Skip to main content

Human Rights

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
  • 58 Accesses

Abstract

Should global bioethics and international human rights be considered to arise from the same idealistic human urge to shape our interactions by universally applicable principle? Are both being threatened by the narrower greed and profit-focused principles driving corporate globalization? “Positivist” theories assert human rights (unlike bioethical principles) derive from rules of recognition embedded in four primary legal systems: international law, constitutional law, legislation, and judicial decisions applying common law precedents. In such a scheme, bioethics represents inchoate or potential legal norms that lack the economic clout that trade sanctions, for example, give otherwise more normatively problematic trade and investment agreements. One approach to “natural law” jurisprudence views human rights and bioethics, however, as presumptively cohering with principles implicit in the nature of human interactions and in reality when understood at its most fundamental and ideal forms. From such a perspective, the visionary project to develop both human rights and bioethics as counters to global corporate power exerted through trade and investment agreements may be merging into a normative quest to develop enforceable principles that encourage respect for all forms of life, not merely that of humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ashcroft, R. E. (2010). Could human rights supersede bioethics? Human Rights Law Review, 10(4), 639–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. (2001). Bioethics and human rights: A historical perspective. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewhurst, K. (1995). Sydenham’s letters to John Locke. Practitioner, 175, 314–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faunce, T. A. (2005). Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO universal bioethics declaration. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faunce, T. A. (2007). Who owns our health. Medical professionalism, law and leadership beyond the age of the market state. Sydney NSW and Baltimore: University of NSW Press/Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faunce, T. A. (Ed.). (2015). Nanotechnology toward the sustainocene. Singapore: Pan Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, B., & ten Have, H. (2014). Future perspectives. In H. ten Have & B. Gordijn (Eds.), Handbook of global bioethics (pp. 829–844). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, L. P. (2001). The lingua franca of human rights and the rise of a global bioethic. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10, 253–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, S. K. (2003). Private power, public law. The globalisation of intellectual property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1945). United Nations statute of the ICJ 1945. UNTS; 1: xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Adopted 10 Dec 1948. GA Res 217A (III). UN doc A/810 (1948) 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1966a). International covenant on civil and political rights. Adopted 16 Dec 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976. GA Res 2200A (XXI). UN GAOR supp (no 16) 52. UN doc A/6316 (1966). UNTS; 999: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1966b). International covenant on economic, cultural and social rights. Adopted 16 Dec 1966, entry into force 3 Jan 1976. GA Res 2200A(XXI). UN Doc A/6316 (1966). UNTS; 993: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2000). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 14 on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health in Article 12 ICECSR e/C.12/2000/4 11/08/2000.

    Google Scholar 

Further Readings

  • Ashcroft, R. E. (2010). Could human rights supersede bioethics? Human Rights Law Review, 10(4), 639–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. (2001). Bioethics and human rights: A historical perspective. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordijn, B., & ten Have, H. (2014). Future perspectives. In H. ten Have & B. Gordijn (Eds.), Handbook of global bioethics (pp. 829–844). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, L. P. (2001). The lingua franca of human rights and the rise of a global bioethic. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 10, 253–263.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Faunce .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Faunce, T. (2016). Human Rights. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_232

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics