Boyakasha, Fist to Fist: Respect and the Philosophical Link with Reciprocity in International Law and Human Rights
2006; Routledge; Volume: 38; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
1534-9977
Autores Tópico(s)Political Philosophy and Ethics
ResumoI. INTRODUCTION From Grotius to Hobbes to Locke to an unconventional modern pop-culture manifestation in Ali G, the concept of has always been understood as important in human interaction and human agreements. In the United States, the Home Box Office (HBO) channel runs a series called Ali G Show.1 Despite its regular sardonic vulgarity, the show's interviews often begin with boyakasha2 and end with a fist-to-fist proclamation of The ending represents an urban recognition of a compliment and a we agree signal. It is a type of recognition of a mutuality mentality. Fists tap at the end to recognize, like a signature on a document, that you are my homie, complete with the expectation that a bilateral relationship has developed.3 Although in Da Ali G Show is all done under a ruse, the concept of mutual understanding and obligation pervades human interaction and, for purposes of this Essay, relations. Fist to fist and a pronouncement of is a pronouncement of agreement. It is a matter of validation. Almost all basic principles in the United Kingdom, United States, and other countries' laws that value human and individual rights have, over time, based the development of their laws on the philosophical principle of respect. These systems have attempted to engrain in enforceable standards a version of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would expect that they do unto you; if you or they do not, there will be legal consequences.4 Of course there are also social sanctions against the disrespectful. But much of common and statutory is designed to enforce respect for others. This Essay's main focus is on the idea of respect between nations in reciprocity. Most importantly, it examines who should have the opportunity to redress potentially disrespectful actions related to and human rights. Respect requires identifying and understanding the parties to an interaction and the nature of their relationship. One trend within the United States provides private individuals with litigation opportunities to enforce international law for allegedly disrespectful actions. The question arises of whether it is wise to respect nations for allowing their citizens to enforce actions contrary to those obligations. If agreements are between nation-states, reciprocity requires that the decision to respect them should be made by the contracting parties rather than third parties. Therefore, third party civil litigation based on agreements (or a nation's allowance of them) is itself disrespectful. Recognizing the pervasive influence of respect principles in the formation of personal, governmental, and institutional arrangements, this Essay will focus on the concept of reciprocity and its philosophical tie to respect values with particular emphasis on relations. Part II introduces general principles of respect. Part III focuses on the legal, historical, and rights-based foundations of respect. Part IV discusses the relationship between nation-state reciprocity for human rights and and the concept of respect. Part V provides a brief overview of recent litigation within the United States and how it interferes with the traditional means by which nations create sanctions for actions that may or may not be disrespectful of human rights or other norms or agreements when appropriate, but allows deviations when pragmatic or necessary or otherwise justified. This Essay concludes that, at least in the realm of human rights and law, the identification of respect or disrespect should be held almost exclusively in the hands of governmental bodies rather than in unaccountable private litigants. International relations require a certain amount of flexibility in defining what constitutes respect for human rights commitments that are frustrated when non-signatory private parties can upset the efficiency of the reciprocal flexibility available in diplomatic relations. …
Referência(s)