340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
- 2008 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- global justice (3)
- G. A. Cohen (1)
- HIV/AIDS (1)
- J.A. Hobson (1)
- J.S. Mill (1)
- L.T. Hobhouse (1)
- Rawls (1)
- activism (1)
- basic structure (1)
- cosmopolitanism (1)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (5) (remove)
Die Allgegenwärtigkeit des Begriffs der Menschenrechte in politischen Kontexten kann leicht übersehen lassen, dass der rechtsphilosophische, rechtstheoretische und praktische Streit um die genaue Bestimmung, Begründung und Kodifizierung dieser »Rechte« alles andere als beigelegt ist. Der notorische Dissens zwischen Philosophen und Juristinnen und sogar Theologen steht in einem seltsamen Missverhältnis zur Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der politische Akteure die Notwendigkeit dieser oder jener außenpolitischen Handlung durch Bezug auf die Menschenrechte rechtfertigen. ...
G. A. Cohen argues that John Rawls’s focus on the basic structure of society as the exclusive subject of social justice is misguided. I argue that two understandings of the notion of basic structure seem to be present in the literature, either in implicit or in explicit terms. (1) According to the first, the basic structure is to be equated with a given set of institutions: if they endorse the right principles of justice, the basic structure of society is just; (2) According to the second, a society has a just basic structure if and only if its institutional web manages to realize the relevant principles of justice as well it can. In (2), the institutional structure is not a given: different social circumstances call for different institutional solutions in order to achieve a just basic structure overall. The first part of the paper make a case for (2), and explores some of its normative implications. The second part asks which consequences this understanding may have for the idea of a global basic structure.
Rhetoric and global justice
(2008)
Activists have long recognized the importance of rhetoric and emotional appeal in building support for the global justice movement. However, many political theorists worry that the use of rhetoric may obstruct clear presentation of the issues at stake, and may result in our policies being determined by where the sympathies of the best rhetoricians lie. In this article I examine the ways in which contemporary theorists try to accommodate the need for rhetoric and emotional appeal, and I argue that their attempts are unsatisfactory because they view rhetoric as a tool or skill that can be used to manipulate people to support any position. Yet if we question the sharp separation between rhetoric and reason, then the aims of building support for a cause, identifying the causes we ought to support, and treating others with respect need no longer conflict. Re-examining the radical liberal theories of J.S. Mill, L.T. Hobhouse and J.A. Hobson, will help us to see how this separation might be questioned and rhetoric recovered as a respectful and respectable form of argument.
The origin and justification of human rights, whether anchored in biological theory, natural law theory, or interests theory, as well as their cultural specificity and actual value as international legal instruments are subject to ongoing lively debates. As theoretical and rhetorical discourses challenge and enrich current understanding of the value of human rights and their relevance to democratic governance, they have found their way into public health in recent decades and play today an increasing role in the shaping of health policies, programs and practice. Human rights define the obligations of states to their people and towards each other, create grounds for governmental accountability and inspire recognition of, and action on, factors influencing people’s attainment of the highest possible standard of health. This article highlights the evolution that has brought health and human rights together in mutually reinforcing ways. It draws from the experience gained in the global response to HIV/AIDS, summarizes key dimensions of public health and of human rights and suggests a manner in which these dimensions intersect in a framework for analysis and action.