12.2 Human rights

Human rights are fundamental rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of their background or status. This concept has evolved over time, shaped by philosophical, legal, and historical developments, with its modern understanding emerging during the Enlightenment and solidifying after World War II.

The study of human rights in international relations explores key debates such as universality vs. cultural relativism, negative vs. positive rights, and individual vs. group rights. It also examines enforcement mechanisms, the tension between human rights and state sovereignty, and contemporary challenges in realizing these rights globally.

Origins of human rights

• Human rights are fundamental rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status
• The concept of human rights has evolved over time, shaped by various philosophical, legal, and historical developments
• The origins of human rights can be traced back to ancient civilizations and religious traditions, but the modern understanding emerged during the Enlightenment and was further solidified after World War II

Natural law vs positive law

Top images from around the web for Natural law vs positive law

• 

  Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory – Ethics and Society View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How can you believe in the existence of natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How did we get from natural law to natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory – Ethics and Society View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How can you believe in the existence of natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Natural law vs positive law

• 

  Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory – Ethics and Society View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How can you believe in the existence of natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How did we get from natural law to natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Aquinas’s Natural Law Theory – Ethics and Society View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Freedom and Flourishing: How can you believe in the existence of natural rights? View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Natural law theory asserts that human rights are derived from nature and reason, existing independently of legal systems or social conventions
• Positive law theory contends that human rights are created and granted by the state through legislation and legal systems
• The debate between natural law and positive law perspectives has shaped the philosophical foundations of human rights

Enlightenment philosophy

• Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant contributed to the development of human rights concepts
• Locke's ideas of natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, influenced the understanding of individual rights
• Kant's notion of human dignity and the categorical imperative provided a philosophical basis for the universality of human rights

Post-WWII developments

• The atrocities committed during World War II led to a renewed focus on human rights and the need for international protection
• The United Nations was established in 1945 with the promotion and protection of human rights as one of its core purposes
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, setting out a common standard of human rights for all peoples and nations

Key human rights documents

• Several key international documents form the foundation of the modern human rights framework
• These documents outline the rights and freedoms that all individuals are entitled to and establish mechanisms for their protection and promotion
• The three most significant human rights documents are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

• The UDHR is a landmark document that sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled
• It consists of 30 articles covering a wide range of rights, including the right to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from torture and slavery; and the right to education and work
• Although not legally binding, the UDHR serves as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations and has inspired numerous international and regional human rights treaties

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• The ICCPR is a legally binding treaty that elaborates on the civil and political rights outlined in the UDHR
• It guarantees rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; the right to a fair trial; and the right to participate in public affairs
• States that ratify the ICCPR are obligated to respect and ensure these rights for all individuals within their jurisdiction

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• The ICESCR is a legally binding treaty that addresses economic, social, and cultural rights
• It recognizes rights such as the right to work, social security, an adequate standard of living, education, and the highest attainable standard of health
• States parties to the ICESCR are required to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to progressively achieve the full realization of these rights

Universality vs cultural relativism

• The debate between universality and cultural relativism is a central issue in human rights discourse
• Universality holds that human rights are inherent to all individuals, regardless of cultural context, while cultural relativism argues that human rights should be interpreted and applied differently based on cultural norms and traditions
• This debate raises questions about the extent to which human rights can be considered truly universal and how to balance respect for cultural diversity with the protection of fundamental rights

Arguments for universality

• Proponents of universality argue that human rights are based on shared human characteristics and experiences, such as the capacity for suffering and the desire for dignity and respect
• They contend that certain rights, such as the right to life and freedom from torture, are so fundamental that they should be protected universally, regardless of cultural differences
• The UDHR and other international human rights documents are seen as evidence of a global consensus on the universality of human rights

Critiques of universality

• Critics of universality argue that the concept of human rights is rooted in Western philosophical traditions and may not be applicable or relevant to all cultures
• They point out that the drafting of the UDHR and other human rights documents was dominated by Western nations, potentially neglecting non-Western perspectives
• Some argue that the emphasis on individual rights in human rights discourse may not align with more communal or collective value systems found in certain cultures

Cultural relativism perspectives

• Cultural relativists maintain that human rights should be understood and applied within the context of specific cultural norms, values, and practices
• They argue that imposing a universal set of human rights standards may be a form of cultural imperialism, disregarding the diversity of human societies
• Cultural relativists often emphasize the importance of respecting traditional practices and allowing cultures to determine their own path to realizing human rights

Negative vs positive rights

• The distinction between negative and positive rights is a fundamental concept in human rights theory
• Negative rights are freedoms from interference or restraint, while positive rights are entitlements to certain goods, services, or opportunities
• This distinction has implications for the nature and extent of state obligations in protecting and promoting human rights

Negative rights

• Negative rights, also known as liberty rights, are rights that protect individuals from interference or restraint by others, particularly the state
• Examples of negative rights include freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; the right to privacy; and freedom from torture and arbitrary detention
• Negative rights are often associated with civil and political rights and are seen as requiring the state to refrain from certain actions that would infringe upon individual liberties

Positive rights

• Positive rights, also known as welfare rights, are rights that entitle individuals to certain goods, services, or opportunities
• Examples of positive rights include the right to education, healthcare, housing, and social security
• Positive rights are often associated with economic, social, and cultural rights and are seen as requiring the state to take active steps to ensure access to these goods and services

State obligations

• The distinction between negative and positive rights has implications for the nature and extent of state obligations in protecting and promoting human rights
• For negative rights, the primary obligation of the state is to refrain from interfering with individual liberties and to prevent others from doing so
• For positive rights, the state has an obligation to take active measures to ensure that individuals have access to the goods, services, and opportunities to which they are entitled
• The realization of positive rights often requires the allocation of resources and the development of policies and programs, which can be more challenging than the protection of negative rights

Individual vs group rights

• The debate between individual and group rights centers on whether human rights should be primarily understood as belonging to individuals or to collectivities, such as ethnic, religious, or cultural groups
• This debate raises questions about the relationship between individual and collective identities, the potential for conflict between individual and group rights, and the role of the state in protecting and balancing these rights

Rights of individuals

• The traditional liberal conception of human rights emphasizes the rights of individuals as autonomous agents, endowed with inherent dignity and entitled to equal protection under the law
• Individual rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person, are seen as essential for the protection of human dignity and the promotion of individual freedom and self-determination
• The focus on individual rights is reflected in many international human rights documents, such as the UDHR and the ICCPR

Collective rights

• Collective rights, also known as group rights, are rights that belong to collectivities, such as indigenous peoples, minorities, or cultural groups
• These rights are often associated with the protection and promotion of the distinct identities, cultures, and ways of life of these groups
• Examples of collective rights include the right to self-determination, the right to preserve and develop cultural practices, and the right to use and transmit minority languages

Minority rights

• Minority rights are a specific category of collective rights that aim to protect the interests and identities of ethnic, religious, linguistic, or cultural minorities within a state
• These rights may include the right to non-discrimination, the right to participate in public life, and the right to maintain and develop distinct cultural practices and institutions
• The protection of minority rights is seen as essential for promoting social cohesion, preventing conflict, and ensuring that all individuals can enjoy their human rights without discrimination based on their group identity

Enforcement of human rights

• The enforcement of human rights refers to the mechanisms and processes through which human rights norms and standards are implemented, monitored, and protected in practice
• Enforcement occurs at various levels, including the international, regional, and national levels, and involves a range of actors, such as states, international organizations, and civil society groups

UN human rights mechanisms

• The United Nations has established various mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, including treaty bodies, special procedures, and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
• Treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, monitor the implementation of specific human rights treaties by states parties and issue recommendations for improvement
• Special procedures, such as special rapporteurs and working groups, are independent experts appointed to investigate and report on specific human rights issues or country situations
• The UPR is a peer review process in which the human rights record of each UN member state is reviewed by other states every four years

Regional human rights systems

• In addition to the UN system, there are regional human rights systems in Europe, the Americas, and Africa that provide additional mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights
• The European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples' Rights are examples of regional human rights bodies that hear cases and issue binding decisions on human rights violations
• Regional human rights systems often have their own human rights treaties and conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights

Role of NGOs

• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in the enforcement of human rights at the international, regional, and national levels
• NGOs engage in a variety of activities, such as monitoring and reporting on human rights violations, providing legal assistance to victims, advocating for policy changes, and raising public awareness about human rights issues
• NGOs often work in collaboration with international and regional human rights mechanisms, providing information and expertise and pushing for stronger action to address human rights violations
• Examples of prominent human rights NGOs include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

Human rights and state sovereignty

• The relationship between human rights and state sovereignty is a complex and often contentious issue in international relations
• State sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of a state within its territory and its independence from external interference, while human rights are universal norms that apply to all individuals, regardless of their nationality or location
• The tension between human rights and state sovereignty arises when the international community seeks to intervene in a state's internal affairs to protect human rights, potentially challenging the state's authority and autonomy

Responsibility to protect

• The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a norm that emerged in the early 2000s, which holds that the international community has a responsibility to intervene in a state's affairs when the state is unable or unwilling to protect its population from grave human rights abuses, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity
• R2P challenges traditional notions of state sovereignty by asserting that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect human rights and that the international community has a duty to act when this responsibility is not met
• The application of R2P has been controversial, with debates over the criteria for intervention, the potential for abuse, and the impact on state sovereignty

Humanitarian intervention debates

• Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of military force by one or more states to protect human rights in another state, without the consent of that state's government
• Debates over humanitarian intervention center on the tension between the moral imperative to prevent or stop grave human rights abuses and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states
• Proponents of humanitarian intervention argue that the international community has a responsibility to act when states fail to protect their populations from severe human rights violations, while critics warn of the potential for abuse and the erosion of state sovereignty

Limits of sovereignty

• The increasing recognition of human rights as universal norms has led to a re-examination of the concept of state sovereignty and its limits
• It is now widely accepted that state sovereignty is not absolute and that states have obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of their populations
• International human rights law and mechanisms, such as the UN treaty bodies and the International Criminal Court, have challenged traditional notions of state sovereignty by holding states accountable for human rights violations and providing avenues for individual complaints against states
• The limits of sovereignty in the face of grave human rights abuses remain a subject of ongoing debate and negotiation in international relations

Contemporary human rights issues

• While the human rights movement has made significant progress in recent decades, many pressing human rights issues continue to challenge the international community
• These issues often involve the rights of marginalized or vulnerable groups, the impact of globalization and technological change, and the intersection of human rights with other global challenges, such as climate change and inequality

Economic and social rights

• Economic and social rights, such as the right to work, social security, and an adequate standard of living, remain a major challenge in many parts of the world
• Poverty, inequality, and lack of access to basic services, such as healthcare and education, continue to undermine the realization of these rights for millions of people
• The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed and exacerbated the disparities in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, highlighting the need for stronger action to address systemic inequalities

Women's rights

• Despite progress in recent decades, women continue to face discrimination, violence, and marginalization in many societies around the world
• Issues such as gender-based violence, unequal access to education and employment, and limited political representation remain major barriers to the full realization of women's rights
• The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, provides a comprehensive framework for advancing women's rights, but implementation has been uneven

LGBTQ+ rights

• Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals face discrimination, violence, and criminalization in many countries around the world
• Issues such as the lack of legal recognition for same-sex relationships, the criminalization of same-sex conduct, and the denial of access to healthcare and other services based on sexual orientation or gender identity remain major challenges
• The Yogyakarta Principles, adopted in 2006 and updated in 2017, provide a framework for applying international human rights law to address the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, but implementation has been limited

Critiques of human rights

• While the human rights movement has achieved significant progress in recent decades, it has also faced various critiques and challenges from different perspectives
• These critiques often focus on the historical origins and philosophical foundations of human rights, their potential for universality, and their relationship to power structures and global inequalities

Postcolonial critiques

• Postcolonial critiques of human rights argue that the human rights discourse and institutions are rooted in Western colonial and imperial histories and continue to reflect and perpetuate global power imbalances
• These critiques point out that the drafting of key human rights documents, such as the UDHR, was dominated by Western powers and may not adequately reflect the perspectives and experiences of formerly colonized peoples
• Postcolonial scholars also argue that human rights interventions by Western powers in the Global South often serve to advance Western interests and values, rather than genuinely promoting the rights and well-being of local populations

Marxist critiques

• Marxist critiques of human rights argue that the human rights discourse and institutions are shaped by and serve to reinforce capitalist economic structures and class inequalities
• These critiques contend that the emphasis on individual rights in human rights discourse obscures the structural and systemic causes of human rights violations, such as poverty, exploitation, and imperialism
• Marxist scholars also argue that the human rights movement has been co-opted by powerful states and corporations to advance their own interests, rather than genuinely challenging global inequalities and injustices

Realist critiques

• Realist critiques of human rights argue that the human rights discourse and institutions are ultimately subordinate to the interests and power of states in the international system
• These critiques contend that states will only support human rights norms and mechanisms to the extent that they serve their own strategic interests, and will resist or ignore them when they conflict with these interests
• Realist scholars also argue that the enforcement of human rights ultimately depends on the willingness and ability of powerful states to use their economic and military power to pressure or coerce other states to comply with human rights standards
• From a realist perspective, the human rights movement is seen as a tool of statecraft, rather than a genuine constraint on state behavior or a transformative force in international relations