The Right to Dignity Rex D. Glensy - Columbia Law School

More documents

Recommendations

Info

112 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW [43:65 right to dignity not only operates to prevent infraction upon this right, but also fosters its appreciation and respect. It thus embodies an objective element that is grounded in ethical precepts of the value of human beings. That objective component instructs the state that everyone within its jurisdiction must be given the opportunity to be able to exercise their free choice, and anything that prevents this would be a violation of one’s dignity; positive dignity rights necessarily include negative rights as well. This inevitably leads to the idea that the freedom to participate in this free exercise only can take place if some minimum standards of care exist. Rhetorically speaking, how can people exercise their free choice if they have no food on the table, or if they are unable to treat their sicknesses? 217 Thus, positive dignity mandates state action to alleviate these conditions. The state’s duty to provide for the basic necessities of life, so that each individual can live a life of dignity, arises as in issue in many places around the world, including the United States. So, whereas other countries, such as Germany or South Africa, have textual direction to respect, promote, and protect the right to dignity, and have developed legal rules to do so, the United States, in certain contexts, has also developed these rules without a specific textual directive mentioning dignity. Thus, in the context of the duties owed to prisoners under the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court has stated that the government has affirmative obligations to provide medical care, to ensure safety, to supply adequate nutrition, to maintain standards of sanitation, and to furnish appropriate climactic conditions for inmates. 218 Certainly, this milieu in the United States is more limited than the general applicability of the mandate to secure dignity for all people that has led legal bodies abroad to make wide declarations of state duties. For example, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights held that the state of Guatemala had to ensure that all people must “not be prevented from having access to the conditions that guarantee a dignified 217. Oscar Schachter put this another way: “[f]ew will dispute that a person in abject condition, deprived of adequate means of subsistence, or denied the opportunity to work, suffers a profound affront to his sense of dignity and intrinsic worth.” Schachter, supra note 14, at 851. 218. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103–04 (1976) (medical care); Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315–16 (1982) (safety); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 68687 (1978) (nutrition and sanitation); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991) (climactic conditions).
2011] The Right to Dignity 113 existence.” 219 Likewise, the German Constitutional Court stated that the right to dignity “imposes an obligation on the state to provide at least minimal subsistence to every individual.” 220 The South African Constitutional Court decided that dignity rights compelled the state to provide social security benefits to its permanent residents; 221 the Hungarian Constitutional Court deemed that the right to social security “entails the obligation of the State to secure a minimum livelihood through all of the welfare benefits necessary for the realization of the right to human dignity;” 222 the Italian Constitutional Court opined that “human dignity requires that decent housing be secured for all citizens as a constitutional ‘social right;’” 223 and the Indian Supreme Court stated that the right to dignity encompasses “the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter[,] . . . facilities for reading, writing, and expressing oneself[,] . . ., [and] freely moving about and mixing . . . with fellow human beings.” 224 A positive right to dignity thus encompasses a broad swath of socioeconomic rights that includes the basic entitlements of the welfare state that are already present in the United States, whether mandated or not (such as the ability to collect Social Security or the right to a publiclyfunded education), 225 and 219. Case of the “Street Children” (VillagránMorales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment, InterAm. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 63, 144 (Nov. 19, 1999). 220. Bognetti, supra note 37, at 75, 83; see also Ernst Benda, Die Menschenwürde, in Handbuch des Verfassungrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 113, 115 (1983) (advocating for this reading of Article 1 of the German Basic Law). 221. See Khosa v. Minister of Social Development, (2004) (6) SA 505 (CC) para. 80 (S. Afr.). 222. Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court] June 22, 1998, MK 1998/55, 32/1998 (VI.25) AB (Hung.); see also Alkotmánybíróság (AB) [Constitutional Court] Nov. 7, 2000, MK 2000/109, 5/G/1998, at § IV (Hung.) (“the benefits to be offered in the framework of social institutions should secure a minimum level guaranteeing the enforcement of the right to human dignity.”) 223 Bognetti, supra note 37, at 85 (citing Corte Costituzionale (Corte Cost.) (Constitutional Court) Giur. cost. 1988, I, 1757, n. 274 (It.)). 224. Francis Coralie v. The Admin., Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 68 A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 746, 747 (India). 225. This is not only a facet of U.S. law. See ICESCR, supra note 184, art. 13 (“[E]ducation shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity . . . .”). It would be interesting to research whether longstanding entitlements in the United States, such as Social Security, Medicare, or public education, can be “constitutionalized” as rights, particularly under the rubric of dignity.
Page 1 and 2: THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY REX D. GLENSY
Page 3 and 4: 2011] The Right to Dignity 67 Never
Page 5 and 6: 2011] The Right to Dignity 69 . . .
Page 7 and 8: 2011] The Right to Dignity 71 right
Page 9 and 10: 2011] The Right to Dignity 73 the
Page 11 and 12: 2011] The Right to Dignity 75 witho
Page 13 and 14: 2011] The Right to Dignity 77 that
Page 15 and 16: 2011] The Right to Dignity 79 Jacqu
Page 17 and 18: 2011] The Right to Dignity 81 root,
Page 19 and 20: 2011] The Right to Dignity 83 On th
Page 21 and 22: 2011] The Right to Dignity 85 B. Le
Page 23 and 24: 2011] The Right to Dignity 87 milit
Page 25 and 26: 2011] The Right to Dignity 89 enunc
Page 27 and 28: 2011] The Right to Dignity 91 noted
Page 29 and 30: 2011] The Right to Dignity 93 errat
Page 31 and 32: 2011] The Right to Dignity 95 basic
Page 33 and 34: 2011] The Right to Dignity 97 there
Page 35 and 36: 2011] The Right to Dignity 99 and n
Page 37 and 38: 2011] The Right to Dignity 101 much
Page 39 and 40: 2011] The Right to Dignity 103 with
Page 41 and 42: 2011] The Right to Dignity 105 bodi
Page 43 and 44: 2011] The Right to Dignity 107 acce
Page 45 and 46: 2011] The Right to Dignity 109 fund
Page 47: 2011] The Right to Dignity 111 wish
Page 51 and 52: 2011] The Right to Dignity 115 Stat
Page 53 and 54: 2011] The Right to Dignity 117 Libe
Page 55 and 56: 2011] The Right to Dignity 119 embo
Page 57 and 58: 2011] The Right to Dignity 121 inte
Page 59 and 60: 2011] The Right to Dignity 123 a
Page 61 and 62: 2011] The Right to Dignity 125 Firs
Page 63 and 64: 2011] The Right to Dignity 127 prob
Page 65 and 66: 2011] The Right to Dignity 129 shou
Page 67 and 68: 2011] The Right to Dignity 131 the
Page 69 and 70: 2011] The Right to Dignity 133 Whil
Page 71 and 72: 2011] The Right to Dignity 135 on w
Page 73 and 74: 2011] The Right to Dignity 137 Whil
Page 75 and 76: 2011] The Right to Dignity 139 enco
Page 77 and 78: 2011] The Right to Dignity 141 IV.

The Right to Dignity Rex D. Glensy - Columbia Law School

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?