1994 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
"Group Human Rights" and the Protection of Human Rights
| Project/Area Number |
05620016
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
Public law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | KYUSYU UNIVERSITY |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YOKOTA Koichi Kyusyu University, Graduate School of Social & Cultural Studies, Professor, 大学院・比較社会文化研究所, 教授 (80038455)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1993 – 1994
|
| Keywords | Group Rights / Affirmative Action / Right to Development / International Human Rights / Minority / Third Generation Human Rights / Right to Life in Peace |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
1.That "the judicial person" can enjoy the protection of "human rights" was acknowledged by the Japanese Supreme Court in 1970. But, as "human rights" are, originally and fundamentaly, the rights of "human person", we should reject the notion that judicial person enjoy the same and equal freedom as human person.
2.The right of organization of the trade-union should be regarded as "group right", and not as "group human right", The main beneficialy of "the right to organize" is human person.
3.The policy of "Affirmative Action" doesn't give a special right to the specific "groups" (such as Afro-Americans, women or handicapped-persons). The "human person" belonged to the specific group is treated preferencially by that policy only individually to realize de facto equality.
4.Being contrary to the most important human right of "freedom of speech", the Law that penalize a person for his/her hate-speech, libel-speech or discriminative-speech against the minority group or the groups who are discriminatred against should not be enacted in Japan.
5.The contents of so-called "the right to life in peace" are so vague that the right still can't be admitted in international law. The same kind of right in "the Constitution of Japan" (preamble) should be understood as a human right of human person.
6.We can understand the claims by the Third World countries of the realization of development, we can't admit, until now, "the right to development" as a new "group human right" because of its vagueness and the ambiguity about who hold it.
|
