File Download
  • No File Attached
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Taking the reasons for human rights seriously
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleTaking the reasons for human rights seriously
 
AuthorsCi, J1
 
KeywordsAgency
Human rights
Ideology
Justice
Reification
 
Issue Date2005
 
PublisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=6
 
CitationPolitical Theory, 2005, v. 33 n. 2, p. 243-265 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591704271988
 
AbstractThe human rights discourse is vitiated by its tendency to reification, a tendency manifest in an ideologically motivated failure to take the reasons for human rights seriously. When a set of rights fall short, in range or strength, of the reasons adduced for them, any claim to the universality and priority of the rights in question is open to the charge of falsification and reification. Such a claim invites immanent critique insofar as a human rights discourse fails to take its own reasons seriously by working out a set of rights commensurate with them. Further critique is necessary if the human rights concept as such can be shown to be incapable of living up to the best reasons for human rights, in the shape, the author argues, of agency-based reasons. These kinds of critique, especially the latter, can serve as an antidote to the reifying tendency of the human rights discourse. © 2005 Sage Publications.
 
ISSN0090-5917
2012 Impact Factor: 0.703
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.060
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591704271988
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000227538100006
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorCi, J
 
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T08:05:25Z
 
dc.date.available2010-09-06T08:05:25Z
 
dc.date.issued2005
 
dc.description.abstractThe human rights discourse is vitiated by its tendency to reification, a tendency manifest in an ideologically motivated failure to take the reasons for human rights seriously. When a set of rights fall short, in range or strength, of the reasons adduced for them, any claim to the universality and priority of the rights in question is open to the charge of falsification and reification. Such a claim invites immanent critique insofar as a human rights discourse fails to take its own reasons seriously by working out a set of rights commensurate with them. Further critique is necessary if the human rights concept as such can be shown to be incapable of living up to the best reasons for human rights, in the shape, the author argues, of agency-based reasons. These kinds of critique, especially the latter, can serve as an antidote to the reifying tendency of the human rights discourse. © 2005 Sage Publications.
 
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationPolitical Theory, 2005, v. 33 n. 2, p. 243-265 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591704271988
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591704271988
 
dc.identifier.epage265
 
dc.identifier.hkuros106017
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000227538100006
 
dc.identifier.issn0090-5917
2012 Impact Factor: 0.703
2012 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.060
 
dc.identifier.issue2
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-16344373591
 
dc.identifier.spage243
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/80350
 
dc.identifier.volume33
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=6
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofPolitical Theory
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.rightsPolitical Theory. Copyright © Sage Publications, Inc.
 
dc.subjectAgency
 
dc.subjectHuman rights
 
dc.subjectIdeology
 
dc.subjectJustice
 
dc.subjectReification
 
dc.titleTaking the reasons for human rights seriously
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Ci, J</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2010-09-06T08:05:25Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2010-09-06T08:05:25Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2005</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Political Theory, 2005, v. 33 n. 2, p. 243-265</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0090-5917</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/80350</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>The human rights discourse is vitiated by its tendency to reification, a tendency manifest in an ideologically motivated failure to take the reasons for human rights seriously. When a set of rights fall short, in range or strength, of the reasons adduced for them, any claim to the universality and priority of the rights in question is open to the charge of falsification and reification. Such a claim invites immanent critique insofar as a human rights discourse fails to take its own reasons seriously by working out a set of rights commensurate with them. Further critique is necessary if the human rights concept as such can be shown to be incapable of living up to the best reasons for human rights, in the shape, the author argues, of agency-based reasons. These kinds of critique, especially the latter, can serve as an antidote to the reifying tendency of the human rights discourse. &#169; 2005 Sage Publications.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Sage Publications, Inc. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=6</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Political Theory</relation.ispartof>
<rights>Political Theory. Copyright &#169; Sage Publications, Inc.</rights>
<subject>Agency</subject>
<subject>Human rights</subject>
<subject>Ideology</subject>
<subject>Justice</subject>
<subject>Reification</subject>
<title>Taking the reasons for human rights seriously</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0090-5917&amp;volume=33: 2&amp;spage=243&amp;epage=265&amp;date=2005&amp;atitle=Taking+the+Reasons+for+Human+Rights+Seriously</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>Link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1177/0090591704271988</identifier.doi>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-16344373591</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>106017</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-16344373591&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>33</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>2</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>243</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>265</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000227538100006</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong