<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<front><journal-meta><journal-title-group><journal-title>Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Spolecznej</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn>2082-3304</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><title-group><article-title>Contemporary Debate on John Rawls’s Political Concept of Human Rights. Selected Arguments and Positions</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jan Turlej</surname></name></contrib></contrib-group><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.36280//AFPiFS.2023.1.72</article-id><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><pub-date><year>2023</year></pub-date><fpage>72</fpage><lpage>86</lpage><abstract><p>In The Law of Peoples – published in Poland for the first time twenty years ago – John Rawls extended his theory of justice to the field of international relations. The philosopher developed the concept of the law of peoples, or the political concept of justice that applies to the norms and principles of international law and practice. As part of his concept, Rawls proposed a vision of human rights as rights that define the limits of state sovereignty. In the article, in addition to a synthetic overview of Rawls’s concept of human rights, I present selected critical arguments, formulated by John Tasioulas, Charles Beitz, James Nickel, Allen Buchanan, Martha Nussbaum, and Thomas Pogge. In the second part of the text, I discuss an attempt to defend Rawls’s views, proposed by David Reidy and Samuel Freeman. In conclusion, I summarize both lines of argument, presenting my own position.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>John Rawls</kwd><kwd>human rights</kwd><kwd>political concept of human rights</kwd><kwd>rights</kwd><kwd>state sovereignty Language: Polish</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body /></article>