Attitudes Toward a Military Enforcement of Human Rights

In recent years, Western countries and NATO have repeatedly intervened in international conflicts using military means (e.g., Kosovo, Macedonia, and Afghanistan). The countries involved in these military operations have stated that these interventions did not serve strategic goals; instead, their prime purpose was to enforce human rights. Against this background the present paper aims to answer two main questions: First, how can attitudes toward such military interventions be measured? Second, how are these attitudes related to prosocial and antisocial personality dispositions? Two studies were conducted to address these questions. A first study with 275 university students from Germany enabled us to develop a short and reliable scale to measure attitudes toward the military enforcement of human right. A second study (N = 190) revealed that authoritarianism and the willingness to aggressively sanction the antisocial behavior of others were positively related to this attitude, while no significant relationship with prosocial dispositions emerged. Furthermore, it could be shown that a high concern for human rights only then was connected to a positive attitude toward their military enforcement if persons indicated to handle their daily conflicts in an aggressive manner.

     

Ruling on Prisoners' Grievances

In this article, the author describes his experience as an active participant on a central review board designed to hear appeals by prisoners front adverse decisions made by local prison grievance and disciplinary boards. The invitation to serve as "citizen member" on this appellate board came to the author as a result of his earlier work on inmate grievance procedures, reported in a previous Journal article. The present article gives a close-up account of the types of inmates and inmate problems encountered while serving on such a board and of the difficult role conflicts that the board members face in trying to make decisions that are both fair and realistic. The article also gives a first-hand impression of the flavor of prison life.     

The Reciprocity Theory of Rights

This article provides an explanatory account of a central class of moral rights; their normative grounding, the conditions for their possession and forfeiture, and their moral stringency. It argues that interpersonal rights against harm and rights to assistance are best understood as arising from reciprocity relations between moral agents. The account has significant advantages compared with rivals such as the interest theory of rights. By explaining the differential enforceability of rights against harm and rights to assistance, the reciprocity theory helps to refute an argument made by Cecile Fabre that the poor may have a justification for engaging in war against the affluent to compel them to fulfil their duties of assistance to the poor.     

非自然权利论

迄今为止,理论界仍然主要以自然权利理论作为论证人权的源泉与属性的主导理论。但是,自然权利理论仅仅是植根于西方社会的一种本土性理论,与西方的社会结构以及西方的文化传统有着极为紧密的联系。从逻辑上分析,自然权利理论的论证过程存在断裂,自然权利理论的基础和前提都是无法证实的猜测或者假定。在当前世界各国共同推重人权的情况下,有必要将权利的基础和性质从自然权利的流沙之上移到坚实的人类社会土地之上。     

Arguments in Favour of a Functional Theory of Fundamental Rights

The article suggests a relational concept of fundamental rights.This concept enhances the «functional» rôleplayed by some of the rights in the system of a state governedby the rule of law, rather than an ethical universality or asubstantial content coinciding with any list of «human»rights. Fundamental rights belong to the fundamental (ideal, substanticeand normative) criteria of recognition/selection of actions and normain the institutional/normative practice of a legal order. Given thispremise, the work analyses some relevant issues: universal-fundamentalnexus, property rights, liberty rights, social rights. Fundamentalrights refuse any rigid classification which identifies anddistinguishes among them on the basis of their fixed doctrinal structure: universal rights vs. non universal ones, property vs.liberty rights, social rights as rights to state services. Theseclassifications miss the real point about fundamental rights,which are to protect interest and values of individuals sociallydeemed worth of the best legal efforts in the most effective approach.     

After the Critique of Rights: For a Radical Democratic Theory and Practice of Human Rights

The critique of human rights has proliferated in critical legal thinking over recent years, making it clear that we can no longer uncritically approach human rights in their liberal form. In this article I assert that after the critique of rights one way human rights may be productively re-engaged in radical politics is by drawing from the radical democratic tradition. Radical democratic thought provides plausible resources to rework the shortcomings of liberal human rights, and allows human rights to be brought within the purview of a wider political project adopting a critical approach to current relations of power. Building upon previous re-engagements with rights using radical democratic thought, I return to the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to explore how human rights may be thought as an antagonistic hegemonic activity within a critical relation to power, a concept which is fundamentally futural, and may emerge as one site for work towards radical and plural democracy. I also assert, via Judith Butler’s model of cultural translation, that a radical democratic practice of human rights may be advanced which resonates with and builds upon already existing activism, thereby holding possibilities to persuade those who remain sceptical as to radical re-engagements with rights.     

以人权促进发展:工具性人权论

人权与发展是当今世界两大议题,而长久以来人权与发展在两条互不搭界的轨道上运行,人权与发展的结合能为人类增添更多福祉。人权是发展的目的,发展是为了扩展人权,这是目的性人权论。而人权必须以经济社会发展为基础,且人权能够促进经济社会发展,因而以人权促进发展的工具性人权,是人权最终得以保障的最佳路径。工具性人权有着深厚的法理底蕴、现实基础和规范支撑,人权演进的历史其实就是一部工具性人权的发展史,从古代到现代、从美国到中国的实践经验无不表明人权对发展的重大作用,世界人权宪章等国际规范性文件无不论证着工具性人权的重要价值。     

权利政治的流变——关于权利与国家理论的一个思想史考察

权利政治是以个人权利为出发点,通过国家与市民社会相分离、权力分立来限制国家权力,通过法治来保障人权和公民权利的现代政治.本文试图按照从霍布斯到福柯的理论线索,揭示权利政治从18世纪到20世纪发展进程中面临的内在矛盾、名实纠葛以及遭遇到的流变.本文认为,现代社会中与个人权利发展相伴随的国家权力增长需要引起重视,在通过法律保护个人权利的同时,也应寻求权利实现的社会途径.     

Prisoners' Families and the Regulation of Contact

This article explores HM Prison Service policy and the impact of case law on the rights of prisoners to family contact. First, state provision and policy for prisoner-family contact is reviewed and the constraints imposed on contact over the past decade are explored. A number of legal challenges to these constraints have been made recently and, drawing on domestic case law and challenges in the European Court of Human Rights we explore the nature of prisoners' rights of contact in prison. This analysis shows that while fathers' rights for indirect contact are upheld, their rights are not respected as much as those of mothers in cases of direct contact and also that men unable to establish family life have their rights further eroded. Drawing upon empirical research findings as well as case law, the relationship between the Prison Act 1952 and the Children Act 1989 is considered and policy recommendations are put forward.     

权利类属理论之反思——以霍菲尔德权利理论为分析框架

权利话语所面对的窘境在于提出主张的双方希冀透过权利所获得的保障,或说阻止他人行为的意图虽不必然同一,但由于共同内涵中词汇的共享,使问题变得棘手。与其争论相冲突的权利主张孰轻孰重,美国学者霍菲尔德指出权利一词蕴含四种不同的法律关系,分别是权利、特权、能力与豁免,并以实务判决作为分析对象,为不同的权利类属进行定性说明。借用霍菲尔德理论架构,并据此推断美国罗伊诉韦德案判决所保障之权利应该属于霍菲尔德理论中的何种类属。     

论行政公权的软化与私权的硬化

传统行政法的“管理模式”与“控权模式”已无法面对当今行政权宽泛的自由裁量和自我扩权.政府行政权的正当行使和程序上合法化往往需要通过平衡格局加以实现,即行政主体和行政相对人之间互动的参与机制形成和谐、合作的行政关系格局.行政许可法与行政强制法所蕴涵的法益焦点表现是在其行政执行制度中所体现政府公权力的软化与私权精神的扩张,从而反映出实现政府公权力与个体私权利的良性监督、制约、互动、衡平、保障其创新发展.     

Rights: Beyond Interest Theory and Will Theory?

Law and Philosophy -     

Discourse Theory and Human Rights*

Abstract. The author's thesis is that human rights can be substantiated on the basis of discourse theory. The argument has two steps. The first step is the justification of the rules of discourse. The second step consists in the foundation of human rights.     

社会权与自由权区别主流理论之批判

积极权利与消极权利之间存在明确而具体的区别,但它不同于社会权与自由权之间的区别。主流人权理论所谓社会权与自由权之间的“义务区别”、“冲突区别”和“效力区别”都是虚构的、错误的。每一项权利都与积极义务和消极义务相联系;相应地,与社会权一样,自由权之间也存在相互冲突;社会权对国家不仅产生政治和道德约束力,也产生与自由权同样的法律约束力,并在一定范围和程度内产生可由司法裁决的法律效力。