His theory conceives human rights as rights of citizens rather than of human beings. The theory is construed for a body of people who form a political society rather than the human race forming a moral community . Reality however shows that human nature is not an immutable essence but a mixture of elements and values such as possibilities, interest, power and immunities, dignity, rationality and liberty. The conflict of theories can be solved by balancing prima facie rights which are not absolute but are dealt with case by case, the balancing is to be against each other not wishing merits in terms of some different ultimate standard of value such as
Reitman clearly explains and elaborate the arguments well, from the introduction to the concluding section. The beginning chapter has clearly shown the whole thing that the author will discuss. Once again, this is a well-organized article with very clear and comprehensive arguments and explanations. I agree with the arguments of the opposition between two branches of international human rights, the cultural relativism and the feminism, towards the international human rights itself particularly in term of universality. However, I see that the cultural relativist may cooperate with feminist to achieve their intention against the universality but I see this more into Cultural Relativist vs (Feminist vs human rights).
In Hannah Arendt’s book, The Human Condition, she discusses what it means for man to be truly free. She coins the term “vita activa” to mean the active life of man. She divides the “vita activa” into three foundational human activities: labor, work, and action (7). In this essay, I will be focusing specifically on Arendt’s idea of action and freedom and how it relates to Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Freedom. Arendt’s account of freedom as action does not really correspond with Berlin’s idea of negative freedom; however, it does have elements that resemble Berlin’s concept of positive freedom.
Though, in the opening section of his book, he agrees that he ‘doesn’t present a precise theory of moral basis of individual rights’ but he still suggests various factors that such a theory might be inclusive of. Anarchy, state and Utopia starts with: “Individuals have rights, and there exist things that no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)” These rights, to him, are natural because of who we are not because they were given to us by someone else but just mentioning that we have rights isn’t the same as saying why we have them. For this, he draws on Immanuel Kant’s famous formulation: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” . Humans are beings possessed with the virtue of rationality and hold dignity which keeps one from being used by another, and hence we have rights against such use. The idea that forms the core of his argument is the conception of a human’s capacity to lead a life they want.
In this sense, despite his return to ontology, Agamben is not a world away from poststructuralists and other discourse analysts. Agamben defines sovereignty mainly in terms of the exception. Sovereignty is constitutive of the state and of politics because it constitutes the political body by deciding who is to be incorporated into it. This decision is based on a fundamental exclusion of what is to remain outside. Sovereignty is more significance to the state
In an attempt to compare Karl Marx and Hannah Arendt’s critiques of the rights of man as expressed in “On the Jewish Question” and “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man,” in H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, considering their main arguments is inevitable. This article argues that both Karl Marx and Hannah Arendt’s critiques of the rights of man, for the most part, overlap and came from the same origin. The formulation of the question is of highly important for Marx. In view of the fact that, “to formulate a question is to resolve it," In response to his friend- Bruno Bauer- “in the Jews question” Marx criticizes, his friend’s formulation of the Jews question, and by reconstructing the problem in different
Both feminist and relativist critiques highlighted the claim that the human rights are universal (Bunting 1993; Kandi- yoti 1995:19; and An-Na 'im 1994:171-2) . The feminist focusing on the practice of the human right universality rather than the theory, but the relativist is otherwise they focusing on both theory and
Constructivist Alexander Wendt rejects the neorealist position of anarchy necessarily leading to self-help. That cannot be decided a priori; it depends on the interaction between states. In these processes of interaction the identities and interests of
Needless to say, the work has caused much controversy, mainly due to the fact that it has been misread. Hannah Arendt’s ideas are difficult to grasp because she goes beyond the usual treatment of criminals accused of crimes against humanity, especially if they are former members of the Nazi party, and offers a completely different approach to the issue. Many people have claimed that the author expresses some very relevant philosophical points, but that the historical example she uses is simply not the right one for expressing these points. Most critics have shared the opinion that Arendt failed to recognise Eichmann’s true personality and that with claiming that the motives for his deeds were banal rather than monstrous, she failed to acknowledge
Alexander Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics proposes a theory that places great importance on the role of identity, shared ideas and norms in defining state behaviour. He theorises a structural and idealist worldview which contrasts with the individualism and materialism that underpins much of the mainstream international relations theories. As I explore the gist of Wendt's book, I will attempt to summarise the key findings, contributions to International Relations and to a certain extent, the limitations of Wendt's theory. Wendt is critical to both liberal and realist approaches that emphasises materialist and individualistic motivations for state actions while discounting identity, norms and shared values. As put forth by Wendt, the world is not a self-help system but an international landscape which is created and re-created through processes of