权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Social Human Rights

社会人权

基本信息

批准号：
AH/S011013/1
负责人：
Kimberley Brownlee
金额：
$ 4.49万
依托单位：
University of Warwick
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2019
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2019 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FS011013%2F1
关键词：
Social Human Rights

项目摘要

Human rights are about the brute moral minimum. They identify the minimum level of decent treatment we owe to each other as human beings. Over the past two decades, philosophers, political theorists, and legal theorists have turned their collective attention to the analysis of human rights. But, they have focused their attention largely on a subset of our civil and political rights, such as our rights to participate politically, to have free expression, to practice a religion, to assemble together for political purposes, and to be safe from torture, as well as on a small set of our socio-economic welfare rights, such as our rights to be free from poverty, to health, and to education. International agreements enumerate a range of other rights, however, which have received considerably less analytic attention from human rights theorists. Among these enumerated rights are, notably, our interpersonal, social rights, such as the rights to marry, to be protected in parent-child relationships, and to share in the benefits of our society's scientific and cultural advancements. The elucidation of these rights makes little mention of either the goods of friendship or more general rights to have ongoing, close human contact beyond the family unit. There are signs that policymakers are beginning to take our interpersonal needs seriously. The UK government, for one, has made a material commitment to combating loneliness and social isolation, through a £20 million investment and the appointment of a Minister (Tracey Crouch) tasked with implementing the government's cross-party work on these issues. This background environment provides an ideal setting for this network to produce timely and impactful research on social human rights. Some key questions to ask at the outset are whether the social rights enumerated in international agreements hold up to analytic scrutiny, and whether human rights offer a good conceptual apparatus with which to frame our social needs and ensure they are met. Other important questions are whether any key social rights have been missed in legalistic debates about human rights, and whether social rights would require society to rethink radically its policies within sectors such as criminal justice, health, and immigration, which are often sites of forced segregation and social malnourishment. Through a programme of activities including an open conference, research retreat, and stakeholder meetings, this network of internationally renowned philosophers, political theorists, legal theorists, and rising stars will investigate these and other questions. Network members represent a range of conflicting views on the status of social human rights. Some hold that the centrality of social needs to our wellbeing means that the language of duties and obligations attendant to rights-discourse is indeed the correct framework to adopt. Others are unconvinced that such an approach is feasible, and argue that discussions of social rights overstep the boundaries of what rights-discourse can hope to achieve. The contest of these perspectives will inform and underpin the project's edited collection and the other outputs that will emerge from the network's activities. By foregrounding our social natures in discussions of our needs, obligations and duties, either within or beyond a rights-centred framework, we can develop our understanding of the political and legal structures that shape our relations with other people. If, for example, a person is systematically excluded from associations with other people as a result of others' free choices, what support, if any, does society owe her? In addition, what other processes within our social world generate situations where our social needs go unmet? It is in opening up these questions, and shedding light on what emerges as a consequence of taking our constitutively social nature seriously, that this network intends to make its mark.

人权是最起码的野蛮道德。它们确定了我们作为人类应给予彼此的最低限度的体面待遇。在过去的二十年里，哲学家、政治理论家和法律的理论家都把他们的集体注意力转向了对人权的分析。但是，他们的注意力主要集中在我们的公民权利和政治权利的一个子集上，例如我们参与政治的权利，言论自由，信仰宗教的权利，为政治目的集会的权利，以及免受酷刑的权利，以及我们的一小部分社会经济福利权利，例如我们免于贫困的权利，健康和教育。然而，国际协定列举了一系列其他权利，但人权理论家对这些权利的分析却少得多。在这些列举的权利中，值得注意的是我们的人际和社会权利，例如结婚的权利、在父母子女关系中受到保护的权利以及分享我们社会科学和文化进步的利益的权利。对这些权利的阐述很少提到友谊的好处，也很少提到在家庭单位之外进行持续的、密切的人类接触的更一般的权利。有迹象表明，政策制定者开始认真对待我们的人际需求。例如，英国政府已经通过2000万英镑的投资和任命一位部长（特蕾西·克劳奇）来执行政府在这些问题上的跨党派工作，从而做出了对抗孤独和社会孤立的物质承诺。这一背景环境为该网络提供了一个理想的环境，以便对社会人权进行及时和有影响力的研究。首先要问的一些关键问题是，国际协定中列举的社会权利是否经得起分析审查，人权是否提供了一个良好的概念工具，用以确定我们的社会需求并确保这些需求得到满足。其他重要的问题是，在关于人权的法律辩论中是否遗漏了任何关键的社会权利，以及社会权利是否要求社会从根本上重新思考其在刑事司法、卫生和移民等部门的政策，这些部门往往是强制隔离和社会营养不良的场所。通过一系列活动，包括公开会议、研究务虚会和利益相关者会议，这个由国际知名哲学家、政治理论家、法律的理论家和后起之秀组成的网络将研究这些问题和其他问题。网络成员对社会人权状况的看法各不相同。有些人认为，社会需求对我们的福祉的中心地位意味着，伴随权利话语而来的责任和义务的语言确实是应该采用的正确框架。其他人则不相信这种方法是可行的，并认为对社会权利的讨论超越了权利话语所希望实现的界限。对这些观点的讨论将为该项目编辑后的作品集以及该网络活动产生的其他产出提供信息和支持。通过在以权利为中心的框架内或框架外讨论我们的需要、义务和责任时突出我们的社会性质，我们可以发展我们对塑造我们与他人关系的政治和法律的结构的理解。例如，如果一个人由于其他人的自由选择而被系统地排除在与其他人的交往之外，那么社会欠她什么支持，如果有的话？此外，在我们的社会世界中，还有哪些过程会导致我们的社会需求得不到满足？正是在打开这些问题，并揭示了什么出现的后果，我们的宪法社会性质认真，这个网络打算作出自己的标志。