Are human rights essentially triggers for intervention?
Philosophy Compass 4 (6):938-950 (2009)
| Abstract | The orthodox conception of human rights holds that human rights are moral rights possessed by all human beings simply in virtue of their humanity. In recent years, advocates of a 'political' conception of human rights have criticized this view on the grounds that it overlooks the distinctive political function performed by human rights. This article evaluates the arguments of two such critics, John Rawls and Joseph Raz, who characterize the political function of human rights as that of potential triggers for intervention by one society against another. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeremy Bendik-Keymer (2005). Common Humanity and Human Rights. Social Philosophy Today 21:51-62.
Paulina Tambakaki (2010). Human Rights, or Citizenship? Birkbeck Law Press.
Christine Chwaszcza (2010). The Concept of Rights in Contemporary Human Rights Discourse. Ratio Juris 23 (3):333-364.
Doris Schroeder (forthcoming). Human Rights and Human Dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
W. J. Talbott (2010). Human Rights and Human Well-Being. Oxford University Press.
John Mahoney (2007). The Challenge of Human Rights: Origin, Development, and Significance. Blackwell Pub..
Joseph Raz (2010). Human Rights Without Foundations. In J. Tasioulas & S. Besson (eds.), The Philosphy of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-11-26Total downloads123 ( #4,006 of 549,045 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,045 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
