Žmogaus Teisių Turinio Dichotominė Dilema
A Dichotomic Dilemma of the Content of Human Rights

Summary/Abstract: The article analyses the significance of different conceptions in disclosing the content of a concrete human right or freedom. It is stated that there exists a permanent “individualistic” and “collectivistic” dichotomy of human rights and freedoms. Such a dichotomy has its support in philosophy and law. It is recognised that even in democratic states the discourse on the expression of the content of human rights is in a continuous dichotomic balance – ideological competition. It is stated that the western (liberal) theory of human rights, when deciding the issue of the content of a human right, tends to give priority to the interest of a concrete person, but not that arising from a group of persons. The discourse of the article is illustrated with case-law examples of institutions of constitutional jurisdiction in some countries. These examples clearly prove the actual validity of the dichotomic balance. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a unique phenomenon in the history of humankind, which ensured a longterm perspective for the entrenchment of human rights and freedoms. The article also underlines the exceptional significance of the European Court of Human Rights for understanding the content of human rights and freedoms and for the unique character of this institution in deciding the dichotomic theorem of the problematics of the content of human rights and freedoms. The procedure for formation (i), the powers (ii) and the obligatoriness of judgments (iii) of the European Court of Human Rights make the European process for defence of human rights and freedoms exceptionally valuable from the perspective of development of the civilization. It must be recognised that the humanity has never had such instruments of protection of human rights and freedoms. The European Court of Human Rights has become a source shaping the standard of human rights and freedoms and continually deciding the permanent dichotomic dilemma of a balance between individualism and collectivism.

• Details
• Contents