نشریه حقوق بشر
پیاپی 9 (بهار و تابستان 1389)

The paper argues that an approach to democracy that combines an anti-foundationalist epistemology and a deliberative political and moral stance will enable us to solve the increasing tensions between the universalistic claims of human rights and the particularistic claims to autonomy coming from different cultural groups. The anti-foundationalist conception of normative authority I put forth is centered on the distinction between universal grounds for and universal scope of normativity. It maintains that the universalistic normative force of our norms and practices remains uncompromised by the acknowledgment of the ultimate circularity of our justifications, thus eschewing the pitfalls of both foundationalism and relativism. My main contention is that only by ensuring inclusive and selfreflexive practices of collective decision-making we will be able to address the tensions between universalism and cultural relativism, and produce more flexible models of democratic governance, citizenship and cultural membership suitable to face the challenges of the global processes of integration and differentiation.

This paper seeks to provide a human rights-based analysis of three inter-related concepts: identity, dignity and culture. It advocates that applying international human rights values, principles, norms and standards to and involving international human rights mechanisms in all aspects of relationships between identity, dignity and culture is essential both for conflict prevention and for post-conflict peace-building. It advocates that applying such international human rights values, principles, norms and standards to and involving international human rights mechanisms in all aspects of relationships between identity, dignity and culture is essential to protect and promote cultural diversity and pluralism in multi-ethnic societies.

Imposing unnecessary medical and healthcare costs upon patients is in direct contrast with patient rights and the spiritual and historical values of medical practice and it seriously undermines the honor regarding doctors and healthcare teams. All medical oaths and affidavits have repeatedly emphasized on the fact that medical teams and staff must take precedence over the patient’s rights and gains rather than their own. Such oaths clearly state that healthcare imposers must fulfill their duty regarding the patient’s physical and mental comfort. In the event of fee splitting, the medical staff not only neglect and undermine the medical affidavits but also seriously damage the hard gained doctor-patient trust and the historical honor of their profession. Within the law and justice system in practice in the Islamic Republic of Iran, fee splitting in considered unacceptable and illegal and fee splitters may be pursued by law. The same is true in different societies and most medical councils and accepted ethical codes and guidelines. It is clearly stated in the fifth paragraph of the medical affidavit vowed by all Iranian medical students and doctors that fee splitting is considered amoral and even illegal and that healthcare and medical practices are not to be used as a means of gathering wealth for oneself. All Islamic religious leaders have also questioned the lawfulness of money and wealth earned by fee splitting. The act of fee splitting is also recognized as unethical and unlawful in the guidelines and codes affected by universal medicine societies.

Reviewing the discussions on the foundations of human rights that took place in the U.N.'s first Human Rights Commission to draft the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the author points out that the Commissioners, due to the situation at that time, had few discussions on the foundations of human rights and left the problem of foundations for another day. She rejects the idea that the Universal Declaration is western believing that all effective cultures in the world had a creative hand in the shaping of the document. The article then answers the question that how there can be universal rights in diverse cultures. It continues to explain the derby to deconstruct the Declaration and in the end concludes that the challenge of the Declaration is its incoherence and the different meanings and interpretations of human “dignity”.

Happiness of human beings in his/her worldly life and even the hereafter has direct contact with the environment’s health. Healthy environment is central to the worldly and spiritual human prosperity. Today, the unbridled destruction of the environment (water, air, space) is threatening the universal human rights. The ethics protecting environment has universal foundations and principles which are shared by religions as well as legal and philosophical scholars. This article tries to deal with the relationship between human rights and environmental ethics. The main question this research is going to answer is whether human rights can be realized through the promotion of environmental ethics. The main premise of this paper is that through the development of environmental ethics, universal human rights can be better achieved. The research method of this paper is descriptive – analytical by using library tools.