在虫洞和黑洞之间

A. Ganesh
{"title":"在虫洞和黑洞之间","authors":"A. Ganesh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chapter sets out to explore the question of how the legal claims going by the name of “human rights” in contemporary legal practice can validly be made in war, consistent with the idea that rights are possible—indeed conceivable—only in conditions of peace. Even though war is wrongful in the highest degree, a still deeper wrong obtains if a belligerent does something whose maxim aims at making a future peace impossible. On this basis, Ganesh argues that notwithstanding actual, “empirical” conditions of active conflict, a belligerent must be deemed as sharing a rightful condition with an individual if denying the same would amount to admitting the commission of a war crime. Moreover, Ganesh also demonstrates—contrary to the dominant trend in legal scholarship—that a moral reading of the most relevant caselaw finds human rights obligations to obtain even if the obligor state has little to no capacity to enforce its writ, due either to the territory being embroiled in an active civil war or under the control of another state.","PeriodicalId":129472,"journal":{"name":"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force","volume":"2016 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between Wormholes and Blackholes\",\"authors\":\"A. Ganesh\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The chapter sets out to explore the question of how the legal claims going by the name of “human rights” in contemporary legal practice can validly be made in war, consistent with the idea that rights are possible—indeed conceivable—only in conditions of peace. Even though war is wrongful in the highest degree, a still deeper wrong obtains if a belligerent does something whose maxim aims at making a future peace impossible. On this basis, Ganesh argues that notwithstanding actual, “empirical” conditions of active conflict, a belligerent must be deemed as sharing a rightful condition with an individual if denying the same would amount to admitting the commission of a war crime. Moreover, Ganesh also demonstrates—contrary to the dominant trend in legal scholarship—that a moral reading of the most relevant caselaw finds human rights obligations to obtain even if the obligor state has little to no capacity to enforce its writ, due either to the territory being embroiled in an active civil war or under the control of another state.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force\",\"volume\":\"2016 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Public Uses of Coercion and Force\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0012\",\"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 Public Uses of Coercion and Force","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197519103.003.0012","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

这一章探讨的问题是,在当代法律实践中,以“人权”的名义提出的法律主张如何在战争中有效地提出,这与权利只有在和平条件下才有可能——实际上是可以想象的——的观点是一致的。尽管战争在最严重的程度上是错误的,但如果一个交战国的行为准则旨在使未来的和平成为不可能,那么就会产生更深的错误。在此基础上,Ganesh认为,尽管存在实际的、“经验的”积极冲突条件,如果否认这种条件就等于承认犯下战争罪,那么交战国必须被视为与个人共享合法条件。此外,Ganesh还证明——与法律学界的主流趋势相反——对大多数相关判例法的道德解读发现,即使由于领土卷入活跃的内战或在另一个国家的控制下,债务国几乎没有能力执行其命令,也可以获得人权义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between Wormholes and Blackholes
The chapter sets out to explore the question of how the legal claims going by the name of “human rights” in contemporary legal practice can validly be made in war, consistent with the idea that rights are possible—indeed conceivable—only in conditions of peace. Even though war is wrongful in the highest degree, a still deeper wrong obtains if a belligerent does something whose maxim aims at making a future peace impossible. On this basis, Ganesh argues that notwithstanding actual, “empirical” conditions of active conflict, a belligerent must be deemed as sharing a rightful condition with an individual if denying the same would amount to admitting the commission of a war crime. Moreover, Ganesh also demonstrates—contrary to the dominant trend in legal scholarship—that a moral reading of the most relevant caselaw finds human rights obligations to obtain even if the obligor state has little to no capacity to enforce its writ, due either to the territory being embroiled in an active civil war or under the control of another state.
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