International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

An Analysis of the Discourse of Relevant Reasoning in Favor of and Against the Realization of Fundamental Human Rights in the Intellectual System of James Nickel

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors
Hadi Salehi 1
Azra Bagheri 2
Shabnam Fahimi 3
1 Assistant Professor of Public Law at Shiraz University
2 LLM Student of Public Law at Tarbiat Modares University
3 Assistant Professor of Public Law at Persian Gulf University in Bushehr
10.22034/isj.2026.576797.2440
Abstract
The effectiveness of legal systems depends on the organization of legal rules and their interaction with one another. The theory of relational reasoning, developed by James Nickel, a contemporary philosopher of human rights, provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the internal structural relationships among rights, particularly within the human rights system. This theory, distinguishing between positive and negative relations among rights, rests on the premise that no right attains meaning or practical function independently of other rights, and the realization or weakening of any right can only be understood in relation to others. Accordingly, this article, focusing on Nickel’s theory of relational reasoning, analyzes the structural conflicts among rights and demonstrates how negative connections especially in the form of existential conflicts and complicating effects can disrupt the functioning of legal systems. By critically examining common errors in identifying such conflicts, the analysis emphasizes the necessity of conceptual and practical precision in addressing conflicting rights, showing that neglecting the nature and severity of these conflicts severely undermines the internal capacities of legal systems to achieve justice and effectiveness. Therefore, relational reasoning is not merely a tool for eliminating or prioritizing conflicting rights; rather, it provides an analytical basis enabling diverse legal systems to regulate and organize themselves more precisely, fairly, and with a forward-looking perspective provided that practical realities and institutional constraints are carefully considered during implementation and political misuse is prevented.
Keywords
Linkage argument
James Nickel
Human Rights System
Justification of Legal Rules
Common Ground
Positive and Negative Linkages
Subjects
1.      Corrigan, D. P. (2021). Human rights and rights of nature: Prospects for a linkage argument. Rights of Nature, 1(1), 1–20.
2.      De Beco, G. (2019). The indivisibility of human rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 68, 141–160.
3.      De Coninck, J. (2023). Relational human rights responsibility. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 45(1), 109–178.
4.      De Fazio, D. (2019). Human Rights and the International Community. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 15(4), 31-41. doi: 10.22034/isj.2019.89545
5.      Den Hartogh, G. (2013). Is human dignity the ground of rights? In M. Duwell, S. Braarvig, R. E. Nielsen, & S. Pörn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of human dignity (pp. 200–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.      Domoraadzki, S., Khostova, M., & Pupovac, D. (2019). Karel Vasak’s generations of rights and the contemporary human rights discourse. Human Rights Review, 20, 423–443.
7.      Etinson, A. (2020). What’s so special about human dignity?. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 48(4), 353–381.
8.      Forst, R. (2010). The justification of human rights and the basic right to justification: A reflexive approach. Ethics, 120(4), 631–663.
9.      Frederick, D. (2010). Why universal welfare rights are impossible. And what it means. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 9(4), 428–445.
10.    Gilabert, P. (2010). The importance of linkage arguments for the theory and practice of human rights: A response to James Nickel. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 425–438.
11.    Hamm, B. I. (2001). A human rights approach to development. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(4), 1005–1031.
12.    Hosseini Beheshti, A. (2016). The theoretical foundation of politics in multicultural societies. Tehran: Negah Moaser. (In Persian)
13.    Kronick, R. (2009). Health insurance coverage and mortality revisited. Health Services Research, 44(4), 1211–1231.
14.    Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept: It means no more than respect for persons or their autonomy. British Medical Journal, (7429), 1419–1420.
15.    Metz, T. (2024). A relational theory of dignity and human rights: An alternative to autonomy. The Monist, 107(3), 211–224.
16.    Naraqi, A. (2011). The ethics of human rights. Tehran: Negah Moaser. (In Persian)
17.    Nickel, J. (1982). Equal respect and human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 4(1), 76–93.
18.    Nickel, J. (2008). Rethinking indivisibility: Towards a theory of supporting relations between human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(4), 984–1001.
19.    Nickel, J. (2013). Goals and rights working together? In M. Langford, A. Sumner, & A. E. Yamin (Eds.), The millennium development goals and human rights: Past, present, and future (pp. 38–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.    Nickel, J. (2016). Can a right to health care be justified by linkage arguments?. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 37(4), 293–306.
21.    Nickel, J. (2022). Linkage arguments for and against rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(1), 27–47.
22.    Nickel, J. W. (2023). Moral grounds for economic and social rights. In M. Langford & K. G. Young (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic and social rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.    O’Neill, O. (2005). The dark side of human rights. International Affairs, 81(2), 427–439.
24.    Qari Seyed Fatemi, S. M. (2022). Contemporary human rights. Vol. 2, Tehran: Shahr Danesh. (In Persian)
25.    Rassouli, S., & Rezaeinezhad, I. (2023). A reflection on James Nickel's theory of indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. Public Law Studies, 53(2), 919–937. (In Persian)
26.    Saleh, A and Salehi, H. (2025). The Politics of Human Rights in Iran: Between Islamism and Pragmatism. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 22(1), 33-63. doi: 10.22034/isj.2024.446750.2157
27.    Salehi, H. (2022). Pluralism, culture, entanglement: Rethinking the concept of right and justice. Non Published. (In Persian)
28.    Salehi, H. (2024). Foundations of minority rights: A genealogy of the recognition of minority rights. Tehran: Mizan. (In Persian)
29.    Sano, H. O. (2000). Development and human rights: The necessary, but partial integration of human rights and development. Human Rights Quarterly, 22(3), 734–752.
30.    Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 315–356.
31.    Waldron, J. (2015). Is dignity the foundation of human rights? In R. Cruft, M. Liao, & M. Renzo (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of human rights (pp. 117–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.    Zylberman, A. (2017). The indivisibility of human rights. Law and Philosophy, 36(4), 389-418.