首页> 外文期刊>Human Rights Review >Global poverty and responsibility: Identifying the duty-bearers of human rights
【24h】

Global poverty and responsibility: Identifying the duty-bearers of human rights

机译:全球贫困与责任:确定人权的责任承担者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Many rights theorists argue that global poverty violates certain human rights, so that responsibility to address poverty involves carrying out the duties that correspond with relevant rights-claims. Liberatirians argue that the rights and duties associated with global poverty, especially what are sometimes thought of as “positive” rights, or rights of assistance, are inappropriately agent-neutral, giving them less justificatory force than agent-relative rights and duties. To counter libertarian concerns, Thomas Pogge tries to reframe the responsibilities corresponding to human rights as institutional rather than as belonging to agents. While admirable, his approach inadequately expalains the relationships between institutional responsibility and individual and collective action. A better way to respond to libertarian concerns—that is also compatible with Pogge’s emphasis on institutional responsibility—is to show that the duties regarding global poverty are indeed agent-relative, but by virtue of individual and collective action within institutions.
机译:许多权利理论家认为,全球贫困侵犯了某些人权,因此解决贫困的责任涉及履行与相关权利要求相对应的职责。自由主义者认为,与全球贫困相关的权利和义务,特别是有时被称为“积极”权利或援助权的行为,是不恰当地与代理无关的,与代理相对的权利和义务相比,它们赋予的辩护力量较小。为了应对自由主义者的关注,托马斯·波格(Thomas Pogge)试图将与人权相对应的责任重新界定为制度性的,而不是属于代理人的。虽然令人钦佩,但他的方法不足以说明机构责任与个人和集体行动之间的关系。回应自由主义者关注的更好的方法(也与Pogge强调的机构责任相一致)是表明,有关全球贫困的责任确实是相对于代理人的,但要依靠机构内的个人和集体行动。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Human Rights Review》 |2006年第1期|35-52|共18页
  • 作者

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:15:09

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号