Normative Theories of Politics - Contrasting Cosmopolitan and Communitarian Approaches When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone.
The question is whether a state is looking inward or outward for a deepened understanding and heightened application of human rights. The nation-state, which is authorized to transform principles into both policy and practice, is the central resolution to the question. However, nation-states are faced with the challenge of balancing their sovereignty with the moral necessity to produce enforceable regulations that both establish and protect global citizenship. Although there is a national interest in building a reputable international rapport, it cannot be denied that sovereignty is always an ingrained issue. In return, nation states attempt to limit the extent to which it involves itself in the addressing of human rights violations abroad.
The problem is how does one go about doing implementing human rights on a universal scale while respecting a state’s right to sovereignty and direction of law (Orford, 2003)? And by extension, how does the international community as a whole work towards enforcing said principles if a state opposes it? These questions act as the foundation of an argument that is shared throughout the international community; who has the right to implement and enforce human rights norms and by what authority shall that entity utilize to complete such an objective? Argument/Analysis First of all, let us analyze the global political system in its current form as to fully grasp the convoluted nature of international politics. One could argue that the ever changing global political scene is directly attributed to the multilateral approach to dealing with issues relevant to state sovereignty and intervention.
“The basic idea is that we can understand what human rights are and what their justification requires by identifying the main roles they play in some political sphere.” (Rawls 1999). Advocators of political conceptions of human rights are often dubious about universal moral rights and concentrate on the provision of sound justifications for the content, normativity, and roles of human rights. Rawls goes on to explain how political rights are not unconditional and can be overruled by other considerations of state. For example, the right to freedom of movement can be restricted by public and private property rights when intervention orders related to domestic violence are in place and by legal penalties. According to Pablo Gilabert (2003) the political perspective on human rights claims that individuals are against certain institutional structures, in particular modern states when they have an issue of human rights that include them.
Human rights and their underlying principles Human rights are regarded as the keystone of modernity. There are various international bills to entrench the modern ideas of human rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Human beings are entitled to civil and political rights against violation by the state, as long as the social, economic and cultural rights. Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”.
Through looking at two aspects which the definition has to satisfy, not being a circular argument, and representing the entire nation, several flaws become present in Sieyès definition of the nation. Resolution to the flaw posed by the possible circular logic appears to require a different definition altogether, whilst for the problem of unrepresented members, Sieyès must justify their exclusion, find another way of representing them or justify their voting rights. If these solutions were offered, the definition of the nation would be superior to its current state and make justification of Sieyès’ arguments for his thesis more feasible. Bibliography: Sieyès, Emmanuel. Political Writings.
In these contexts, claims about human dignity are often made in order to identify human rights violations and to demand their redress. Human dignity is meant to serve as the grounds for, but also comes to be an effect of, the promotion and protection of human rights. But what precisely is dignity? And is dignity the proper basis on which to fight for specific SOGI rights such as those listed in the Yogyakarta Principles and promoted by the United Nations recently launched “Free & Equal” campaign? Is it the dignity of individuals with non-normative sexual orientations or gender identities that we seek to protect or promote when we identify particular forms of violence toward and discrimination against sexual minorities as h... ... middle of paper ... ...dy to make a claim about human dignity.
Observing this, I will look at how the concept of humanitarian intervention is inseparable form the context of politics and history, and particularly, the concept of power. This necessarily calls for a critical examination of humanitarian intervention, which is often considered a modern form of colonialism (what is colonialism?). In conclusion, I suggest that humanitarian intervention can be considered an example of just war theory, but it is debatable whether or not the ethical foundations of humanitarian intervention can be realised in the context of a power-motivated international world system. To discuss wh... ... middle of paper ... ...which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute.
For this reason, major cultural difference need to be taken into account when generating a security system to ensure a cohesive global society. I believe the best way to account for major cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for a universal declaration of humans, is through the democratic majority. Works Cited Friend, Celeste. "Social Contract Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
These two rights often conflict with one another where freedom of expression is more important than freedom of religion. It is important to know if there was no freedom of expression there will not be freedom of religion. In order for one to practice his or her religion they must be able to express their religion, for this reason there is a need for freedom of expression. Firstly, freedom of religion in section 2(a) of the charter, states that freedom of conscious and religion is part of person’s autonomy where it is there to develop individuals self. This section also states that there is no absolute protection on all actions based on religion.