Historical-Ethical Note on Historical Note

Fried, Ralph I.

doi:10.1542/peds.41.1.154

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also functionally valuable and explains why difficulties identifying IHRL's core feature that justifies its roster of rights need not undermine the system. 47 Where leveraging international HR and the IHRL system has fulfilled multiple ends, being able to justify the system despite non-correspondence between its 'rights' and moral ones at least appears valuable. These facts again help explain why IHRL actors view the IHRL as a source of normative guidance even absent a clear understanding of whether many international HR have moral analogues.…”

Section: Pas' Core Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal doctrine as human rights ‘practice’

Silva

2022

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Practical’ approaches to human rights hold that analysis of legal human rights must attend to the practice(s) of international human rights law and that the nature and justification of international human rights is best determined by attending to their role(s) in international human rights law’s system of normative practices, not analogous moral rights outside it. These core tenets plausibly explain the apparent normativity of international human rights law despite controversies about the status of many ‘rights’ in the ‘International Bill of Rights’. Yet plausible practical approaches require clear and compelling accounts of which practices qualify as human rights practices. Most existing accounts view ‘responses’ to claims made in the name of the international legal community as key to the identification of human rights. Activities by domestic governments and non-governmental actors qualify as relevant practices. While understandable, these ‘responsive’ accounts of practice create more problems than they solve. This work accordingly promotes a largely unexplored account on which ‘human rights practices’ are strictly defined by international legal doctrine. This ‘doctrinal’ account of practice is most likely to maintain practical approaches to human rights’ potential benefits without generating an unduly expansive rights register or adopting strong theoretical commitments about the nature of law.

show abstract

Section: Pas' Core Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal doctrine as human rights ‘practice’

Silva

2022

Glob. Con.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Historical-Ethical Note on Historical Note

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Legal doctrine as human rights ‘practice’

Legal doctrine as human rights ‘practice’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About