Search results

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the institutional evolution of China's farmland property rights deformity with its internal logic, analyze its property rights deformity and the invasions of these rights under the family operation background, and puts forward fundamental suggestions for reforming farmland property rights in China.

The concept of “public domain” raised by Barzel in 1989 is used and extended to analyze China's farmland system.

There exist five sorts of public domain and two apparent characteristics of property rights deformity: the unclear final controlling rights for some valuable attributes of goods of the “public domain”; and the “public domain” deliberately created by the government. The public domain caused by technical factors and owner's real capability are herein excluded.

China's past and present farmland system is a result of the government's compulsory system arrangements instead of market evolution. The expansion of public domains III and V has directly shrunk peasants' residual property rights. The concept of “public domain” is developed to reveal the essence of China's farmland property rights deformity.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the risk arising from technological devices, such as closed circuit television (CCTV) and nuclear power plants and the consequent effect on the rights to privacy and security of individuals.

The paper presents critical and conceptual analyses of CCTV, nuclear power plants and the rights of individuals. It also analyses how communitarianism and liberal individualism would respond to right‐infringements and risk‐imposition. It draws on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties to explain the pre‐eminence of duty when certain duties conflict in a bid to improve technology.

The paper discovers the importance of rights to individuals, particularly the rights to privacy and security. It shows that, in some situations, government's duty to respect the right to the privacy of individuals conflicts with the duty to provide public goods, such as CCTV. The paper, therefore, stresses that one duty has greater moral force than the other. In essence, the more incumbent duty can be employed by government in justifying right‐infringement and risk‐imposition, though this does not disvalue the rights of individuals.

The paper offers insight into ways of addressing questions such as: when is it morally acceptable or justifiable to expose others to risk? When is infringement on people's rights permissible? Also, the paper is relevant to those in the areas of ethics and technology because it offers an ethical analysis of risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by examining how ethical theories, such as communitarianism and liberal individualism, would assess risks resulting from CCTV and nuclear energy. It argues that consent is not enough to justify risk‐imposition and right‐infringement. It concludes by drawing on W.D. Ross's prima facie and actual duties as a means of justifying risk‐imposition and right‐infringement by government.

What is the relationship between human rights and corruption? This question can take different forms, including moral, legal, socio-political and economic variants. This paper focuses on two key moral questions, asking whether corruption can violate or impact on people’s natural rights (on the one hand) or human rights (on the other). In answer, I aim to establish a strong conceptual link between (a) corruption’s ‘abuse of entrusted power’; (b) the ‘arbitrary power’ targeted by natural rights theorists like John Locke and the broader republican tradition and (c) the ‘arbitrary interference’ with protected freedoms prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I argue that the deep thematic links between systemic corruption and violations of human rights are stronger than have hitherto been recognized. In the twenty-first century, corruption should be recognized as a ‘standard threat’ (in Shue’s sense) to human flourishing and protected freedoms, vindicating the human right to freedom from systemic corruption.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the implications of government responses to COVID-19 for older people. Governments in England and in Wales faced complex decisions when responding to COVID-19. This paper considers the impact of their actions on the human rights of older people. It argues that there is a case to answer of potential breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although it is too early to come to firm conclusions as more scientific and medical evidence is required, some actions by governments seem to be based on using age as a basis for decision-making. Human rights are complex, and it is important that claims of violations satisfy the Convention, the Human Rights Act 1998, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and other international instruments.

The paper considers the legal framework of the European Convention and its relevance to Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) and older people. Case law, academic research, guidance and media coverage form the basis of the research.

The governments have a strong case to answer. In defending their positions against allegations of discrimination against older people, they need to produce strong and convincing evidence including medical and scientific evidence that formed the basis of their decisions.

This paper is based on original research into human rights, older people and COVID-19.

This article examines the persistence of a “rights” movement in a political environment rife with the language of personal responsibility. Through an analysis of interviews of welfare rights activists in three states, this article explores the frequency and type of both “rights” and “needs” discourse frameworks. Neither rights nor needs language is employed frequently in the interviews. Activists do not view the language of rights and needs as necessarily conflictual. Furthermore, race appears to play some role in discourse choices between rights and needs. African American women utilize both rights and needs rhetoric, while White women prefer needs language. The results offer evidence of the centrality of race in understanding discourse choices among those struggling to gain recognition of basic human needs and rights.

The notion of “sustainable development” has had a short and tumultuous history, including a departure from economic reductionism by focusing on a multidimensional aspect and addressing the issues of its scope across many disciplines. It has become a project enabling a rethinking of capitalism based on the concept of a reformed type of capitalism. The purpose of this paper is to study this issue.

The paper is based on the following arguments: the presentation of sustainable development as a “vague” theory, an empirical proof of this vagueness with regard to corporate actions whose justification is based around the notion of sustainable development, and finally the ambiguities of the notion.

The notion of sustainable development raises the question of an apparent consensus on its correlates: solidarity, responsibility, equity, etc. It tends to establish a protean sense of the firms' responsibility, particularly the larger ones. The largely political dimension of the notion has today consequences on its usage. Sustainable development as addressed in the firm tends to take on the dimension of a management issue, which is likely to persist due to its larger political dimension.

The paper provides insight on the catch‐all dimension of the notion and its appealing rhetorical character and bases the ambiguity related with references to an “in‐between.” On the institutional level, it refers to a social and fair economy that stands arguably in between the state and the market. On the methodological level, it refers to heuristics of fear and hope.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on Cameron and Matthews’ paper “More than pictures: developing an accessible resource”.

It reflects on how much people with learning disabilities are involved in research and resource development and how the attitudes of caregivers impact on how people learn about sexuality.

Most published research is written by people who do not have learning disabilities but people with learning disabilities are taking part in research and they are making changes to the way things happen. Parents, educators and caregivers are often reluctant to discuss sexuality with people with learning disabilities and this affects how much people can understand about it.

This paper argues for greater involvement of people with learning disabilities in research processes.