socio-economic rights recognized by human rights law institutionalize pre-legal ‘natural’ rights borne by individuals against other individuals, their state and—most crucially for the author’s argument—humanity at large. The contrary views of Buchanan and O’Neill are criticized.","PeriodicalId":441247,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual","volume":"153 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘Human’ in Human Rights and the Law\",\"authors\":\"Rowan Cruft\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 9 examines what differing conceptions of ‘the human good’ underpinning pre-legal rights imply for such rights’ relation to positive law. Three models are compared: a varied, specific model on which each party’s good might be different from anyone else’s, a shared specific model on which certain things (e.g. education, sustenance, freedom) are good for each and every human, and a generic model on which the good of ‘the generic human’ grounds human rights. Problems for each approach are outlined, as are their differing implications for the relation between pre-legal ‘natural’ human rights and human rights law, criminal law, and other branches of law. A central argument defends the view that the socio-economic rights recognized by human rights law institutionalize pre-legal ‘natural’ rights borne by individuals against other individuals, their state and—most crucially for the author’s argument—humanity at large. The contrary views of Buchanan and O’Neill are criticized.\",\"PeriodicalId\":441247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual\",\"volume\":\"153 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0009\",\"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, Ownership, and the Individual","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198793366.003.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 9 examines what differing conceptions of ‘the human good’ underpinning pre-legal rights imply for such rights’ relation to positive law. Three models are compared: a varied, specific model on which each party’s good might be different from anyone else’s, a shared specific model on which certain things (e.g. education, sustenance, freedom) are good for each and every human, and a generic model on which the good of ‘the generic human’ grounds human rights. Problems for each approach are outlined, as are their differing implications for the relation between pre-legal ‘natural’ human rights and human rights law, criminal law, and other branches of law. A central argument defends the view that the socio-economic rights recognized by human rights law institutionalize pre-legal ‘natural’ rights borne by individuals against other individuals, their state and—most crucially for the author’s argument—humanity at large. The contrary views of Buchanan and O’Neill are criticized.