Eighteenth International Conference on Diversity in Organizations, Communities & Nations

Abstract

As people migrate so do the axiological foundations of legal and political systems. This paper argues that, (1) the axiologies born in foreign countries are in the long run unstoppable in their international journey, (2) in the short term they need screening from the point of view of their consistency with human rights, and (3) courts, rather than legislatives should serve as the gates through which they enter political and legal systems. While modern jurisprudence is hostile towards foreign-born concepts as a result of blurring the line between application of foreign laws and the ideas behind them, this paper is skeptical about the ability of national authorities to strictly control the international migration of axiological foundations. Nevertheless, broad criteria of acceptability must be established to eliminate those values that contradict human rights. One of the ways to deal with this problem is to allow contradicting values to coexist side by side within the same jurisdiction. This tactic is aimed at a peaceful adjustment over a long period of time. There is a question of who should be trusted with the short term vetting of the incoming axiologies. Legislative absorption of foreign ideas often ignites unnecessary emotions based not as much on experience, but on prejudice. By contrast, the judicial case by case absorption of foreign axiologies gives societies time to adjust over a long period of time to the new ideas. Therefore, the judicial branch should be trusted with the selection of foreign axiologies.