人权与法律中的“人”

Rowan Cruft
{"title":"人权与法律中的“人”","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

第9章考察了支撑法前权利的“人类善”的不同概念对这些权利与成文法的关系意味着什么。本文比较了三种模式:一种是不同的特定模式,在这种模式下,各方的利益可能与其他人的利益不同;一种是共享的特定模式,在这种模式下,某些事情(如教育、生计、自由)对每个人都是有益的;另一种是通用模式,在这种模式下,“一般人”的利益是人权的基础。概述了每种方法的问题,以及它们对立法前“自然”人权与人权法、刑法和其他法律分支之间关系的不同含义。一个中心论点捍卫的观点是,人权法所承认的社会经济权利制度化了个人对其他个人、他们的国家以及作者最关键的论点——整个人类的“自然”权利。布坎南和奥尼尔的相反观点受到了批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ‘Human’ in Human Rights and the Law
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.
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信