Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:53:45.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why and How Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2019

S. Prakash Sinha
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The existing state of human beings, to which the present international movement for human rights addresses itself, is no reason for applause for the success of that movement. It is true that there are several reasons for the lack of success and not all blame is to be borne by the deficiencies in the present approach. True also is the fact that the struggle for protection of the human being from excesses of the state or powerful elements within society is a continuing saga of organized society with only the promise that the struggle and its causes have more of an enduring existence than the various efforts for seeking protection for the human being attempted in the history of mankind, of which human-rights is one instance. However, to the extent it is legitimate to explore if improvements in the present approach are possible, one might well be permitted to raise anew questions about the philosophical foundation for human rights and the pragmatic approach to their achievement.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , December 1982 , pp. 308 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by International Association of Law Libraries 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. I am indebted to other scholars for many of these criticisms. For the is-ought controversy, see, in addition to Sinha, S.P., “The Fission and Fusion of Is-Ought in the Legal Philosophy,” 21 Villanova Law Review 839 (1975–76), M. Villey, “‘Sein’ and ‘Sollen’ in Erfahrungsbereich des Rechts, Un point de vue d'historien,” 13 Archives de Philosophie du Droit 333 (1968); Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 469–470 (1888); Hume, D., Essays, Literary Moral and Political, 93–107, 407–501 (1870); Tones, P., “Another Look at Hume's Views of Aesthetic and Moral Judgments,” 21 Philosophical Quarterly 24 (1971); MacIntyre, A.C., “Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’”, 68 The Philosophical Review 451 (1959); Atkinson, R.F., “Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’: A Reply to Mr. MacIntyre,” 70 The Philosophical Review 239 1961); Hudson, W.D., “Hume on Is and Ought,” The Philosophical Review Quarterly 246 (1964); Hudson, W.D., “Editor's Introduction: The Is-Ought Problem,” in Hudson, W.D. (ed.), The Is-Ought Question, 11 (1969); Hudson, W.D., Modern Moral Philosophy, 249 ff. (1970); G. Hunter, “Hume on ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’, 37 Philosophy 148 (1962); A. Flew, “On the Interpretation of Hume,” in Hudson (ed.), Is-Ought, 64; Hunter, G., “A Reply to Professor Flew,” in Hudson (ed.) Is-Ought, 70; Ayer, A.J., Logical Positivism, 22 (1959); Hare, R.M., Freedom and Reason, 108 1963); Hare, R.M., “Universalizability,” 55 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 295, 303 (1954–55); Prichard, H.A., Moral Obligation, 89 (1949); Zimmerman, M., “The ‘Is-Ought’: An Unnecessary Dualism” 71 Mind 53 (1962), Zimmerman, M., “A Note on the ‘Is-Ought’ Barrier,” 76 Mind (286); Hanly, K., “Zimmerman's ‘Is-Is’: A Schizophrenic Monism,” 73 Mind 443 (1964); Gewirth, A., “Must One Play the Moral Language Game?” of American Philosophical Quarterly 107 (1970); Black, M., “The Gap Between ‘Is’ and ‘Should’,” 73 The Philosophical Review 220 (1965). Phillips, D.Z., “The Possibilities of Moral Advice,” 25 Analysis 37 (1964–65); Searle, T.R., Speech Acts, ch. 8 (1959); Searle, J.R., “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’” 73 Philosophical Review 43 (1964); Flew, A., “On Not Deriving ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’,” 25 Analysis 25 (1964), Hare, R.M., “The Promising Game,” in Hudson (ed.), Is-Ought, 144; McClellan, J.E. and Komisar, B.P., “On Deriving ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’,” 25 Analysis 32 (1964–65); Genova, A.C., “Institutional Facts and Brute Values,” 81 Ethics 36 (1970); Zemach, E.M., “Ought, Is, and a Game Called ‘Promise’,” 21 Philosophical Review 61 (1971); Wilkins, B.T., “The Is-Ought Controversy,” 80 Ethics 160 (1969–70); Stocker, M., “Moral Duties, Institutions, and Natural Facts,” 54 The Monist 602 (1970); Olfstad, H. and Bergstrom, L., “A Note on Searle's Derivation of ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’,” 8 Inquiry 309 (1965); Grice, G.R., “Hume's Law,” 44 The Aristotelian Society: Supplementary Volume 89 (1970); Edgley, R., “Hume's Law,” id., 105; Allen, G.O., “From the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ to the Ideal Observer Theory,” 30 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 553 (1970); Allen, G.O. “The Is-Ought Question Reformulated and Answered,” 82 Ethics 181 (1972); Frankena, W.F., “Ought and Is Once More,” 2 Man and World 515 (1969); Prior, A.M., “The Autonomy of Ethics”, 39 Australian Journal of Philosophy, 286 (1961); Fuller, LL., “Human Purpose and Natural Law,” 53 Journal of Philosophy 697 (1956); Fuller, L., The Morality of Law (rev. ed., 1969); Nagel, E., “Fact, Value and Human Purpose,” 4 Natural Law Forum 26, 28 (1959); Nagel, E., “On The Fusion of Fact and Value: A Reply to Professor Fuller,” 3 Natural Law Forum 77 (1958); Lewis, J.U., “An Analysis of ‘Purposive Activity’: Its Relevance to the Relation Between Law and Moral Obligation,” 16 The American Journal of Jurisprudence 143 (1971); Amselek, P., “La phenomenologie et le droit,” 17 Archives de Philosophie du Droit 185 (1972); Peschka, V., “La phenomenologie dans la philosophie du droit moderne, 12 Archives de Philosophie du droit 259 (1967); Friedman, W., “Phenomenology and Legal Science,” in Natanson, M. (ed.), Phenomenology and the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, 343 (1973). For a criticism of natural law, see Abelson, R., “Unnatural Law” in Hook, S. (ed.), Law and Philosophy, A Symposium 247 (1964); Baumgardt, D., “Natural Law Valid in Itself and Alleged by Relativistic Eudaemonism,” in Hook at 172; Bodenheimer, E., Jurisprudence: The Philosophy and Method of the Law, 11–12 (1967); Bozeman, A.B., The Future of Law in a Multicultural World (1971); Cairns, H., Legal Philosophy from Plato to Hegel, 168–175 (1949); Cantril, H., “Ethical Relativity from the Transactional Point of View,” 52 The Journal of Philosophy 677 (1952); Castberg, F., “Natural Law and Human Rights, “1 Revue des Droits de l'homme 14 (1968); Chroust, A.H., “On the Nature of Natural Law,” in Paul Sayre (ed.), Interpretation of Modern Legal Philosophies, Essays in Honor of Roscoe Pound, 70 (1947); M. Cranston, What are Human Rights? (1962); Dias, R.W.M., Jurisprudence, 523–524 (1964); Friedmann, W., “An Analysis of ‘In Defense of Natural Law’,” in Hook at 144; Friedmann, W., Legal Theory, 12 (5th ed., 1967); Kluckhohn, C., “Ethical Relativity, Sic et Non,” 52 The Journal of Philosophy 663 (1955); Kurtz, P., “Law, Decision and the Behavioral Sciences,” in Hook at 224; Ladriere, J., “Human Rights and Historicity,” 10 World Justice 147 (1968–69); Macdonald, M., “Natural Rights,” 47 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 225 (1946–47), reprinted in Melden, A.I. (ed.), Human Rights, 40 (1970); Nielson, K., “The Myth of Natural Law,” in Hook at 122; Nielson, K., “Scepticism and Human Rights,” 52 The Monist 573 (1968); Northrop, F.S.C., “Contemporary Jurisprudence and International Law,” 61 Yale Law Journal 623 (1952); Northrop, F.S.C., “Ethical Relativity in the Light of Recent Legal Science,” 52 The Journal of Philosophy 649 (1955); Olafson, F., “Essence and Concept in Natural Law Theory,” in Hood at 234; Oppenheim, F., “The Metaethics of Natural Law,” in Hook at 241; Patterson, E.W., Men and Ideas of the Law, 340, 342–343, 352–353, 362–366 (1953); Popper, K., The Open Society and its Enemies (1966); Reinhardt, L., “Comment on Professor Machan's Address,” 52 The Personalist 346 (1971); Rimanque, K., “Human Rights,” 7 World Justice 170 (1965–66); Ross, A., “A Critique of the Philosophy of Natural Law,” in Golding, M.P. (ed.), The Nature of Law 68 (1966); Ross, A., On Law and Justice, 237–239, 258–267 (1958); Russell, B., Mysticism and Logic (1927); Stern, K., “Either-or or Neither-nor,” in Hook at 247; Vasak, K., “Le droit international des droits de l'homme,” 140 Recueil des Cours 332 (1974); Verzijl, J.H.W., Human rights in Historical Perspective (1958); Wolheim, R., in 8 The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 450, 451 (1967).Google Scholar

2. Bentham, J., The Theory of Legislation (ed. C.K. Ogden), 2 (1930); Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism (1863), Everyman's ed., 48; Blake, R.M., “On Natural Rights” 36 Ethics 94 (1925).Google Scholar

3. Sinha, S.P., “Human Rights: A Non-Western Viewpoint,” 67 Archiv für Rechts-und Sozial philosophie 76 (1981); Sinha, S.P., “Human Rights Philosophically,” 18 Indian Journal of International Law 139 (1978); Sinha, S.P., “The Anthropocentric Theory of International Law as a Basis for Human Rights,” 10 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Human Rights Issue 469 (1978). For a criticism of my position, see Fryer, E.D., “Contemplating Sinha's Anthropocentric Theory of International Law as a Basis for Human Rights,” 12 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 575 (1980).Google Scholar

4. For values of the Western social order, see Finley, J.H. Jr., Four Stages of Greek Thought (1966); G. Murray, Hellenism and the Modern World (1953); Bowra, C.M., The Greek Experience (1958); Haas, W.S., The Destiny of the Mind (1956); Koestler, A., The Lotus and the Robot (1961); Wittkower, R., Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (1965); McLuhan, H.M., The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (1962); Naish, G.P.N., “Ships and Shipbuilding,” 3 A History of Technology 148 (1958); Whitehead, A.N., Science and the Modern World (1948); Mumford, L., The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development (1967); Webb, W.P., The Great Frontier (1964); Singer, C., A Short History of Scientific Ideas 1900 (1959); Matson, F.W., The Broken Image: Man, Science and Society (1966). For Chinese social order, see Gernet, J., Le Monde chinois (1972); Tsien, T.-H., “La responsabilité civile delictuelle en Chine populaire.” 1967 Revue international de droit comparé 875; Tsao, W.-Y., “Equity in Chinese Customary Law,” in Essays in Jurisprudence in Honor of Roscoe Pound, 24 (1962); Bodde, D. and Morris, C., Law in Imperial China (1967); Van Mau, Vu, “Influence du bouddhisme sur le droit,” 1964 Revue asienne de droit comparé 3; Van der Sprenkel, S., Legal Institutions in Manchu China (1962); Cohen, J. A., “Chinese Mediation on the Eve of Modernization”, 54 California Law Review 120 (1966); Escarra, J., Le droit chinois, 55 (1936); McAleavy, H., “Chinese Law,” in J.D.M. Derrett (ed.), An Introduction to Legal Systems, 115, 119–122 (1968); Chu Chong, On the Reconstruction of the Chinese System of Law (1947); Leng, Shao-Chuan, Justice in Communist China (1957); Kazol, K.S., La deuxième Révolution Chinoise (1973); Macciocchi, M.A., De la Chine (1971). For Japanese social order, see Noda, Y., Introduction au droit japonais (1966); des Longrais, F. Jouon, L'Est et l'Ouest; Institutions du Japan et de l'Occident comparés (Six études de sociologie juridique) (1958); von Mehren, A., Law in Japan; The Legal Order in a Changing Society (1963). For the custom of the buke (Goseibai shikimoku), see Appert, G., “un code de la féodalité japonaise au XIIIe siècle,” 24 Nouvelle Revue historique de droit 338 (1900); Tanaka, K., “Democracy and Judicial Administration in Japan,” 2 Journal of the International Commission of Jurists 7 (1959–1960); Henderson, D.F., Conciliation and Japanese Law: Tokugawa and Modern (1964). For African social order, see Allott, A.N., “African Law” in Derrett, J.D.M. (ed.), An Introduction to Legal Systems (1968); Allott, A.N., Essays in African Law (1960); Alott, A.N., New Essays in African Law (1970); Verdier, R., “Chef de terre et terre de lignage” in Poirer, J. (ed.), Etudes de droit africain et du droit malgache, 333 (1965); Deschamps, H., “Les fondements du droit quotidien malagache” in Poirier, Etudes, 19; Alliot, M., “Les résistences traditionelles au droit moderne dans les états d'Afrique francophone et à Madagascar,” in Poirier, Etudes, 235; Gluckman, M., Politics, Law, and Ritual in Tribal Society (1965); Van Velsen, J., “Procedural Informality, Reconciliation, and False Comparisons,” in Gluckman, M., Ideas and Procedures in African Customary Law, 137 (1969); Monteil, V., L'Islam noir (2d ed., 1971); Anderson, J.N.D., Islamic Law in Africa (2d ed., 1970); Froelich, J.O., “Droit musulman et droit coutumier” in Poirier, Etudes, 361; Anderson, J.N.D., “Islamic Law in Africa: Problems of Today and Tomorrow” in Anderson, J.N.D. (ed.), Changing Law in Developing Countries, 164 (1963); E. Cotran, “The Place and Future of Custom in East Africa” in East African Law Today, 77 (1966); Gonidec, P.F., Les droit africaine (1968). For Islamic social order, see Ollenu, N.A., “The Structure of African Judicial Authority and Problems of Evidence and Proof in Traditional Courts,” in Gluckman, M. (ed.), Idées et procedures dans les systèmes légaux africains, 110 (1969); Poirier, J., “L'analyse des especes juridiques et l'étude des droit coutumiers africains,” in Gluckman, Systèmes légaux, 97; Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964); Coulson, N.J., History of Islamic Law (1964). For Hindu social order, see Kane, P.V., History of Dharmasastra, v. (1930–62); Basham, A.L., Wonder That Was India (1962); Derrett, J.D.M., Hindu Law Past and Present (1957); Lingat, R., Les Sources du droit dans le systeme traditional de l'inde (1967); Viehweg, T. and May, R. (eds.) Studien zu nichteuropäischen Rechtstheorien, Volume I: Beiträge zu Indischem Rechtsdenken, by Derrett, J.D.M., Sontheimer, G.D., and Smith, G. (1979) (Summaries in English); Dutt, M.N. (ed.), Manu Samhita, The Dharma Sastra, Text and Translation (1908).Google Scholar