Over the past two centuries, the concept of human dignity has moved from the fringes to the centre of the international legal system. This book is the first detailed historical, theoretical and legal investigation of human dignity as a normative value, the intellectual sources that shaped its legal recognition, and the main legal instruments used to give it expression in international law. Ginevra Le Moli addresses the broad historical and philosophical developments relating to the legal expression of dignity and the doctrinal geography of human dignity in international law, with a focus on international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law. The book fills a major lacuna in the literature by providing a comprehensive account of dignity within international law that draws on an extensive documentary and archival basis and a vast body of decisions of international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.
In human rights practice, references to 'dignity' are as pervasive as they are difficult to pin down. 'Dignity' is used widely and often contradictorily. It underlies the privileged legal treatment afforded to states as a result of their sovereignty, but also the claims to strip states and state officials of the manifestations of such sovereignty, such as immunities. It also grounds the overriding character of human rights and social development, while at the same time adding legitimacy to the fight against 'anthropocentrism' and for the protection of nature for its own sake. From 'sovereignty', to 'human dignity', to 'eco-centrism', the concept of dignity underlies the normative claims of three competing circles. In this review essay, we rely on the distinction between these three circles of dignity to organize the survey and discussion of an extensive body of work that has helped to clarify the contours of the concept of 'dignity'. The essay aims to empower practitioners not only to avoid the abuse of this concept but also the dilution that may result from casual and unconsidered reference to it. More fundamentally, it explores two conceptual battlefronts opened by the concept of human dignity. These battlefronts are interdependent because the very assertion of human dignity to protect the individual against the powers of the state may also lay the foundations for an overexploitation of nature.
The ordinary meaning of the term ‘prevention’ is to prevent harm from occurring. But what ‘harm’? For over 170 years, the system now embodied in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHRs) has answered this question by focusing on the prevention of disease ‘spread’ across countries, rather than on the ‘spillover’ of pathogens from animals to humans, which constitute the main source of pandemic risk today. This bias towards the containment of disease has deep roots. In the historical context from the IHRs emerged, focusing on pathogen spillover was beyond the possibilities of the science of the time; it was also pointless to the extent that the effort focused on pathogens which were already prevalent in humans, causing diseases such as cholera or plague. Transposed to the present day, this containment bias has important consequences for global health governance. Most importantly among these is that the global health security architecture still lacks a specific system to prevent spillovers of pathogens at the origin of outbreaks and subsequent spread of diseases such as COVID-19, SARS, MERS or Ebola. This article investigates the roots of this focus on containment. Relying on the proceedings of the International Sanitary Conferences that preceded the IHRs, as well as on an untapped documentary archive relating to the revision of the IHRs between 1995-2005, the article explains the reasons underpinning this enduring bias and its implications for global health governance.
This article explores the quest for sovereign equality by China and Japan as it unfolded in a specific historical moment, the third quarter of the nineteenth century. It does so by focusing on the debate around the ‘coolie trade’, i.e., the traffic of Chinese indentured labourers, which offered an opportunity for non-Western countries such as China and Japan to position themselves with respect to Western conceptions of ‘modernity’ or ‘civilization’ and thereby advance their quest for ‘parity with all nations’. Through a study of the Maria Luz case, decided in the early 1870s by Czar Alexander II and drafted by de Martens, the article sheds light on the different approaches of Japan and China with respect to international law at this critical historical juncture. Specifically, it shows that, although the coolie trade mostly affected China, it was Japan who first managed to reap a parity dividend by firmly condemning the practice, whereas China’s action was steered by the circumstances. Eventually, however, China’s growing interest in Chinese populations abroad paved the way for the establishment of its first permanent diplomatic representations overseas. For both countries, the events encapsulated by the Maria Luz case unveil an important, yet overlooked, moment in their quest for parity with all nations and, more generally, in their engagement with international law.
This article analyses the normative powers conferred on and exercised by 69 Investigative Mechanisms, including UN Commissions of Inquiry, Fact-Finding Missions and Independent Investigative Mechanisms established between 1963 and 2020. Relying on a dataset collected by the author including all their mandates (78) and reports (121), the article introduces an analytical framework and uses it to (i) identify the specific normative powers conferred on Investigative Mechanisms, (ii) the evolution and main step changes in these powers between 1963 and 2020, and (iii) their specific expression in actual practice in matters such as the use of terminology (violations/abuses of human rights by non-State actors), the determination of the standard of proof, the characterization of primary norms, the development of integrated accountability strategies, and the internalization of functions usually entrusted to prosecutorial mechanisms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.