The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State
The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State
复制标题
脆弱主体和响应状态
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Fineman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Fineman
由于美国宪法也没有对住房、教育或医疗保健等基本社会福利提供保障，因此美国普遍采用的反歧视、待遇相同的平等方法尤其成问题。在欧洲和其他国家，支持对这些商品的权利要求的人权话语在美国并不存在。我们尚未批准许多国际协定，包括与经济权利有关的协定，以及《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》和《儿童权利公约》。法院帮不上什么忙。事实上，试图在国内-在美国的实践和法律中-适用人权理想的努力，如果不是遭到彻底拒绝的话，也遭到了抵制。最高法院的几位大法官谴责，在美国宪法条款（上级）应该占上风的情况下，引用人权原则来支持美国先例下的合宪性论点，是对“外国时尚”的应用。我对脆弱性概念和脆弱主体概念的发展，始于一种偷偷伪装的人权话语，为美国观众而生。这一概念是从早期的表述演变而来的，我现在认为，作为一种方法，它有一些重大的区别，特别是对脆弱性的关注显然是集中在探讨人权比喻中人的部分的性质，而不是权利部分。重要的是，对脆弱性的考虑，除了国家和个人之外，还将社会机构纳入讨论和审查范围。脆弱性被认为是一种特征，它使我们作为人类彼此之间的关系处于一种地位，也表明了国家与个人之间的责任关系。人类脆弱性的本质构成了一种主张的基础，即国家必须对这种脆弱性做出更积极的反应，并更好地确保“全美国”机会平等的承诺。
Since there is also no U.S. constitutional guarantee to basic social goods, such as housing, education, or health care, the anti-discrimination, sameness-of-treatment approach to equality prevalent in the United States is particularly problematic. The discourse of human rights that supports claims to such goods in European and other countries does not exist in America. We have not ratified many of the international agreements, including those associated with economic rights, as well as CEDAW and CRC. The courts are little help. In fact, attempts to apply human rights ideals internally - to American practices and laws - have been met with resistance, if not outright rejection. Several Justices of the Supreme Court decried references to human rights principles used to bolster arguments about constitutionality under American precedent to be the application of "foreign fads" when (superior) American constitutional provisions should prevail.My development of the concept of vulnerability and the idea of a vulnerable subject began as a stealthily disguised human rights discourse, fashioned for an American audience. The concept has evolved from those early articulations, and I now think it has some significant differences as an approach, particularly in that a focus on vulnerability is decidedly focused on exploring the nature of the human part, rather than the rights part, of the human rights trope. Importantly, consideration of vulnerability brings societal institutions, in addition to the state and individual, into the discussion and under scrutiny. Vulnerability is posited as the characteristic that positions us in relation to each other as human beings and also suggests a relationship of responsibility between state and individual. The nature of human vulnerability forms the basis for a claim that the state must be more responsive to that vulnerability and do better at ensuring the "All-American" promise of equality of opportunity.