Group Duties

Author(s):  
Stephanie Collins

Moral duties are regularly attributed to groups. We might think that the United Kingdom has a moral duty to defend human rights, that environmentalists have a moral duty to push for global systemic reform, or that the affluent have a moral duty to alleviate poverty. This book asks (i) whether such groups are apt to bear duties and (ii) what this implies for their members. It defends a ‘Tripartite Model’ of group duties, which divides groups into three fundamental categories. First, combinations are collections of agents that do not have any goals or decision-making procedures in common. Combinations cannot bear moral duties. Instead, we should re-cast their purported duties as a series of duties—one held by each agent in the combination. Each duty demands its bearer to ‘I-reason’: to do the best they can, given whatever they happen to believe the others will do. Second, coalitions are groups whose members share goals but lack decision-making procedures. Coalitions also cannot bear duties, but their alleged duties should be replaced with members’ several duties to ‘we-reason’: to do one’s part in a particular group pattern of actions, on the presumption that others will do likewise. Third, collectives have group-level procedures for making decisions. They can bear duties. Collectives’ duties imply duties for collectives’ members to use their role in the collective with a view to the collective doing its duty.

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Spano

In its landmark 2013 judgment of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that a life sentence which is not de jure and de facto reducible amounts to a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment, as enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author, a judge of the Strasbourg Court, analyses the Vinter judgment both as it stands alone as well as how it fits into and, now, influences the Court’s case-law on Article 3 and 5 of the Convention, before reviewing the procedural requirements laid down by the Court for a ‘Vinter review’ of life sentences. In doing so, the author examines the underlying tensions between the conception of penal policy as falling within the exclusive domain of domestic decision-making and the individualistic and dignitarian notion of human rights in which the Convention system is firmly grounded. The article is based on the 2016 Bergen Lecture on Criminal Law and Criminal Justice which the author gave on 26 October 2016 at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. 


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICIA POPELIER ◽  
CATHERINE VAN DE HEYNING

AbstractDuring the Interlaeken and Brighton conferences in 2010 and 2012 on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) the High Contracting Parties demanded an increased focus of the Court on subsidiarity when considering cases. The ECtHR had been criticized by several states, in particular the United Kingdom (UK), for second-guessing domestic decisions of the democratically elected legislator. A procedural rationality approach could answer this critique. This approach implies that the Court takes the quality of the decision-making procedure as a decisive factor for its assessment of the proportionality of a domestic measure. In several recent high-profile cases the Court has adopted such approach providing the defending state with a wide margin of appreciation due to the high quality of the decision-making procedure. This contribution discusses to what extent the Court has applied this approach pre- and post-Brighton and the potential pitfalls. The contribution concludes that this approach could provide a vital leeway between the Court's supervisory and subsidiary role in the protection of human rights if applied coherently and consistently. However, it is no magic solution to silence the criticism against the Court as the opponents of the Court do not just reject its approach to proportionality review, but judicial review of legislative decisions altogether.


Author(s):  
Dolores Morondo Taramundi

This chapter analyses arguments regarding conflicts of rights in the field of antidiscrimination law, which is a troublesome and less studied area of the growing literature on conflicts of rights. Through discussion of Ladele and McFarlane v. The United Kingdom, a case before the European Court of Human Rights, the chapter examines how the construction of this kind of controversy in terms of ‘competing rights’ or ‘conflicts of rights’ seems to produce paradoxical results. Assessment of these apparent difficulties leads the discussion in two different directions. On the one hand, some troubles come to light regarding the use of the conflict of rights frame itself in the field of antidiscrimination law, particularly in relation to the main technique (‘balancing of rights’) to solve them. On the other hand, some serious consequences of the conflict of rights frame on the development of the antidiscrimination theory of the ECtHR are unearthed.


Author(s):  
Juan E Falconi Puig

This chapter addresses some of the controversial issues relating to the inviolability of mission premises. The Yvonne Fletcher incident of 1984 led to debates about the need to upgrade or reform the VCDR in that regard; and the United Kingdom, as a direct consequence of the incident, adopted the ‘Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987’ to be able to adopt unilateral measures to remove premises immunity where threats to national security, to public integrity and/or the need of urban planning exist. Domestic legislation of this kind, however, also provides ground for conflicts with the VCDR. This chapter explores conflicts between property immunity and issues such as access to justice, human rights, and terrorism and examines ways of overcoming such difficulties through mechanisms which safeguard diplomatic privileges and immunity to allow the pursuit of diplomatic functions.


This book provides the first comprehensive analysis of the withdrawal agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the European Union to create the legal framework for Brexit. Building on a prior volume, it overviews the process of Brexit negotiations that took place between the UK and the EU from 2017 to 2019. It also examines the key provisions of the Brexit deal, including the protection of citizens’ rights, the Irish border, and the financial settlement. Moreover, the book assesses the governance provisions on transition, decision-making and adjudication, and the prospects for future EU–UK trade relations. Finally, it reflects on the longer-term challenges that the implementation of the 2016 Brexit referendum poses for the UK territorial system, for British–Irish relations, as well as for the future of the EU beyond Brexit.


Author(s):  
Priscilla Paola Severo ◽  
Leonardo B. Furstenau ◽  
Michele Kremer Sott ◽  
Danielli Cossul ◽  
Mariluza Sott Bender ◽  
...  

The study of human rights (HR) is vital in order to enhance the development of human beings, but this field of study still needs to be better depicted and understood because violations of its core principles still frequently occur worldwide. In this study, our goal was to perform a bibliometric performance and network analysis (BPNA) to investigate the strategic themes, thematic evolution structure, and trends of HR found in the Web of Science (WoS) database from 1990 to June 2020. To do this, we included 25,542 articles in the SciMAT software for bibliometric analysis. The strategic diagram produced shows 23 themes, 12 of which are motor themes, the most important of which are discussed in this article. The thematic evolution structure presented the 21 most relevant themes of the 2011–2020 period. Our findings show that HR research is directly related to health issues, such as mental health, HIV, and reproductive health. We believe that the presented results and HR panorama presented have the potential to be used as a basis on which researchers in future works may enhance their decision making related to this field of study.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044752
Author(s):  
Kaja Heidenreich ◽  
Anne-Marie Slowther ◽  
Frances Griffiths ◽  
Anders Bremer ◽  
Mia Svantesson

ObjectiveThe decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants’ experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care.DesignQualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method.Setting and participantsConsultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals.ResultsIn the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient’s situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed.ConclusionThe findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-134
Author(s):  
Dilek Kurban

In his well-researched biography, Mike Chinoy chronicles Kevin Boyle's life and career as a scholar, activist and lawyer, bringing to light his under-appreciated role in the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, as well as his contributions to human rights movements in the United Kingdom, Europe and the world. Are You With Me? is an important contribution to the literature on the actors who have shaped the norms, institutions and operations of human rights. In its efforts to shed light on one man, the book offers a fresh alternative to state-centric accounts of the origins of human rights. The book offers a portrait of a social movement actor turned legal scholar who used the law to contest the social inequalities against the minority community to which he belonged and to push for a solution to the underlying political conflict, as well as revelations of the complex power dynamics between human rights lawyers and the social movements they represent. In these respects Are You With Me? also provides valuable insights for socio-legal scholars, especially those focusing on legal mobilisation. At the same time the book could have provided a fuller and more complex biographical account had Chinoy been geographically and linguistically comprehensive in selecting his interviewees. The exclusion of Kurdish lawyers and human rights advocates is noticeable, particularly in light of the inclusion of Boyle's local partners in other contexts, such as South Africa.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document