Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Rights Discourse (right + discourse)
Kinds of Rights Discourse Selected AbstractsEND-OF-LIFE CARE IN THE 21st CENTURY: ADVANCE DIRECTIVES IN UNIVERSAL RIGHTS DISCOURSEBIOETHICS, Issue 3 2010IREVI, VIOLETA BE ABSTRACT This article explores universal normative bases that could help to shape a workable legal construct that would facilitate a global use of advance directives. Although I believe that advance directives are of universal character, my primary aim in approaching this issue is to remain realistic. I will make three claims. First, I will argue that the principles of autonomy, dignity and informed consent, embodied in the Oviedo Convention and the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, could arguably be regarded as universal bases for the global use of advance directives. Second, I will demonstrate that, despite the apparent consensus of ethical authorities in support of their global use, it is unlikely, for the time being, that such consensus could lead to unqualified legal recognition of advance directives, because of different understandings of the nature of the international rules, meanings of autonomy and dignity which are context-specific and culture-specific, and existing imperfections that make advance directives either unworkable or hardly applicable in practice. The third claim suggests that the fact that the concept of the advance directive is not universally shared does not mean that it should not become so, but never as the only option in managing incompetent patients. A way to proceed is to prioritize work on developing higher standards in managing incompetent patients and on progressing towards the realization of universal human rights in the sphere of bioethics, by advocating a universal, legally binding international convention that would outlaw human rights violations in end-of-life decision-making. [source] The Concept of Rights in Contemporary Human Rights DiscourseRATIO JURIS, Issue 3 2010CHRISTINE CHWASZCZA In a variety of disciplines, there exists a consensus that human rights are individual claim rights that all human beings possess simply as a consequence of being human. That consensus seems to me to obscure the real character of the concept and hinder the progress of discussion. I contend that rather than thinking of human rights in the first instance as "claim rights" possessed by individuals, we should regard human rights as higher order norms that articulate standards of legitimacy for sociopolitical and legal institutions. [source] The Perils of Rights Discourse: A Response to Kitzinger and WilkinsonANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2004Susan B. Boyd This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite-sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio-legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked. [source] Language rights in Indigenous communities: The case of the Inuit of Arctic Québec1JOURNAL OF SOCIOLINGUISTICS, Issue 3 2005Donna Patrick Despite the rise of language rights, it is not clear whether the granting of rights to Indigenous and minority groups has any direct effect on the ability of these groups to revitalize and maintain their languages. This paper offers an analysis of macro-level rights discourse in Canada, drawing on certain Supreme Court of Canada decisions regarding Francophone-minority and Aboriginal peoples. It then traces certain consequences of the granting of Indigenous language rights for Indigenous language instruction and maintenance, focusing on the Inuit in the Arctic Québec region of Nunavik. [source] Human Rights in an Era of Neoliberal Globalization: The Alien Tort Claims Act and Grassroots Mobilization in Doe v. UnocalLAW & SOCIETY REVIEW, Issue 2 2009Cheryl Holzmeyer This article examines a widely publicized corporate accountability and human rights case filed by Burmese plaintiffs and human rights litigators in 1996 under the Alien Tort Claims Act in U.S. courts, Doe v. Unocal, in conjunction with the three main theoretical approaches to analyzing how law may matter for broader social change efforts: (1) legal realism, (2) Critical Legal Studies (CLS), and (3) legal mobilization. The article discusses interactions between Doe v. Unocal and grassroots Burmese human rights activism in the San Francisco Bay Area, including intersections with corporate accountability activism. It argues that a transnationally attuned legal mobilization framework, rather than legal realist or CLS approaches, is most appropriate to analyze the political opportunities and indirect effects of Doe v. Unocal and similar litigation in the context of neoliberal globalization. Further, this article argues that human rights discourse may serve as a common vocabulary and counterhegemonic resource for activists and litigators in cases such as Doe v. Unocal, contrary to overarching critiques of such discourse that emphasize only its hegemonic potentials in global governance regimes. [source] The Perils of Rights Discourse: A Response to Kitzinger and WilkinsonANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2004Susan B. Boyd This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite-sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio-legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked. [source] Can human rights discourse improve the health of Indigenous Australians?AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 5 2006Natalie Gray Objective:Recognition of the poor health outcomes of Indigenous Australians has led to an interest in using human rights discourse as a framework for arguing that the Australian Government has an international obligation to improve Indigenous health. Method:This paper explores two potential directions for human rights discourse in this context. The first is the development and elaboration of an asserted ,human right to health'. The second focuses on developing an understanding of the interactions between health and human rights, particularly the underlying social determinants of health, and thereby creating an advocacy framework that could be used to promote the inclusion of human rights considerations into the policy-making agenda. Results:This paper argues that despite the symbolic force of human rights discourse, its capacity to improve the health of Indigenous Australians through international law is limited. This is so irrespective of whether recourse is made to a legal or moral imperative. Conclusion and Implications:The ,human right to health' is limited primarily by several barriers to its implementation, some of which are perpetuated by the current Australian Government itself. Although the potential advocacy capacity of human rights discourse is similarly limited by the hostility of the Government towards the notion of incorporating human rights considerations into its public policy decision making, it does provide a sustainable intellectual framework in which to consider the social and structural determinants of health and maintain these issues on the political agenda. [source] Toward the ,Rights of the Poor' Human Rights in Liberation TheologyJOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS, Issue 3 2000Mark Engler In this article, the author traces the response of liberation theologians to human rights initiatives through three distinct stages over the past thirty years: from an initial avoidance of the concept, to an early critique, and then to a nuanced theological appropriation. He contends that liberation theology brings a thoroughgoing concern for the poor and an innovative methodology of historicization to the discussion of human rights. In clarifying the treatment of human rights within a specific religious movement, the author also addresses larger questions about the specific role of human rights language. To this end, the article shows how liberation theologians have grappled concretely with the divisions among different ,generations' of rights, various rights discourses, and diverse options for rights advocacy. [source] The Perils of Rights Discourse: A Response to Kitzinger and WilkinsonANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2004Susan B. Boyd This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite-sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio-legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked. [source] | |||||||||||||