Historically, the idea of human dignity as a legal concept appears later than that of human rights, and that is something that can be seen both in normative texts and legal decisions and doctrine. Nevertheless, the author maintains the theory that a close conceptual relationship has existed between both notions from the beginning, although then only implicitly. He argues, firstly, that human dignity is not a classifying term adopted subsequently to join symbolically a multitude of different rights, that it is (...) not merely the empty expression of a catalogue of isolated and unconnected human rights, but rather the moral source which nourishes the contents of all fundamental rights. The author then examines the catalyst role played by the concept of dignity in the composition of human rights, from rational morality on one hand, and in the form of subjective rights, on the other. Finally, he maintains that the extraction of human rights from the moral source of human dignity explains the expanding political force of a specific utopia, which the author defends, both against the global rejection that human rights sometimes suffered, as against the recent attempts directed at the deactivation of their radical content. (shrink)

The debate over whether human animals are linked by bonds of justice to nonhu-man animals is ancient and has been several times settled. The Roman jurists defined the j us naturae in terms of what nature had taught 'all animals', but Grotius and other natural-law theorists rejected this view and redefined the jus naturae as that which accorded with human nature, thereby founding the 'modern' view which has excluded nonhuman animals from the sphere of justice. This paper examines Grotius's argument (...) as part of a larger seventeenth-century 'counter-revolution' in thought and argues that its incoherence becomes intelligible only when viewed as an attempt to deal with the embarrassing phenomenon of inhumane warfare. Warned by the example of Grotius, we may wish to inquire to what extent any discussion of animal justice, whatever side it takes, may be an exercise in the perpetration of injustice. (shrink)