Violations of human rights by transnational corporations and by other ‘private’ global actors raise problems that signal the limits of the traditional doctrine of ‘horizontal effects’. To overcome them, constitutional law doctrine needs to be complemented by perspectives from legal theory and sociology of law. This allows new answers to the following questions: What is the validity basis of human rights in transnational ‘private’ regimes – extraterritorial effect, colère public or external pressures on autonomous law making in global regimes? Do they result in protective duties of the states or in direct human rights obligations of private transnational actors? What does it mean to generalise state-directed human rights and to respecify them for different social spheres? Are societal human rights limited to ‘negative’ rights or is institutional imagination capable of developing ‘positive’ rights – rights of inclusion and participation in various social fields? Are societal human rights directed exclusively against corporate actors or can they be extended to counteract structural violence of anonymous social processes? Can such broadened perspectives of human rights be re-translated into the practice of public interest litigation? |
Artikel |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2011 |
Trefwoorden | fundamental rights, societal constitutionalism, inclusionary and exclusionary effects, anonymous matrix |
Auteurs | Gunther Teubner |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Discussie |
|
Tijdschrift | Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2011 |
Trefwoorden | semiosphera, paranomia, Drittwirkung, matrix argument |
Auteurs | Pasquale Femia |
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie |
Examining the function of human rights in the semiosphere requires a strategy of differentiation: the dissolution of politics into political moments (politics, it is argued, is not a system, but a form of discourse); the distinction between discourse and communication; the concept of systemic paranomic functionings. Paranomia is a situation generated by the pathological closure of discourses, in which knowledge of valid and observed norms obscures power. Fundamental rights are the movement of communication, claims about redistributing powers, directed against paranomic functionings. Rethinking the debate about the third party effect implies that validity and coherence must be differentiated for the development of the ‘matrix argument’. |