درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Universality of common human values embedded in declarations and international treaties supposed to be evident in the international human rights legal system but it does not mean that there were no intellectual discrepancies behind those instruments. Universality of human rights has its roots more than anything on theories of Jhon locke's natural law and Immanuel kant's rational ethics . But one of the earliest philosophers of opposition side against unity of human nature and universal morality at the embryonic stage was Nietzsche . Bringing forth the theory of will to power by adopting a psychological genealogy method Nietzsche distinguished between two moralities: Masters Morality and Slaves Morality . He attributed human rights as slave morality. Slaves revolted with the spirit of resentment and womanish deception against masters then introduced their own qualities as standard and universal . The Rise of Christianity and the Great French Revolution are amongst two biggest examples of such slave revolt in morality. With such a presupposition, trying by any effort to reconcile human rights morals with Nietzschean views seems to be unachievable. While reviewing past philosophical challenges, this article tries to analyze necessity of co-existence both international human rights legal system and Nietzschean world from a new perspective.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. Abstract The following paper will present the theory and possibilities of implication of the phenomenon of civil disobedience understood as one of the most powerful and most effective tools of democratic society when it comes to implementing the necessary and indispensable changes required for the improvement of the political domain and the social public sphere.   In the first part I will present the narrow but orthodox and widely discussed definition of civil disobedience presented by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice (1971). Given such a definition, as well as the major conditions under which the actions undertaken in the name of civil disobedience can be justified, I will focus my analysis on two major aspects of the discussed notion.   Firstly, I will discuss civil disobedience, which is in its essense an unlawful act, paradoxically expresses the highest respect for the positive law by the person performing the civilly disobedient act through one’s submission to the judgment of the law which is an object of one’s protest. This way, civil disobedience presents itself as the phenomenon which, not having a legal recognition (not being legalized), holds super-legal force required to impose the changes on the unjust legal system or on the particular unjust regulation.   Secondly, I will point out that civil disobedience, as a public act performed by the people (the subjects of the particular law), expresses the will of the people and, therefore, it can not be used (by themselves) in the ways contradictory to their best self-interest but always supported by the “the commonly shared sense of justice” (Rawls). From this premise I conclude that the universal human rights, as thier supporters claim, are one of the main ends of the political activism in the recent decade and should be advocated in the civilly disobedient manner.   In the last part I will contrast the Rawlsean definition with a much broader and more relevant understanding of civil disobedience when it concerns today’s globalizing world. In this world, the nation-states cease to be the only political actors when confronted with the transnational public sphere, and, therefore, the understanding of civil disobedience as a transversal arena of public dissent presented by Roland Bleiker (2000) is more appropriate. In this definition civil disobedience becomes, not only a political instrument of particular subjects of a particular society, but it also becomes a tool for the international mobilization of means and of people in the name of presenting and imposing the respect for the universal human rights despite the national borders and societal paradigms. 

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy.