Search results

Human dignity is a crucial concept in international and domestic human rights law. It is understood to be the foundation of human rights, and while we know what human rights are, the nature, content, and grounds of human dignity remain unclear. The aim of this chapter is to propose scientific grounds for human dignity. In this context, the author will explore contemporary evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, where it is claimed that human nature is constituted by tendencies to cooperate (Tomasello, 2009), or under a different formulation, by narrow altruism and imperfect prudence (Załuski, 2009). Evolutionary psychology holds that we have basic tendencies to cooperate with one another and to behave altruistically in order to achieve a common good. This means that our basic evolutionary default and scientifically proven mode of being are optimistic and can be labelled as morally good. The author argues that this human nature constitutes scientific grounds for human dignity. The author’s argument holds that since human dignity comprises the inherent worth of every human being, this positive moral fact about the scientifically understood human nature is human dignity. The author then present this issue within two broader philosophical frameworks of analytic philosophy – namely, naturalism (especially methodological naturalism) and metaphysical realism. Following this, the author contends that references to natural sciences in debates on the foundations of human dignity and human rights argue against the strongest objection to human rights – the objection of Western ethnocentrism.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

This paper aims to set the scene for an emerging conversation on the Rights of Nature as articulated by a philosophy of law called Earth Jurisprudence, which privileges the whole Earth community over the profit-driven structures of the existing legal and economic systems.

The study used a wide range of thought from literature relating to philosophy, humanities, environmental economics, sustainable development, indigenous rights and legal theory to show how Earth Jurisprudence resonates with two recent treaties of Waitangi settlements in Aotearoa New Zealand that recognise the Rights of Nature.

Indigenous philosophies have become highly relevant to sustainable and equitable development. They have provided an increasingly prominent approach in advancing social, economic, environmental and cultural development around the world. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Maori philosophies ground the naming of the Te Urewera National Park and the Whanganui River as legal entities with rights.

Recognition of the Rights of Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand necessitates a radical re-thinking by accounting researchers, practitioners and educators towards a more ecocentric view of the environment, given the transformation of environmental law and our responsibilities towards sustainable development.

This relates to the application of Earth Jurisprudence legal theory as an alternative approach towards thinking about integrated reporting and sustainable development.

X = multiple interpretations

Property is considered paramount to one’s existence, as a natural, absolute and inalienable right. Occupancy is required for man to secure what his thoughts have already made his. Property is realized in use but the right of occupancy and the status of res nullius are not established by the absence of use only, but in addition there must be also the absence of will of original owners. Arguing that appropriation precedes production dismisses the assertion that property is the fruit of labour. In contrast to the followers of the “state of nature” point of view, it is argued that common property is not natural and as such it is only transitory. Private property is at the root of man’s universality because it is common to all and individuals recognize each other only as owners. To base the origin of property in a social contract is erroneous because any contract must be based on the mutual recognition of parties involved who are already property owners. It is necessary that everybody have property not only in his or her persons but also to provide for subsistence. This would be regarded by natural law as just. Justice does not require the equality of property. Perpetual inequalities in property rights are not natural but the result of man‐made institutions which would not in themselves be right and would not have the obligatory power in virtue of their rightness. As such they would not be morally binding. Society that systematically consigns whole classes to conditions of poverty undermines the rationality of the ethical order and as such heads towards self‐destruction. Today, people are generally convinced that a person’s happiness depends on the satisfaction of that person’s actual desires. Property in things and enjoyment of one’s possessions, is often perceived as prerequisites for happiness. Individual happiness as an outcome derived from the distribution of property rights should be demoted from its status as the final good in preference to freedom.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

The increasing globalization of business has led to increasing demand for executives who can function in cultural milieus different from their own. This demand has been exacerbated by the fact that globalization has not led to cultural homogenization and hence, for good or bad, executives are not able to universally apply the home country's conceptualizations of rights, responsibilities and duties and must operate within the constraints of host country's cultural environments. Hence, business scholars and global executives increasingly need to reflect on the conceptualization of rights, responsibilities and duties; understand the historical context which has led to different conceptualizations across geographies and appreciate and harness these differences for improving business effectiveness. This paper helps in this endeavor by explaining the differences and similarities that exists between the Indian and Western cultures regarding the concepts of roles, responsibilities and duties. This exposition will help multinational organizations improve their internal practices and employee training methods.

This study attempts to trace the differences and similarities in the conceptualization of rights, duties and responsibilities between the Western tradition and the Indic tradition by literature review. The Indic tradition refers to the broad cultural paradigm that shapes the thinking of the people of Indian subcontinent. The prominent sources of the Indic tradition include Hinduism and Buddhism. India was a British colony for two hundred years and is home to one of world's largest English-speaking population. There are more Muslims in the Indian subcontinent than in the Middle East (Grim and Karim, 2011). Hence, the Indic tradition has also been substantially influenced by the Western and Islamic traditions.

The paper argues that Westerners and Indians have different conceptualization of rights, duties and responsibilities and their relative importance. Broadly speaking, Indian ethos focuses on context-specific responsibilities while the Western attitude focuses on universal rights. These differing conceptualizations have been shaped by the cultural history of the two regions and are manifested in the decision-making styles, levels of individual autonomy and views on the ethicality of actions. There is a need to train expatriate Western and Indian managers on these issues to enable smooth functioning.

The cross-cultural literature has tended to lump together all non-Western civilizations under the category of East thereby ignoring significant differences between them. The Far-East countries of China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan have been highly influenced by the Confucian ethics. India-specific social systems like the caste system, division of human life span into stages with specific responsibilities, enduring worship of nature and Western influence through colonization have been absent in these countries or much less marked. The paper aims to bring forward the distinguishing features in Indian thought that contributes to its distinctive attitude toward rights, responsibilities and duties; contrast it with the Western views on rights and duties and identify the relevance of the discussion to the business context.

The cross-cultural training needs to emphasize both conflict resolution and behavioral aspects. For example, the conflict resolution process in Western countries can be more algorithmic with conflicts being rationally determined by consistent application as well-defined rules (as nature of duties is more universal in Western tradition). On the other hand, conflict resolution practices in India need to be contextual and may require appeals to higher ideals (as nature of duties is more contextual and idealistic in Eastern tradition).

The differences in attitudes regarding rights, responsibility and duties between the West and India suggest the need for cross-cultural training of managers and contextual conflict resolution techniques. The need is exacerbated by the increase in the number of multinational corporations (MNCs). Earlier, most MNCs were headquartered in the West and hence cross-cultural training was primarily geared to help Western expatriates fit into the host country culture (Nam et al., 2014). The growth of Asian MNCs has increased the need of cross-cultural training for Asian expatriates (Nam et al., 2014).

The training processes can be customized to supplement cultural strengths and promote behaviors that are culturally inhibited. Employees in India can be trained to emphasize the value of assertiveness in communication, the need to articulate one's personal success and appreciate the rigid nature of rules in Western contexts. Similarly, Westerners can be trained to emphasize the importance of context in business interactions, the need to forge personal relations for business success and the importance of paternalistic behavior in securing employees commitment.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the legal status of domain names from both a contractual and a property right perspective, and to consider whether domain names are to be considered as a new form of property, in particular as virtual property.

The paper approaches the topic from contractual perspective. It then examines the concept and various property law theories. This is followed by an analysis to the intangibility of domain names and the appropriate category of protection.

Domain names are creatures of contract and contract law will provide some form of protection. According to the bundle of rights theory, domain names are intangible property with limitations. Some names are very valuable but nevertheless attract no protection beyond contractual rights. These names should be clothed with property rights protection. The relevant form of property rights is still contentious issue.

The nature of rights over domain names is a key emerging issue in the area of information technology law, with little to guide lawyers and judges. There is currently no consensus on what the legal status of a domain name is and opinions vary about the nature of these rights. The paper offers an insight to the nature of rights in an attempt to further the protection and recognition of rights over domain names.

Bioethics and environmental ethics have been largely separated, in principle. However, the two types of ethics do overlap when dealing with significant issues such as human embryos, animal experimentation, and responsibility to future generations. In this paper, the possibility of synthesizing these two ethics through the concept of care is considered. Accordingly, the range of the object of the concept of care is similarly broadened. Moreover, after considering the serious defects of care-based theory, a care-based position, which regards human rights or their substitute as a complement to care, is advanced. This position can be said to be a Japanese approach to bioethics.

For over 40 years in Nicaragua, the Mayangna indigenous group has fought for legal rights to traditional lands with the expressed purpose of protecting their rainforest. On December 21, 2009, the last of nine Mayangna territories were granted rights by Nicaragua to a majority of their historical claims, in addition to rights to have illegal colonists removed by Nicaraguan police and military. Indigenous leaders pursued land rights as a measure for cultural survival and the protection of their broadleaf rainforest, also the site of a UNESCO International Biosphere Reserve, the BOSAWAS. While Indigenous lands are encroached upon by the frontline of imperialistic consumerism, people like the Mayangna ask for international and national respect for their autonomy, self-determination, land ownership, and even sovereignty.

The Mayangna lead the way to understand necessary steps for protecting the rainforest. Their actions demonstrate the possibility for social justice given respect for true ecologically sustainability. To begin, they fought to obtain ownership of their homelands, thereafter, they battled legally and even with their lives to defend their boundaries and everything within them. The Mayangna insist indigenous land ownership, the protection of their rights, and a respect for their traditional forms of management lead to the continued protection of the rainforest and other areas critical to the survival of the global ecosystem.