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

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Share

COinS
 
May 18th, 9:00 AM May 21st, 5:00 PM

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.