All
 
|
 
 


Deliberativity and aleatory procedures as a legitimation of somatic human rights: experience of the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth of Australia
 
PIIS102694520024101-2-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520024101-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Vladislav V. Denisenko 
Occupation: Professor of the Department of Public Law
Affiliation: MGIMO of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation,
Elena Trikoz
Occupation: Associate professor
Affiliation: MGIMO of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 1
Pages100-113
Abstract

The article demonstrates the importance of deliberative institutions and procedures in constitutional politics, on the example of the regulation of somatic and genetic human rights. The article identifies the relationship between the effectiveness of legal regulation and deliberative communication in the context of the “juridification of society”. The methodological foundations of deliberative procedures are revealed. In this work, we analyze the reasons for the development of deliberative procedures in the context of biopolitics. Particular attention is paid to the process of expanding the scope of legal regulation in the information state, and we have shown the historical process of increasing relations regulated by law. The authors illustrate the specifics of the legitimation of somatic human rights in a modern state and explore the current procedures for the legitimation of law. A comparative legal analysis of the deliberation principle in the adoption to public law decisions and the achievement of public consensus is given. The authors also assess the degree of significance of aleatory procedures, examining for this purpose the process of constitutional novelization on the example of amending national constitutions (for example, the Constitutions of the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth of Australia). This research also shows the effectiveness of certain aleatory procedures with the participation of randomly selected citizens, among them special attention is paid to the so-called “civil assemblies” and “citizens’ jury”. Such aleatory institutional forms are assessed as an important condition for the legitimacy and effectiveness of constitutional reforms.

Keywordsprinciple of deliberation, juridification, legitimacy of law, somatic human rights, genomic law, biopolitics, aleatory democracy, civil assemblies, citizens’ jury
Received21.03.2022
Publication date20.02.2023
Number of characters44401
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 292

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Abashidze A.A., Solntsev A.M. A new generation of human rights: somatic rights // Moscow journal of International Law. 2009. No. 1. P. 69–82 (in Russ.).
2. Besset J.M. Deliberative democracy and the American system of state power / transl. from English. M., 2011 (in Russ.).
3. Denisenko V.V. Aleatory democracy and the problem of simulacra in the legal system // Legal forms of experiencing history: practices and limits / ed. by S.V. Bochkareva. SPb., 2020. P. 301–310 (in Russ.).
4. Denisenko V.V. Yuridification of society and concepts of legal regulation // herald of the Voronezh State University. Ser.: Law. 2008. No. 2 (5). P. 56–62 (in Russ.).
5. Zaitsev A.V. Deliberative democracy, dialogue and their place in the constellation of public policy discourse // Scientific Vedomosti. Ser. “History. Political science. Economy. Computer Science”. 2013. No. 15 (158). Issue 27. P. 147 - 153 (in Russ.).
6. Zaitsev A.V. Deliberative democracy as an institutional dialogue between government and civil society // Sociodynamics. 2013. No. 5. P. 29 - 44 (in Russ.).
7. Kimlika U. Modern political philosophy: introduction / transl. from English. M., 2010. P. 371 (in Russ.).
8. Kornoushkin A.B. Civil juries as a form of deliberative democracy: the essence and necessity of institutionalization // State and law: theory and practice: materials of the International Scientific Conference (Chelyabinsk, April 2011). Chelyabinsk, 2011. P. 112–127 (in Russ.).
9. Kruss V.I. Personal (“somatic”) human rights in the Constitution and the philosophical and legal dimension: towards the formulation of the problem // State and Law. 2000. No. 10. P. 43 - 51 (in Russ.).
10. Lavrik M.A. To the theory of somatic human rights // Siberian Jurid. herald. 2005. No. 3. P. 16–26 (in Russ.).
11. Lyakhovich-Petrakova N.V. Ideas of deliberative democracy as a conceptual basis of public expertise in the evaluation of public policy // Scientific notes of the Brest University. Part 1. Humanities and social sciences. 2011. No. 7. P. 6 (in Russ.).
12. Malinovsky A.A. Does a person have the right to die? // Russ. Justice. 2002. No. 8. P. 54, 55 (in Russ.).
13. Montgomery J. Modification of the human genome: challenges from the human rights sphere caused by scientific and technical achievements // Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. Spec. vol. “Human rights and biomedicine”. 2018 (in Russ.).
14. Nazarova N.A. Evolution of the concept of a social contract as a principle of interaction between the state and society in the XXI century: dis. ... PhD in Law. M., 2019. P. 184 (in Russ.).
15. Reybrook D. van Against elections. M., 2018 (in Russ.).
16. Rudenko V.N. Forms of aleatory democracy: genesis and development // Scientific yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2018. Vol. 18. Issue 4. P. 97, 98 (in Russ.).
17. Salnikov V.P., Stetsenko S.G. Bio-jurisprudence: the problem of differentiation from similar legal constructions // Legal science: history and modernity. 2013. No.10. P. 190 - 197 (in Russ.).
18. Salnikov V.P., Stetsenko S.G. Legal somatology as an integral part of bio-jurisprudence // Legal science: history and modernity. 2014. No. 10. P. 141–148 (in Russ.).
19. Trikoz E.N. Protection of human rights in the context of the development of bioethics and genomics (review of the international round table) // herald of the RUDN. Ser.: Legal Sciences. 2019. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 141 - 54 (in Russ.).
20. Trikoz E.N. The communicative function of the emerging biopravo industry // Legal communication of the state and society: domestic and foreign experience. Voronezh, 2020. P. 106 - 110 (in Russ.).
21. Trikoz E.N., Gulyaeva E.E. Positions of the ECHR on some issues of bioethics and genetic data // Successes in the study of law. Scientific and theoretical journal. 2018. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 36–40 (in Russ.).
22. Bessette J. Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government // How Democratic is the Constitution? Washington, 1980.
23. Bohman J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996.
24. Burnheim J. Is Democracy Possible? The Alternative to Electoral Politics. London, 1985.
25. Carson L. Consult your community: a guide to using citizens’ juries. 2003. URL: www.activedemocracy.net/articles/cj_handbook.pdf
26. Chambers S. Kickstarting the Bootstrapping: Jürgen Habermas, Deliberative Constitutionalisation and the Limits of Proceduralism // The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism / ed. by R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr, J. King. Р. 256 - 268.
27. Cohen J. Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy // The Good Polity / ed. by A. Hamlin, P. Pettit. Oxford, 1989. P. 17–34.
28. Crosby N., Hottinger J.C. The Citizens Jury Process. The Book of the States. 2011. Р. 321–325.
29. Deliberative Democracy / ed. by J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Massachusetts, London, 1997.
30. Denisenko V., Trikoz E. Biopolitics and legal issues of emergency situations in the context of coronavirus pandemic // E3S Web of Conferences. 2020. Vol. 175. № 14013. Р. 1 - 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017514013 
31. Dewey J. The Public and its Problems. Chicago, 1954. P. 207.
32. Dryzek J. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford, 2000. P. 2.
33. Dryzek J.S., Bächtiger A., Milewicz K. Toward a Deliberative Global Citizens’ Assembly // Global Policy. 2011. Vol. 2 (1). P. 33 - 42.
34. Eleftheriadis P. Constitutional Change through Deliberation // The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism / ed. by R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr, J. King. Cambridge University Press, 2018. Р. 191 - 202.
35. Fishkin J., Luskin. R. Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion // Acta Politica. Stanford, 2005. P. 285.
36. Floridia A. The Origins of the Deliberative Turn // The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy / ed. by A. Bächtiger, J.S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, M. Warren. P. 34 - 54.
37. Gastil J., Hale D. The Jury System as a Cornerstone of Deliberative Democracy // The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism / ed. by R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr, J. King. Р. 233 - 245.
38. Ghosh E. Deliberative Constitutionalism: An Empirical Dimension // The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism / ed. by R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr, J. King. Р. 220 - 232.
39. Habermas J. Between Facts and Norm. Cambridge, 1996. Р. 136.
40. Habermas J. Technology and Science as “Ideology”. London, 1971. P. 91 - 93.
41. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Beacon Press, 1985. P. 357.
42. Hartz-Karp J. Laying the groundwork for participatory budgeting – developing a deliberative community and collaborative governance: Greater Geraldton, Western Australia // Journal of Public Deliberation. 2012. Vol. 8 (2). Art. 6. URL: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art6/ 
43. Hennessy M. “We’re falling very far short”: Citizens’ Assembly on gender equality to start work in autumn // TheJournal.ie. 2019. 12 June.
44. Humphreys J. Why Ireland’s citizens’ assembly is a model for Europe // The Irish Times. 2016. November 27.
45. Ismini Kriari-Catranis. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine // Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics. 2002. Vol. 12. P. 90 - 93.
46. McDonald H. Doctors from 44 countries call on Ireland to relax abortion laws // The Guardian. 2015. November 20.
47. Miller R.A. The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, and Rape Legislation in Comparative Perspective. Aldershot, Hants, 2007.
48. Pal M. The Promise and Limits of Citizens' Assemblies: Deliberation, Institutions and the Law of Democracy // Queen’s University at Kingston. 2012. Vol. 38. P. 259–294.
49. Parkinson J. Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy // Political Studies. 2003. Vol. 5. Р. 180 - 196.
50. Ponet D., Leib E.J. Deliberative Law // The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy / ed. by A. Bächtiger, J.S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren. Oxford University Press, USA, 2007.
51. Rónán Duffy. Poll backs Citizens’ Assembly on abortion but rejects minister's maternity hospital promises // TheJournal.ie. 2017. April 25.
52. Taylor-Gooby P., Heejung Chung, Benjamin Leruth. The contribution of deliberative forums to studying welfare state attitudes: A United Kingdom study // Social Policy & Administration. 2018. Vol. 52. P. 914 - 927.
53. The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism / ed. by R. Levy, H. Kong, G. Orr, J. King. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
54. Uhr J. Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament. Cambridge, 1999.
55. Uhr J. Parliament and Public Deliberation: Evaluating the Performance of Parliament // The University of New South Wales Law Journal. 2003. Vol. 24 (3). P. 708 - 723.
56. Wakeford T., Singh J., Murtuja B. et al. The jury is out: How far can participatory projects go towards reclaiming democracy? // The SAGE Handbook of Action Research / ed. by P. Reason & H. Bradbury. Sage Publications, 2008.
57. Walker I. Executive Director of “new Democracy”. Submission to the House. Inquiry into constitutional reform and referendums. URL: https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/newDemocracy-submission-%E2%80%93-Inquiry-into-constitutional-reform-and-referendums.pdf

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up