頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 真的有國際人權法指涉的普世人權?政治哲學世界公民主義(Kosmopolitismus)與特殊公民主義(Partikularismus)論戰下的人權圖像落差=Is There Any Universal Human Right in the International Human Rights Law? Debate between Cosmopolitism and Particularism in the Political Philosophy regarding the Picture of Human Rights? |
---|---|
作 者 | 林佳和; | 書刊名 | 臺灣國際法季刊 |
卷 期 | 9:4 2012.12[民101.12] |
頁 次 | 頁115-145 |
分類號 | 579.27 |
關鍵詞 | 普世人權; 國際人權法; 世界公民主義; 特殊公民主義; 政治哲學; Universal human rights; International law of human rights; Cosmopolitism; Particularism; Political philosophy; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | Extra rempublicam nulla iustitia:國家之外,無正義可言。在人權普遍受到重視,國際人權法理論與實踐方興未艾的今天,所謂人權的貫徹與保障,乃至於人權的內涵與標準,卻仍然擺脫不了這句話所遺留的宿命,至少一定程度而言。在康德「永恆的和平」之後,伴隨所主張之ius cosmopoliticum,世界公民之法,就算有著哈伯瑪斯倡議之國際法的立憲化,所謂的全球正義,卻仍然概念模糊而實踐嬴弱。近年來政治哲學世界公民主義與特殊公民主義之爭,無異從知識上更清楚地凸顯問題之艱難:被歸類為世界公民主義之看法以為,全球正義是可以證立的,確實存在著道德上的普世主義,任何人於道德上均得主張做為最後重要與正確之規範性,所有干預個人生命的統治關係,都必須合理化,因此在實際政治上,應努力建立正當之全球統治秩序與機制,以維護全球正義。相對的,以John Rawls、David Miller為首之特殊公民主義陣營認為,正義的原則無法擴及全球,而是僅能適用於特定之正義領域之內,因為正義與不正義與否,本身就是特定關聯形式與脈絡下的結果,亦即所謂建構正義的關係形式。因此,如內國與全球之正義原則衝突,應認只有國家之國民,或甚至民族、社群或權力秩序成員,方得享有優越地位與保障,再者,從經驗角度出發,現實上並不存在與國民國家類似之全球統治形式與全球主權,以解決正義主張之問題。伴隨著所謂儒家資本主義數十年來發展所建立之東亞諸國法秩序中,分別在不同的時代裡,接受、內化、挑戰與排斥著顯然從西方傳遞過來的人權觀,世界公民主義與特殊公民主義之爭下的人權圖像,再次不同程度的衝擊著東亞諸國之資本主義法秩序。究竟共通與各自獨特之文化與傳統倫理、社會權力關係等,是迎向世界公民主義境界前之最後殘餘,抑或其實進一步鞏固特殊公民主義所描繪的否認全球正義之存在?或許,Rainer Forst所主張之批判的正義理論,所謂「要求合理化之權利」(是一可資思考的方向:不流於諸如「世界共和國」之夢想與西方人權觀殖民所帶來之衝擊,也不能自陷於各自內國社會權力宰制關係所建立之非道德秩序,而是站在民主權利、自主決定、溝通言說的三個基點上,從分析現存權力關係出發,以回溯-普遍之合理化為方法,直接檢驗並指明正義與不正義之社會關係,辯證式的考察內國與全球之正義秩序,應是可以用來觀察國際法秩序上人權發展與落差之軌跡為何。 |
英文摘要 | Extra rempublicam nulla iustitia: there should be no justice exist besides the national state. In the time that the human rights are generally been paid attention as well as the theory and practice for the international law of human rights develop into its high time, the enforcement of their guarantee, even the content and the criterion of them are still not able to overstep such limit to some extent. After the forever peace and sequentially the so-called ius cosmopoliticum, the law of the world citizens, from Immanuel Kant, with Jürgen Habermas’ reclamation for the constitutionalization of the international law, the concept of the global justice is still confused, its implementation still powerless. The debate between Cosmopolitism, Kosmopolitismus, and Particularism, Partikularismus, in the political philosophy in the recent years, points out more clearly this difficult problem and dilemma. The supporter for the Cosmopolitism believe that the global justice can be proved. It really existes a moral universalism. Anyone is able to declare morally his normativity with the last importance and correctness. All domination which intervenes in personal life should be justified. At the area of real politics, we should construct a legitimately global rulying order and mechanism for the global justice. On the other hand, the Particularianer like John Rawls as well as David Miller, have faith in that the principles for the global justice cannot extend to the global level. The justice is valid exclusively in the space of a definitely, particular sphere. The question about just or not just, is as such the result of a particular formation and context, the so-called relationship to construct the justice, gerechtigkeitskonstitutive Beziehungen. According to their statement, when it goes to a conflict between the national and the global principles of justice, the consequence is that the member of the state (etatism), the nation (nationalism), the community (communitarism) or even the power order (power realism) should possess the privilege status and guarantee. They also believe that, empirically said, there is no global ruling form and sovereignty which can resolve the problem of justice. The legal order of the East-Asian countries, based upon the Confucianism, receive, implicate, challenge and contradict these concepts of the human rights which obviously came from the west. The contradictive picture of the human rights under the conflict between Cosmopolitism and Particularism, come again at the capital legal order from the different East-Asian countries. Their common and also at the same time particular culture, traditional ethics and social power relationship, will be the last residuum before its way directly to the Cosmopolitism? Or it actually just offer help to the final negation of the global justice, like the Particularism says? Perhaps the theory «Right for Justification» (Recht auf Rechtfertigung) from Rainer Forst, can show us another way: not to be miserably deep in the dream of the so-called world republic and not the least the colonization of the human rights concepts from the west, but neither to insist the probably unmoral order from the local social dominant relationship. The alternative will be based on the tripod: democratic rights, self-determination as well as communicative discourses. At the beginning from the analysis of the present power relationship, we could use the method «reziprok-general justification» (reziprok-allgemeine Rechtfertigung) to testify the just od unjust social relationship, and to make a dialectical observation from national to global order of justice, which is perhaps appropriate to look for the real picture of human rights in the area of international legal order. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。