What is a human right? How can we tell whether a proposed human right really is one? How do we establish the content of particular human rights, and how do we resolve conflicts between them? These are pressing questions for philosophers, political theorists, jurisprudents, international lawyers, and activists. This book offers answers in its investigation of human rights. The term ‘natural right’, in its modern sense of an entitlement that a person has, first appeared in the late Middle Ages. When during the 17th and 18th centuries the theological content of the idea was abandoned in stages, nothing was put in its place. The secularized notion that we were left with at the end of the Enlightenment is still our notion today: a right that we have simply in virtue of being human. During the 20th century, international law has contributed to settling the question of which rights are human rights, but its contribution has its limits. The notion of a human right that we have inherited suffers from no small indeterminateness of sense. The term has been left with so few criteria for determining when it is used correctly that we often have a plainly inadequate grasp on what is at issue. This book takes on the task of showing the way towards a determinate concept of human rights, based on their relation to the human status that we all share. The book works from certain paradigm cases, such as freedom of expression and freedom of worship, to more disputed cases such as welfare right — for instance the idea of a human right to health. The goal is a substantive account of human rights; an account with enough content to tell us whether proposed rights really are rights. The book emphasizes the practical as well as theoretical urgency of this goal: as the United Nations recognized in 1948 with its Universal Declaration, the idea of human rights has considerable power to improve the lot of humanity around the world.
The Paris Declaration defined five components of aid effectiveness: ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability. Afghanistan, which has received a high level of donor aid for health since 2002, has seen significant improvements in health indicators, expanded access to health services and an increased range of services. Do the impressive health outcomes in this fragile state mean that aid has been effectively utilised? The factors that contributed to the success of the Ministry of Public Health (MOPH)-donor partnership include as follows: Ownership: a realistic role for the MOPH as the steward of the health sector that was clearly articulated to all stakeholders; Donor alignment: donor coordination and collaboration initiated by the MOPH; Joint decisions: participatory decision-making by the MOPH and donors, such as the major decision to use contracts with nongovernmental organisations for health service delivery; Managing for results: basing programmes on available evidence, supplementing that evidence where possible and performance monitoring of health-sector activities using multiple data sources; Reliable aid flows: the availability of sufficient donor funding for more than 10 years for MOPH priorities, such as the Basic Package of Health Services, and other programmes that boosted system development and capacity building; Human factors: these include a critical mass of individuals with the right experience and expertise being deployed at the right time and able to look beyond agency mandates and priorities to support sector reform and results. These factors, which made aid to Afghanistan effective, can be applied in other countries.
The best philosophical account of human rights regards them as protections of the values we attach to human agency. The international law of human rights is embodied in a large number of declarations, conventions, covenants, charters, and judicial decisions. There are many discrepancies between the lists of human rights that emerge from these two authoritative sources. This lecture explores the significance of these discrepancies.
are based at Exeter University. This articleThe emergence of 3D printing technology as a 'disruptive technology' challenges the existing intellectual property framework. Our paper considers one part of that framework -copyright -in the light of 3D printing, with a special focus on issues involving artistic works and liability for authorisation of infringement of copyright.We consider a scenario concerning consumer co-creation arising from 3D chocolate printing technology developed at Exeter University. We discuss the production of two-dimensional artistic works into three dimensions; ownership; originality and substantial copying; authorship, term of protection, and authorisation of infringement.We consider different business models for co-creation of 3D printing technology. We conclude that by resorting to collective bargaining mechanisms and collective licensing schemes akin to those developed in the UK and in Europe, the co-creators could be rewarded through mechanisms akin to benefit sharing.
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.