Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} It has been said that the man whose rights are given through the Declaration of human rights is nothing but a formal abstraction driven by an irresolvable antinomy: either this man is taken prior to any political institution in a kind of state of nature and the so-called human rights are not the rights of the citizen, or this man is seen according to the social determinations that result from the historic community to which he belongs. This antinomy has led to interpret the Declaration from an individualistic and liberal perspective, or to the negation of any political value to Human Rights. These theses that oppose man and citizen ignore another paradox that Hanna Arendt made evident when she underlined that human and citizenship rights only have any consistency because of a more fundamental right to have rights which surpasses the antinomy that grounds most criticisms against human rights and that allows for the actually political dimension of the humanity of beings to appear