English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper defines and analyzes four argumentative vertigos, that is to say, four seemingly insurmountable obstacles on there is no theoretical consensus, and which affect argumentation in the field of human rights whilst they threaten understanding and teaching processes on the subject. These vertigos are: the so called Plato’s syndrome, the moral foundation of legal concepts, divergent narratives about the origin of human rights, and the question of their foundation itself. The purpose is to show that any attempt at understanding and teaching human rights has to deal with these argumentative vertigos and adopt a critical position regarding them.

Cuatro vértigos argumentales en la enseñanza de los derechos humanos. La comprensión política y la adecuada documentación de los fenómenos jurídicos