We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Building on the analogy from quantum mechanics, we can ask whether certain human rights exist in a shared state. This would mean, for instance, whether the right to privacy exists in a shared state with the right to freedom of expression. Or, whether the right to reputation – leaving aside the issue whether such a self-standing right can be justified – exists in a shared state with the right of access to information. If the premise of such a shared state is correct, then it would follow that change in the scope and meaning of one right (particle) in this shared state leads to a simultaneous change in the opposite direction in the other right (particle). After transposition into a new domain, the features of a human rights idea, or characteristics of some offline traditional right, may appear in a higher spectrum than in the traditional setting. We notice wide variance between the meaning of freedom of expression offline and online, since offline it can rarely be justified as an absolute right, whereas online practice shows a duality: the parallel possibility of relativity and absoluteness.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.