人权的不可分割性:一个实证分析

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Human Rights Law Review Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1093/hrlr/ngad013
Jan Essink, Alberto Quintavalla, Jeroen Temperman
{"title":"人权的不可分割性:一个实证分析","authors":"Jan Essink, Alberto Quintavalla, Jeroen Temperman","doi":"10.1093/hrlr/ngad013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.","PeriodicalId":46556,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights Law Review","volume":"346 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Indivisibility of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jan Essink, Alberto Quintavalla, Jeroen Temperman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/hrlr/ngad013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":\"346 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad013\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngad013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文旨在检验人权是否具有不可分割性。为此,我们进行了相关分析和格兰杰因果检验,以检验1)社会经济权利内部的关系,以及2)社会经济权利与公民政治权利之间的关系。结果表明,某些社会经济权利具有相互加强的关系,为存在广泛的不可分割性提供了支持。这一发现产生了相关的政策含义。鉴于它们的财政限制,各国可以利用普遍存在的不可分割性,结合渐进执行条款,促进为人权执行有效分配资源。此外,本文表明,不可分割性的强度因国家的收入类别而异:在低收入国家,社会经济权利的不可分割性更为强烈,而在人权遵守的最高水平上似乎达到了饱和点。因此,我们建议将这种现象定义为“不可分割饱和”。最后,我们的调查结果发现了两类人权之间不可分割原则的更为复杂的情况。虽然这些检验不会产生广泛的不可分割性,但不同人权之间存在着重要的单向关系,对人权决策目的同样重要。
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 Indivisibility of Human Rights: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Launched in 2001, Human Rights Law Review seeks to promote awareness, knowledge, and discussion on matters of human rights law and policy. While academic in focus, the Review is also of interest to the wider human rights community, including those in governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental spheres, concerned with law, policy, and fieldwork. The Review publishes critical articles that consider human rights in their various contexts, from global to national levels, book reviews, and a section dedicated to analysis of recent jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems.
期刊最新文献
The Discursive Evolution of Human Rights Law: Empirical Insights from a Computational Analysis of 180,000 UN Recommendations The ECHR and the Positive Obligation to Criminalise Domestic Psychological Violence Glorification of Terrorist Violence at the European Court of Human Rights Who Manages Menstrual Health? The Untapped Potential of the Right to Health to Support a Comprehensive Right to Menstrual Health beyond Menstrual Hygiene Management Solidarity as Foundation for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
×
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