Towards reconstructing the meaning of inhuman treatment or punishmenta human capability approach

Referències bibliogràfiques

• American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.
• Arendt, H., 1973.The origins of totalitarianism (Vol. 244). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 458-59
• Auestad, L., 2005. Plurality and human dignity.Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheter,23, p.261.
• Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 58 (entered into force Oct. 21, 1986).
• Brugger, W., 1994. Legal interpretation, schools of jurisprudence, and anthropology: Some remarks from a German point of view.Am. J. Comp. L.,42, p.395
• Cassese, A., 1991. Can the Notion of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment be applied to Socio-economic Conditions.Eur. J. Int'l L.,2, p.141
• Cassese, A., 1996.Inhuman states: Imprisonment, detention and torture in Europe today. Blackwell Publishing, p.56-57.
• Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
• Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms art. 3, Nov. 4, 1956, E.T.S. No. 5.
• Dixon, R. and Nussbaum, M.C., 2011. Abortion, dignity and a capabilities approach, p. 5.
• Finnis, J., 2011.Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press ;
• Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field art. 50, Aug. 12, 1949, T.I.A.S. No. 3363, 75 U.N.T.S. 31.
• Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea art. 51, Aug. 12, 1949, T.I.A.S. No. 3362, 75 U.N.T.S. 85.
• Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 147, Aug. 12, 1947, T.I.A.S. No. 3365, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
• Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 130, Aug. 12, 1949, T.I.A.S. No. 3364, 75 U.N.T.S. 135;
• Granucci, A.F., 1969. Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted: The original meaning.Calif. L. Rev., 57, p.839.
• Griffin, J., 2002. A NOTE ON MEASURING WELL-BEING JAMES GRIFFIN.Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications, p.129, 130.
• Hayek, F.A., 2006. The Road to Serfdom (Routledge Classics); Fuller, L.L., 1969.The morality of law (Vol. 152). Yale University Press;
• Ingrid Robeyns, The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey, 6 Journal of Human Development 93 (2005).
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. Doc. No. 95-209, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
• Kittay, E. (2005). Equality, dignity and disability. In M. A. Waldron & F. Lyons (Eds.), Perspectives on equality: Thesecond Seamus Heaney lectures (pp. 95–122). Dublin: Lifey
• Lillich, R.B., 1995. Harmonizing Human Rights Law Nationally and Internationally: The Death Row Phenomenom as a Case Study.. Louis ULJ, 40, p.699
• NOWAK,M.,MCARTHUR,E. AND BUCHINGER,K.,2008.THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE:A COMMENTARY .OXFORD:OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, PP.68-69.
• Nussbaum, M.C., 1997. Capabilities and human rights.Fordham L. Rev., 66, p.273.
• Nussbaum, M., 2000. Women's capabilities and social justice.Journal of human development, 1(2), pp.219-247.
• Nussbaum, M.C., 2011.Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press., p. 31.
• Nussbaum, M.C., 1992. Human functioning and social justice: In defense of Aristotelian essentialism.Political theory, 20(2), pp.202-246.
• Nussbaum, M., 2000. Women's capabilities and social justice.Journal of human development, 1(2), pp.219-247.
• Nussbaum, M., 2003. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice.Feminist economics, 9(2-3), pp.33-59. p. 41
• Nussbaum, M., 1995. Human capabilities, female human beings.Women, culture and development: A study of human capabilities, pp.61-104, p. 88.
• Nussbaum, M.C., 2001.Women and human development: The capabilities approach(Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press, p. 84.
• Peers v. Greece, App. No. 28524/95 Eur. Ct. H.R.(Apr. 19, 2001) para. 75. In the aforementioned cases, the court stated that treatment “diminished the applicant’s human dignity.”
• Pictet, J. ed., 1952. The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Geneva convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field (Vol. 1). International Committee of the Red Cross.
• Pinzón, D.R. et. al, 2014. The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A Handbook for Victims and Their Advocates (Vol. 2).OMCT Handbook Series Vol. 2, p. 107.
• Pretty v. United Kingdom, App. No. 2346/02 Eur. Ct. H.R.(Apr. 29, 2002) para. 52, HUDOC (Apr. 29, 2002);
• Sen, A., 2014. Development as freedom (1999). Roberts, JT, Hite, AB & Chorev, N. The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, 2, pp.525-547.
• The UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 31 “The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant” (29/3/2004). UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 1326
• U.N. Comm. Against Torture (CAT), Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, General Comment 2: Implementation of Article 2 by State Parties, 3, U.N. Doc. (Nov. 23, 2007).
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948).
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. 16Torture Convention, supra note 3, art. 1.
• Waldron, J., The Rule of International Law’ (2006).Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30, p.15.
• Waldron, J., The Concept and the Rule of Law” (2008) 43.Ga L Rev, 1, p.1.
• Waldron, J., 2010.Torture, terror, and trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House. Oxford University Press, p. 279.
• Waldron, J., 2011. The rule of law and the importance of procedure.Nomos, 50, pp.3-31, p. 20101
• Yankov v. Bulgaria, App. No. 39084/97 Eur. Ct. H.R.(Dec. 11, 2003), para. 114; Kalashnikov v. Russia, App. No. 47095/99 Eur. Ct. H.R. (July 15, 2002), para. 101;