Archiwum
Filozofii Prawa
i Filozofii Społecznej

Journal of the Polish Section of IVR (ISSN:2082-3304)

IVR
  • About us
  • Aim & scope
  • News
  • Issues
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
  • Editorial board
    • Board Members
    • Reviewers
  • For authors
  • Ethics
  • Contact
  • Polski

Contemporary Debate on John Rawls’s Political Concept of Human Rights. Selected Arguments and Positions

Mgr Jan TURLEJ

Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Kraków University of Economics

English abstract: 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.

Keywords: John Rawls, human rights, political concept of human rights, rights, state sovereignty

Language: Polish

Published: Number 1(34)/2023, pp.72-86

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280//AFPiFS.2023.1.72

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 3

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: human rights, John Rawls, political concept of human rights, rights, state sovereignty

Against Dignity: An Argument for a Non-Metaphysical Foundation of Animal Law

Prof. dr hab. Tomasz Pietrzykowski

University of Silesia in Katowice

English abstract: Animal protection as an emerging field of legislation needs to be constitutionalized as well as comprehensively expounded by legal scholars. As it is a growing body of regulation and accompanying legal theories, it needs to develop a solid conceptual and axiological framework, in particular a set of basic values and principles on which detailed rules are to be founded. Lacking these, the domain of animal law is still in the pre-paradigm stage and remains an assemblage of dispersed ideas, concepts and regulatory measures. It yet has to develop into a coherent whole that may grow to be a mature regulatory and doctrinal domain of the law. In order to reach this stage, it should be founded on clear theoretical and constitutional grounds. Lacking those, its further development, and effective operation may be seriously impeded. There seem to be two basic approaches that may serve as the possible foundations for a viable model of animal protection law. The first may be referred to as the “dignity” approach and the other, as the “sentientist” approach. According to the first of those two approaches, animal protection law should rely on the concept of animal dignity as its philosophical foundation. The second approach rejects the idea that the concept of animal dignity as the basis for the relevant legislation as philosophically dubious and entailing objectionable normative consequences for the scope and content of legal protections of animals. Thus, it aims rather at legal norms and policies being based directly on scientifically informed theories of sentience, evolutionarily developed nervous structures underlying cognitive and emotional capabilities or species-typical biological and psychological needs that condition the subjective well-being of a given creature. The aim of this paper is to analyse and discuss both these approaches and to argue that the former is philosophically, conceptually and practically flawed. The second approach, even despite some serious disadvantages, is therefore deemed to be preferable and more promising.

Keywords: animals, dignity, rights, law, constitution, ethics

Language: English

Published: Number 2(27)/2021, pp. 69-82.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2021.2.69

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 139

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: animals, Constitution, dignity, ethics, law, rights

Szukaj

Categories

  • Articles
  • Bez kategorii
  • Editorial
  • In Memoriam
  • News
  • Reports
  • Reviews and discussions

Keywords

beauty social rights judicial deliberations cultural revolution universality of human rights interpellation law and conventional social facts teleological ethics intertextuality professional judges Russian jurisprudence legislative materials the Other paternalism cultural heritage crisis of the rule of law law and ethics general clauses subjectivity close relationships extensive interpretation Lemuel Shaw grammatical problems critical legal thought comparative approach pluralism Maurice Hauriou derivative judicial independence Bartosz Wojciechowski law-making Poland’s constitutional crisis Tomasz Grzybowski professional self-governments strategic voting personal dimension in legal education scrivener’s error Louis Althusser memory policies judicial decision Michał Dudek extra legem gap self-realization state of emergency memory laws Thomas Bayes nonfactualism legal liability Bible realism

Copyright © 2023 Polska Sekcja Międzynarodowego Stowarzyszenia Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej IVR | Administrator strony: Karolina Gmerek

Ta strona używa plików cookies. Zakładamy, że wyrażają Państwo na to zgodę, ale mogą Państwo także wyłączyć pliki cookies w Ustawieniach. //
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. (Zob. więcej // Read more) Ustawienia // SettingsZGODA // ACCEPT

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT