Human Sciences and Theologie (14)

Human rights education (HRE) aims to promote knowledge about and support for human rights (Tibbitts and Fernekes 2011, pp. 87–88). Several strategies were developed to achieve this learning objective. However, many approaches of HRE are quite formal, concentrating on systematical knowledge about human rights declarations, areas of human rights, and institutions dealing with human rights issues (see e.g. Benedek 2012; Bajaj 2011, pp. 485–489). Such approaches neglect important empirical findings of human rights research revealing that the acceptance of human rights highly depends on social and individual factors (see e.g. Doise et al. 1999; McFarland and Mathews 2005).

Historically, the dominant understanding of human dignity was contingent, by which we mean that, according to this view, dignity was regarded as depending on a person’s social position or behaviour. A loss of social rank or immoral behaviour meant that it was possible to lose one’s dignity. However, since the time of the enlightenment, an understanding of dignity arose which claimed that dignity should be regarded as something inherent to all human beings; by its very nature, this inherent dignity could not be lost. Although there exists some controversy in both philosophy and law about the content and scope of what is meant by “dignity”, various declarations in human rights charters and constitutions refer to human dignity as the foundation of rights. This paper explores three different dimensions of dignity. Empirically, the authors will examine how German adolescents (N = 2,175) evaluate these types of dignity and we will discuss which predictors are significant. The general assumption is that different understandings of dignity exist among German youth and that religious belief, the ability to be empathic and sensitive, social class affiliation and socialization are all predictors of attitudes towards dignity. The analysis shows that empathy and religious belief are the strongest predictors.

The 21st century has been characterized by an increasing number of conflicts and global humanitarian disasters.  More people than ever before have left their home countries for political or economic reasons. As refugees, they are legally protected by international covenants such as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, this legal protection presupposes that the citizens of the receiving countries accept the human rights of refugees, otherwise, social unrest is likely in these countries. This article examines which factors influence attitudes towards refugee rights. Since several studies have shown that attitudes towards foreigners, refugees, and their rights are influenced by certain characteristics implicit in the national context, the current study uses a national-comparative approach. The sample (N=12,889) consists of respondents from thirteen countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa, all of whom have participated in the research project ”Religion and Human Rights 2.0”. Empathy, right-wing authoritarianism, intercultural openness, religiosity, the understanding of the function of religion, and the evaluation of state authorities are considered as individual characteristics, while human development, the degree of democratization, religious conflicts, and restriction of religious practices are taken into account as national characteristics. A multilevel regression analysis is used to estimate the influence of the predictors. The results show that the positive influence of empathy and intercultural openness (in particular) on attitudes towards refugee rights depends on the degree of human development in a particular country. This underlines the findings of previous studies; namely, that the evaluation of human rights as legitimate is context-specific.

Abstract: The present research on the development of citizenship education in (transformation) countries fails to ac-knowledge that systems of citizenship education are political organisations by nature. This research does not analyse citizenship education ( ...