scholarly journals Os direitos humanos no contexto internacional: para além dos limites de uma obrigação específica?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
André Luiz Olivier da Silva

Resumo: Neste trabalho analisam-se as exigências por direitos humanos enunciados a partir de uma perspectiva universal, segundo a qual esses direitos se constituem dentro de obrigações gerais e são válidos para todas as pessoas do mundo. Mas podemos falar em direitos humanos considerados gerais e absolutos mesmo quando não se consegue especificar o detentor e o destinatário dos direitos em uma relação obrigacional específica? Com base em um procedimento de observação e na explicitação de algumas exigências por direitos humanos no mundo contemporâneo, aborda-se a natureza dos direitos a partir da correlação obrigacional entre direitos e deveres, bem como a distinção entre direitos especiais e direitos gerais, destacando que os direitos humanos são reivindicados como direitos gerais e universais, embora não se possa afirmar que sejam universais em si mesmos. A hipótese  neste artigo é a de que os direitos humanos são reivindicados “como se” fossem “gerais” dentro de obrigações específicas, seja em um conflito entre cidadãos e o Estado, seja a partir das relações dos países na comunidade internacional. Quando não estão especificados em obrigações concretas, esses direitos apresentam dificuldades quanto à sua efetividade justamente porque não se consegue identificar e especificar sujeitos e destinatários – que não são exatamente o Estado ou o cidadão deste ou daquele país, mas, sim, a pessoa humana. Nesse sentido, ainda estamos longe do ideal de universalização dos direitos humanos na comunidade internacional, e esses direitos só podem ser exercidos quando incorporados a um ordenamento jurídico ou, ao menos, inseridos em práticas morais e sociais.Palavras-chave: Direitos humanos. Direitos gerais. Universalidade. Obrigações específicas. Abstract: This paper discusses the claims by human rights from a universal perspective, according to which human rights constitute general obligations and are valid for all people of the world. Can we talk about human rights considered general and valid for all human beings even when we can not specify the holder and the addressee of rights in a specific obligational relationship? Based on a procedure of observation and explanation of some claims for human rights in the contemporary world, this article aims to approach the nature of these rights from the obligational correlation between rights and duties, as well as the distinction between special rights and general rights, highlighting that human rights are claimed as general rights, emphasizing its “universal” character, although we can’t ensure that these rights are universal in themselves. Our hypothesis is that human rights are claimed “as if” they were “general” within specific obligations, whether in a conflict between citizens and the state, as based on the relations of countries in the international community. When not specified in concrete obligations, human rights have doubts as to its effectiveness precisely because it is not easy to identify and specify recipients and subject of rights – which are not exactly state or country, but rather the human person. In this sense, we are still far from the ideal of universal human rights in the international community, and these rights may be exercised only when incorporated into a law, or at least, embedded in moral and social practices.Keywords: Human Rights. General rights. Universality. Specific obligations.

1970 ◽  
pp. 16-18
Author(s):  
Fadi Moghaizel

By way of introduction, I would like to quote the Vienna Declaration adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993: The human rights of women [ ... ] are an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of universal human rights. The full and equal participation of women in political, civil , economic, social and cultural life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex are priority objectives of the international community' .


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo André Stein Messetti ◽  
Dalmo De Abreu Dallari

Introduction: Human dignity, as coined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR / 1948), is an expression social solidarity, which should cement the relations between people. Human dignity is the foundation of all rights, such as freedom, equality, justice and peace in the world, and in Brazil, human dignity was deemed a fundamental pillar of the country’s post-1988 constitutional order. Objective: This article seeks to a deeper investigation about the social nature of human dignity and its definition over time.     Methods: This is an exploratory research meant to unpack the concepts of "human dignity", "bioethics", "human rights" and "constitution". After describing the conceptual evolution of human dignity and the facts relevant to its conceptual formation in world history - as a normative standard and a legal rule -, we address the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR/1948), the Declaration of Helsinki (DH/1964), the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR/2005), and the definition adopted in the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (CFRB/1988). The study was carried out without temporal limitation, and included a review of referenced books, legal doctrines, as well as articles and books in the SciELO database. Results and discussion: The findings ratify that human dignity is the foundation of all rights, including those of freedom, equality, justice and peace in the world, and must also guide the rights and duties of social regulation. Human dignity has changed from a criterion of power attributed to the social position of individuals to a value of the right to freedom, which now goes beyond the right of freedom and is the basis of modern constitutional democracy, which makes possible the realization of solidarity, as well as the duty and purpose of the state and the community. The will of the subject, of society, of the science and of the state, as well as the rules of domination and regulation, must have a limit on human dignity, and human dignity is not just fundamental right, in the sense of the Constitution, and must prevail over the exclusive will of science, the State and society. Therefore, in the making of power decisions and in realization of possible innovations of science involving human beings, human dignity demands the explicit consideration of respect and promotion of it. Conclusion: Human dignity is enshrined in Brazilian constitutional law, as well as in bioethics and in human rights, and it constitutes all the fundamental rights of the human person. It is not merely a rule of autonomy and liberty, and it is an obligatory and non-derogable precept in the making of power decisions, a true main foundation of constitutional democracies.  


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Anderson

Globalization has eroded borders, fostered mobility, and deepened inequality virtually everywhere. The waning of the state as the world’s default political unit has had myriad consequences; among the most challenging may be the simultaneous expansion of supranational norms of human rights and contraction of legal, enforceable citizenship. The upheavals of the Arab Spring provided eloquent testimony to both the appeal of rights-based political discourse, as protesters across the region called for “bread, freedom, and social justice,” and the catastrophic consequences of reliance on weakened and ineffectual states to enforce such rights. The baleful landscape of the Middle East today suggests a warning for the rest of the world: enfeebled states may herald the demise of universal human rights.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ignatieff

In a 1958 speech at the United Nations, Eleanor Roosevelt took stock of the progress that human rights had made since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ten years before. Mrs. Roosevelt had chaired the UN committee that drafted the Universal Declaration and had hoped that, in time, it would become “the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere.” Her answer to the question of how to measure human rights progress has become one of the most frequently quoted remarks of the former First Lady: Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.


2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 717-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS POGGE

Various human rights are widely recognized in codified and customary international law. These human rights promise all human beings protection against specific severe harms that might be inflicted on them domestically or by foreigners. Yet international law also establishes and maintains institutional structures that greatly contribute to violations of these human rights: fundamental components of international law systematically obstruct the aspirations of poor populations for democratic self-government, civil rights, and minimal economic sufficiency. And central international organizations, such as the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, are designed so that they systematically contribute to the persistence of severe poverty.


2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-49
Author(s):  
Paul Kucharski

My aim in this essay is to advance the state of scholarly discussion on the harms of genocide. The most obvious harms inflicted by every genocide are readily evident: the physical harm inflicted upon the victims of genocide and the moral harm that the perpetrators of genocide inflict upon themselves. Instead, I will focus on a kind of harm inflicted upon those who are neither victims nor perpetrators, on those who are outside observers, so to speak. My thesis will be that when a whole community or culture is eliminated, or even deeply wounded, the world loses an avenue for insight into the human condition. My argument is as follows. In order to understand human nature, and that which promotes its flourishing, we must certainly study individual human beings. But since human beings as rational and linguistic animals are in part constituted by the communities in which they live, the study of human nature should also involve the study of communities and cultures—both those that are well ordered and those that are not. No one community or culture has expressed all that can be said about the human way of existing and flourishing. And given that the unity and wholeness of human nature can only be glimpsed in a variety of communities and cultures, then part of the harm of genocide consists in the removal of a valuable avenue for human beings to better understand themselves.


2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-226
Author(s):  
JOSEPH C. d'ORONZIO

The ideal of universal human rights is arguably the most potent moral concept marking the modern world. Its accelerated fruition in the last half of the twentieth century has created a powerful political force, laying the groundwork for future generations to extend and apply. Whereas anything resembling international legal status for human rights had to wait for the post-Nazi era, the bold proclamations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) loosened a revolutionary force with endless potential for application to the full range of human endeavors. The roots of this movement can be traced to each and every era in which the vulnerable and powerless sought justification to oppose arbitrary domination. Its roots are, therefore, deep and wide.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-122
Author(s):  
Mohammad Yufi Al Izhar

Human Rights are basically universal and their rights cannot be taken and revoked by anyone. This is interpreted no matter how bad a person's behavior, a person will still be considered as human as they should be, and will continue to have their rights as human beings, which means that their human rights are inherent and will always be permanently attached to him. Human Rights (HAM) are believed to be the right of life naturally possessed by every human being without exception and a special human thing such as class, group, or social level. Human Rights have basically been championed by humans in all parts of the world throughout the ages. The book written by Prof. Dr. Rahayu, which is very intended for both Faculty of Law students and non-Faculty of Law students, provides an answer to the doubts of the public regarding Human Rights that actually occur in Indonesia and internationally. She also explained the meanings of the struggle of each country that issued their public opinion in the interest of the International, this meant that something that happened in the international arena was certainly a collection of perceptions of settlement within a country. Therefore, Human Rights Law cannot be separated from the main supporting factors which are the material of the countries that make the agreement.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.Ahsin Thohari

Abstract: Pancasila is the ideal of the state (staatsidee). It also serves as legal ideal (rechtsidee), fundamental of philosophy (philosofische grondslag), fundamental state norm (staatsfundamentalnorm), and view of life (weltanschauung). It is a flexible ideology that can be drawn, pressed, and broaden to cover almost all circumstances. The perspective and mindset forming the constitution concerning human rights, and citizen constitutional rights had changed due to the changes in worldview attitudes, internationalism, and cosmopolitanism about human and constitutional rights. The constitution in Indonesia had changed several times. However, the provision of the civil rights in the Indonesian constitutions or known as constitutional rights were not eliminated in the 1945 Constitution (since august 18th 1945), the 1949 Union Republic of Indonesia Constitution, the 1950 Temporary Constitution, the 1945 constitution (after the President Decree in July 5th,1959) and 1945 constitution after amendment. Pancasila, also known as five principles, has the function as the bedrock of Indonesia. However, as a philosophical principle, Pancasila can interpret in myriad perspective, potentially used for multiple purposes. Abstrak: Pancasila sebagai cita negara (staatsidee). Pancasila yang juga berfungsi sebagai cita hukum (rechtsidee), dasar filsafat (philosofische grondslag), norma fundamental negara (staatsfundamentalnorm), dan pandangan hidup (weltanschauung). Pancasila adalah ideologi yang bersifat fleksibel yang dapat ditarik, ditekan, dan dilebarkan untuk mencakup hampir semua keadaan. Cara pandang dan pola pikir pembentuk Undang-Undang Dasar (UUD) terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia, konstitusi, dan hak-hak konstitusional warga negara mengalami perubahan yang diakibatkan oleh perubahan sikap-sikap pandangan dunia, internasionalisme dan kosmopolitanisme tentang HAM dan hak konstitusional. Konstitusi di Indonesia telah mengalami beberapa kali perubahan, namun ketentuan-ketentuan tentang hak-hak warga negara dalam konstitusi-konstitusi Indonesia atau yang lebih dikenal dengan hak konstitusional tidak pernah hilang, baik dalam UUD 1945 yang berlaku mulai 18 Agustus 1945, Konstitusi RIS 1949, UUDS 1950, UUD 1945 setelah Dekrit Presiden tanggal 5 Juli 1959, dan UUD 1945 setelah Perubahan. Pancasila, yang juga dikenal sebagai lima prinsip, berfungsi sebagai landasan negara Indonesia. Namun, sebagai prinsip filosofis, pancasila dapat ditafsikan ke berbagai perspektif yang dapat digunakan untuk berbagai tujuan. Kata Kunci: Cita Hukum (Rechtsidee), Pancasila, Hak Konstitusional


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (05) ◽  
pp. 145-148
Author(s):  
Ниджат Рафаэль оглу Джафаров ◽  

It can be accepted that the classification of human rights, its division, types, and groups, is of particular importance. The syllogism for human rights can be taken as follows: law belongs to man; human beings are the highest beings on earth like living beings. Therefore, the regulation prevails. The right to freedom is conditional. Man is free. Consequently, human rights are dependent. Morality is the limit of the law. Morality is the limit and content of human actions. Therefore, the law is the limit of human activities. Morality is related to law. Law is the norm of human behavior. Thereby, human behavior and direction are related to morality. The people create the state. The state has the right. Therefore, the right of the state is the right of the people. The state is an institution made up of citizens. Citizens have the privilege. Such blessings as Dignity, honor, conscience, zeal, honor, etc., and values are a part of morality and spiritual life. Morality is united with law. Therefore, moral values are part of the law. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and conscience. Space is about the law. Therefore, everyone has the right to opinion and conscience. Key words: human rights, freedom of conscience, conceptuality, citizenship


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document