نشریه حقوق بشر
پیاپی 17-18 (بهار و تابستاان 1393)

"Human Rights" is the fruition of self-founded intellect of modern man as well as the result of his phenomenological view; however, the main sources of "Islam" (Quran and Sunnah) are product of divine revelation and a noumentalistic view to the man. The first view has close affinity with realism and is a bottom to top view, but second one has relationship with idealism and is a top to bottom view, and eventually religion seeks to realize man's transcendent reality, but human rights is after providing basic facilities necessary for human life. Due to these fundamental differences in the principles and epistemic origins (reason or revelation), goals (training or guidance), processing methods (different languages) and perspectives (status quo or ideal status), one cannot speak easily of overlapping consensus between human rights and Islam. However, is it possible to neglect inconsistency and even independence regarding the relation between human rights and religion and think about "diologue" between them? The author has given a positive answer, based on self-founded intellect and the text of the Holy Quran to the above-mentioned question, and is to explain his aim of this dialogue. According to this view, in their confortation and diologue, human rights and religion both open new horizons as well as interweave these horizons. To this aim, the author has inevitably considered the concepts of rationality, piety, living and acting according to Quran, subjective interpretation of Quranic texts, humanity and the relationship between the truth and the rights related to guiding. The study concludes that belief in human rights prepares us to realize the ideals of the Quran; the observance of these principles makes our ears better in hearing the call of guidance and causes the realization of human reality promised in the Quran. Quranic guidance may create necessary enthusiasm to support human rights and to have respect for it.

Restoration and maintaining peace, justice and democracy in the human societies is a matter that it`s achievement is too difficult due to economic and social gaps. It is obvious that these social and ethnical gaps increases those difficulties and it is natural that mechanisms and rules relating to establishing peace and justice and Democracy in the multiethnic societies is too different in comparison to homogenous societies. There are some studies showing the statistics of domestic war and tensions are more than inter-state wars. Third-fourth of all tensions and wars are allocated to domestic wars in 2013.International community, therefore, must attention to these tensions in the within of states. Most of these tensions and wars are allocated to multiethnic societies. In this article, attempts to settlement of these problems in the multiethnic societies have been studied for establishing peace and justice in these societies. The hypothesis of the author is that consociational democracy is the best possible and ideal system for the deeply divided multiethnic societies. The survey on the Iraq and Bosnia ( in the two different continent) is for the test of this hypothesis.

In spite of its being repetitive, the phrase "natural law" has been used with different meanings and notions. The new meaning of natural law has had important role in foundation of democratic societies in the seventeenth and eighteenth century and is relevant with election rights notion. Therefore the power of the idea of natural law is based upon the fact that it has been essential for the explanation of constitution of modern States and the performance of new political role of people. Hence its substantive trace can be observed in the constitutions of most democratic States and also in some statutes especially in election rights. In fact the democratic election rights in modern societies are based upon the modernized human natural rights and were guaranteed in a lot of constitutions. A lot of human rights categories such as liberty, equality and the right of political participation were used for the justification of democratic election rights and somehow it resulted in survival and dynamism of these notions in literature and legal order of modern age.

In general, two theories or school of thoughts had been prevailed in modern moral philosophies until recently. Ethical school of thought of "task-oriented", in which the emphasis is on the nature of the action. At first, this school of thought was considered by Immanuel Kant. Accordingly, doing or will to do every action should be such that become a universal moral law. In contrast, another ethical school of thought known as "utilitarianism ethics" was introduced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Here, we give priority to those moral actions that can bring the greatest happiness for most people. In three or four recent decades, coinciding with the linguistic and cognitive turn, which has become known as the transition from positivism to post-positivism, another challenge has been raised in discussing philosophy of ethics by Richard Rorty which is related to his claim regarding the requirements of the current multiple world. This claim can make a new relation between morality and human rights. Hence, the main hypothesis of this paper is to clarify the point that Rorty has raised his claim by combining the theory of pragmatism and postmodern Ethics. To prove this hypothesis, this article has been set in two sections, in the first section in order to become familiar with Rorty's creed-breaker thought, the foundations of the philosophy of ethics is discussed. In the second section and under the discussion of ethics based on the rights of human, some of its characteristics will be analyzed. This article has been prepared by a descriptive method through the content analysis of various works of Rorty. Theoretical support for this article is a critical-normative approach.

For long Diplomatic Protection was considered the patrimonial rights of states, and some international cases such as “Mavrommatis” 1924, Barcena Ttraction 1970, Avena 2004 have bolstered this view. Today, as a result of the development of human rights, it is assumed that the protection afforded to an injured individual by his government is based on the fact that whose human rights have been violated abroad by an internationally wrongful act of another State. The United Nations International Law Commission in its efforts since 1995, through the Draft Convention on diplomatic Protection, has been able to show that no longer may diplomatic protection be considered as the exclusive right of state. This indicates that human rights have developed to such extent that they have gone beyond the traditional boundaries of the three conditions for the exercise of this rights, i.e. nationality of Claims, exhaustion of local remedies, and clean hands. In Islamic Law, protection of injured person is a basic principle, without regard for the issue of whether protection of an individual is the exclusive right of his government. The alliance (Agreement) of “Helf al-Fodul” before and after Islam is an example of institutionalized protection of injured person in Islamic history. The present article, by focusing on the efforts of the ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic protection with its human rights orientation as well as by reviewing the foundations and sources of Islamic jurisprudence, attempts to prove that the preconditions such as nationality and exhaustion of local remedies, to exercise diplomatic protection, are only effective to the extent that it is in accord with human dignity and as long as the individual is not made an instrument for the securing of the potential interests of states. In any event, the International Law Commission isthe harbinger of a new legal work in the field of Diplomatic protection, (lex ferenda) and is not an indication of existing international commitment. (Hard law)

The dominant approach in the field of human rights is Legal attitude. Legal attitude more than anything else on the identification and recognition of human rights by the government is focused. At the same time, governments are the biggest violators of human rights norms. Despite the gap between the legal obligations of states and the real world, legal analysis of this gap is not possible. Therefore, in the era of inflation of rights, according to Louis Henkin, transition needs based approach to the protection of human rights is justified. Social sciences, especially political sociology may be, to identify obstacles to the realization of human rights in different societies and operate it is used. Since the main subject of political sociology "explores the relationship between state and society" is, knowledge can be produced in the field of political sociology in understanding the inability of governments establishing human rights norms and effective ways to fix it. Therefore, it can be said that human rights political sociology focus on: how to advance the state of human rights in a society and its institutionalization and consolidation within all relationships and political processes.

Peaceful coexistence of human beings is an approach that considers peaceful life of people and the recognition of their social rights regardless of the rightness of school of thoughts and manners or weal and woe of the people. The purpose of the peaceful coexistence of human beings transcends the issues of war, or peace versus war, and it is a method which includes cooperation with and benefaction to others. Previous studies on the subject have mostly addressed the perspective of Quran about peaceful coexistence with followers of divine religions (People of the Book) and in these studies little attention has been paid to "man" regardless of his thoughts and beliefs. To this end, this study aims to comparatively review the Quranic teachings and human findings encapsulated in the international human rights law. The research hypothesis is that Quran recommends peaceful coexistence among all people. The only exception is the people who are at war with Muslims and have taken up arms against an Islamic state, or those who oppress helpless people, depriving them from their freedom and fundamental rights.