Answering Society and Humanity under Threat – Video Link
On May 31, 2024, the HRUG regular seminar on “Answering Society and Humanity under Threat – The Value of Law, Expertise and Opinion” was successfully held. The seminar was chaired by Joe Finnerty, a social policy analyst, School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland. Professor Peter Herrmann (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), Mehmet Okyayuz (a professor of political science at Middle East Technical University, Turkey), Associate Professor Li Juan (a researcher of CSU Human Rights Center), Wang Huiru (the Assistant Researcher, Institute of International Law of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) and Lecturer Féilim Ó Hadhmaill (School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland) participated in the discussion, and they shared, reported and supplemented some corresponding views. This seminar centered on Eco-environmental protection and animal rights. It explored that society and humans are faced with tests today, with the development of digitalization and artificial intelligence challenging the independence and specificity of humans. And nature and its perceptions are also contributing to the threats faced by human beings, so humans should seek appropriate answers to this challenge from the perspective of legal and professional knowledge.
Prof. Peter Herrmann firstly cited Copernicus’s theory of heliocentrism and used the Earth’s place in the universe as an example to illustrate that the notion of human exceptionalism is in fact a cognitive bias. He further pointed out that Darwin’s “evolution” and Freud’s core ideas pose fundamental challenges to human superiority. Despite the current heyday of artificial intelligence and digitization, such superiority remains illusory. In his discussion of legal systems and social rights, Prof. Peter Herrmann emphasized that when the current legal system focuses too much on individual rights but ignores broader notions of social rights, it may lead to a loss of human understanding of the broader context in the pursuit of specialization and detail. He referred to the impact of computational errors and digitization on spatial perception and the possible limitations of human perception of these concepts. Finally, Prof. Peter Herrmann called for an increased focus on general issues, moving beyond individualism and detail to revisit current values and legal systems in order to respond more comprehensively to the challenges of contemporary society.
Prof. Mehmet Okyayuz presented his view on the need to avoid excessive attention to detail and neglect the broad complexity of events when law is used to analyze social events. He argued that law should not only understand the broader context of the social sciences, but also maintain its normative character, and emphasized the importance of generalized thinking and abstract reflection. He noted that with the rise of social sciences in the 19th century, law began to integrate social dynamics more deeply in an attempt to build a framework understanding of the legal environment. However, in this process, the normative nature of law was being marginalized. In addition, Professor Mehmet Okyayuz criticized the attempts of some legal scholars to bring the social context to the fore, blur the line between private and public events and thus ignore the individual’s right to privacy. He advocated for deeper reflection on the relationship between the social sciences and the legal sciences and approved the two to remain holistically linked. He argued that an in-depth exploration of the extent to which anthropocentrism is rejected is necessary, as this notion not only reflects human arrogance, but is also closely related to issues such as social struggles. Finally, Prof. Mehmet Okyayuz explored how law should deal with new forms of social activity. He argued that law should both clarify its position within the new social paradigm and adapt to the challenges posed by globalization in order to increase its resilience and effectiveness.
Associate Professor Lai Juan echoed the views of Prof. Peter Herrmann. She argued that the traditional human-centered view of society had to be reinterpreted in the context of the “capital world” in view of the intertwined impacts of capitalism, technology and environmental degradation. Moreover, she pointed out that current political and legal structures are not adequate to deal with the complex issues in this context. Therefore, Associate Professor Lijuan further discussed whether civil disobedience as a form of resistance can be effectively applied in the context of the legal and political crisis triggered by AI. She emphasized the importance of recognizing the unique complexity that AI brings to the legal and political environment. The nature of “civil disobedience” as a solution is rooted in the ability to mobilize public support and pressure authorities to implement change. However, the technical complexity of AI systems may make it difficult for the public to fully understand relevant issues, thus limiting the effectiveness of civil disobedience strategies. In addition, because AI technology and its impacts transcend national boundaries, coordinated international efforts may be necessary to effectively address legal and political challenges, adding complexity to the development of AI at the international level as well. As a result, she argued that the applicability of civil disobedience in response to AI-induced crises is unclear and may require more nuanced and technical solutions. Advocating for the development of ethical AI frameworks, transparent algorithms and accountable AI governance structures is a more constructive approach when engaging with the technical aspects of AI. In addition, given the unique nature of AI and digitization, a multifaceted approach should be taken, leveraging the strengths of various stakeholders to collectively address the legal and political challenges posed by this transformative technology, in order to create robust legal and ethical infrastructures that can keep pace with the development of AI.
In his response, Professor Peter Herrmann firstly described the nature of civil disobedience and stated that it was not a solution, but rather a way of demonstrating the unfulfilled existence of a society. He then emphasized the importance of considering the conflict between individual and public interests in the law-making process. He suggested that we should understand law from a broader social perspective, rather than limiting ourselves to the analysis of individual cases. In addition, Prof. Peter Herrmann explored the relationship between human society and the natural world, advocating the building of bridges between the two, rather than considering humans as beings outside of nature.
On the question of the role and limitations of law, Wang Huiru, Assistant Researcher at the Institute of International Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, took the limitations of human rationality as a starting point and emphasized that humans are not the masters of nature or the world, but rather one of its components. She argued that in the process of exploring natural order, humans inevitably make mistakes stemming from their inherent short-sightedness. Although law plays a role from different perspectives, it is not an all-purpose solution. She further referred to the role of international law in solving international judicial disputes and the complex interaction between international law and domestic law. While international law norms embody good moral values, their practical implementation is slightly insufficient. Finally, Wang Huiru noted that given the limited nature of human rationality, problems cannot be avoided as long as human beings exist. Therefore, we should constantly upgrade our level of rationality in order to better solve problems.
Lecturer Féilim Ó Hadhmaill (School of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork, Republic of Ireland) believed that law is mainly made by the ruling class to safeguard its interests and may change with the involvement of different power groups. He emphasized that the implementation of law requires coercive force, but not all law should be universally enforced, and that certain law may be enforced only in specific circumstances and for specific groups. He also mentioned that the implementation of law also requires certain degree of social consensus or consent. He illustrated this point by comparing law’s differences in different countries, such as the different attitudes towards women wearing headscarves in Ireland and France. In addition, in the development of international human rights law, the focus of rights protection has shifted from individual rights to collective, social and economic rights. He criticized the issue of political involvement in the development of international law and illustrated the double standards and self-contradictions of the West on human rights issues with examples from real-life.
Professor Peter Herrmann further explored the role and limitations of law in solving problems that arise in the context of globalization, such as migration. He argued that law needs to adapt to these new challenges and provide a binding solution. In addition, Prof. Peter Herrmann expressed his thoughts on the role of law in social progress by discussing the development of productivity and changes in economic patterns. He proposed that law should evolve with the times, reflecting and contributing to economic and social development, and not just remain at the level of solving traditional or superficial problems.
At the end of the seminar, Joe Finnerty concluded that although individual human beings may tend to think rationally, social processes may not be directly influenced by individual rationality and not always centered on human rationality, but have their own dynamics.
2024年5月31日，HRUG定期研讨会之“论法律、专业知识与意见回应处于危机中的社会和人类的价值”主题会议顺利召开。本次会议由爱尔兰国立科克大学应用社会研究学院政策分析家Joe Finnerty主持，中南大学人权研究中心研究员Peter Herrmann教授、土耳其中东科技大学政治学Mehmet Okyayuz教授、中南大学人权研究中心研究员黎娟副教授、中国社会科学院国际法研究所助理研究员王惠茹、爱尔兰国立科克大学应用社会研究学院讲师Féilim Ó Hadhmaill参加讨论并进行相应观点的分享、汇报和补充。本次讨论主要探讨了当今社会和人类正面临着考验，数字化和人工智能的发展挑战了人类的独立性和特殊性，而自然及其感知同样使人类面临威胁，人类应当如何从法律、专业知识的视角，寻求到应对这一挑战的适当答案。
Peter Herrmann教授首先引用了哥白尼“日心说”理论，以地球在宇宙中的地位为例，阐明了人类特殊性的观念实际上是一种认知偏差。他进一步指出，达尔文“进化论”与弗洛伊德的核心思想对人类的优越性提出了根本性的挑战。他提到，尽管人类当前处于人工智能和数字化的鼎盛时期，但这种优越性仍然是虚幻的。在对法律体系和社会权利的讨论中，Peter Herrmann教授强调了当现行法律体系过于侧重个体权利，而忽视了更为广泛的社会权利概念，可能导致在追求专业化和细节的过程中，人类丧失了对更广阔背景的理解。他提到了计算错误和数字化对空间感知的影响，以及人类对这些概念的认知可能存在局限性。最后，Peter Herrmann教授呼吁，我们应当增强对一般性问题的关注，超越个人主义和细节的束缚，重新审视当前的价值观和法律体系，以便更全面地应对当代社会的挑战。
Mehmet Okyayuz教授提出了关于法律在分析社会事件时，应避免过度关注细节，忽略事件的广泛复杂性的观点。他认为，法律不仅要理解社会科学的广泛背景，还应当保持其规范性特征，并强调概括性思维和抽象思考的重要性。他指出，随着十九世纪社会科学的兴起，法律开始更深入地结合社会动态，试图建立起对法律环境的框架性理解。但在这一过程中，法律的规范性正在被边缘化。此外，Mehmet Okyayuz教授批评了一些法律学者试图将社会背景突显、混淆了私人事件和公共事件的界限，从而忽视个人隐私权的做法。他提倡深入思考社会科学与法律科学之间的关系，并主张两者应保持整体性关联。他认为，深入探讨摒弃人类中心主义的程度是必要的，因为这种观念不仅体现了人类的傲慢态度，更与社会斗争等问题密切相关。最后，Mehmet Okyayuz教授探讨了法律应如何应对新形式的社会活动。他认为，法律既应当在新的社会范式下明确其立场，也应适应全球化带来的挑战，以增强其适应力和效力。
黎娟副教授对Peter Herrmann教授的观点表示认同。她认为，鉴于资本主义、技术和环境退化之间的交织影响，以人为本的传统社会观必须在“资本世界”的视角下重新诠释。此外，她指出当前的政治和法律结构不足以应对这一背景下的复杂问题。因此，黎娟副教授进一步讨论了在人工智能引发的法律和政治危机背景下，公民不服从作为一种抵抗形式，是否可以有效适用。她强调，必须认识到人工智能给法律和政治环境带来的独特复杂性。黎娟副教授指出，作为一种解决方案的“公民不服从”的性质植根于动员公众支持和向当局施压以实施变革的能力。但是，人工智能系统的技术复杂性可能使公众难以充分理解相关问题，从而限制了公民不服从策略的效果。此外，由于人工智能技术及其影响超越国界，协调国际努力可能是有效解决法律和政治挑战所必需的，这为人工智能在国际层面的发展也增添了复杂性。因此，她认为，应对人工智能引发的危机，公民不服从的适用性并不明确，可能需要更为细致和技术性的解决方案。在参与人工智能的技术层面，倡导制定合乎道德的人工智能框架、透明的算法和负责任的人工智能治理结构是更具建设性的方法。此外，鉴于人工智能和数字化的独特性，应当采取多层面的方法，利用各利益相关方的优势共同应对这一变革性技术带来的法律和政治挑战，以创建可与人工智能发展同步的健全的法律和伦理基础设施。
Peter Herrmann教授在其回应中首先阐述了公民不服从的性质，指出它并非解决方案，而是一种表现出社会存在未得到满足的方式。接着，他强调在法律制定过程中考虑个人利益与公共利益之间的冲突至关重要。他提出我们应当从更广泛的社会整体视角来理解法律，而不是仅仅局限于对个别案例的分析。此外，Peter Herrmann教授探讨了人类社会与自然界之间的关系，提倡建立两者之间的桥梁，而非将人类视为自然之外的存在。
对于法律的作用和局限性问题，中国社会科学院国际法研究所助理研究员王惠茹以人类理性的限制为出发点，强调人类并非自然界或世界的主宰，而是其组成部分之一。她认为，在探索自然规律的过程中，人类不可避免地会犯错是源于人类固有的短视。因此，她指出，尽管法律从不同的角度发挥着作用，但并非万能的解决方案。王惠茹进一步提到了国际法在解决国际司法争端中的作用和国际法与国内法之间的复杂互动，指出虽然国际法规范体现了良好的道德价值观，但实际执行力度略有不足。最后，王惠茹认为，鉴于人类理性的有限性，只要人类存在，问题就无法避免。因此，我们应当不断提升理性水平，以便更好地解决问题。
爱尔兰国立科克大学应用社会研究学院讲师Féilim Ó Hadhmaill认为，法律主要由统治阶级为维护其利益而制定，并且可能随着不同力量集团的介入而发生变化。他强调，法律的实施需要强制力保障，但并非所有法律都应当被普遍执行，某些法律可能只在特定情况下针对特定群体执行。他还提到，法律的实施还需要一定程度的社会共识或同意。他通过比较不同国家的法律差异，如爱尔兰与法国对待女性佩戴头巾的不同态度说明这一点。此外，Féilim Ó Hadhmaill提到了在国际人权法的发展中，权利保护的重点从个人权利转向集体权利、社会权利和经济权利。他批评了国际法制定过程中的政治介入问题，并以现实情况为例，阐述了西方在人权问题上的双重标准与自我矛盾。
Peter Herrmann教授进一步探讨了法律在解决全球化背景下出现的问题，如移民问题上的作用和局限。他认为，法律需要适应这些新的挑战并提供一个有约束力的解决方案。此外，Peter Herrmann教授通过讨论生产力发展和经济形态的变化，表达了对法律在社会进步中角色的思考。他认为，法律应与时俱进，反映和促进经济和社会的发展，而不仅仅停留在解决传统的或表面的问题层面。
会议最后，Joe Finnerty总结道，尽管人类个体可能倾向于理性思考，但社会进程可能不受个体理性的直接影响，并非总是以人类理性为中心，而是具有其自身动态。
(Transcription: Xinyang Yu, Yuou Dai; Translation: Yaxing Bai)