Human rights: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
No edit summary
imported>Nick Gardner
Line 4: Line 4:
==Introduction==
==Introduction==
===Historical background===
===Historical background===
The  1948 [[/Addendum#The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the [[holocaust]] and by  wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its  content was  new, there were precedents for its concept of  universally innate human entitlements in the [[/Addendum#TheAmerican Declaration of Independence|American Declaration of Independence]] and the [[/Addendum#The French Declaration of the Rights of Man|French Declaration of the Rights of Man]]. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the abstention of the Soviet bloc countries, the necessary absence of the British and American colonies, and the exclusion of Germany, Italy and Japan. Also, the inclusion of China and Cuba shows that many of its proponents were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations. But although, its signatories may have, as Michael Ignatieff suggests, regarded the declaration as no more than "a pious set of cliches"
The  1948 [[/Addendum#The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)|Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the [[holocaust]] and by  wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its  content was  new, there were precedents for its concept of  universally innate human entitlements in the [[/Addendum#TheAmerican Declaration of Independence|American Declaration of Independence]] and the [[/Addendum#The French Declaration of the Rights of Man|French Declaration of the Rights of Man]]. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the absence among it signatories of many of the countries that are now members of the United Nations, and the fact that many of its signatories  were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations<ref>[http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Ignatieff_01.pdf  Ignatieff, Michael: '' Human Rights as Politics'' and '' Human Rights as Idolatry'']  (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000)</ref>. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls
" yet once articulated as international norms, rights language ignited both the colonial revolutions abroad and the civil rights revolution at home"<ref>[http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Ignatieff_01.pdf  Ignatieff, Michael: '' Human Rights as Politics'' and '' Human Rights as Idolatry'']  (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000)</ref>. As a result, positive action has in fact been taken in response to the declaration's call for its legislative implementation (articles 8 and 10). The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls
<ref>[http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=1A826DB973993289CA2571A700012832 Michael Kirby: ''The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Fifty Years On''] (Speech at an UNESCO dinner at Sydney on 5 December 1998)</ref>  a political compromise, and it was obvious that many of the "rights" that it called for stood no chance of implementation.
<ref>[http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=1A826DB973993289CA2571A700012832 Michael Kirby: ''The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Fifty Years On''] (Speech at an UNESCO dinner at Sydney on 5 December 1998)</ref>  a political compromise, the outcome of prolonged negotiation, but it has nevertheless survived as a framework for the creation of the "human rights instruments" that were to be the next step toward the realisation of its stated intentions.


===Philosophical objections===
===Philosophical objections===

Revision as of 16:25, 14 August 2012

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Tutorials [?]
Addendum [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

The concept of human rights as the innate entitlement of all human beings found early expression during the American and French revolutionary movements of the late 18th century, but received little further development until the conclusion of World War II. It then acquired the current connotation of a body of entitlements whose realisation is considered to be a universal obligation. This article is about the implementation of that concept of human rights.

Introduction

Historical background

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the holocaust and by wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its content was new, there were precedents for its concept of universally innate human entitlements in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the absence among it signatories of many of the countries that are now members of the United Nations, and the fact that many of its signatories were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations[1]. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls [2] a political compromise, and it was obvious that many of the "rights" that it called for stood no chance of implementation.

Philosophical objections

The concept of individual "inalienable" rights met immediate opposition when it was put forward in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Jeremy Bentham rejected the concept as "nonsense upon stilts", arguing that "in proportion as it is right or proper, i.e. advantageous to the society in question, that this or that right—a right to this or that effect—should be established and maintained, in that same proportion it is wrong that it should be abrogated: but that as there is no right, which ought not to be maintained so long as it is upon the whole advantageous to the society that it should be maintained, so there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished"[3]. Karl Marx rejected the concept of rights that "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ... and separated from the community", in favour of "species-being rights" that "deal with the individual who is part of his community rather than estranged from it"[4]. There have also been objections on the grounds of cultural relativism to the listing of rights in the Universal Declaration. Among the innate, human rights, it is argued, is the right to adopt a particular culture, and communities with different cultures may be expected to adopt different concepts of human rights. It has been claimed, for example, that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West[5]. In that case, cultural differences in the relationship between individual and collective human rights may be expected to affect the degree to which the Declaration's rights are deemed to be offset by the needs of the community. The Bangkok declaration, for example, argues that "while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds". It has also been claimed that the Declaration is incompatible with Sharia law [6], and member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference agreed in 1990 upon an amended version, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which stipulated that " all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia".

Implementation

Implementation by the United Nations has been by the negotiation and monitoring of The United Nations human rights treaties that include political, social and cultural rights, the rights of children and migrant workers, the avoidance of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, and the outlawing of torture. The treaties impose legal obligations upon countries that ratify them to implement the rights that they set out. Each treaty also creates an international body of independent experts to monitor the implementation of its provisions. [7]

Outcomes

Political responses

Performance

References