Ronald Dworkin and Human Dignity as Highest Constitutional Value: Philosophical Theorization of Rights and Human Dignity in a Comparative Perspective
This paper focuses on the study of Ronald Dworkin and Human dignity as the highest constitutional value. Ronald Myles Dworkin (1931-2013), a famous American philosopher, jurist, and scholar of the United States constitutional law believes that constitutional provisions are permeated with moral principles and that human dignity is an intrinsic constitutional value, and that it must be considered in judicial decisions. Dworkin has his concept of rights, arguing that rights constitute claims against the state, and he espouses the idea that it is forbidden to sacrifice individual needs and preferences to achieve the public interest. That is, there are rights that the state cannot derogate from or violate, whatever the rationalizations and justifications. Dworkin categorically affirms that people have the right to be treated with dignity and that rights have an exceptional moral force that stems from the importance of human dignity, and that leads to preventing the formulation and implementation of specific policies even if they aim to enhance the general welfare of society. Consequently, his thoughts and reflections in this regard constitute a solid philosophical basis for the recognition of human dignity as the highest constitutional value.
Carmi, G. E. (2007). Dignity-The Enemy from Within: A Theoretical and Comparative Analysis of Human Dignity as a Free Speech Justification. Journal of Constitutional Law, 9(4), 957-1001.
Clayton, M & Stemplows. Z. (2014). Dignified Morality. Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. Available at https://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/centres/social-justice/working-papers/SJ026_Dignified%20Morality.pdf
Dan-Cohen M. (Ed.)(2012). Dignity, Rank, In Dignity, Rank, and Rights (JeremyWaldron). England: Oxford University Press.
De Chickera, A. (2009). Through the Lens of Dignity: An Essay on Equality and Liberty. The Equal Rights Review, 4, 35-46. Available at https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Amal.pdf
De Ureta, A. T. (2019) Incompatibility, Incommensurability, and Rationality in Value Pluralism: Isaiah Berlin’s Case. The European Legacy, 24(2), 146-161.
Dworkin, R. (1985). A Matter of Principle. USA: Harvard University Press.
Dowrkin, R. (1997). Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. USA: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2008). Is Democracy Possible Here?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs. USA: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1993). Life's Dominion: an argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. USA: Vintage.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. USA: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue, the Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Friedman, D. (2016). A Common Law of Human Rights: History, Humanity and Dignity. European Human Rights Law Review, (4), 378-397.
Guest, S. (2012). Ronald Dworkin (3rd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hall, B. (2008). Taking “Rechts” Seriously: Ronald Dworkin and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. German Law Journal, 9(6), 771 - 798
Hörnle, T. (2009). Shooting Down a Hijacked Plane—The German Discussion and Beyond. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 3(2), 111-131.
Habermas, J. (2010). The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights. Metaphilosophy, 41(4), 464-480.
Keyes, E. (2016). Hedgehogs and Foxes, The Case for the Common Law Judge. Hastings Law Journal, 67(3), 749-806.
Kommers, D. & Miller, R. (2012) The constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd ed.). Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Michalowski, S. & Woods, L. (1999). German Constitutional Law: The Protection of Civil Liberties. Dartmouth Pub Co.
Möller, K. (2018). Dworkin’s Theory of Rights in the Age of Proportionality. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 12(2), 281-299.
Mullender, R. & Dworkin. R. (2014). Justice for Hedgehogs. Philosophy in Review, 34(5), 216-221.
Parfenchyk, V. & Alexander, F. (2017). Dignity in a comparative perspective: embryo protection regimes in Italy and Germany. Law, Innovation and Technology, 9(1) 45-77. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17579961.2017.1295543?needAccess=true
Rao, N. (2008). On the Use and Abuse of Dignity in Constitutional Law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 14(2) 201-256.
Raz, J. (2014). A Hedgehog's Unity of Value. King's College London Dickson Poon School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-26; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 32/2014; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-396 Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2859&context=faculty_scholarship
Sarkar, S. (2019). Book Review: Justice in Robes (2010) By Roland Dworkin. Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi-110033, Pp.1+308, Price Rs. 375. Indian Journal of Law and Justice, 10(1) 169-173.
Steinmann, R. (2016). The Legal Significance of Human Dignity. South Africa: North-West University.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0] that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).