In this article, we appraise an idea of human dignity (HD) as pragmatically oriented to support social rights claims. By analysing the role of dignitarian arguments in the constitutional-like case law of four European jurisdictions (France, the UK, Italy and Germany), we demonstrate that caution prevails about the possibility of using HD in each of these countries as an ultimate yardstick for upholding social policies. Such findings challenge the assumption that one can grasp HD as a legal notion through a foundational approach. In our view, neither HD reflects any natural or social essence of men and women, nor can it consequently be conceived as the source of universal fundamental rights. Instead, (1) we recommend a notion of HD as a status primarily conceived as a political-institutional (conventional) artefact. Thus, (2) we consequently sustain that dignity may pertain to states too, and we can see it as a way of reciprocating the duty to fair cooperation in a just society. In the same vein, (3) HD works best in the social realm when an expressive function, rather than a defining one, is recognised as its proper function. This aspect helps explain why HD is often called to support other principles in judicial argumentation. This notion of HD seems to us coherent with social rights as relying on a complex institutional arrangement centred on political responsibility and a commitment to social justice. Concerning the assessment of the conditions attached by the states to the enjoyment of welfare benefits, HD tells us that disproportionate sanctions, whose objective appears to be more a way of blackmailing welfare recipients than pursuing an ideal of fair reciprocity, do violate both the institutional dignity of public authorities and that of the persons affected.

在本文中，我们评估了一种务实的人格尊严（HD）概念，以支持社会权利主张。通过分析政要在四个欧洲司法管辖区（法国，英国，意大利和德国）类似宪法的判例法中的作用，我们证明，对于在每个国家中使用高清作为最终准绳的可能性，人们普遍持谨慎态度。坚持社会政策。这些发现挑战了这样一种假设，即人们可以通过一种基本方法将高清作为一种法律概念来理解。我们认为，住房权既不能反映男人或女人的任何自然或社会本质，也不能因此被视为普遍基本权利的来源。取而代之的是，（1）我们建议将高清作为一种主要被视为政治制度（传统）人工制品的地位的概念。因此，（2）因此，我们坚持认为尊严也同样适用于国家，我们可以将其视为在公正的社会中履行公平合作义务的一种方式。同样，（3）当人们认为一种表达功能而不是一种定义性功能是其适当的功能时，高清在社会领域中效果最好。这方面有助于解释为什么在司法辩论中通常会要求使用高清来支持其他原则。在我们看来，房屋署的这一概念与社会权利是一致的，因为它依赖于以政治责任和对社会正义的承诺为中心的复杂制度安排。关于评估各州享受福利待遇的条件，房屋署告诉我们，制裁不成比例，