Hobbes and the economic, social and cultural rights of the universal declaration of human rights

J. Hernández, Santiago Dussan
{"title":"Hobbes and the economic, social and cultural rights of the universal declaration of human rights","authors":"J. Hernández, Santiago Dussan","doi":"10.17561/tahrj.v17.6572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the conceptions of natural rights in Hobbes’s theory and of economic, social and cultural rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have three common features that serve to justify the thesis that a satisfactory order of coexistence cannot be achieved without extensive state power. Both conceptions identify rights with interests whose satisfaction is considered paramount. Both perspectives see the state as the shaper of the legal order that rights do not create. Finally, both see the state as the entity that must monopolize the management of individual interests represented in rights. This article suggests that these findings are paradoxical when confronted with the main motivation behind the drafting of the Declaration.","PeriodicalId":164030,"journal":{"name":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v17.6572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article argues that the conceptions of natural rights in Hobbes’s theory and of economic, social and cultural rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have three common features that serve to justify the thesis that a satisfactory order of coexistence cannot be achieved without extensive state power. Both conceptions identify rights with interests whose satisfaction is considered paramount. Both perspectives see the state as the shaper of the legal order that rights do not create. Finally, both see the state as the entity that must monopolize the management of individual interests represented in rights. This article suggests that these findings are paradoxical when confronted with the main motivation behind the drafting of the Declaration.
霍布斯提出了经济、社会和文化权利的普遍人权宣言
本文认为,霍布斯理论中的自然权利概念和《世界人权宣言》中的经济、社会和文化权利概念有三个共同特征,这些特征有助于证明没有广泛的国家权力就无法实现令人满意的共存秩序这一论点。这两个概念都将权利与利益等同起来,而利益的满足被认为是最重要的。两种观点都认为国家是法律秩序的塑造者,而法律秩序并非由权利创造。最后,两者都认为国家是一个实体,必须垄断以权利为代表的个人利益的管理。本文表明,当面对起草《宣言》背后的主要动机时,这些调查结果是自相矛盾的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信