On What Grounds is the Idea of Universal Human Rights Challenged?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Moral challenges against liberal human rights
Conclusion
References

Despite the fact that they are not always put in place, the general notion of universal human rights is in the present day largely acknowledged worldwide. Even then, particular sections of the human rights policy are revealingly challenged by influential political players.

Human rights that articulate liberal ideals like non-discrimination, wide personal liberties and egalitarianism/ democracy expose the extent of this fact. Several communities which have political systems that are short of key liberal aspects and which as they acquire increased power end up challenging the norms of human rights.

Even then, prospects of the liberal human rights don’t rely solely on the scales of supremacy between communities with diverse political systems. It also relies on the way communities with moderately tolerant political schemes respond to the challenge of non-tolerant schemes.

Fastidiously, one main aspect is if advocators of liberal ideals believe they are vindicated to maintain these beliefs as universal human rights norms, or if they believe that some intolerant political applications ought to be esteemed internationally, the way that some liberals have debated.

This paper aims at discussing whether liberal communities are ethically obligated to revere the multiplicity of political ideology as well as to get accustomed to human rights consequently. The paper will begin by elucidating in a few words the concept of liberal ideology in the way we decipher it here, and reveals the way the insertion of these philosophy’s in human rights is disputed in the present day.

The paper will then scrutinize following a presentation, three protestations in opposition to liberal human rights. These are the significance of cooperative self-determination, the constricted international political task of human rights and the supposed parochialism of tolerant ideology. The synopsis is that not one of these doubts are realistic or credible.

Contestation of liberal human rights

“Liberalism”, as is the same with numerous other concepts, is construed by diverse authors in many different ways. Majority of liberals however, support three “normative political ideology” that we may refer to as “liberal principles”. These are:

Esteem for wide personal liberties that was epitomized by Miller’s “harm principle”, of which a community may only limit the liberty of citizens in order “to prevent harm to others” (Miller, 2007, 14), as well as Habermas initial rule of justice that proclaims “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.”(Habermas, 2001, 78).
A sturdy belief of non-discrimination, of which all able adults must be accorded similar primary rights.
The belief of democratic leadership, which stipulates that executive as well as legislative national influence eventually lies on systems that state all proficient grown-up citizens have identical official authority.

These three principles founded claims in the revolution of democracy in Europe which started towards the close of the 18^th century. The political organizations as well as legislation of the states aforementioned and several others have been fashioned by these beliefs.

An essential reflection underlying tolerant doctrine is the fact that they articulate how coercive political establishments take care of their associates’ fairly and capitalize on the patience to diverse stances and principles. Individuals with diverse political as well as religious principles and also unlike schemes of life may dwell mutually such that the supremacy of a certain faction over the rest is diminished under liberal ideology.

Modern intercontinental legislation on human rights allows for a sturdy dedication to liberal philosophy. An example is the – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights- (ICCPR) of 1966 which distinguishes several liberation privileges e.g. the free will of conscience, religious conviction and contemplation (art. 18), the choice of expression and view (art. 19) and the freedom of passive congregation and alliances (art. 21/22)

Any sort of prejudice by the decree, be it because of lingo, race, belongings, religious convictions, color, societal or national derivation, gender, political or any other outlook, birth or any other status (art. 26) and it also requests for “sporadic and authentic voting which shall be by collective and identical suffrage ” (art. 25).

Differentiation of these tolerant human rights from other classes of human rights e.g. the right not to be persecuted and the right to living, rights to due process like fair trial and the rule of law as well as cultural, fiscal and communal rights like health care food and housing.

To date, 167 nations are participants of ICCPR and have shown dedication to the provisos. Some moderate principles particularly are however occasionally debated in global discussions on human rights. Whereas basic security rights are mostly un-contentious, a few nations and agents have totally and openly queried if the rights of human beings should carry complete liberal principles.

A case in point is whereby Asian nations stressed on “the implication of nationalized and area particularities and assorted chronological, cultural and devout backgrounds” in the Declaration on Human Rights in Bangkok in 1993 for the understanding of human rights , that was vastly seen as a disagreement mitigating sturdier limitations on moderate human rights e.g. partaking in polls or freedom of speech.

Another example is the Organization of the Islamic Conference which has been piloting a global crusade opposing the slander of religions. Consequential declarations of the United Nations have been professed to hold up decrees barring profanity and as such limiting the tolerant right to freedom of expression (Freedom House 2010b).

Nevertheless, non-interventionist human rights are not only disputed by countries that have not entirely acknowledged liberal doctrine, or by clandestine agents which do not recognize liberal philosophy.

A strange attribute of existing political reflection is that even countless liberals do not acknowledge these ethics as a foundation for human rights. These liberals assert that freethinking doctrines are apposite for societies with liberal customs, but that it is not legal to incorporate them in collectively obligatory norms, given the assorted political ideals of unlike cultures.

John Rawls is in all probability the liberal political philosopher who has for the largest part put emphasis on this issue. Mutua formulates a report of the ethics that would administer a “reasonably just Society of Peoples” (Mutua, 2002, 93). As piece of these ideology, he conveys a register of human rights which encompasses basic security rights, a number of liberty rights, some due process rights, and a fundamental social right, but which intentionally requires complete liberal rights.

Human rights, according to Rawls interpretation, do not enclose complete liberty of conscience, fortification opposing discrimination, the freedoms of congregation, of alliance and of expression as well as a principle of egalitarian authority. Unlike Rawls as well as some other open-minded political theorists have defended the outlook that human rights- or another scheme of globally niting political norms- ought to incorporate liberal theories. Some examples are given by Geuss, Nussbaum and Jurgen Habermas.

As a result, the prospect of liberal philosophy as a branch of documented worldwide human rights does not just rely on the equilibrium of power between nations with tougher and those with feebler liberal practice (Habermas, 1992, 112). It also depends on if liberals assume that it is ethically tolerable to maintain open-minded philosophy in generally binding worldwide law, or whether human rights ought to permit some element of derogation from liberal philosophy (Nussbaum, 2006, 74).

In this paper we will scrutinize a number of explanations that have been so far given for not including liberal philosophies for human rights or objections against liberal human rights. (Geuss, 2001, 48) We will need to question if these protestations are compelling within a normative argument on what philosophies nations may maintain as globally binding human right philosophies(Habermas, 2001, 59).

Therefore the protestations petition mainly people who may be persuaded of the significance of intercontinental human rights and who embrace liberal political philosophies to be warranted in some communities, but who protest counting liberal ideology in human right standards (Nussbaum, 2000, 38). The three challenges that will be taken in account are not equally elite, but are often presented jointly and somewhat reinforce one other

Moral challenges against liberal human rights

The narrow international political role of human rights

The rights of human beings are just not the ones that each person has like the aspect of human rights is perceived in lawful as well as open dialogues. Quite a number of authors stress the fact that the starting point of human rights is in intercontinental lawful manuscripts and they also dispute that it is indispensable of them that they perform a certain worldwide political function – a task “in practical reasoning about the conduct of global political life” (Beitz 2009, 99).

A few authors have taken for granted that this function is relatively tapered and customized to particular uses. As an example Walzer pointed out that:

“I will take human rights to be rights which set limits to the sovereignty of states, in that their actual or anticipated violation is a (defeasible) reason for taking action against the violator in the international arena, even when – in cases not involving violation of either human rights or the commission of other offences – the action would not be permissible, or normatively available on the grounds that it would infringe the sovereignty of the state.” (Walzer, 2007, 109).

Accordingly, Walzer puts forth, the rights of human beings are somewhat distinct by the justifiable intercontinental fines that may ensue as nations contravene them. Human right by explanation, are norms that, in case are infringed or contravened, call for actions that would in normal situations flout the autonomy of a nation i.e., comprise a case of intercession into another country.

A soaring threshold is set-up by this situation that a right must attain so as to meet the criteria as a human right. The philosophy of non-involvement is among the fundamental main beliefs of global decree.

It deters commonly the intimidation as well as the use of force of one nation against others and other acts like intervening in relations among a country’s government institutions, prying in political actions like showing preferences to certain contenders in polls, and debatably fiscal as well as political intimidation. For both the firmness of the global order as well as the lives of the people who are threatened, it is quite apparent that intercession mainly by using force has prospectively severe outcomes.

As such, through the present global order that comprises of autonomous nations, intercession may be conceivably only be (ethically) permitted if certain offences of a severe nature are carried out. It may then be debated that infringements of liberal philosophies do not warrant “prima facie” included the prospective errors arising from intercession such that liberal ideology may not be embraced in human rights.

The key supposition forming the dispute however does not appear justified. Barry claims that his view of the concept of human rights reflects the “dominant trend in human rights practice” (Barry, 2001, 37). The global political practice of the rights of humans is made up of a wide range of varieties of political acts of which quite a number do not comprise of involvement. Charles Beitz spotlighted this actuality. Beitz lists six well-established types of international action in support of human rights (Beitz 2009, 33-40).

Duress by fiscal sanctions or armed forces involvement is the only kind that is categorized as foreign involvement. The rest which are five and are the auditing and reporting procedures in United Nations organizations, enticement in foreign guidelines e.g. by conditioning support on human rights values, backing in developing the state of affairs of human rights, pressuring social culture players, as well as the elimination of worldwide hindrances to the realization of human rights.

Although they create a key segment of global political acts that are pro-human rights, the effectualness of these sorts of acts remains uncertain. The tangible practice of human rights hardly goes against autonomy of a nation but in most cases pleas to the country’s political organizations, in so doing supposing that this nation shows autonomous power across its regions.

This outcome is affirmed by the acknowledgement of human rights norms in global decree. States have freely assumed their legal obligation to comply with human rights norms, but they have been reluctant to justify intervention, even in especially grave cases of human rights violations (Ipsen 2004, 1085). Assumptions may be made that rights are by explanation, norms for which there is an active machinery to impose them. Unfortunately, the global decree does not comprehend it as such.

Consequently, it is impossible to get an unambiguous report regarding the outcomes that may be warranted where there is infringement of human rights. Practically, nations only have to go through critics and symbolic acts.

Proposals hereby exert that human rights role in global practices of politics is majorly that one of an ethical one. With the idea of human rights, the general consensus is that they ought to be acknowledged openly as global binding norms and that they fit in a worldwide ethical discussion on political action. The rationalization of liberal human rights ought to tackle substantive ethical contemplation.

Western parochialism

An ethical criticism that has time and again been raised in opposition to liberal human rights is that they are “Western” and thus cannot be in universal norms, applicable in each and every state, as well as those having a non-Western cultural tradition.

For instance, Makau Mutua talks of “cultural biases of the human rights corpus” which is derived from “liberal theory and philosophy” (Mutua 2002, 23). similarly, Ingelhart asserts that his listing of human rights, which does not have central liberal principles, encompass the virtue that it isn’t “special to the Western tradition” thus not “politically parochial”. (Ingelhart, 2003, 45).

This path of criticism bases on empirical assertions concerning the origin of liberal principles as well as the support that they get from different cultural traditions all over the world. Generally, it is definitely true that liberal principles have found strong expressions from the Western political thought and that many views of citizens have been shaped.

Societies from the west; however, liberal principles aren’t the exclusive heritage of Western cultures although it is obvious that in a number of societies liberal principles are almost not accepted, within political societies and amongst citizens.

But what is exactly the reason behind these empirical observations being relevant for normative questions regarding the content of human rights? How precisely are we supposed to understand the argument behind the charge of “Western parochialism”? Lastly what may be the standard which human rights norms have to attain for it to be justified?

Different ways in which the argument may be understood have been sidelined. For our case, we are going to focus on two possible explanations.To begin with, the argument may be that only the norms that are shared in every culture can be capable of being justified as universal norms of human rights.

Basing on this standard of validation, the members in all the cultures have got to in a certain way already assent toward the norms that are entailed in the human rights. If a certain norm doesn’t find universal assent by a particular culture’s members, it can’t be a norm which is relevant to them, and for this reason is unsuitable as a universal norm of the human rights.

This standard of validation can be defended by Michael Walzer when he declares that the universal morality that allows cross-cultural criticism consists of “reiterated features” of the moralities of each and every culture, whereby the features have to “actually be shared across a society” (Walzer 2007, 10/27) as well as the support that they get from different cultural traditions all over the world.

Generally, it is definitely true that liberal principles have found strong expressions from the Western political thought and that many views of citizens have been shaped.

However, it can’t be a satisfactory standard of verification for human rights norms to necessitate that they have got to be shared in each and every culture. As a matter of fact, Charles Beitz has asserted, it should be the role of human rights to be critical standards of all the social practices (Beitz 2009, 78).

It is obligatory to be possible for all of them to be critical of all the practices endorsed by the cultures where they take place. Slavery, the implementation of heretics as well as forced marriages have entirely been endorsed practices by particular cultures at specified times. If the projected standard of rationalization is prior agreement, then what we have to give up is the idea of human rights.

Although the charge of the “Western parochialism” may be understood in a different way, beginning with Joshua Cohen’s discussion concerning the justificatory basis of human rights norms. As Cohen attests, all human rights are generally applicable norms and need to be construed in a manner that they are acknowledged by people from different philosophical and religious traditions (Cohen, 2008, 96).

This condition doesn’t mean that human rights ought to be acceptable by all religious and philosophical traditions. The condition only suggests that human rights norms ought to be acceptable for all the people who embrace diverse and different religious as well as philosophical views. They are supposed to aim at being acceptable to a great variety of all these views.

Basing on this, Cohen argues for “justificatory minimalism” that follows according to his presentation:

Justificatory minimalism is animated by an acknowledgement of pluralism and embrace of toleration. It aspires to present a conception of human rights without itself connecting that conception to a particular ethical or religious outlook; it minimizes theoretical aspirations in the statement of the conception of human rights with the aim of presenting a conception that is capable of winning broader public allegiance — where the relevant public is global. (Cohen 2004, 192)

Basing on this presentation, justificatory minimalism makes of 2 central justifications. To begin with, human rights norms need to aim at “winning broader public allegiance” channeled to them. For the reason that people all round the world encompass different religious and ethical views, human rights need to recognize pluralism of these views furthermore strive to abide by them. subsequently, this entails a consequence that “theoretical aspirations in the statement of the conception of human rights” ought to be minimized. It is indeed possible to comprehend human rights norms indevoid of reference to a certain “philosophical theory”.

At present, Cohen doesn’t argue in opposition to liberal human rights. But he proposes that an argument against liberal human rights can be capable of having some plausibility, given justificatory minimalism. Ingelhart may perhaps provide a paradigm:

The Law of Peoples does not say, for example, that human beings are moral persons and have equal worth in the eyes of God; or that they have certain moral and intellectual powers that entitle them to these rights. To argue in these ways would involve religious or philosophical doctrines that many decent hierarchical peoples might reject as liberal or democratic, or as in some way distinctive of Western political tradition and prejudicial to other cultures (Ingelhart, 2003, 241).

Ingelhart asserts in his book that liberal principles rest on specified metaphysical doctrines concerning human beings’ status or else on fundamental doctrines regasrding their moral values. The doctrines are, seemingly, “distinctive of Western political tradition”; other societies have come up intensely with different doctrines. Universal political norms need to be interpreted a way that is adherent to typical Western as well as non-Western doctrines similarly their importance need to be understood.

Nevertheless, it is likely to explain liberal principles in such a way that is consistent to “justificatory minimalism”. As Cohen clarifies, justificatory minimalism “is animated by an acknowledgement of pluralism and embrace of toleration.” Precisely, it recognizes a plurality of diverse “ethical or religious outlooks”.

As a result, the tolerance approved by justificatory minimalism is intended for these different “outlooks”. Therefore, justificatory minimalism bases on a fundamental value that is intended for getting common rules that are accepted by lots of people from diverse ethical and religious outlooks.

At present, in nearly all societies, there isn’t any unanimity regarding to these outlooks. This doesn’t signify that cultural and religious disparities are at all times strongly present in social life, other than some people whose outlook differs from the view of the majority. Consequently, the plurality of both ethical and religious outlooks doesn’t just exist among diverse societies all round the world. It also subsists in societies.

We can at this moment notice that the underlying value of justificatory minimalism is similar to the value underlying liberal political principles. As mentioned before, liberal principles try to tolerate different attitudes and beliefs. They give out conditions that govern the domination of a particular set of ideas by any other particular set.

Justificatory minimalism bases on the same value of tolerance; it only moves the concentration from smaller-scale conflicts amongst the members of the societies to large-scale political conflicts amongst societies. For individuals who are truly concerned about tolerance towards different outlooks, it shouldn’t matter in principle whether conflicts occur either within or between the societies.

Therefore, liberal principles aren’t inevitably tied to particularly Western religious or philosophical traditions. Their appeal can be interpreted by any person who recognizes the plurality of ethical and religious traditions and also embraces the value of tolerance. Basing on this sense, liberal principles aren’t parochial.

The value of mutual self-determination

Critics of liberal human rights repeatedly create a further objection: liberal human rights are not compatible with acknowledging the value of self-determination collectively. For instance, Mutua attests against the full freedom of religion as part and parcel of human rights by asserting that “the most fundamental of all human rights is that of self-determination … Any right which directly conflicts with this right ought to be void to the extent of that conflict.” (Mutua 2002, 108)

How precisely might self-determination be at variance with liberal human rights? The subsequent argument may be made: given that a society is self-determined politically, others should respect the political norms carried out within the society since they have been freely chosen by the citizens. Societies upholding liberal human rights norms do not succeed to give the respect owing to all those self-determined societies that don’t accept liberal principles. As a result, not everybody should support liberal human rights.

Further clarifications are required approximately two aspects regarding to this argument. First and foremost, what’s here the behind the idea of collective self-determination? An individual may perhaps liken the notion to the principle of self-determination of peoples within the international law.

But self-determination collectively and legally, doesn’t correspond to the sense of self-determination that is needed in the argument. Various aspects of the legal principle turn out to be controversial, nevertheless it is approved that it is associated to the obligation of non-intervention in cases where people have attained statehood in its legitimate territory (Ipsen, 2004, 394).

As we have previously seen, the obligation of non-intervention doesn’t necessarily disagree with universal human rights practices, for instance, public criticism different states. Consequently, if liberal human rights are solely backed up by milder forms of international pressure that doesn’t total up to “intervention”, there isn’t any conflict amongst them and self-determination legally.

So the perception of collective self-determination as argued above has to be different from legal self determination. It must be a moral notion that includes more duties as compared the legal principle. Debatably, Gould defends self-determination as a moral value when she denotes: “self-determination, duly constrained by appropriate conditions, is an important good for a people, and the foreign policy of liberal peoples should recognize that good and not take the appearance of being coercive.” (Gould, 2006, 99)

The self-determination of a people tends to be “good”, here for instance, as a value that needs to be recognized by other peoples. To be certain, Goulds’ remarks with full respect to coercion advocaes that acknowledging this value implies only paying respect to the principle of non-intervention.

Actually, this value needs to justify duties that are strong. For instance, Barry argues that single states as well as international institutions should not offer incentives to the other countries to take over liberal institutions. Barry puts emphasis on “the great importance of maintaining mutual respect between peoples and of each people maintaining its self-respect” (Barry, 2003, 68).

Maintaining common human rights norms, that necessitate societies to take on specified political principles, seemingly refutes respect to societies that don’t accomplish the norm. Basing on Barry, we may possibly suggest that the value of collective self-determination offers the other societies a motive to “respect” self- determining societies.

Here is the second aspect of the objection regarding collective self-determination that requires clarification: basing on which circumstances can a society be assumed to be self-determined? It appears that the only way a society can be self-determined is if it is in one way or another governed by the combined will of all its members. This conflicts to being subjected to either an outsiders will or of part of its members.

But this condition should be of which strength? It is seemingly controversial whether self-determination necessitates everybody having equal formal powers in political procedures, thus the principle of democratic governance. We don’t have to settle this issue here. What we need to assume is that a self-determined society could possibly adopt political practices that in one way or another defy a number of liberal principles.

In addressing the argument that has been presented above, that seeks to attest that the value of collective self-determination gives a reason that contrasts to liberal human rights.

Basing on the fact that we are primarily addressing the supporters of human rights although denying the universality of liberal principles, we can possibly assume that the moral petition of the value of collective self determination depends on the respect for decisions absorbed by the peoples’ members. While paying respect to the self- determined decisions of a people, we eventually respect the options of individuals that was composed by the people.

Now, a procedure in incorporated for every collective decision that accepts different views of individuals as not only an input but also a common decision as an output. In a number of cases, the verdict could be liberally accepted by almost all of the individuals, but usually collective verdicts are taken that conflict to the will of most of the members.

Additionally, there isn’t any procedural guarantee that the result of a decision procedure is fair. Even the procedures that execute strict but real conditions of procedural fairness tend to yield choices that turn out to be significantly unfair, in the view of defenders of liberal principles.

Given such cases, defenders of liberal principles face problems. They can’t accept the fact that the society is self-determined as a satisfying motive to respect the collective decision since they carry that respect is in due course owed to the individuals, but not collectively as a whole.

Once respect is eventually guaranteed to the individuals, an individual needs to realize the fact that most people encompass different notions regarding the end collective decision, thus an individual needs to owe respect to all the sides of the controversy moreover come up with a reasoned option regarding the side that deserves respect especially when all things are considered.

When thinking that while making such reasoned choices, the decision made collectively is substantially unfair to those individual on only one side of the, then this must be a good motive for taking sides along with them and as well not respecting the decision. So far, they are believed as moral defenders by the defenders of liberal principles.

This is contrasted to local customs, they’ll be dedicated to seeing each and every violation of liberal principles as a significantly unfair treatment of particular society members. as a result, they have with them a very good reason that allows them not to respect collective decisions that defy liberal principles.

However, an individual may possibly argue out that this particular reason is overshadowed by stronger countervailing motives. To be specific, an individual may possibly declare that all of the individuals who seem to be treated unfairly must have made free alternatives, that in one way or another validate expecting from them to tolerate the burdens substantial to these decisions. The following are some of the reasons of this kind.

One of the reasons is that an individual could possibly mention as a matter of fact is that these individuals reside in certain societies in devoid of being forced to do so. As a matter of fact, if they were truthfully unhappy from the collective decisions absorbed within their society, then they would certainly leave.

However this argument supposes that individuals can relocate in other societies. This is almost not true. Most of the countries incorporate restrictive immigration policies; furthermore there are cultural as well as economic barriers against migration. Therefore, the likelihood of emigration can’t be a satisfactorily strong motive to anticipate from them to tolerate the burdens of unfair collective decisions within their society.

Another reason could possibly be the fact that individuals take part in the collective decision- making of all the people. Irrespective of the unfairness of the outcome, an individual may imagine that they’re dedicated to the outcome since they have implicitly agreed to the procedures.

However it isn’t clear why it should be the case ( with the exclusion of a problem that specific persons may decide to boycott collective decision- making based on uneven conditions). It is not irrational and immoral to take part in the political processes even though an individual isn’t disposed to agree to certain outcomes.

Taking part in collective decision-making, and acknowledging temporarily the procedures based upon while taking these decisions, is the sole likelihood they’ve to not only express their views but also manipulate the collective decisions in a calm and peaceful way. We can’t embrace their involvement against them.

In conclusion, the outlined reasons aren’t convincing. The value of collective self-determination doesn’t provide us with satisfying reasons to respect illiberal political practices in different societies.

Conclusion

In a synopsis, it can be stated that we have scrutinized three objections compared with including liberal philosophy in global human rights norms: the tapered political part of human rights, the supposed Western parochialism of liberal ideology, as well as the worth of mutual self-determination.

All these objections failed to elucidate proof of a persuasive argument. For as long as there are no other persuasive challenges facing liberal human rights, protecters of liberal doctrines have no principled ethical reason to keep off from maintaining liberal principles as part of global human rights norms.

References

Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beitz, C. R. (2009). The idea of human rights. Oxford: Cassese.

Cohen, J. (2004). Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For? In: Journal of Political Philosophy 12. 190-213.

Cohen, J. L. (2008). Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of globalization. Political theory 36. 578-606 .

Freedom house. (2010b). Poilcing belief: The impact of blasphemy laws on human rights. New York.

Geuss, R. (2001). History of illusion in politics. London: Cambridge.

Gould, C. C. (2006). Self-Determination Beyond Sovereignty: Relating Transnational democracy to local autonomy. journal of social philosophy 37. 44-60.

Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demok. Frankfurt: ratischen rechtsstaats.

Habermas, J. (2001). Zur legitimation durch Menchenrechte. Hauke Bronkhorst , 386-403.

Ingelhart, P. N. (2003). The true clash of civilization. Foreign Policy 135 , 62-70.

Ipsen, K. (2004). Volkerrecht. Frankfurt: Frankfurt M.

Mutau, M. (2002). Human Rights: A Political and cultural critique. New York: Blackwell.

Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. London: Oxford.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge: MA/ London.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walzer, J., N. (2007). Making sense of human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!