An International Legal Perspective on Human Dignity: The Extrinsic Recognition of an Intrinsic Condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human dignity plays an important role in the international legal order, and references to the principle can be found in various international human rights instruments. Its meaning, however, remains an object of avid discussion due to the impossibility of finding a precise and timeless way of defining the concept. In this article, we argue that acknowledging inherence as an element of human dignity gives extrinsic legal recognition to an intrinsic human condition and tends to expand human dignity’s influence. Vagueness — or openness — in defining the concept provides for a dynamic and evolutionary understanding of human dignity, and, coupled with the idea of inherence, these characteristics represent tools for universalization and adaptation of the concept to new circumstances. These findings are based on a review of philosophical discussions of the idea of human dignity, followed by an analysis of how it is addressed in international legal instruments and international jurisprudence and identification of its recurrent elements. We defend the view that the vagueness of its definition does not mean that its content is impossible to identify in particular circumstances. Scholars and institutions can have a concrete sense of the meaning of human dignity even though its substance may admit new elements as new social demands emerge. In our view, the essential meaning of human dignity is founded on the influence of the whole body of human rights as well as on its particular connection to the rights of social minorities, in which human dignity is emphasized because of the material precariousness of such groups under social systems that subject them to discriminatory treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".