Book contents
- The Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- The Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I The Contextual Challenges and Purpose of the Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- Part II Reflections on Some Theories and Doctrines
- Part III The Core Elements of Non-coherence Theory
- Part IV The Impact of the Non-coherence Theory
- Part V Internet Balancing Formula
- 21 The Internet Balancing Formula
- 22 Robert Alexy’s Views on the Internet Balancing Formula
- 23 Reply to Alexy Critique
- 24 The Debate
- In Lieu of the Concluding Remarks
- Index
23 - Reply to Alexy Critique
from Part V - Internet Balancing Formula
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
- The Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- The Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I The Contextual Challenges and Purpose of the Non-coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
- Part II Reflections on Some Theories and Doctrines
- Part III The Core Elements of Non-coherence Theory
- Part IV The Impact of the Non-coherence Theory
- Part V Internet Balancing Formula
- 21 The Internet Balancing Formula
- 22 Robert Alexy’s Views on the Internet Balancing Formula
- 23 Reply to Alexy Critique
- 24 The Debate
- In Lieu of the Concluding Remarks
- Index
Summary
The chapter responds to Alexy critique towards the Internet Balancing Formula. Non-acceptance of Robert Alexy’s critique originates from the rejection of the proposition that at any given time only one abstract weight of a particular fundamental right may exist. On the contrary, there can exist multiple abstract weights of one fundamental right at any given time, and for the following reasons. The first reason concerns the source of the abstract weight of a fundamental right, that is, whether it is determined through explication or whether it originates from the ideal dimension of human rights. The second reason is related to the relativity and interdependence of the terms abstract weight and intensity of interference. The third reason for disagreement concerns the general aspect of human rights development. At the present stage in the IBF, the aspect of empathy should be applied in stalemate cases or in difficult cases. For the purposes of the IBF, the element of empathy can be labelled the irrationality thesis.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Non-Coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights , pp. 278 - 285Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024