Defending rights. Between parliaments and courts

IF 0.6 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1177/01914537231166868

G. Amato

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In principle, it should be for the Courts, which are not majoritarian institutions, to stand for the rights, even more for the new rights, that are minoritarian by definition. How far can the Courts safely go, when the recognition of such rights raises intense divergencies of opinion, confrontations between different collective identities, that populist movements can support and amplify? When should they leave the decision to the parliaments, which represent the will and the opinions of the citizens?

查看原文本刊更多论文

辩护的权利。在议会和法院之间

原则上，法院不是多数派机构，应该代表权利，更应该代表新的权利，这些权利在定义上是少数派的。当承认这些权利引发了强烈的意见分歧，不同集体身份之间的对抗，民粹主义运动可以支持和扩大这种分歧时，法院能安全地走多远？他们什么时候应该把决定权交给代表公民意愿和意见的议会？

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

PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

105

期刊介绍： In modern industrial society reason cannot be separated from practical life. At their interface a critical attitude is forged. Philosophy & Social Criticism wishes to foster this attitude through the publication of essays in philosophy and politics, philosophy and social theory, socio-economic thought, critique of science, theory and praxis. We provide a forum for open scholarly discussion of these issues from a critical-historical point of view. Philosophy & Social Criticism presents an international range of theory and critique, emphasizing the contribution of continental scholarship as it affects major contemporary debates.