We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Dialectical Snares: Human Rights and Democracy in the World Society | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dialectical Snares: Human Rights and Democracy in the World Society

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

  • First Online:

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights

Abstract

The paper starts with a thesis on the dialectical structure of modern law that goes back to the European revolutionary tradition and constitutes a legal structure that is at once emancipatory and repressive. Once it became democratic, the modern nation state has solved more or less successfully the crises that have emerged in modern Europe since the sixteenth century. Yet, this state did not escape the dialectical snares of modern law and modern legal regimes. It’s greatest advance, the exclusion of inequalities, presupposed the exclusion of the internal other of blacks, workers, women, etc., and the other that stemmed from the non-European world that furthermore was under European colonial rule or other forms of European, North American, or Japanese imperial control. Yet, the wars and revolutions of the twentieth century led to a complete reconstruction, new foundation, and globalization of all national and international law. The evolutionary advance of the twentieth century was the emergence of world law, and this enabled the construction of international and national welfarism and the global expansion of the exclusion of inequalities. Nevertheless, the dialectic of enlightenment returned and led to new forms of post-national domination, hegemony, oppression, and exclusion. The final section of the paper tries to detect some ideas and principles for how to overcome the crisis.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kant ([1870] 1996); Hegel (2001 [1821] § 4); Marx, K. ([1842] (1988), 58 and 109–47).

  2. 2.

    Rawls (1993).

  3. 3.

    On the latter: Kesselring (1984).

  4. 4.

    Berman (2006, 5 ff.).

  5. 5.

    Law of collision or ‘Kollisionsrecht’ (Joerges, Teubner, Fischer-Lescano) has deep roots in Western constitutional law. One can describe this with Chantal Mouffe also as transformation from antagonism to agonism – if one keeps in mind (against Mouffe) the constitutive role of constitutional law in this transformational process.

  6. 6.

    On the exclusion of inequalities as a condition of a successful nation-state see: Stichweh (2000, 52).

  7. 7.

    This hangs together with the premises of the theory of the social contract, see: Kersting (2002).

  8. 8.

    Article 35 of the concluding protocol of the Berlin Conference on West Africa on West Africa in 1884/85. See: Koskenniemi (2004, 126).

  9. 9.

    The best point of a poor book is the thesis that neither old nor new notions of imperialism with a territorial centre make sense in a functionally differentiated world society and have to be replaced by a more and more de-territorialized and flexible kind of (systemic) hegemony: Hardt and Negri on Empire (2000). For a much better account the systemic transformation of hegemony: Fischer-Lescano and Teubner (2005); Buckel (2007); for an interesting thesis on the emergence of a new and imperial world state see: Chimni (2004).

  10. 10.

    On societal structure: Brunkhorst (2009); on global culture: Meyer (1997, 144–181 and 2005).

  11. 11.

    Rorty (1993, 111–20); Roy (2006).

  12. 12.

    Parsons (1969, 17); Parsons and Platt (1990); Döbert et al. (1980).

  13. 13.

    Brunkhorst (2008b, 30–63 and 37).

  14. 14.

    For a first account of this thesis: Brunkhorst (2008a); Brunkhorst (2008b).

  15. 15.

    See only: Sunstein (1993), Roosevelt, cited in Sunstein (1993, XI). On the development of social anti-discrimination rights in the Soviet Union, see Berman (1963).

  16. 16.

    Grimm (1990); see also Grimm (1991); Luhmann (1981a); classically: Neumann (1937).

  17. 17.

    Historically instructive is an activist of the New Deal: Seagle (1941). More up to date: Maurer (2006, § 16).

  18. 18.

    Luhmann (1981a); Berman (1963, esp. 277 ff.). On an astonishing and peculiar parallel between the Soviet educational law and the Puritan codex of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the “Body of Liberties” of 1641, see: Berman (1991, 64 ff.). Concerning the beginning in the 1930s, see Joerges and Ghaleigh (2003).

  19. 19.

    For a more comprehensive overview: Brunkhorst (2008a).

  20. 20.

    Streek (2005). As we now can see, the talk about late capitalism was not wrong but should be restricted to state-embedded capitalism, and state embedded capitalism indeed is over. But what then came was not socialism but global disembedded capitalism which seems to be as far from state embedded capitalism of the old days as from socialism.

  21. 21.

    There Will Be Blood, USA 2007, Director: Paul Thomas Anderson. One-sided but in this point striking the neo-Pashukanian analysis of international law by Mieville (2005).

  22. 22.

    On transnational administrative during the last few years a whole industry of research emerged, see only: Tietje (2003), Möllers (2005a), Krisch and Kingsbury (2006), Kingsbury et al. (2005), Möllers et al. (2007), Fischer-Lescano (2008). On the globalization of executive power: Wolf (2000), Dobner (2006), Lübbe-Wolf (2008).

  23. 23.

    For the thesis that the UN-Charter is the one and only constitution of the global legal and political order, see: Fassbender (1998). Different approaches in: Bogdandy (2003), Albert and Stichweh (2007), Bogdandy (2006), Brunkhorst (2002), Brunkhorst (2005a); For the thesis of constitutional pluralism see: Teubner (2003).

  24. 24.

    For the original version of this thesis: Brunkhorst (2002).

  25. 25.

    [Reform according to Principles. –Ed. Trans.].

  26. 26.

    A paradigmatic account is: Rorty (1980). For recent developments cf. Brandom (1994); Habermas (1997).

  27. 27.

    Merkl (1927, 160, 169), Merkl (1968, 252–94).

  28. 28.

    Von Bernstorff (2008, 167–90, at 181).

  29. 29.

    Von Bernstorff (2001).

  30. 30.

    This comes close to Habermas’ normatively strong or Luhmann’s normatively neutralized idea of circulations of communication without a subject (subjektlose Kommunikationskreiläufe). Habermas (1992), Luhmann (1983); in conjunction with: Neves (2000).

  31. 31.

    Kelsen ([1920] 1981), Kelsen ([1925] 1993), Kelsen ([1934] 1967).

  32. 32.

    Nothing is necessary in a democratic legal regime except the normative idea of equal freedom: Kant ([1870] 1996), Maus (1992), Brunkhorst (2005b, 37 and 67–77), Möllers (2008a, 13–14 and 16).

  33. 33.

    Kelsen ([1920] 1981).

  34. 34.

    Möllers (2001, 423).

  35. 35.

    Maus (1992), Habermas (1992).

  36. 36.

    Möllers (2008b, 160–82).

  37. 37.

    Habermas (1992, 170 and 492–3).

  38. 38.

    Kantorowicz (1957).

  39. 39.

    Habermas (1992, 170 and 492–3), Möllers (2005b).

  40. 40.

    Democratic legitimization is inclusive because it governed by the one and only constitutional principle of democracy, and that is the principle of self-legislation or autonomy. This principle is socially inclusive because it presupposes that a procedure of legitimization that is democratic has to include everybody who is concerned by legislation and jurisdiction. Consequently, all exceptions (e.g. babies) have to be justified publicly and need compensation through human rights; cf.; Müller (1997, 76), Marks (2000).

  41. 41.

    Marks (2000).

  42. 42.

    Ibid., 103, 149.

  43. 43.

    ‘All men’ can mean many different things, e.g. all men in a bus, all men on German territory, all men with US passports (which is far less than all US citizens), all men on the globe, all men in the universe, all men who are French citizens, all men who are addressed by a certain legal norm. Democracy and democratic legitimization is only concerned with the last two meanings, and the possible tension between them.

References

  • Albert, M. and R. Stichweh. 2007. Weltstaat und Weltstaatlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anghie, A. 2005. Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bast, J. 2008. Das Demokratiedefizit fragmentierter Internationalisierung. In Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft, Soziale Welt Sonderheft, ed. H. Brunkhorst. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. and E. Grande. 2004.Das kosmopolitische Europa. Gesellschaft und Politik in der Zweiten Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, H.J. 1963. Justice in the USSR. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, H.J. 1991. Recht und revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, H.J. 2006. Law and revolution II: The impact of the protestant reformation on the Western legal tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R. 1994. Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing & discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2002. Globalising democracy without a state: Weak public, strong public, global constitutionalism. Millenium: Journal of International Studies 31(3): 675–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2005a. Demokratie in der globalen Rechtsgenossenschaft, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Sonderheft Weltgesellschaft, 330–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2005b. Solidarity. From civic friendship to a global legal community. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2008a. Die Globale Rechtsrevolution. Von der Evolution der Verfassungsrevolution zur Revolution der Verfassungsevolution? In Rechtstheorie in rechtspraktischer Absicht, ed. R. Christensen and B. Pieroth, 9–34. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot/FS Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2008b. Kritik am Dualismus des internationalen Recht – Hans Kelsen und die Völkerrechtsrevolution des 20. Jahrhunderts. In Verrechtlichung internationaler Politik, ed. R. Kreide and A. Niederberger, 30–63. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2008c. Democratic solidarity under pressure of global forces: Religion, capitalism and public power. Distinktion Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 17: 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunkhorst, H. 2009. There will be blood. Konstitutionalisierung Ohne Demokratie? In Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft, ed. H. Brunkhorst. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckel, S. 2007. Subjektivierung und Kohäsion. Zur Rekonstruktion einer materialistischen Theorie des Rechts. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, M. 2003. Preemptive self-defense. The Journal of Political Philosophy 2: 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. 2002. The class consciousness of frequent travelers. The South Atlantic Quarterly 4: 869–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. 2005. Cosmopolitism and belonging, Vortrag 37. Stockholm: World Congress International Institute of Sociology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun, C. 2009. ‘Belonging’ in the cosmopolitan imaginary. Ethnicities 3(4): 531–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chimni, B.S. 2004. International Institutions today: An imperial global state in the making. European Journal of International Law 15/1: 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, J. 2005. Heart of darkness. New York: Norton Critical Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. 2000. Citizenship and social class. In Citizenship today: The contemporary relevance of T.H. Marshall, ed. M. Bulmer and A.M. Rees, 25–48. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Döbert, R., J. Habermas, and G. Nunner-Winkler (eds.). 1980. Entwicklung des Ichs. Königstein: Anton Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobner, P. 2006. Did the state fail? Zur Transnationalisierung und Privatisierung der öffentlichen Daseinsvorsorge: Die Reform der globalen Trinkwasserpolitik. Available at: http://www.dvpw.de/dummy/fileadmin/docs/2006xDobner.pdf

  • Fassbender, B. 1998. The united nations charter as constitution of the international community. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 36: 529–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano, A. 2008. Transnationales Verwaltungsecht. Juristen-Zeitung 8: 373–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Lescano, A., and G. Teubner. 2005. Regime-Kollisionen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, E., and A. von Brünneck. 2001. Der Doppelstaat. Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. (ed.). 1990. Wachsende Staatsaufgaben sinkende Steuerungsfähigkeit des Rechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. 1991. Der Wandel der Staatsaufgaben und die Krise des Rechtsstaats. In Die Zukunft der Verfassung, ed. D. Grimm, 159–175. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1997. Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G.W.F. 2001 [1821]. Philosophy of right (trans: Dyde, S.W.). Kitchener: Batoche Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joerges, C., and N.S. Ghaleigh (eds.). 2003. Darker legacies of law in Europe. The shadow of national socialism and fascism over Europe and its legal traditions. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. [1870] 1996. Metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorowicz, E.H. 1957. The king’s two bodies. Princeton: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. [1920], 1981. Vom Wert der Demokratie. Aalen: Scientia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. [1925], 1993. Allgemeine Staatslehre. Wien: Österreichische Staatsdruckerei.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen, H. [1934], 1967. Reine Rechtslehre. Wien: Österreichische Staatsdruckerei.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersting, W. 2002. Thomas Hobbes zur Einfürung. Hamburg: Junius Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesselring, T. 1984. Die Produktivität der Antinomie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, B. Krisch, N. and Steward, R. B. 2005. The emergence of global administrative law. Available at: http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp

  • Koskenniemi, M. 2004. The gentle civilizer of nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch, N. and Kingsbury, B. 2006. Symposium: Global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. European Journal of International Law 17/1: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krücken, G., and W.J. Meyer. 2005. Weltkultur: Wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leisering, L. 2007. Gibt es einen Weltwohlfahrtsstaat? In Weltstaat und Weltstaatlichkeit, ed. M. Albert and R. Stichweh, 185–205. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lübbe-Wolf, G. 2008. Die Internationalisierung der Politik und der Machtverlust der Parlamente. In Demokratie in der Weltgesellschaft, ed. H. Brunkhorst. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1971. Weltgesellschaft. Archiv für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie 57: 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1981. Politische Theorie im Wohlfahrtsstaat. München: Olzog.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1983. Legitimation durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1998. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, S. 2000. The riddle of all constitutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. [1842] 1988.Verhandlungen des 6. Rheinischen Landtags. Debatten über das Holzdiebstahlsgesetz. Berlin: Dietz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, H. 2006. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. Munich: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maus, I. 1992. Zur Aufklärung der Demokratietheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl, A. 1927. Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht. Wien: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkl, A. 1968. Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des rechtlichen Stufenbaus. In Adolf Merkl und die Wiener rechtstheoretische Schule, ed. H. Klecatsky, R. Marcic, and H. Schambeck. Wien: Europa Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, W.J. 1997. World society and the nation-state. The American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mieville, C. 2005. Between equal rights: A marxist theory of international law. London: Haymarket.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C. 2001. Staat als Argument. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C. 2005a. Transnationale Behördenkooperation. ZaöRV 65: 351–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C. 2005b. Gewaltengliederung: Legitimation und Dogmatik im internationalen Rechtsvergleich. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C. 2008a. Demokratie – Zumutungen und Versprechen. Berlin: Wagenbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C. 2008b. Expressive vs. repräsentative Demokratie. In Verrechtlichung transnationaler politik. Nationale Demokration in kontext globaler politik, ed. R. Kreide and A. Niederberger. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllers, C., A. Voßkuhle, and C. Walter (eds.). 2007. Internationalisierung des Verwaltungsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, F. 1997. Wer ist das Volk? Eine Grundfrage der Demokratie, Elemente einer Verfassungstheorie VI. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, F. 1937. Der Funktionswandel des Gesetzes im Recht der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 6: 542–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neves, M. 2000. Zwischen Themis und Leviathan. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter, S. 2008. Prekäre Staatlichkeit und die Grenzen internationaler Verrechtlichung. In Verrechtlichung internationaler Politik. Ende oder Neubeginn der Demokratie? ed. R. Kreide and A. Niederberger, 90–114. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, t., and G. Platt. 1990. Die amerikanische Universität: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der Erkenntnis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1969. Order and community in the international social system. In International politics and foreign policy, ed. J.N. Rosenau. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T., and G.M. Platt. 2006. Die amerikanische Universität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhard, W. 1999. Geschichte der Staatsgewalt. München: Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1993. Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality. In On human rights. Oxford Amnesty lectures, ed. S. Shute and S.L. Hurley. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, H. 2006. The universal underneath the multiple: Social acceleration as the key to understanding modernity. In The plurality of modernity: Decentering sociology, ed. S. Costa, J.M. Domingues, W. Knöbel, and J.P. da Silva, 22–42. München: Hampp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, O. 2006.Der islamistische Wegnach Westen. Globalisierung, Entwurzelung und Radikalisierung. München: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seagle, W. 1941. The quest of law. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stichweh, R. 2000. Die Weltgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streek, W. 2005. Sectoral specialization: Politics and the nation state in a global economy. Paper presented at the 37th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. 1993. After the rights revolution. Reconceiving the regulatory state. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. 2003. Globale Zivilverfassungen: Alternativen zur staatszentrierten Verfassung­stheorie. ZaöRV 63(1): 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje, C. 2003. Die Staatsrechtslehre und die Veränderung ihres Gegenstandes. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 17: 1081–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bernstorff, J. 2001. Der Glaube an das universale Recht: zur Völkerrechtstheorie Hans Kelsens und seiner Schüler. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bernstorff, J. 2008. Kelsen und das Völkerrecht. In Rechts-Staat. Staat, international Gemeinschaft und Völkerrecht bei Hans Kelsen, ed. H. Brunkhorst and R. Voigt. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. 2003. Europäisches Verfassungsrecht. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bogdandy, A. 2006. Constitutionalism in international law. Harvard International Law Journal 47/1: 223–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, K.D. 2000. Die neue Staatsräson – Zwischenstaatliche Kooperation als Demokratieproblem der Weltgesellschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sociology, University of Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany

    Hauke Brunkhorst

Authors
  1. Hauke Brunkhorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hauke Brunkhorst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Academy, Bozen, Via Perpenti 16, Fermo (AP), 63023, Italy

    Claudio Corradetti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brunkhorst, H. (2012). Dialectical Snares: Human Rights and Democracy in the World Society. In: Corradetti, C. (eds) Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2376-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation