Human rights
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. In
other words Human rights are the rights which are possessed by every human being ,irrespective of his or her
nationality, race ,religion ,sex,etc.,simply
because he or she 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.
Many of the basic ideas that animated the
movement developed in the aftermath of the Second
World War and the atrocities of The
Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in
1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.
Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of
justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize
human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human
rights".[ The modern concept of human rights developed during
the early Modern period, alongside the European
secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.
The true forerunner of human rights discourse
was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of
the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke,
Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured
prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French
Revolution.
From
this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half
of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in
many nations put it high on the world agenda.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
spirit of brotherhood.
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR)
History of concept
The modern sense of human rights can be traced to Renaissance Europe and the Protestant Reformation, alongside the disappearance of the feudal authoritarianism and religious conservativism that dominated the Middle Ages. Human rights were defined as a result of European scholars attempting to form a "secularized version of Judeo-Christian ethics". Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed in some form for much of human history, they do not resemble the modern conception of human rights. According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, "traditional societies typically have had elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different formulations of, human rights". The most commonly held view is that concept of human rights evolved in the West, and that while earlier cultures had important ethical concepts, they generally lacked a concept of human rights. For example, McIntyre argues there is no word for "right" in any language before 1400.Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights: they instead constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being mythologized in the course of early modern debates about rights.
One of
the oldest records of human rights is the statute
of Kalisz (1264), giving privileges to the Jewish minority in the Kingdom of Poland such as protection
from discrimination and hate speech. The basis of most modern legal
interpretations of human rights can be traced back to recent European history.
The Twelve Articles (1525) are considered to be the
first record of human rights in Europe. They
were part of the peasants' demands raised towards the Swabian
League in the German Peasants' War in Germany. In Spain in 1542 Bartolomé de Las Casas argued against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in the famous Valladolid
debate, Sepulveda mainted an Aristotelian view of humanity as divided into
classes of different worth, while Las Casas argued in favor of equal rights to
freedom of slavery for all humans regardless of race or religion. In Britain
in 1683, the English Bill of Rights (or "An Act Declaring the
Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the
Crown") and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of
oppressive governmental actions. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th
century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the
adoption of the United States Declaration of
Independence and the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which established certain
legal
rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of
1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.
Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved
by the National Assembly of France, August 26,
1789.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.
—United States Declaration of Independence,
1776
These
were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers
such as Thomas
Paine, John Stuart Mill and G.W.F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th
centuries.
The
term human rights probably
came into use some time between Paine's The Rights of Man and William Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in The Liberator, in which he stated
that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human
rights".
In the
19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery. A number
of reformers, such as William Wilberforce in Britain, worked towards the abolition of slavery. This was achieved in the
British
Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In the United States,
all the northern states had abolished the institution of slavery between 1777
and 1804, although southern states clung tightly to the "peculiar
institution". Conflict and debates over the expansion of slavery to new
territories constituted one of the reasons for the southern states' secession and
the American Civil War. During the reconstruction period
immediately following the war, several amendments to the United States Constitution were made.
These included the 13th amendment,
banning slavery, the 14th amendment,
assuring full citizenship and civil rights to all people born in the United
States, and the 15th amendment,
guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote.
Many
groups and movements have achieved profound social changes over the course of
the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Europe and North America, labour
unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike,
establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labor.
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 African American
Civil Rights Movement, and more recent diverse identity
politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States.
The
establishment of the International Committee of the
Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations
of International humanitarian law, to
be further developed following the two World Wars.
The
World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that
took place during them, were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments.
The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the
negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the end of World War I.
The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective
security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation and
diplomacy, and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its charter was a mandate
to promote many of the rights later included in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
At the
1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to
create a new body to supplant the League's role; this was to be the United
Nations. The United Nations has played an important role in international
human-rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars, the United
Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law
that now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Philosophy
The
philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the underlying basis of the
concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification.
Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human
rights have become a part of social expectations.
One of
the oldest Western philosophies of human rights is that they are a product of a
natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other
theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social
product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated
with Hume).
Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as
in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber).
These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules
from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as
in Rawls)
– a social contract. The two theories that dominate contemporary human rights
discussion are the interest theory and the will theory. Interest theory argues
that the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain
essential human interests, while will theory attempts to establish the validity
of human rights based on the unique human capacity for freedom.
Criticisms
The
strong claims made by human rights to universality have led to persistent
criticism. Philosophers who have criticized the concept of human rights include
Jeremy
Bentham, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.
Political philosophy professor Charles
Blattberg argues that discussion of human rights, being abstract,
demotivates people from upholding the values that rights are meant to affirm.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
gives particular attention to two types of criticisms: the one questioning
universality of human rights and the one denying them objective ground. Alain
Pellet, an international law scholar, criticizes "human rightism"
approach as denying the principle of sovereignty and claiming a special place
for human rights among the branches of international law; Alain
de Benoist questions human rights premises of human equality. David Kennedy had listed pragmatic worries
and polemical charges concerning human rights in 2002 in Harvard Human
Rights Journal.
Classification
Human
rights can be classified and organized in a number of different ways; at an
international level the most common categorization 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 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
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.
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-justifiable, 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
- justifiable
- 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 categorisation. 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 (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. This categorisation 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.
Some
human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable
rights (or unalienable rights) refer to "a set of human rights that are
fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."
International protection
In the
aftermath of the atrocities of World War II there was increased concern in the
social and legal protection of human rights as fundamental freedoms. The
foundation of the United Nations and the provisions of the United
Nations Charter would provide a basis for a comprehensive system of
international law and practice for the protection of human rights. The term
"international human rights law" is often used as a category of
reference to describe these systems, but this can be a source of confusion as
there is no separate entity as "international human rights law" but
an interlocking system of non-binding conventions, international treaties,
domestic law, international organisations and political bodies .
United Nations Charter
The provisions of the United Nations Charter provided a basis for the development of international human rights protection. The preamble of the charter provides that the members "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the equal rights of men and women" and Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter states that one of the purposes of the UN is: "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Article 55 provides that: The United Nations shall promote: a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; b) solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; c) international cultural and educational cooperation; d) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Of
particular importance is Article 56 of the charter:” All Members pledge
themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the
Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."
This is a binding treaty provision applicable
to both the Organization and its members and has been taken to constitute a
legal obligation for the members of the United Nations. Overall, the references
to human rights in the Charter are general and vague. The Charter does not
contain specific legal rights, nor does it mandate any enforcement procedures
to protect these rights.Despite this, the significance of the espousal of human
rights within the UN charter must not be understated. The importance of human rights
on the global stage can be traced to the importance of human rights within the
United Nations framework and the UN Charter can be seen as the starting point
for the development of a broad array of declarations, treaties, implementation
and enforcement mechanisms, UN organs, committees and reports on the protection
of human rights. The rights espoused in the UN charter would be codified and
defined in the International Bill of Human Rights, composing 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 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities
of World
War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now
considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary
law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other
judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil,
economic and social rights, asserting these rights as 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.
...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
The
UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady
Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss
an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission
did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or
how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and
accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority. Canadian law
professor John Humphrey and French lawyer René
Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the
structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration
were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was
structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty,
equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by
rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each
other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic,
social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to
Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political
order in which they are to be realized. Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights
in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in
the third clause of the preamble:
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as
a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights
should be protected by the rule of law.
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Some
of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts
on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major
religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. The
inclusion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights was
predicated on the assumption that all human rights are indivisible and that the
different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was
not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously,
Byelorussian
SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi
Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.);
however, this principle was later subject to significant challenges.
The Universal Declaration was bifurcated
into treaties, a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and another on social,
economic, and cultural rights, due to questions about the relevance and
propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on human rights. Both
covenants begin with the right of people to self-determination and to
sovereignty over their natural resources. This debate over whether human rights
are more fundamental than economic rights has continued to the present day.
The
drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original
drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights
were also proposed. The disagreement over which rights were basic human rights
resulted in there being two covenants. The debate was whether economic and
social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic human rights which all
people possess purely by being human, because economic and social rights depend
on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and
economic rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories,
in contrast to basic human rights, which are defined purely by the nature
(mental and physical abilities) of human beings. It was debated whether
economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations and whether
the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of
political-civil rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the
means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings
were different from the means required for civil-political rights.
This
debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human-rights
law led to the two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing
countries had argued for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity
Resolution. Both covenants allowed states to derogate some rights. Those in
favor of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.
International treaties
In
1966, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were
adopted by the United Nations, between them making the rights
contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have signed this treaty,
creating human-rights law.
Since
then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have
been offered at the international level. They are generally known as human
rights instruments. Some of the most significant, referred to (with ICCPR
and ICESCR) as "the seven core treaties", are:
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969)
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (adopted 1979, entry into force: 1981)
- United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into force: 2008)
- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into force: 2003)
Customary international law
In addition to protection by international treaties, customary
international law may protect some human rights, such as the prohibition of
torture, genocide and slavery and the principle of non-discrimination.
International humanitarian law
The Geneva
Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by
Henry
Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the
Red Cross. The conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals
involved in armed conflict, and build on the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907,
the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws of war and
war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions
were revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international
community in 1949.
Structure of the United
Nations Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms
Under
the mandate of the UN charter and the multilateral UN human rights treaties,
the United Nations (UN) as an intergovernmental body seeks to apply
international jurisdiction for universal human-rights legislation.
Within the UN machinery, human-rights issues are primarily the concern of the United Nations Security Council and
the United Nations Human Rights Council,
and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for
safeguarding different human-rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN in
the sphere of human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate to:
Achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, gender, language, or religion.
Political Bodies
Security Council
The United
Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can
authorize the use of force. It has been criticized for failing to take action
to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur
crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan
Genocide.[36]
For example, critics blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security
Council for its failure regarding.
The United
Nations General Assembly, under Article 13 of the UN Charter, has the power
to initiate studies and make recommendations on human rights issues. Under this
provision, the general assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
in 1948, and since then a wide variety of other human rights instruments.
Human Rights Council
The United
Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005
World Summit to replace the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of human rights. The
Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and reports
directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final
authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter
Treaty bodies
In addition to the political bodies whose mandate flows from the UN charter, the UN has set up a number of treaty-based bodies, comprising committees of independent experts who monitor compliance with human rights standards and norms flowing from the core international human rights treaties.
The Human Rights Committee
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
The Committee Against Torture.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The Committee on Migrant.
The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (established in 2008) to
: Torture
Throughout
history, torture has been used as a method of political re-education,
interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored
torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others
for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can
also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as in the Moors
murders.
Torture
is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most
countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human
rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree
not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention against
Torture, which has been ratified by 147 states.
National
and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that
torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical. Despite
these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human
rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International
Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned
by states in many regions of the world. Amnesty International estimates that at
least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.
Freedom from slavery
Freedom
from slavery is an internationally recognized human right. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and
the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Despite
this, the number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history, remaining as high as 12 million to 27
million, Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia,
who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders,
sometimes even for generations. Human
trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex
industries.
Groups
such as the American Anti-Slavery Group, Anti-Slavery International, Free
the Slaves, the Anti-Slavery Society, and the Norwegian
Anti-Slavery Society continue to campaign to rid the world of slavery.
Right to a fair trial
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
The
right to a fair trial has been defined in numerous regional and international human rights
instruments. It is one of the most extensive human rights and all
international human rights instruments enshrine it in more than one article...
As a minimum the right to fair trial includes the following fair trial rights
in civil and criminal
proceedings:
- the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
- the right to a public hearing
- the right to be heard within a reasonable time
- the right to counsel
- the right to interpretation
Freedom of speech
Freedom
of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom
of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking,
receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international
human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either
alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
—Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Rights debates
Events
and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances
of technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo
of human rights thinking.
Water
Right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is
a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.
—United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
This
principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. Lack
access to basic sanitation. On July 28, 2010, the UN declared water and
sanitation as human rights. By declaring safe and clean drinking water and
sanitation as a human right, the U.N. General Assembly made a step towards the
Millennium Development Goal to ensure environmental sustainability, which in
part aims to "halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without
sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation".
Reproductive rights
Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.
Reproductive
rights may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or
safe abortion,
the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to
quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education
and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination,
and violence.[109]
Information and communication technologies
In
October 2009, Finland's
Ministry of
Transport and Communications announced that every person in Finland would
have the legal right to Internet access. Since July 2010, the government has
legally obligated telecommunications companies to offer
broadband Internet access to every permanent residence and office. The
connection must be "reasonably priced" and have a downstream rate of
at least 1 Mbit/s.
In
March 2010, the BBC,
having commissioned an opinion poll, reported that "almost four in five
people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental
right."
Relationship with other topics
Human rights and the environment
There
are two basic conceptions of environmental human rights in the current human
rights system. The first is that the right to a healthy or adequate environment
is itself a human right (as seen in both Article 24 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples' Rights, and Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights).
The second conception is the idea that environmental human rights can be
derived from other human rights, usually – the right to life, the right to
health, the right to private family life and the right to property (among many
others). This second theory enjoys much more widespread use in human rights
courts around the world, as those rights are contained in many human rights
documents.
The
onset of various environmental issues, especially climate
change, has created potential conflicts between different human rights.
Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem and healthy environment,
but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these. Such as the
conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a
healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons. In the area of
environmental rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so
far relatively unaddressed by human rights legislation, is of paramount
consideration.
Environmental
Rights revolve largely around the idea of a right to a livable environment both
for the present and the future generations.
National security
With
the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class
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 as
non-derogable), 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.
Rights
that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances
are known as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such United Nations Charter obligations are
binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.
Examples
of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese American internment during World War
II, Stalin's Great Purge, and the modern-day abuses of terror
suspects rights by some countries, often in the name of the War on
Terror.
