Giulio Fornaroli from INCET and Cristián Rettig published a new article: "Human Rights under Emergency: A Normative Assessment of Derogation" in Social Theory and Practice. This paper is a part of Making Up for What We Did: From Morality to the Law; From the Present to the Past project.

Abstract

International human rights law allows states to derogate some of their human rights obligations in times of public emergency. This essay attempts a normative assessment of the practice of derogation. We discuss, specifically, whether derogation is compatible with the logics and morality of rights. We notice that a major inconsistency between rights and derogation derives from the unilateral character of derogation: derogating parties are assigned a power-right to annul their own rights-based obligations. This contrasts with the idea, central to rights, that rights-based obligations are owed to the right-holder. Only through consent of right-holders, we argue, can duties owed to them be modified or annulled. But whether the current practice of derogation is interpretable as a form of consent to rights infringement is highly disputable.

Link to the article

Fornaroli, G., & Rettig, C. (2023). Human Rights under Emergency: A Normative Assessment of Derogation. Social Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract2023623196