Solo disponible en BuenasTareas
  • Páginas : 8 (1972 palabras )
  • Descarga(s) : 0
  • Publicado : 14 de febrero de 2011
Leer documento completo
Vista previa del texto

Two main approaches
• Universalism: based on the belief that HR are universal in their scope and their validity.
• Cultural relativism: based on the belief that each culture has its own set of ideas and values.
• Vienna declaration (1993): -adopted at the second conference on human rights held in Vienna in 1993. – section 5, part1: ‘’all HR areuniversal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated/…/ while the significance of national and regional particularities/…/must be born in mind, it is the duty of states/…/ to promote and protect all HR and fundamental freedoms’’
• Main theories used by the proponents of the universality of HR: -natural law theory; positive law theory; global theory and constructivist theory.
• Natural lawtheory: * there is natural law superceding the authority of positive law;* this natural law recognizes the dignity and equality of all human beings;* source of this natural law: god, human nature, reason; * strong point and weak point.
• Positive law theory: * all authority stems from states and public power;* HR anchored in positive domestic and international law documents;* strong point andweak.
• Global ethics project: *based on the idea that HR can be grounded in all the main moral and religious traditions of the world;* strong and weik point.
• Constructivist theory: * HR are social construct responding to the needs of a special social formation;* HR are, in this world, necessary.

Cultural relativism:
• Manila declaration (1995): * Adopted at theconference-workshop an Asia- Pacific HR education for development held in manila in 1995; * HR must be based on ‘’the rich cultural heritage and diversity in the region’’.
• Three main currents: a) western cultural relativists; b) debate about Asia values; c) debate about HR and islam.
• AAA> Statmnt an HR (1947)

The other face of HR:
• What kind of document is it? * adopted in 1997 by theinter-action council; * draft referred to the UNESCO and the UN HR commission for consideration and possible adoption by the UN GA; * 19 articles corresponding to the UDHR (1948).
• Reasons: given for the elaboration of the UDHRe: * traditions of other societies; * move away from the freedom of indifference towards the freedrom of involvement; * globalitation of the world economy + world’s.• Gloden rule: * what you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others; * do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule implies that every right has a correlative in a corresponding duty.
• Content of the duty corresponding to: A)right to life ( art 5): ‘’every person has a responsibility to respect life. No one has the right to injure, to torture or to killanother human person. This does not exclude the right of justified self-defense of individuals or communities’’. B) right to family life ( art 18) ‘’sensible family planning is the responsibility of every couple. The relationship between parents and children should reflect mutal love, respect, appreciation and concern. No parents or other…; C) freedom of expression (art 12)
• Can UDHR become a(legal) counter-balance and corrector of UDHR? * difficult, vagueness+ incoherency. ‘’everyone has a responsibility to promote good and to avoid evil in all things’’(art 3); * it can serve as an ethical appeal but limited prospects of its legalization.


• Renamed at the 1994 Budapest Summit.
• No formal international organization.
• However: status as a regionalarrangement under chapter CIII of the UN charter.
• Last summit in 1999 (Istambul).

Human rights protection in the EU
• Art 6 TEU.
• The Union recognizes the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union of 7 december 2000, as adopted at Strasbourg, on 12 Dec 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the treaties.