Chapter 1:

Historical Development of Human Rights

The belief that everyone, is entitled to certain human rights. rights. Its roots,
however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures; it took the
catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into
the global conscience. Throughout much of history, people acquired rights
and responsibilities through their membership in a group a family,
indigenous nation, religion, class, community, or state. Most societies have
had traditions similar to the "golden rule" of "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you." The Hindu Vedas, the Babylonian Code of
Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran (Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are
five of the oldest written sources which address questions of people's duties,
rights, and responsibilities.

The origins of human rights may be found both in Greek philosophy and the
various world religions. In the Age of Enlightenment (18th century) the
concept of human rights emerged as an explicit category. Man/woman came
to be seen as an autonomous individual, endowed by nature with certain
inalienable fundamental rights that could be invoked against a government
and should be safeguarded by it. Human rights were henceforth seen as
elementary preconditions for an existence worthy of human dignity.

Before this period, several charters codifying rights and freedoms had been
drawn up constituting important steps towards the idea of human rights.
During the 6th Century, the Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran
established unprecedented principles of human rights. Cyrus the Great (576
ог 590 BC530 BC) issued the Cyrus cylinder which declared that citizens of
the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely and also
abolished slavery. The next generation of human rights documents were the
Magna Charta Libertatum of 1215, the Golden Bull of Hungary (1222), the
Danish Erik Klipping's Håndfaestning of 1282, the Joyeuse Entrée of 1356 in
Brabant (Brussels), the Union of Utrecht of 1579 (The Netherlands) and the
English Bill of Rights of 1689. These documents specified rights which could
be claimed in the light of particular circumstances (e.g., threats to the
freedom of religion), but they did not yet contain an all-embracing
philosophical concept of individual liberty. Freedoms were often seen as
rights conferred upon individuals or groups by virtue of their rank or status.
In the centuries after the Middle Ages, the concept of liberty became
gradually separated from status and came to be seen not as a privilege but
as a right of all human beings. Spanish theologists and jurists played a
prominent role in this context. Among the former, the work of Francisco de
Vitoria (1486-1546) and Bartolomé de las Casas (1474-1566) should be
highlighted. These two men laid the (doctrinal) foundation for the recognition
of freedom and dignity of all humans by defending the personal rights of the
indigenous peoples inhabiting the territories colonised by the Spanish Crown.

The Enlightenment was decisive in the development of human rights

concepts. The ideas of Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), one of the fathers of
modern international law, of Samuel von Pufendorf (1632-1694), and of John
Locke (1632-1704) attracted much interest in Europe in the 18 th century.
Locke, for instance, developed a comprehensive concept of natural rights; his
list of rights consisting of life, liberty and property. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778) elaborated the concept under which the sovereign derived his
powers and the citizens their rights from a social contract. The term human
rights appeared for the first time in the French Déclaration des Droits de
l’Homme et du Citoyen(1789).

The classic rights of the 18th and 19th centuries related to the freedom of
the Individual. Even at that time, however, some people believed that
citizens had a right to demand that the government endeavour to improve
their living conditions. Taking into account the principle of equality as
contained in the French Declaration of 1789, several constitutions drafted in
Europe around 1800 contained classic rights, but also included articles which
assigned responsibilities to the government in the fields of employment,
welfare, public health, and education. Social rights of this kind were also
expressly included in the Mexican Constitution of 1917, the Constitution of
the Soviet Union of 1918 and the German Constitution of 1919.

In the 19th century, there were frequent inter-state disputes relating to the
protection of the rights of minorities in Europe. These conflicts led to several
veral humanitarian interventions and calls for international protection
arrangements. One of the first such arrangements was the Treaty of Berlin of
1878, which accorded special legal status to some religious groups. It also
served as a model for the Minorities System that was subsequently
established within the League of Nations.

The need for international standards on human rights was first felt at the end
of the 19th century, when the industrial countries began to introduce labour
legislation. This legislation which raised the cost of labour had the effect of
worsening their competitive position in relation to countries that had no
labour laws. Economic necessity forced the states to consult each other. It
was as a result of this that the first conventions were formulated in which
states committed themselves vis-à-vis other states in regard to their own
citizens. The Bern Convention of 1906 prohibiting night-shift work by women
can be seen as the first multilateral convention meant to safeguard social
rights. Many more labour conventions were later to be drawn up by the
International Labour Organisation (ILO), founded in 1919. Remarkable as it
may seem, therefore, while the classic human rights had been acknowledged
long before social rights, the latter were first embodied in international
regulations.

The atrocities of World War II put an end to the traditional view that states
have full liberty to decide the treatment of their own citizens. The signing of
the Charter of the United Nations (UN) on 26 June 1945 brought human
rights within the sphere of international law. In particular, all UN members
agreed to take measures to protect human rights. The Charter contains a
number of articles specifically referring to human rights. Less than two years
later, the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), established early in
1946, submitted a draft Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to the
UN General Assembly (UNGA). The Assembly adopted the Declaration in Paris
on 10 December 1948. This day was later designated Human Rights Day.

During the 1950s and 1960s, more and more countries joined the UN. Upon
joining they formally accepted so subscribed to the principles and ideals laid
down the UDHR. This commitment was made explicit in the Proclamation of
Teheran (1968), which was adopted during the first World Conference on
Human Rights, and repeated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action, which was adopted during the second World Conference on Human
Rights (1993).

Since the 1950s, the UDHR has been backed up by a large number of
international conventions. The most significant of these conventions are the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
These two Covenants together with the UDHR form the International Bill of
Human Rights. At the same time, many supervisory mechanisms have been
created, including those responsible for monitoring compliance with the two
Covenants.

In the twentieth century, the term "human rights" has replaced earlier
expressions such as "natural right" (lex naturalis) in classical Greek and
Roman thought, "natural law" (jus naturale) and the "law of nations" (jus
gentium) in Roman law and during the Middle Ages, and, since the modern
era and the French and American revolutions, the "laws of nature" and the
"Rights of Man." The origin of "natural right" may be traced to the Greeks'
distinction between "nature" (physis) and "convention" (nomos). The Greeks
contrasted animals and humans insofar as the habits of animals were
uniform, whereas the practices of humans differed according to convention.
The Skeptic philosophers drew the conclusion that what was conventional
could be deconstructed since there was no uniform force behind human
conventions. The notion of natural right was a rebuttal to this ancient form of
deconstruction.

Human Rights Today: A Global Context

Contemporary international human rights law and the establishment of the

United Nations (UN) have important historical antecedents. Efforts in the
19th century to prohibit the slave trade and to limit the horrors of war are
prime examples. In 1919, countries established the International Labor
Organization (ILO) to oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their
rights, including their health and safety. Concern over the protection of
certain minority groups was raised by the League of Nations at the end of the
First World War. However, this organization for international peace and
cooperation, created by the victorious European allies, never achieved its
goals. The League floundered because the United States refused to join and
because the League failed to prevent Japan's invasion of China and
Manchuria (1931) and Italy's attack on Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with the
onset of the Second World War (1939).

The idea of human rights emerged stronger after World War II. The
extermination by Nazi Germany of over six million Jews, Sinti and Romani
(gypsies), homosexuals, and persons with disabilities horrified the world.
Trials were held in Nuremberg and Tokyo after World War II, and officials from
the defeated countries were punished for committing war crimes, "crimes
against peace," and "crimes against humanity."

to Governments then committed themselves establishing the United Nations,

with the primary goal of bolstering international peace and preventing
conflict. People wanted to ensure that never again would anyone be unjustly
denied life, freedom, food, shelter, and nationality. The essence of these
emerging human rights principles was captured in President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt's 1941 State of the Union Address when he spoke of a world
founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of speech and religion and
freedom from want and fear (See Using Human Rights Here & Now). The calls
came from across the globe for human rights standards to protect citizens
from abuses by their governments, standards against which nations could be
held accountable for the treatment of those living within their borders.

History of Human Rights in the Philippines

Human Rights in the Philippines, or the absence of these rights, are better
understood through the prism of colonialism. Over the last 400 years the
Filipino people have suffered under first 330 years of Spanish colonialism and
then a further 45 years of American rule. Under Spanish colonialism, many
nationalists were killed simply for advocating independence. The Spanish
period was followed by a particularly brutal period of “pacification” when
hundreds of thousands of Filipinos were killed resisting integration into the
new American Empire. Following “independence” from the United States in
1945, the Philippines served as a testing ground for counter-insurgency
operation. Throughout the 1950s US advisors assisted the now independent
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) with counter-insurgency operations.

The 1987 Constitution upholds the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights (Article II, Sec. 11). It also requires
educational institutions to promote respect for human rights (Article XIV, Sec.
3[b]). Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, then President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Executive Order (EO) No. 27 (4 July 1986), ordering the then
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS) to include human rights
courses in the curriculums of all levels of education and training in all
schools. It also ordered MECS to initiate and maintain regular programs and
special projects, including informal education and other means, to promote
information and discussion on, and respect for, human rights. The same EO
ordered the Civil Service Commission to include in the qualifying
examinations for government service some basic knowledge of human
rights. Memorandum Order No. 20, issued along with EO No. 27, instructed
the Ministry of National Defense, the New Armed Forces of the Philippines,
the former Constabulary, and the Integrated National Police to make the
study of human rights an integral and indispensable part of the education
and training of all police, military, and other law-enforcement personnel,
especially those in charge of detention and of prisoners. Completion of
human rights courses is a prerequisite for such personnel’s continuance in
office. The then Presidential Committee on Human Rights was tasked to
assist in developing appropriate study courses. On 30 October 1987,
President Aquino issued Proclamation No.177 declaring 3-10 December of
every year as National Human Rights Week. It mandated the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) to initiate activities that would highlight the observance
of Human Rights Week. All government offices and agencies were urged to
conduct commemorative and educational activities. Pursuant to EO No. 27,
the education secretary issued Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) Order No. 61 (9 June 1987), ordering all schools at all levels, including
non-formal, technical, and vocational, to include in their curriculums the
study of human rights and “accompanying responsibilities.” At the primary
and secondary levels, human rights lessons may be integrated into civics,
culture, geography and history, and social studies; and at the tertiary level,
in political science or history.

The schools were given the option ”o determine how to integrate human
rights lessons into their courses. CHR published A Primer on Human Rights,
which was distributed to the regions to provide basic information on
formulating and developing instructional materials. The DECS bureaus, which
supervise education at various levels, including technical, vocational, and
non-formal, prepared a suggested list of target learning appropriate for each
grade level and the corresponding prototype teaching-learning materials to
serve as a basis for regional curriculum development and evaluation. The
regional directors were tasked to lead in integrating human rights in values
education programs, development of instructional materials, and teacher
training. They are also tasked to lead in enhancing school-community
relationship through contests and other activities. In 1990, DECS published a
batch of prototype teaching materials developed with support from the Asia
Foundation. The materials, intended for higher education, were titled
Foundations 1 and 2, Social Philosophy 1 and 2, Methods of Teaching,
Student Teaching and Health Education, and Livelihood Education. When the
materials were distributed in the regions, the deans and heads of colleges
were convened for orientation on their use.

In 1994, on Higher Education (CHED) in charge of supervising 14. Republic

Act No. 7722 put the Commission lic and private institutions of higher
learning, including degree granting programs in all post-secondary
educational institutions, public and private. On 18 October 1996 CHR, DECS,
CHED, and Amnesty International-Pilipinas the nationwide GO-NGO-Academe
Consultative Workshop signed a memorandum of agreement to jointly
undertake to define a national vision on human rights and produce the Long-
term National Plan of Action on Human Rights Education. In April 1996, DECS
started the series of seminar-workshops for regional education officials in
cooperation with CHR. The seminar- workshops provide knowledge on human
rights as applied to teaching-learning processes, day-to-day interaction,
teacher-training, and other activities On 16 May 1996, CHED issued
Memorandum Order No. 31 pursuant to the memorandum of agreement,
directing all higher educational institutions to conduct human rights
education, and training projects, including but not limited to integrating
human rights education concepts in subjects. All higher educational
institutions were required to document their human rights education
accomplishments and submit a semestral or trimestral report to the CHED
office in their respective regions. All reports submitted to regional offices
were to be consolidated and submitted to CHED. The efforts of the Philippine
government and its educational agencies to promote human rights
education, including the extent of implementation of the different laws,
policies, orders, and memorandums on human rights, have not been fully
evaluated. And by virtue of CMO number 5 and 6 series of 2018, Human
rights education subject is incorporated in the curriculum of BS in
Criminology and BS in Industrial Security Management respectively as core
professional subject.

The Philippines has ratified a number of international instruments on human

rights including:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women (CEDAW)

• Convention on the Rights of the Child

• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination, and

• Convention Against Torture.

As a general obligation of States that have ratified these instruments,

governments are required to undertake measures that will promote respect
for human rights. It is in this context that the development of human rights
education programs in the Philippines is both a response to the situation in
the country as well as a responsibility to the international community. One
means by which the Philippines fulfills this obligation is through its
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). It is a constitutionally created
institution under the 1987 Constitution with a mandate to “[E]stablish a
continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance
respect for the primacy of human rights.” (Section 18 (5), Article XVII, 1987
Philippine Constitution).

Chapter 2:

GENERAL NATURE AND DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Defining Human Rights

A famous statement that we always heard is that, Human rights are rights
inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity,
language, religion, or any other status.

In our present situation, Is this statement real or imaginary?

In this section we will define the technical meaning of human rights given by
different authorities or organization. According to the definition provided by
the UNITED NATIONS, Human rights as those rights inherent in people and
without which people cannot live as true human beings.

The Philippine Commission on Human Rights on the other hand defined

human rights as supreme rights, inherent and inalienable rights to life,
dignity and self-development. It is the essence of these rights that makes
man human. With this definition given, we will conclude that the existence of
man attached with it the protection of all his rights as human being. Human
rights are commonly understood as being those rights which are inherent in
the mere fact of being human. The concept of human rights is based on the
belief that every human being is entitled to enjoy her or his rights without
discrimination.

To enlighten our thought with that definition, we need to recognized the

different characteristics of Human Rights. If we said characteristic, it is a
distinguishing feature of Human Rights.

Characteristics of Human Rights

The following are the basic characteristics of human rights such as:

➤ 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.

➤ Fundamental Human Rights are fundamental rights because without them,

the life and dignity of man will be meaningless.

➤ 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.

➤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.

➤ 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.

➤ 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.

➤ Interdependent- Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfillment

or exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the other.

The above mentioned characteristics of human rights manifested the

supremacy of human rights.

Our next lesson will deal on the different classification of Human Rights. It is
important to categorized Human Rights in order to understand their nature.

Classification of Human Rights and the Third Generation

Human rights can be classified and organized in a number of different ways:

According to aspect of life:

➤ Civil rights- are those rights which the law will enforce at the instance of
private individuals for the purpose of securing to them the enjoyment of their
means of happiness.

Example: rights against involuntary servitude, rights against imprisonment

for non-payment of debt or a poll tax, the constitutional rights of the
accused.

➤ Political rights- are those rights which enable us to participate in running

the affairs of the government either directly or indirectly.

Example: right to vote, right to information on matters of public concern,

right to initiative and referendum

➤ Economic rights and Social rights- are those rights which the law
confers upon the people to enable them to achieve social and economic
development, thereby ensuring them their well-being, happiness and
financial security.

Example: right to property, right to education, and promotion of social

justice.

➤ Cultural rights – are those rights that ensure the well-being of the
individual and foster the preservation, enrichment, and dynamic evolution of
national culture based on the principle of unity in diversity in a climate of
free artistic and intellectual expression.

According to source:

➤ Natural rights- are God-given rights, acknowledge by everybody to be

morally good. They are unwritten but they prevail as norms of the society.

Example rights to life, dignity and self-development

➤ Constitutional rights- are those rights which are conferred and

protected by the Constitution and which cannot be modified or taken away
by the law making body.

➤ Statutory rights- are those rights which are provided by law

promulgated by the law-making body and consequently, may be abolished
by the same body.

Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three

generations of human rights:
The division of human rights into three generations was initially proposed in
1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak at the International Institute of Human
Rights in Strasbourg

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.

First-generation human rights, sometimes called “blue” rights, deal

essentially with liberty and participation in political life. They are
fundamentally civil and political in nature:

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.

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be

recognized by governments after World War II. They are fundamentally
economic, social, and cultural in nature. They guarantee different members
of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would
include a right to be employed in just and favorable condition, rights to food,
housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment
benefits.

These rights are sometimes referred to as “red” rights. They impose upon the
government the duty to respect and promote and fulfill them, but this
depends on the availability of resources.

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.

Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil
and social, as expressed in many progressive documents of international law,
including the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, and other pieces of generally aspirational “soft law”.

The term remains largely unofficial, just as the also-used moniker of “green”
rights, and thus houses an extremely broad spectrum of rights, including:
Group and collective rights, right to self-determination, right to economic and
social development, right to a healthy environment, right to natural
resources, right to communicate and communication rights, Right to
participation in cultural heritage, Rights to intergenerational equity and
sustainability

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.

Chapter 3: Concepts of Human Rights Education

Definition of Human Rights Education

The United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004) has
defined Human Rights Education as "training, dissemination, and information
efforts aimed at the building of a universal culture of human rights through
the imparting of knowledge and skills and the molding of attitudes which are
directed to:

a) The strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

b) The full development of the human personality and the sense of its
dignity;

c) The promotion of understanding, respect, gender equality, and friendship

among all nations, indigenous peoples and racial, national, ethnic, religious
and linguistic groups;

d) The enabling of all persons to participate effectively in a free society.

e) The furtherance of the activities of the United Nations for the Maintenance
of Peace." (Adapted from the Plan of Action of the United Nations Decade for
Human Rights Education (1995-2004), paragraph 2)

Human Rights Education as a Human Right

Education in human rights is itself a fundamental human right and also a

responsibility. The mandate for human rights education is unequivocal: you
have a human right to know your rights. The Preamble to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) exhorts "every individual and every
organ of society" to "strive by teaching and education to promote respect for
these rights and freedoms." The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) declares that a government "may not stand in the way of
people learning about [their rights]."

Human rights education aims to build understanding and appreciation for

human rights through learning about rights and learning through rights.
Human rights education is inextricably linked with the pedagogy of teaching.
It requires not just imparting knowledge about human rights but also
applying a human rights-based pedagogy to ensure young people learn in a
rights-respecting promotes the rights of others.

Main goals for human rights education

“Human rights education encompasses:

•Knowledge and skills – learning about human rights and mechanisms for
their protection, as well as acquiring skills to apply them in daily life.

•Values, attitudes and behaviour- developing values and reinforcing attitudes

and behaviour which uphold human rights

•Action- taking action to defend and promote human rights” (2005, United
Nation General Assembly; Art. 1A4)

Three main elements of human rights education

•First, the acquisition of knowledge and skills about human rights.

•Second, the development of respectful values and attitudes and changed

behaviour that reflects human rights values, and

•Third, the motivation of social action and empowerment of active

citizenship to advance respect for the rights of all.

Human rights education encourages using human rights as a frame of

reference in our relationships with others. It encourages inquiry, forming
arguments, deciding, cooperating, evaluating, sharing and living according to
values. Human rights education encourages us to critically examine our own
attitudes and behaviour and, ultimately, to transform them in order to
advance respect for the rights of all.

Who Needs Human Rights Education?

Human rights should be part of everyone’s education. However, certain

groups have a particular need for human rights education: some because
they are especially vulnerable to human rights abuses, others because they
hold official positions and upholding human rights is their responsibility, still
others because of their ability to influence and educate. Among these groups
are the following:

Administrators of Justice:

•Law enforcement personnel, including police and security forces, prison

officials

•Lawyers, judges, and prosecutors

•Other Government and Legislative Officials

•members of the legislature

•Public officials,

•Elected and appointed members of the military

Other Professionals:

•Educators

•Social workers

•Health professionals

•Journalists and media representatives

Organizations, Associations, and Groups

•Women’s organizations

•Community activists and civic leaders

•Minority groups

•Members of the business community

•Trade unionists

•Indigenous peoples

•Religious leaders and others with a special interest in social justice issues

•Children and youth

•Students at all levels of education

•Refugees and displaced persons

•People of all sexual orientations

•Poor people, whether in cities or rural areas

•People with disabilities

•Migrant workers

Chapter 4: Theories of Human Rights in Relation to Human Rights Education

Theories of Sources of Rights

By human rights theories, we mean theories or philosophies that develop a

general understanding of human rights or how they are used. It means
frameworks behind human rights rather than discussions of concrete norms.
There are several theories of the source or origin of human rights, namely:

1. Religious or The Theological Approach

2. The Natural Law Theory

3. The Positivist Theory

4. The Theory of Marxism

5. The Sociological Approach

6. The Utilitarian Theory

7. Theories of Justice, and

8. Theory based on equality and respect of human dignity

The above-named theories are briefly discussed as follows:

•Religious or The Theological Approach

In the Biblical tradition individuals derive their human dignity through God's
creation. Duties to others in the community are grounded in the covenantal
relationship to a God that has delivered a people from slavery and
oppression

Biblical justice involves provision for food, clothing, and shelter (Ex. 22:27;
Dt.10:18; Job 8:6; Ps.68:6, 146:7). One can meaningful speak of a "right to
food" as established by the law since every third year the Israelites were to
bring out their tithe (Dt.14:28ff.). The alien, the orphan, and the widow are to
have access to the remnants of the harvest of crops (Dt. 24:19-22; Lev.
19:9ff.). The prophet Micah chides "those who devise wickedness" by raping
women and oppressing "householder and house, people and their
inheritance" (2:2). Extended families were to have their own landed
inheritance. The Year of Jubilee significantly restricted private property rights
by stressing that the ownership of the land is ultimately vested in God rather
than human beings, thereby empowering the weak (Lev. 25:1-34; Dt.23:10).

•The Natural Law Theory

Natural law theory accepts that law can be considered and spoken of both as
a sheer social fact of power and practice, and as a set of reasons for action
that can be and often are sound as reasons and therefore normative for
reasonable people addressed by them.

What does the mainstream of natural law theory intend by using the word
“natural” in that name for the theory? The shortest accurate answer is “of
reason,” as in “the law of reason” or “the requirements of reason.” Aquinas is
particularly clear and explicit that in this context, “natural” is predicated of
something (say, a law, or a virtue) only when and because that of which it is
predicated is in line with reason, practical reason, or practical reason’s
requirements

• The Positivist Theory

Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends
on social facts and not on its merits. The English jurist John Austin formulated
it thus: The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another.
Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable
to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry.

Legal positivism is a theory of law that sees law as based on social facts.
These social facts are the decisions, conventions or social customs, which are
recognized as authoritative. Thus the origin of the term positivism in the
Latin word positum, meaning to put, place, or set, addresses well the nature
of law as something posited. When we understand law as something posited,
we simultaneously set human community at the focal point of defining law. It
is the acceptance, tolerance, decisions, commands or such in the
community, which define what law is

The positivist thesis does not say that law’s merits are unintelligible,
unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law. It says that they do not
determine whether laws or legal systems exist. Whether a society has a legal
system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on
the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law.
What laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards its
officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments,
judicial decisions, or social customs.

•The Theory of Marxism

For Karl Marx, legal relations and forms of the state are not grasped from
“the general development of the human mind,” but rather have their roots in
the material conditions of life and the anatomy of civil society as determined
by political economy.

Natural right and rights are individualistic and abstract. Human emancipation
requires ending the division between man as an “egoistic being” in civil
society and man as an “abstract citizen” in the state. The so-called right to
liberty is merely the right of “separation of man from man. The right of the
circumscribed individual, withdrawn into himself” whose practical application
is the right of private property, that is, the right of self-interest. The right to
equality has no political significance either, but is merely a right to liberty
defined in terms of every person being “equally regarded as a self-sufficient
monad.” The right to security is nothing more than a police concept that
merely assures civil society’s egoism. Marx concludes: None of the supposed
rights of man, therefore, go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is, as a
member of civil society; that is, an individual separated from the community,
withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and
acting in accordance with his private caprice.

•The Sociological Approach

Under the functional or sociological theory, human rights exist as a means of

social control. Also known as the sociological approach, human rights exist to
serve the social interests of society. The sociological approach lays emphasis
of obtaining a just equilibrium of multifarious interest among prevailing
moral sentiments and the social and economic conditions of the time and
place. It is the pragmatic principle, William James advocated that the
essence of law is simply to satisfy the needs of the people. This approach
was developed in the early 20th century when were demands for a variety of
wants occasioned by the development of a society as help for the
unemployed, the handicapped, the underprivileged, minorities and other
disadvantaged group. The approach is now to focus on rights in terms of
peoples wants and concern.

• The Utilitarian Theory

The core foundation of utilitarianism is the “greatest happiness principle”. It
simply states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”.
Utilitarian actions are based solely on its contributions for the greater good
of all people. It adopts four mechanisms: welfarism, consequentialism,
egalitarianism, and maximization. Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful
and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy.
Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions
can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory. Though there are
many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be
the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the best.
There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that
the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood
entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes
utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant
consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall
good -that is, consider the good of others as well as one’s own good.

• Theory of Justice

According to John Rawls, Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as

truth is of systems of thought. His conception of “justice as fairness” and
“procedural justice” proceeds from a rational constitutional choice among
individuals behind a “veil of ignorance” in order to define the basic rights and
liberties of free and equal citizens in a constitutional democracy. According to
Rawls’s “welfare liberalism,” rational citizens would give priority to maximum
equal liberty as the “first principle of justice,” but would also recognize the
“principle of fair equality of opportunity” and a “difference principle” within a
system of equal basic rights.

Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, legal
philosophy has tended to define justice in terms of rational principles that
justify the constitutional recognition of equal rights. In accordance with
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (according to which “justice is equality”
based on formal principles (e.g., idem cuique) as well as substantive
principles (e.g., suum cuique)), human rights require that justice be legally
constituted by protection of equal basic rights.

The diverse principles of justice and methods of justification offered by

modem liberal (I.e., liberty-based) theories of justice tend to focus on three
basic problems of “macro-justice” in societies (as distinguished from “micro-
justice” in individual cases): (1) principles and rules for the just allocation of
equal freedoms and other basic rights to individuals in order to protect
human dignity and peaceful cooperation among free citizens; (2) principles
and rules for the just distribution of scarce resources through private
competition and governmental correction of market failures; and (3)
principles and rules for a just constitutional order protecting general citizen
interests against government failures.

This theory of justice takes into account the globalization of human rights
and the need for non-discriminatory rules.

• Theory based on equality and respect of human dignity

The philosophical roots of dignity derive from the classical Roman writings of
Cicero. In his writings he discussed the concept of dignity as something that
belongs to every human being without reference to any additional attributes.
Human dignity is a concept that occurs in several human rights documents
and national constitutional texts as well as in lower level legislation. The
strictest sense of respecting dignity in people is derived from Kant’s
statement that all people should always be treated as ends in themselves
and never as mere means. The human rights discourse has adopted a
reading of Kant where dignity is closely associated with autonomy; that is, to
treat people with dignity is to treat them as autonomous individuals able to
choose their destiny. The most important human rights texts, such as United
Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
represent human rights as a way vay of ensuring human dignity. The
protection of human dignity is a widely accepted legal objective. According to
this conception, human dignity expresses the inviolable worth that belongs
to every human being in virtue of his or her humanity. Secondly, dignity is
not a purely descriptive concept. Instead, it states a normative requirement
of also respecting this worth that belongs to everybody. Thirdly, legal
formulations commonly place individuals at the focal point of law in a sense
that the state exists for the sake of the individual and not vice versa. A right
most famously connected to dignity is the right to life, personal liberty and
integrity through prohibition of torture and other degrading treatment. The
first definition of “dignity” in the Oxford English Dictionary, which goes back
to the early thirteenth century, is “The quality of being worthy or honorable;
worthiness, worth, noble-ness, excellence.” Other ethically and politically
relevant senses include “Honorable or high estate, position, or estimation;
honor; degree of estimation, rank; collect. Persons of high estate or rank;”
“An honorable office, rank, or title; a high official or titular position; A person
holding a high office or position; a dignitary;” and “Nobility or befitting
elevation of aspect, manner, or style; stateliness, gravity.”