Introduction
This article examines the evolution of the concept of human dignity within the international human rights protection system, from its philosophical roots to its practical application in legal acts. The thesis posits that dignity, though difficult to define, serves as the axiological foundation and interpretive compass of international law. The author traces how the idea of dignity, rooted in the Kantian imperative and Christian personalism, injected a language into the legal bloodstream intended to prevent a recurrence of barbarism after World War II. Key documents are analyzed, from the Declaration of Philadelphia to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, illustrating how dignity became a constitutive principle and a condition for the legitimacy of the legal order. The work also explores contemporary challenges, such as biotechnology and artificial intelligence, which raise new questions about the boundaries of dignity and the integrity of humanity. The article argues that the protection of dignity is not only a legal issue but also an ethical and political one, requiring constant reflection and adaptation to a changing reality.
The Evolution of Dignity: From the UN Charter to Modern Treaties
Following World War II, dignity became a constitutive principle of the new order. This process began with the Declaration of Philadelphia (1944) and was sealed by the UN Charter (1945), which recognized dignity as a value prior to the law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the 1966 Covenants defined it as a substantive source of rights—the reason why norms are necessary, rather than just a formal record. Dignity is considered pre-positive, meaning the state is meant to protect it, not grant it.
Regional systems vary in their approach: the American and African systems explicitly recognize dignity as a foundation, while in Europe, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is key. A special role is played by humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions), which recognizes dignity as an inviolable norm even in times of war. The prohibition of torture and degrading treatment is a hard standard that preserves the remnants of humanity in extreme situations.
Dignity as a Source of Political Legitimacy
Modern politics views dignity as a condition for legitimacy—any authority that violates it loses its moral mandate. According to the Kantian imperative, the individual must always be an end, never a means to an end. This thought, enriched by Christian personalism, permeates the jurisprudence of courts that use dignity as a compass when resolving conflicts between freedom and security. Here, dignity acts as a safeguard clause: it is not subject to balancing against the interests of the state.
The theories of Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser indicate that dignity is also a category of recognition and justice. Its violation includes not only violence but also systemic exclusion. Therefore, dignity in public life is the "quiet presence of conscience" which—as Václav Havel wrote—protects politics from cynicism and technocratic dehumanization. Courts guarding dignity ensure that the law does not become merely a pure technique devoid of a moral compass.
Individual, Society, Species: Three Levels of Dignity
Contemporary discourse distinguishes three dimensions of dignity. The individual level protects the integrity of the person, the social level concerns the recognition of minority groups, and the species level relates to the responsibility for the future of humanity. In this context, Hans Jonas formulated the principle of responsibility: we must act so as not to destroy the conditions for the authentic life of future generations. This approach redefines dignity in the face of the ecological crisis and climate change.
New technologies pose further questions. In biotechnology, dignity sets the limits of intervention in the human genome, preventing the instrumentalization of life. Meanwhile, in the age of algorithms, the demand for digital dignity arises—the right to be treated as a subject rather than a data set. Although conservative (protection of life) and progressive (emancipation) perspectives differ in emphasis, both currents recognize that humiliation and objectification are the absolute antithesis of dignity.
Summary
Dignity, though inherently eluding precise definition, remains a category of extraordinary normative power. It is precisely its indeterminacy that allows it to function as a keystone in the international, constitutional, and moral systems. In a world of technological acceleration and increasing automation, will we manage to remain vigilant so that dignity is not degraded to an empty cliché, but remains a guidepost for the co-inhabitants of this planet?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF