{"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}
引用次数: 0
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.