Arbitrary Power, Arbitrary Interference and the Abuse of Power: Corruption, Natural Rights and Human Rights

Abstract

What is the relationship between human rights and corruption? This question can take different forms, including moral, legal, socio-political and economic variants. This paper focuses on two key moral questions, asking whether corruption can violate or impact on people's natural rights (on the one hand) or human rights (on the other). In answer, I aim to establish a strong conceptual link between: (a) corruption's 'abuse of entrusted power'; (b) the 'arbitrary power' targeted by natural rights theorists like John Locke and the broader republican tradition; and, (c) the 'arbitrary interference' with protected freedoms, prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I argue that the deep thematic links between systemic corruption and violations of human rights are stronger than have hitherto been recognized. In the twenty-first century, corruption should be recognized as a 'standard threat' (in Shue's sense) to human flourishing and protected freedoms, vindicating the human right to freedom from systemic corruption.

John Locke’s thoughts on human rights: Exploring the contemporary discourse in the West

“…We can observe this poignantly among scholars who debate the similarities and dissimilarities between Karl Marx and John Locke. There are those like Hugh Breakey, who, in his chapter on "Arbitrary Power, Arbitrary Interference and the Abuse of Power: Corruption, Natural Rights and Human Rights" (Breakey, 2017), explores the relationship between corruption and human rights in a diverse array of political settings. Breakey belongs to the group of scholars who tend to emphasize the dissimilarities between Locke and Marx.…”

Artificial intelligence and human rights: a comprehensive study from Indian legal and policy perspective

“…In the foregoing sections, we have discussed in detail how liabilities (civil or criminal) can be fixed on AI. Now next question comes up that if AI commits an offence (civil or criminal), how it can be personalized (Breakey, 2017). A series of questions come on the surface.…”

“…In this model, considering mens rea and actus reus have been fulfilled by the AI entity, it is considered that AI entity itself is criminally liable such as humans or such as corporations. These three models are to be considered simultaneously considering the end users, programmers and the AI entity itself criminally liable in case an offence is committed through the action of the AI and specific liabilities are to be fixed according to the situational context Artificial intelligence and human rights how it can be personalized (Breakey, 2017). A series of questions come on the surface.…”

“…If the offence by virtue of which the entity must be punished, how it is possible to serve such a sentence to the entity? It is a matter of problem as to how the entity be given capital punishment (Breakey, 2017), how imprisonment can be actuated to the entity and even how to impose a fine? (Yeoh, 2019).…”

Thinking with John Locke about the nature of human rights: vietnamese and global perspectives

“…His influence has not been confined to European countries only but has also spread to the United States, becoming foundational for developing a theory of rights and governance principles in the late 1600s and the 18 th century. Some scholars point out similarities between John Karl Marx (1818-1883), comparing their ideas and researching their overlaps (Birdal, 2007;Dehaibi, 2015;Rupert, 2017;Gronow, 2016); others are more critical, emphasizing the differences and/or Marx's deviations from Locke's original ideas (Breakey, 2017;Glawson, 2018;Mossoff, 2012). We wish to join in this endeavor and continue exploring important topics related to John Locke's thoughts on human rights and its viability (if nothing else, then as an inspiration) for our contemporary discourse on the subject.…”