Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
China, Convention against Torture (CAT), Gustav Radbruch, international human rights law, objectivity, universality, relativity, shared intention, speech act, treaty interpretation
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that there is objectivity in the international human rights law, against which the justifiability of arguments can be determined and the universality vs. relativity of human rights debate could be taken a step further. I propose an optimising approach for treaty interpretation, point out that there is epistemic objectivity residing in this approach, and analyse China’s relativism arguments on Article 1 of the Convention against Torture to elaborate above points.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
Danny Marrero, Commentary on A Perspective of Objectivity in the Human Rights Arguments (May 2016)
Included in
Particular Reasoning versus universal human rights: A case of China
University of Windsor
In this paper, I argue that there is objectivity in the international human rights law, against which the justifiability of arguments can be determined and the universality vs. relativity of human rights debate could be taken a step further. I propose an optimising approach for treaty interpretation, point out that there is epistemic objectivity residing in this approach, and analyse China’s relativism arguments on Article 1 of the Convention against Torture to elaborate above points.
