Human Rights?
Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that
impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil
liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied
by that state in its own jurisdiction.
Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a
person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Human rights
are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for
everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in
both national and international law.
Human rights include the right to personal liberty and Due Process of Law; to freedom
of thought, expression, religion, organization, and movement; to freedom from
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic
education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined
by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly
the United Nations. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, Slavery, summary
execution without trial, and Arbitrary detention or exile.
What are the basic characteristics of human
rights?
The following are the basic characteristics of human rights:
1. Inherent – Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person
or authority. Human rights do not have to be bought, earned or inherited; they belong
to people simply because they are human. Human rights are inherent to each individual.
2. Fundamental - Human Rights are fundamental rights because without them, the life
and dignity of man will be meaningless.
3. Inalienable - Human rights cannot be taken away; no one has the right to deprive
another person of them for any reason. People still have human rights even when the
laws of their countries do not recognize them, or when they violate them - for example,
when slavery is practiced, slaves still have rights even though these rights are being
violated. Human rights are inalienable. Human Rights are inalienable because:
a. They cannot be rightfully taken away from a free individual.
b. They cannot be given away or be forfeited.
4. Imprescriptible - Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if
man fails to use or assert them, even by a long passage of time.
5. Indivisible - To live in dignity, all human beings are entitled to freedom, security and
decent standards of living concurrently. Human rights are indivisible. Human Rights are
not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even when other rights have already
been enjoyed.
6. Universal - Human Rights are universal in application and they apply irrespective of
one’s origin, status, or condition or place where one lives. Human rights are enforceable
without national border. Human rights are the same for all human beings regardless of
race, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin. We are all born free,
and equal in dignity and rights— human rights are universal.
7. Interdependent - Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfillment or
exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the other.
Classification
Human rights can be classified and organized in a number of different ways, at an
international level the most common categorisation of human rights has been to split
them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.
Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).
Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR).
Indivisibility
The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political
rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only
successfully exist in combination:
The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear
and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his
civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights.
—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot
assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a
working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known
as the full belly thesis).
The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the
1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The
international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on
the same footing, and with the same emphasis.
—Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights,
1993
This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York
(paragraph 121).
Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal
weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given
priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social
rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. Similarly the ex
Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic,
social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.
Categorization
Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and
cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require
completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to
be:
positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as
opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)
resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are
adequately provided or not is difficult to judge
ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and
shouldn't be provided as a right
socialist, as opposed to capitalist
non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in
a court of law
aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights
Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:
negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
cost-free
immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
non-ideological/non-political
capitalist
justiciable
real 'legal' rights
Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic,
social and cultural rights, it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above
categorization. Among several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a
judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before
the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive,
progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justifiable and can
be a real 'legal' right.
Three generations
Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of
human rights: First-generation civil and political rights (These are "liberty-orientated"
and include the rights to life, liberty and security of the individual; freedom from torture
and slavery; political participation; freedom of opinion, expression, thought, conscience
and religion; freedom of association and assembly.)
Second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (These are "security-orientated"
rights, for example the rights to work; education; a reasonable standard of living; food;
shelter and health care.)
Third-generation solidarity rights (These include the rights to live in an environment that
is clean and protected from destruction, and rights to cultural, political and economic
development, rights to self-determination, etc.)
Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal
and political recognition. This categorization is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as
it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for
pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip
Alston argues:
If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then
nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.
He and others, urge caution with prioritization of rights:
[T]he call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be
ignored.
—Philip Alston
Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts
at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and
participation.
—Olivia Ball, Paul Gready
Source: [Link]
