文化多样性的主权、人权与私权分析

文化传统保护与文化发展选择是国家文化主权的基本内容;保护文化多样性的权利和自由属于基本人权的范畴;知识产权对文化创造参与者的支持和激励具有重要意义。《文化多样性公约》以主权和人权作为文化多样性保护的基本举措,并以对艺术家的知识产权保护作为补充措施,由此构建了一个保护文化多样性的多元权利形态。     

Placing Indigenous Rights to Self-Determination in an Ecological Context

In this paper the author focuses on Australian land management and in particular on the environmental management issues that could have been prompted by the High Court recognition in 1996 (in Wik Peoples v. The State of Queensland ) that native title to land and pastoral leaseholdings can co-exist. Drawing on themes of self-determination and co-existence, the paper looks at more specific topics such as aboriginal title to land—what has been called land rights or native title in Australia—and some implications of that for land, sea and resource management. Central to this analysis are competing theories of Aboriginal land management and links between Aboriginal traditional knowledge and conservation of species. These are illustrated through the marine mammal, the dugong. The Australian debates lead to the Canadian debates and then to Scandinavia and the role of the Sami people in protection and management of the Arctic region. Issues of indigenous self determination inevitably provide an overall theme to these discussions. As a matter of global concern, the paper asks, but does not decide, whether indigenous peoples may manage fragile eco-systems more effectively than outsiders. It maintains that what is important in this context is a broader question. This concerns how culturally inclusive land and resource management can emerge from recognition of indigenous land and human rights and how comparative developments can provide crucial cross-jurisdictional information for future developments and opportunities in the interests of environmental conservation.     

Human Flourishing, Human Dignity, and Human Rights

Rather than treating them as discrete and incommensurable ideas, we sketch some connections between human flourishing and human dignity, and link them to human rights. We contend that the metaphor of flourishing provides an illuminating aspirational framework for thinking about human development and obligations, and that the idea of human dignity is a critical element within that discussion. We conclude with some suggestions as to how these conceptions of human dignity and human flourishing might underpin and inform appeals to human rights.     

Cultural Sovereignty, Relativism, and International Human Rights: New Excuses for Old Strategies

Abstract. Although the Charter of the United Nations embodied an unresolved tension between state sovereignty and the inviolability of human rights, the fall of the Berlin Wall seemed to herald universal acceptance of the legitimacy of international concern for the protection of human rights. Since that time, however, the sovereignty of states has been pushed with renewed vigour under the guise of cultural sovereignty. Three examples of the role of cultural sovereignty in the international human rights sphere are proposed to demonstrate that the real interest of states is not the protection of cultural identity, but non-interference, supremacy and control. The paper identifies cultural sovereignty with cultural relativism and argues that the ideology of relativism, combined with the inadequacies of legal positivism, have significantly harmed the efficacy and character of the international human rights regime.     

Raz on Rights: Human Rights,Fundamental Rights,and Balancing

After clarifying the outlines of Raz's interest theory of rights and its relationship to aspects of the principles theory of rights, I consider how his recent observations on human rights manage to fit (or fail to fit) into the interest theory. I then address two questions. First, I elaborate on Raz's definition of morally fundamental rights, arguing that he is right in claiming that there are no such rights. I then show that the interest theory accommodates the notion that rights may take qualitative precedence over conflicting considerations—a question that has become increasingly relevant in light of recent writing on rights.     

人权的革命与革命中的人权——对罗伯斯比尔人权观的重新解读

本文在介绍了罗伯斯比尔关于人权的基本观点后,分析了罗伯斯比尔人权观中存在的内在矛盾,并结合法国大革命的历史背景着重探讨了导致罗伯斯比尔人权理想和人权实践形成巨大差距的原因。本文认为造成罗伯斯比尔人权观的悲剧既与其思想中存在的民粹主义和道德理想主义密切相关,也与那时的人权是一种人权革命后的人权和革命中的人权这一事实有着极为重要的关系。     

Human Rights – Human Bodies? Some Reflections on Corporate Human Rights Distortion,The Legal Subject, Embodiment and Human Rights Theory

This paper responds to the subversion of international human rights discourse by corporations. It begins by placing such subversion in three contexts: the ascendance of human rights as the dominant discourse of contemporary moral and political life; the emerging challenges to human rights posed by other-than-natural-human entities; and ambiguity in the relationship between the legal subject and the human being. The author suggests that in order to resist corporate human rights distortion it is important to reclaim the language of the human for the natural human being, despite complex philosophical and definitional challenges attending the designation of the term ‘human.’ The author suggests that by re-attending to the implications of human embodiment for human rights theory it might be possible to re-invigorate the protective potential of human rights for vulnerable human beings and communities against powerful disembodied legal persons (corporations).     

Hegel, Human Rights, and Particularism

Hegel's political philosophy gives prominence to the theme that human beings have a need for recognition of those qualities, characteristics, and attributes that make them distinctive. Hegel thus speaks to the question whether human rights law should recognize and accommodate the nuances of individual make-up. Likewise, he speaks to the question whether human rights law should be applied in ways that are sensitive to the cultural contexts in which it operates. But Hegel's political philosophy evaluates norms and practices within particular cultures by reference to the higher-order and universal criterion of abstract right. In light of this point and the inadequacies of political philosophy that privileges local norms and practices, a third approach to the protection of human rights is canvassed. This approach prioritizes neither universal nor local norms. Its aim is to ensure that both human rights and the cultures in which they are applied are taken seriously.     

人性论,人道主义与人权研究

人权理论的基础是人性论.人性论包括两方面的内容一是什么是人性,二是人性的善恶.人性论与人道主义相联系.全盘否定人性论导致否定马克思主义中的人道主义思想.对于人性论的意识形态化的批判和对于人道主义内容和精神的限制,导致对人权概念意识形态化的解释,以及对于人权问题研究的警惕和否定.建国后一段时期,人权问题被视为理论研究的禁区,其根源在于对于人性论的认识.改革开放以来我国人权理论研究的演变经历了公民权利研究兴起、人权研究解冻、人权研究兴起和人权成为显学四个阶段.     

Welfare-to-Work,Structural Injustice and Human Rights

This article discusses welfare-to-work schemes, places schemes with strict conditionality in the theoretical framework of structural injustice, and argues that they may violate human rights law. Welfare-to-work schemes impose obligations on individuals to seek and accept work on the basis that otherwise they will be sanctioned by losing access to social support. The schemes are often presented as the best route out of poverty. However, the system in the UK, characterised by strict conditionality, coerces the poor and disadvantaged into precarious work, and conditions of in-work poverty. Forcing people to work in these conditions creates and sustains widespread and routine structures of exploitation. The article further argues that a framework of ‘state-mediated structural injustice’ is the best way of explaining the wrong. It finally claims that this injustice violates principles that are enshrined in human rights law, which the authorities have an obligation to examine and address.     

Authority,Self-Determination,and Community in Cosmopolitan War

This paper examines Cécile Fabre’s cosmopolitan reductionist approach to war. It makes three main points. First, I show that Fabre must ‘thin down’ justice’s content in order to justify the cosmopolitan claim that the same rights and duties bind people everywhere. Second, I investigate Fabre’s account of the values at stake in national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Can cosmopolitanism explain why it is permissible to fight in defense of one’s political community? I doubt it. I argue that Fabre’s reductionist approach cannot justify national self-defense in many cases. Finally, I explore the role that authoritative institutions play in specifying the rights and duties we have under cosmopolitan justice. I believe Fabre takes an overly simple view of the relationship between rights, duties, and authoritative institutions. A more complex account may leave less space for private war on the part of individuals than she does.     

Trade Unions, Human Rights and the BNP

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,section 174, bars trade unions from (amongst other things) excludingor expelling individuals on grounds of their membership of apolitical party. An issue has arisen about whether trade unionscan exclude or expel individuals who are members of the BritishNational Party (BNP). This article questions whether the currentrestrictions are consistent with international treaties ratifiedby the UK, and considers the human rights claims of the tradeunion and the ‘unwanted’ individuals.     

区域特征、区域制度与人权

有关人权侵犯的解释并存于全球、国家和地区三个分析层面。区域特征是决定普遍规范进入国家层面实践的一种重要介入途径。包括经济发展、分配、民主、文化、地区人权制度等在内的区域因素会改变全球规范和制度的功效。     

Of Austerity,Human Rights and International Institutions

Austerity measures have led to the denial of social rights and widespread socio‐economic malaise across Europe. In the case of countries subjected to conditionality imposed by international institutions, the resultant harms have highlighted a range of responsibility gaps. Two legal developments come together to expose these gaps: Greece's argument in a series of cases under the European Social Charter that it was not responsible for the impact on rights brought about by austerity measures as it was only giving effect to its other international obligations as agreed with the Troika; and the concern to emerge from the Pringle case before the European Court of Justice that European Union (EU) institutions could do outside of the EU what they could not do within the EU ‐‐disregard the Charter of Fundamental Rights. That the Commission and the European Central Bank were in time answerable to international organisations set up to provide financial support adds an additional layer of responsibility to consider. Taking Greece as a case study, this article addresses the imperative of having international institutions respect human rights.