CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, 2010

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies, 2021

The word privilege derives from the Latin origin privilegium, which means law for one person, a regulation, or a bill which is formulated for or against one person. Privileges are, today, special rights, permissions, exemptions, or immunities that are granted to a particular individual, a particular group, or an entity as a peculiar opportunity or advantage by an external source. The aim of the privileges is functional. Privileges are granted when necessary to facilitate implement functions of a position, authority, or office. They are also granted to secure abilities of certain offices by freeing them from obligations or duties. Privileges are often mistaken for rights. A right is a condition or a guarantee that are inherent and that cannot be taken away by others (Shestack 2017). Rights are justified and protected. Violation of rights are illegitimate and unlawful. Human rights are self-evident and universal. The rights are inherent to all human beings, regardless of their age, sex, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, language, place or residence, or any other status. Human rights are possessed naturally by birth and they are same for everybody. They cannot be taken away by any one, not even by the state. The existence of human rights continue even when the state disappears. Among human rights are inalienable rights that even the holder of the right cannot give them up or give them away. Human rights are not granted by others. Therefore, human rights can also not be taken away by others. Legal rights are provided by the state and they can also be taken back, limited, or changed or modified by the state. This is why each nation state has their own laws; for instance, own labor law, own civil law, or own code of obligations. Internationally, human rights are mainly protected by two principles: equality and nondiscrimination. They are universally agreed elements and counted among the general principles of international law. While some privileges are violation of these principles, others do not contradict them and devised to enable fulfilment of particular functions and duties.

Few concepts are as frequently invoked in contemporary political discussions as human rights. There is something deeply attractive in the idea that every person anywhere in the world, irrespective of citizenship or territorial legislation, has some basic rights, which others should respect.At the same time, the central idea of human rights as something that people have, and have even without any specific legislation, is seen by many as foundationally dubious and lacking in cogency. A recurrent question is, Where do these rights come from? It is not usually disputed that the invoking of human rights can be politically powerful. Many philosophers and legal theorists see the rhetoric of human rights as just loose talk—perhaps kindly and well meaning forms of locution—but loose talk nevertheless. The contrast between the widespread use of the idea of human rights and the intellectual skepticism about its conceptual soundness is not new.Bentham insisted that " natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights (an American phrase),rhetoricalnonsense, nonsense up on stilts. " That suspicionremains very alive today, and despite persistent use of the ideaof human rights in practical affairs, there are many who see the idea ofhuman rights as no more than " bawling upon paper, " to use another Bentham's barbed portrayals of natural right claims.The dismissal of human rights is often comprehensive and is aimed against any belief in the existence of rights that people can have unconditionally,simply by virtue of their humanity (rather than having them contingently, on the basis of specific qualifications, such as citizenshipor legal entitlements).It is critically important to see the relationship between the force and appeal of human rights, on the one hand, and their reasoned justification and scrutinized use, on the other. There is, thus, need for some theory and also for some defense of any proposed theory. The object of this article is to do just that, and to consider, in that context, the justification of the general idea of human rights and also of the includability of economic and social rights within the broad class of human rights.

International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 2019

Article History Published Online: In modern civilization, an academic discussion on the idea of Rights is essential because its core principles ascertain humans as independent and sovereign. This paper, in the view of the significance of rights in a human being"s life, discusses the idea of rights and focuses on two questions that ask what is the purpose of rights and who is entitled to have rights. To explore the possible answers, this paper discusses different perspectives that have evolved with political thinking. While doing so, the paper argues that in the modern States, rights are introduced and discussed as a common consensus and their objective is to attain a common good. In order to keep the rights as a common consent, this paper argues to realize and endorse rights above the division of self and others. In view of this stance, this paper discusses rights with reference to three ideas. The first sheds light on the fact that rights are interests of individuals that are collective in nature. The second pinpoints that rights are benefits and as individual benefits, they are basically to be enjoyed by the entire community. Lastly, the third idea of this paper underlines that rights are entitled to attain individual welfare which includes the welfare of all as commons.