在未知领域进行创新:论经济、社会和文化权利委员会关于科学权的第25号一般性意见的解释和规范合法性

Andrew Mazibrada, Monika Plozza, Sebastian Porsdam Mann
{"title":"在未知领域进行创新:论经济、社会和文化权利委员会关于科学权的第25号一般性意见的解释和规范合法性","authors":"Andrew Mazibrada, Monika Plozza, Sebastian Porsdam Mann","doi":"10.1080/13642987.2023.2234298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p><p>Science permeates almost every aspect of society, yet the human right to science remains neglected. In 2020, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published its General Comment No. 25, intended to interpret the abstract provisions of Article 15 ICESCR. As a non-binding treaty body pronouncement, the General Comment’s reception and impact depend on its normative legitimacy – the extent to which its reasoning is coherent, determinative, transparent, systemically consistent, and adheres to international law methodologies, particularly those set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article evaluates the General Comment’s normative legitimacy and practical value by reference to three key interpretations in Article 15: ‘science’, ‘enjoy the benefits’, and ‘participation’. The General Comment, it concludes, does not represent a comprehensive interpretation, but should be seen as opening a door to state practice and, therefore, more detailed interpretation by the Committee, States parties, and domestic and international courts. Despite purporting to innovate, the Committee’s approach generally builds on pre-existing conceptualisations, further increasing its normative legitimacy. The article concludes that the future impact of the right to science can be greatly enhanced by increased attention by the Committee and by States parties.</p>","PeriodicalId":501253,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Human Rights","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Innovating in uncharted terrain: on interpretation and normative legitimacy in the CESCR’s General Comment No. 25 on the right to science\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Mazibrada, Monika Plozza, Sebastian Porsdam Mann\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13642987.2023.2234298\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><b>ABSTRACT</b></p><p>Science permeates almost every aspect of society, yet the human right to science remains neglected. In 2020, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published its General Comment No. 25, intended to interpret the abstract provisions of Article 15 ICESCR. As a non-binding treaty body pronouncement, the General Comment’s reception and impact depend on its normative legitimacy – the extent to which its reasoning is coherent, determinative, transparent, systemically consistent, and adheres to international law methodologies, particularly those set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article evaluates the General Comment’s normative legitimacy and practical value by reference to three key interpretations in Article 15: ‘science’, ‘enjoy the benefits’, and ‘participation’. The General Comment, it concludes, does not represent a comprehensive interpretation, but should be seen as opening a door to state practice and, therefore, more detailed interpretation by the Committee, States parties, and domestic and international courts. Despite purporting to innovate, the Committee’s approach generally builds on pre-existing conceptualisations, further increasing its normative legitimacy. The article concludes that the future impact of the right to science can be greatly enhanced by increased attention by the Committee and by States parties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal of Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"49 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2023.2234298\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2023.2234298","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

摘要科学几乎渗透到社会的各个方面,但科学的人权却一直被忽视。2020年,经济、社会和文化权利委员会发表了第25号一般性意见,旨在解释《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》第15条的抽象规定。作为一项不具约束力的条约机构声明,《一般性意见》的接受程度和影响取决于其规范性合法性,即其推理在多大程度上是连贯的、确定的、透明的、系统一致的,并遵循国际法方法,特别是1969年《维也纳条约法公约》所规定的方法。本文通过参考第15条中的三个关键解释来评估一般性意见的规范性合法性和实践价值:“科学”、“享受利益”和“参与”。委员会的结论是,《一般性意见》并不代表一种全面的解释,而应被视为为国家实践打开了一扇大门,因此,委员会、缔约国以及国内和国际法院可以进行更详细的解释。尽管声称要创新,但委员会的做法通常建立在已有概念的基础上,进一步增加了其规范性的合法性。这篇文章的结论是,科学权利的未来影响可以通过委员会和缔约国更多的关注得到极大的加强。
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
Innovating in uncharted terrain: on interpretation and normative legitimacy in the CESCR’s General Comment No. 25 on the right to science

ABSTRACT

Science permeates almost every aspect of society, yet the human right to science remains neglected. In 2020, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published its General Comment No. 25, intended to interpret the abstract provisions of Article 15 ICESCR. As a non-binding treaty body pronouncement, the General Comment’s reception and impact depend on its normative legitimacy – the extent to which its reasoning is coherent, determinative, transparent, systemically consistent, and adheres to international law methodologies, particularly those set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This article evaluates the General Comment’s normative legitimacy and practical value by reference to three key interpretations in Article 15: ‘science’, ‘enjoy the benefits’, and ‘participation’. The General Comment, it concludes, does not represent a comprehensive interpretation, but should be seen as opening a door to state practice and, therefore, more detailed interpretation by the Committee, States parties, and domestic and international courts. Despite purporting to innovate, the Committee’s approach generally builds on pre-existing conceptualisations, further increasing its normative legitimacy. The article concludes that the future impact of the right to science can be greatly enhanced by increased attention by the Committee and by States parties.

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
Transitional justice and the struggle for reparations for slavery and its ongoing legacies in the United States Towards a spectral forensics: spirits as epistemic resources in responses to the dead and missing Displacing the displaced: the response to the protracted precarious situation of Syrian refugees in Türkiye during the Covid-19 pandemic The Taliban and women's human rights in Afghanistan: the way forward Tracing the legal journey of petitions in the Uttarakhand High Court that became springboards for rights of rivers and nature in India
×
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