   #copyright

Human rights

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Law

                                                       Theories of rights
                                                          Animal rights
                                                        Children's rights
                                                          Civil rights
                                                        Collective rights
                                                          Group rights
                                                          Human rights
                                                       Inalienable rights
                                                        Individual rights
                                                          Legal rights
                                                          Men's rights
                                                         Natural rights
                                                       Negative & positive
                                                          Social rights
                                                       "Three generations"
                                                         Women's rights
                                                         Workers' rights
                                                          Youth rights

   Human rights refers to universal rights of human beings regardless of
   jurisdiction or other factors, such as ethnicity, nationality, or
   religion.

   The idea of human rights descended from the philosophical idea of
   natural rights; some recognize virtually no difference between the two
   and regard both as labels for the same thing while others choose to
   keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features
   traditionally associated with natural rights.

   As is evident in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
   Rights, human rights, at least in the post-war period, are
   conceptualized as based on inherent human dignity, retaining their
   universal character.

   The existence, validity and the content of human rights continue to be
   the subject to debate in philosophy and political science and many
   other forms. Legally, human rights are defined in international law and
   covenants, and further, in the domestic laws of many states. However,
   for many people the doctrine of human rights goes beyond law and forms
   a fundamental moral basis for regulating the contemporary geo-political
   order. For them, they are democratic ideals.

Human rights legislation

   Where it has been adopted, legislation commonly contains:
     * security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder, massacre,
       torture and rape
     * liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and
       religion, association, assembling and movement
     * political rights that protect the liberty to participate in
       politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a
       republic
     * due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system
       such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive
       punishments
     * equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before
       the law and nondiscrimination
     * welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the
       provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections
       against severe poverty and starvation
     * group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic
       genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national
       territories and resources

   It is often argued that "welfare rights" are not human rights, since
   they cannot even in theory be provided to everyone in all conditions
   (e.g., if somebody is unemployed or self-employed, if the society is
   very poor or if there are too few doctors or teachers or if they are
   not willing to work), and that only the classical human rights that do
   not require any active provision by anyone, just the lack of violating
   actions by other humans, should be called human rights. However, the
   communist countries required "welfare rights" to be added to the UN
   Declaration of Human Rights, threatening not to sign the declaration
   otherwise (which they did anyway in the end). The communist's alleged
   motivation was to belittle any accusations on human rights violations
   by answering that the West does not completely provide all "welfare
   rights" either. There is an analogous discussion on some "group
   rights".

   See International human rights instruments.

History of human rights legislation

   "It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the
   international Magna Carta." Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of
   the Universal Declaration in 1949
   "It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the
   international Magna Carta." Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of
   the Universal Declaration in 1949

   Appalled by the barbarism of the Second World War, the United Nations
   General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
   1948. While not legally binding, it urged member nations to promote a
   number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these
   rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
   world". The declaration was the first international legal effort to
   limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their
   citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

   Many states wanted to go beyond the declaration of rights and create
   legal covenants which would put greater pressure on states to follow
   human rights norms. Because some states disagreed over whether this
   international covenant should contain economic and social rights (which
   usually require a greater effort to fulfill on the part of individual
   states), two treaties were prepared.

   In 1966 and 1976 respectively, the International Covenant on Civil and
   Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
   Cultural Rights came into force. With the Universal Declaration of
   Human Rights these documents form the International bill of rights.

   “     ...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
     inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation
                   of freedom, justice and peace in the world               ”

        —Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

   Since then several other pieces of legislation have been introduced at
   the international level:
     * Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
       Genocide (entry into force: 1951)
     * Convention against Torture (entry into force: 1984)
     * Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
       (entry into force: 1969)
     * Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
       Against Women (entry into force: 1981)
       [http//www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/frame.htm]
     * Convention on the Rights of the Child (entry into force: 1989)
     * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entry into force:
       2002)

   With the exception of the non-deformable human rights (the four most
   important are the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the
   right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive
   application of penal laws), the UN recognises that human rights can be
   limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency -
   although "the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and
   the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration
   of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure" .
   Conduct in war is governed by International Humanitarian Law.

International bodies

   The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights created an
   agency, the Human Rights Committee to promote compliance with its
   norms. The 18 members of the committee express opinions as to whether a
   particular practice is a human rights violation, although its reports
   are not legally binding.

   A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was
   made in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the
   World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The degree of unanimity over
   these conventions, in terms of how many and which countries have
   ratified them varies, as does the degree to which they are respected by
   various states. The UN has set up a number of bodies to monitor and
   study human rights, under the leadership of the UN High Commissioner
   for Human Rights (UNHCHR).

Regional legislation

   There are also many regional agreements and organisations governing
   human rights including the European Court of Human Rights, which is the
   only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought
   by individuals (rather than states); the African Commission on Human
   and Peoples' Rights; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Cairo
   Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; Inter-American Court of Human
   Rights; and Iran's Defenders of Human Rights Centre.

History of human rights

   The Persian Empire (Iran) established unprecedented principles of human
   rights in the 6th century BC under the reign of Cyrus the Great. After
   his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus Cylinder,
   discovered in 1879 and recognized by many today as the first human
   rights document. The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire
   would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also
   abolished slavery, so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built
   by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work. These
   two reforms were reflected in the biblical books of Chronicles and
   Ezra, which state that Cyrus released the followers of Judaism from
   slavery and allowed them to migrate back to their land. The cylinder
   now lies in the British Museum, and a replica is kept at the United
   Nations headquarters.

   Ur-Nammu, the king of Ur created what was arguably the first legal
   codex in ca. 2050 BC. Several other sets of laws were created in
   Mesopotamia including the Code of Hammurabi, (ca. 1780 BC) which is one
   of the best preserved examples of this type of document. It shows rules
   and punishments if those rules are broken on a variety of matters
   including women's rights, children's rights and slave rights.

   Three centuries later, the Mauryan Empire of ancient India established
   unprecedented principles of civil rights in the 3rd century BC under
   the reign of Ashoka the Great. After his brutal conquest of Kalinga in
   circa 265 BC, he felt remorse for what he had done, and as a result,
   adopted Buddhism. From then, Ashoka, who had been described as "the
   cruel Ashoka" eventually came to be known as "the pious Ashoka". During
   his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence ( ahimsa). The
   unnecessary slaughter or mutilation of animals was immediately
   abolished, such as sport hunting and branding. Ashoka also showed mercy
   to those imprisoned, allowing them outside one day each year, and
   offered common citizens free education at universities. He treated his
   subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics or caste, and
   constructed free hospitals for both humans and animals. Ashoka defined
   the main principles of nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and
   opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being
   liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants (slavery was
   non-existent in India at the time), and generosity towards all. These
   reforms are described in the Edicts of Ashoka.

   Elsewhere societies have located the beginnings of human rights in
   religious documents. The Vedas, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Analects
   of Confucius are some of the oldest written sources which address
   questions of people’s duties, rights, and responsibilities. In the case
   of China, it is though clear that there were no human rights in the
   society at the time of Confucius (551-479 BC) because there was no
   natural right or Naturrecht: rights were only bestowed according to the
   position and role of man in society (cf. ritual, relationships and
   filial piety in Confucianism). This means that there were no individual
   rights man enjoyed by birth, nor were they unalienable (for more
   interested readers: cf. the writings of Hans-Georg Möller, Brock
   University, Canada, cf. references).

   In 1215 King John of England issued the Magna Carta, a document forced
   upon him by the Pope and English barons, which required him to renounce
   certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that the
   will of the king could be bound by law. It forbade arbitrary
   imprisonment and the collection of taxes without the approval of the
   people. Although the document did not itself limit the power of the
   king in the Middle Ages, its later reinterpretation in the Elizabethean
   and Stuart periods established it as a powerful document on which
   constitutional law was founded in Britain and elsewhere.

   In 1222, the Manden Charter in Mali was a declaration of essential
   human rights, including the right to life, and opposed the practice of
   slavery.

   The conquest of the Americas in the 16th century by the Spanish
   resulted in vigorous debate about human rights in Spain. The debate
   from 1550-51 between Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda at
   Valladolid was probably the first on the topic of human rights in
   European history.

   Several 17th and 18th century European philosophers, most notably John
   Locke, developed the concept of natural rights, the notion that people
   possess certain rights by virtue of being human. Though Locke believed
   natural rights were derived from divinity since humans were creations
   of God, his ideas were important in the development of the modern
   notion of rights. Lockean natural rights did not rely on citizenship
   nor any law of the state, nor were they necessarily limited to one
   particular ethnic, cultural or religious group.
   U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Continental Congress
   on July 4, 1776
   U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Continental Congress
   on July 4, 1776

   Two major revolutions occurred that century in the United States (1776)
   and in France (1789). The United States Declaration of Independence
   includes concepts of natural rights and famously states "that all men
   are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
   unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
   of happiness."
   Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the
   National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789
   Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the
   National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

   Similarly, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
   defines a set of individual and collective rights of the people. These
   are held to be universal - not only to French citizens but to all men
   without exception.

   Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Hegel expanded
   on the theme of universality during the 18th and 19th centuries. In
   1831 William Lloyd Garrison wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator
   that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human
   rights" so the term human rights probably came into use sometime
   between Paine's The Rights of Man and Garrison's publication. In 1849 a
   contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about human rights in his
   treatise On the Duty of Civil Disobedience which was later influential
   on human rights and civil rights thinkers. United States Supreme Court
   Justice Davis Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte Milligan, wrote
   "By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that
   protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of
   an excited people."

   Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social
   changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human
   rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought
   about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum
   work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's
   rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote.
   National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving
   out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's
   movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by
   long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts
   of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent
   diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities
   in the United States.

Philosophy of human rights

Types

                                                       Theories of rights
                                                          Animal rights
                                                        Children's rights
                                                          Civil rights
                                                        Collective rights
                                                          Group rights
                                                          Human rights
                                                       Inalienable rights
                                                        Individual rights
                                                          Legal rights
                                                          Men's rights
                                                         Natural rights
                                                       Negative & positive
                                                          Social rights
                                                       "Three generations"
                                                         Women's rights
                                                         Workers' rights
                                                          Youth rights

   Human rights are sometimes divided into negative and positive rights.
   "Negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American
   legal tradition, are rights that a government and/or private entities
   may not take action to remove. For example, right to life and security
   of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due
   process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of speech,
   religion, assembly; the right to bear arms. These have been codified in
   documents including the Scottish Claim of Right, the English Bill of
   Rights the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United
   States Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

   "Positive" human rights mainly follow from the Rousseauian Continental
   European legal tradition and denote entitlements that the state is
   obliged to protect and provide. Examples of such rights include: the
   rights to education, to health care, to a livelihood. Positive rights
   have been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
   (Articles 22-28) and in many 20th-century constitutions.

   Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three
   generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political
   rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation
   economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and
   third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean
   environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the
   most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. Some
   theorists discredit these divisions by claiming that rights are
   interconnected. Arguably, for example, basic education is necessary for
   the right to political participation.

   Some human rights are said to be " inalienable rights." This is not a
   term that has a precise meaning today, but is a term from English
   property law, used metaphorically, and is usually a reference to the
   United States Declaration of Independence, emphasizing the importance
   of a claimed right.

Justification of human rights

   Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how human
   rights become part of social expectations. The biological theory
   considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social
   behaviour based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural
   selection. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral
   behaviour, which is a human, social product developed by a process of
   biological and social evolution (associated with Hume) or as a
   sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of
   law and the work of Weber). This approach includes the notion that
   individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in
   exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls).

   On the other hand, natural law theories base human rights on the
   “natural” moral order that derives from religious precepts such as
   common understandings of justice and the belief that moral behaviour is
   a set of objectively valid prescriptions. Some have used religious
   texts such as the Bible and Qur'an to support human rights arguments.
   However, there are also more secular forms of natural law theory that
   understand human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human
   dignity.

   Yet others have attempted to construct an " interests theory" defence
   of human rights. For example the philosopher John Finnis argues that
   human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value
   in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being. Some
   interest-theorists also justify the duty to respect the rights of other
   individuals on grounds of self-interest (rather than altruism or
   benevolence). Reciprocal recognition and respect of rights ensures that
   one's own will be protected.

   Ultimately, the term "human rights" is often itself an appeal to a
   transcendent principle, not based on existing legal concepts. The term
   "humanism" refers to the developing doctrine of such universally
   applicable values. The term "human rights" has replaced the term "
   natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less
   frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.

Criticism of human rights

   One of the arguments made against the concept of human rights is that
   it suffers from cultural imperialism. In particular, the concept of
   human rights is fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook
   which, although generally accepted in Western Europe, Japan, India and
   North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. An
   appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights
   thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been
   Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires
   themselves. The cultural imperialism argument achieves even greater
   potency when it is made on the basis of religion. Some histories of
   human rights emphasise the Christian influence on the agenda and then
   question whether this is in keeping with the tenets of other world
   religions. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the
   United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his
   country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying
   that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian
   tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without
   trespassing the Islamic law..

   Yet, some feel that the cultural imperialism argument is not entirely
   factual. While Western political philosophers like Locke, Hobbes and
   Mill made important contributions to the development of modern notions
   of human rights, the concept of human rights itself has origins in many
   world cultures and religions. Additionally, this argument leads to
   absolute relativism if taken too far. If all viewpoints and moral
   frameworks are equally valid then one cannot condemn any behaviour,
   however outrageous or horrific. In practice, human rights offer a basis
   to criticise such behaviour or conduct, including imperialism. As such,
   human rights can be a transformative tool for self-determination.

   One way out of the cultural imperialism and relativism debate is to
   argue that the body of human rights exists in a hierarchy or can
   undergo derogation. The relationship between different rights is
   complex since it can be argued that some are mutually reinforcing or
   supportive. For example, political rights, such as the right to hold
   office, cannot be fully exercised without other social and cultural
   pre-requisites, such as a decent education. Whether the latter should
   therefore be included as a first-generation right is a debated point.

   However, it can be argued that the idea of human rights is not entirely
   universal, and to impose them universally may have harmful
   consequences. Western developed states often stress the need for a
   negative rights construct while the developing world seeks a more
   positive rights construct. In regards to progress in human rights,
   "institutions are more written in the "hearts of the people" (which
   cannot be changed overnight) than in the pages of law books. Changing
   the de jure institutions does not by any means imply a transformative
   change in the de facto institutions and norms that govern long term
   behavor" (Ellerman 102-103). Without internal motivation, external
   leverage can hamper local human rights progress.

   Another important philosophical criticism of human rights is their
   presumed basis in morality. If moral beliefs are fundamentally
   expressions of individuals' personally held preferences then the
   objective morality upon which human rights are founded is rejected.
   Richard Rorty has argued that human rights are not based upon the
   exercise of reason but a sentimental vision of humanity (even though he
   does support human rights in law on the basis of interests theory).
   Alasdair MacIntyre has written that a belief in rights is on a par with
   "belief in witches and unicorns". But without care this criticism can
   become an apology for all behaviour as it aligns closely with moral
   relativism. It offends some by claiming that moral beliefs are
   personally held preferences and that there are no objective criterion
   to deduce valid moral beliefs from.

   A final set of debating points revolves around the question of who has
   the duty to uphold human rights. Human rights have historically arisen
   from the need to protect citizens from abuse by the state and this
   might suggest that all mankind has a duty to intervene and protect
   people wherever they are. Divisive national loyalties, which emphasise
   differences between people rather than their similarities, can thus be
   seen as a destructive influence on the human rights movement because
   they deny people's innately similar human qualities. But others argue
   that state sovereignty is paramount, not least because it is often the
   state that has signed up to human rights treaties in the first place.
   Commentators' positions in the argument for and against intervention
   and the use of force by states are influenced by whether they believe
   human rights are largely a legal or moral duty and whether they are of
   more cosmopolitan or nationalist persuasion.

Violations of human rights

   Human rights Violation is abuse of people in a way that it abuses any
   fundamental human rights. It is a term used when a government violates
   national or international law related to the protection of human
   rights.

   According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamental
   human rights are violated when, among other things:
     * A certain race, creed, or group is denied recognition as a
       "person". (Articles 2 & 6)
     * Men and women are not treated as equal. (Article 2)
     * Different racial or religious groups are not treated as equal.
       (Article 2)
     * Life, liberty or security of person are threatened. (Article 3)
     * A person is sold as or used as a slave. (Article 4)
     * Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment is used on a person (such as
       torture or execution). (Article 5) (See also Prisoners' rights)
     * Victims of abuse are denied an effective judicial remedy. (Article
       8)
     * Punishments are dealt arbitrarily or unilaterally, without a proper
       and fair trial. (Article 11)
     * Arbitrary interference into personal, or private lives by agents of
       the state. (Article 12)
     * Citizens are forbidden to leave or return to their country.
       (Article 13)
     * Freedom of speech or religion are denied. (Articles 18 & 19)
     * The right to join a trade union is denied. (Article 23)
     * Education is denied. (Article 26)

Monitoring

   Human rights violations and abuses include those documented by
   non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Human
   Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House,
   International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery
   International.

   Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights
   violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human
   rights report (covering 2003) the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland
   and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not violate
   at least some human rights significantly.

   Some people believe human rights abuses are more common in
   dictatorships or theocracies than in democracies because freedom of
   speech and freedom of the press tend to uncover state orchestrated
   abuse and expose it. Nonetheless human rights abuses do occur in
   democracies. For example, the Macpherson report found that the British
   police had been institutionally racist in the handling of the death of
   Stephen Lawrence. Also Amnesty International has called the running of
   Guantanamo Bay detainment camp by the United States "a human rights
   scandal" in a series of reports .

   In over 90 countries National human rights institutions (NHRIs) have
   been set up to protect, promote or monitor human rights in a given
   country. There are now over 90 such bodies. Not all of them are
   compliant with the United Nations standards as set out in the 1993
   Paris Principles, but the amount and effect of these institutions is
   increasing.

   HURIDOCS has developed extensive methodologies for monitoring and
   documenting human rights violations, and more resources can be found at
   Human Rights Tools.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
