Pakistan Studies (EE-163)

For

FE (ELECTRICAL)

Name:

Roll Number:

Class: Semester:

Batch:

Department :

Department of Electrical Engineering

NED University of Engineering & Technology, Karach
Human Rights its Importance and Significance
Introduction
Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of
every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights.
Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our
freedom to make choices about our lives and to develop our potential as human beings. They are
about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.
Human rights can broadly be defined as a number of basic rights that people from around the world
have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture
and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the rights to
health, education and an adequate standard of living.

These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich
and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or what we believe. This is
what makes human rights ‘universal

Human rights connect us to each other through a shared set of rights and responsibilities.
A person’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This
means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community.
Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the
rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do
so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.
Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people are able to enjoy their rights.
They are required to establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in
which their rights are respected and protected.

For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. This means
that governments have an obligation to provide good quality education facilities and services to their
people.
Whether or not governments actually do this, it is generally accepted that this is the government's
responsibility and people can call them to account if they fail to respect or protect their basic human
rights.

The origins of human rights

Human rights are not a recent invention.
Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in
the development of human societies. These ideas can be traced back to the ancient civilizations of
Babylon, China and India. They contributed to the laws of Greek and Roman society and are central
to Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish teachings.
Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have not left written
records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in
Australia and other indigenous societies elsewhere.
Ideas about justice were prominent in the thinking of philosophers in the Middle Ages, the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment. An important strand in this thinking was that there was a
'natural law' that stood above the law of rulers. This meant that individuals had certain rights simply
because they were human beings.
In 1215, the English barons forced the King of England to sign Magna Carta (which is Latin for ‘the
Great Charter’). Magna Carta was the first document to place limits on the absolute power of the
king and make him accountable to his subjects. It also laid out some basic rights for the protection of
citizens, such as the right to a trial.

Significant development in thinking about human rights took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, during a time of revolution and emerging national identities.
The American Declaration of Independence (1776) was based on the understanding that certain
rights, such as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', were fundamental to all people. Similarly,
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) challenged the authority of the
aristocracy and recognised the ‘liberty, equality and fraternity' of individuals. These values were also
echoed in the United States’ Bill of Rights (1791), which recognised freedom of speech, religion and
the press, as well as the right to ‘peaceable' assembly, private property and a fair trial.
Human rights are a product of a philosophical debate that has raged for over two thousand years
within the European societies and their colonial descendants. This argument has focused on a
search for moral standards of political organization and behaviour that is independent of the
contemporary society. In other words, many people have been unsatisfied with the notion that what
is right or good is simply what a particular society or ruling elite feels is right or good at any given
time. This unease has led to a quest for enduring moral imperatives that bind societies and their
rulers over time and from place to place. Fierce debates raged among political philosophers as these
issue were argued through. While a path was paved by successive thinkers that lead to
contemporary human rights, a second lane was laid down at the same time by those who resisted
this direction. The emergence of human rights from the natural rights tradition did not come without
opposition, as some argued that rights could only from the law of a particular society and could not
come from any natural or inherent source. The essence of this debate continues today from seeds
sown by previous generations of philosophers.

The earliest direct precursor to human rights might be found in the notions of `natural right'
developed by classical Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, but this concept was more fully
developed by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. For several centuries Aquinas' conception
held sway: there were goods or behaviours that were naturally right (or wrong) because God
ordained it so. What was naturally right could be ascertained by humans by `right reason' - thinking
properly. Hugo Grotius further expanded on this notion in De jure belli et paci, where he propounded
the immutability of what is naturally right and wrong:

Now the Law of Nature is so unalterable, that it cannot be changed even by God himself. For although the
power of God is infinite, yet there are some things, to which it does not extend. ...Thus two and two must
make four, nor is it possible otherwise; nor, again, can what is really evil not be evil. (1)

The moral authority of natural right was assured because it had divine authorship. In effect, God
decided what limits should be placed on the human political activity. But the long-term difficulty for
this train of political thought lay precisely in its religious foundations.

As the reformation caught on and ecclesiastical authority was shaken and challenged by rationalism,
political philosophers argued for new bases of natural right. Thomas Hobbes posed the first major
assault in 1651 on the divine basis of natural right by describing a State of Nature in which God did
not seem to play any role. Perhaps more importantly, however, Hobbes also made a crucial leap
from `natural right' to `a natural right'. In other words, there was no longer just a list of behaviour that
was naturally right or wrong; Hobbes added that there could be some claim or entitlement which was
derived from nature. In Hobbes' view, this natural right was one of self-preservation.

Further reinforcement of natural rights came with Immanuel Kant's writings later in the 17th century
that reacted to Hobbes' work. In his view, the congregation of humans into a state-structured society
resulted from a rational need for protection from each other's violence that would be found in a state
of nature. However, the fundamental requirements of morality required that each treat another
according to universal principles. Kant's political doctrine was derived from his moral philosophy, and
as such he argued that a state had to be organized through the imposition of, and obedience to,
laws that applied universally; nevertheless, these laws should respect the equality, freedom, and
autonomy of the citizens. In this way Kant, prescribed that basic rights were necessary for civil
society:

A true system of politics cannot therefore take a single step without first paying tribute to
morality. ...The rights of man must be held sacred, however great a sacrifice the ruling power
must make. (2)

However, the divine basis of natural right was still pursued for more than a century after Hobbes
published his Leviathan. John Locke wrote a strong defence of natural rights in the late 17th century
with the publication of his Two Treatises on Government, but his arguments were filled with
references to what God had ordained or given to mankind. Locke had a lasting influence on political
discourse that was reflected in both the American Declaration of Independence and France's
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, passed by the Republican Assembly after the
revolution in 1789. The French declaration proclaimed 17 rights as "the natural, inalienable and
sacred rights of man".

The French Declaration of Rights immediately galvanized political writers in England and provoked
two scathing attacks on its notion of natural rights. Jeremy Bentham's clause-by-clause critique of
the Declaration, entitled Anarchical Fallacies, argued vehemently that there can be no natural rights,
since rights are created by the law of a society:

Right, the substantive right, is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from laws
of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoriticians, and dealers in moral and intellectual
poisons come imaginary rights, a bastard brood of monsters, `gorgons and chimeras dire'. (3)

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, -
nonsense upon stilts. (4)

Edmund Burke also wrote a stinging attack on the French Declaration's assertion of natural
rights, in which he argued that rights were those benefits won within each society. (5)

The rights held by the English and French were different, since they were the product of different
political struggles through history.

Soon after the attacks on the French Declaration, Thomas Paine wrote a defence of the conception
of natural rights and their connection to the rights of a particular society. In The Rights of Man,
published in two parts in 1791 and 1792, Paine made a distinction between natural rights
and civil rights, but he continued to see a necessary connection:
Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the
intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own
comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those
which appertain to man in right of being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation,
some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is
not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and
protection. (6)

This passage reflects another, earlier inspiration for human rights from the social contract views of
writers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that people agree to live in common if society
protects them. Indeed, the purpose of the state is to protect those rights that individuals cannot
defend on their own. Rousseau had set the ground for Paine decades earlier with his Social
Contract, in which he not only lambasted attempts to tie religion to the foundations of political order
but disentangled the rights of a society from natural rights. In Rousseau's view, the rights in a civil
society are hallowed: "But the social order is a scared right which serves as a basis for other rights.
And as it is not a natural right, it must be one founded on covenants." (7) Rousseau then eleaborated
a number of rights of citizens and limits on the sovereign's power.

The debate in the late eighteenth century has left telling traces. Controversy continues to swirl over
the question whether rights are creations of particular societies or independent of them.

Modern theorists have developed a notion of natural rights that does not draw its source or
inspiration from a divine ordering. The ground work for this secular natural rights trend was laid by
Paine and even Rousseau. In its place has arisen a variety of theories that are humanist and
rationalist; the `natural' element is determined from the prerequisites of human society which are
said to be rationally ascertainable. Thus there are constant criteria which can be identified for
peaceful governance and the development of human society. But problems can develop for this
school of thought when notions of a social contract are said to underlie the society from which rights
are deduced.

Contemporary notions of human rights draw very deeply from this natural rights tradition. In a further
extension of the natural rights tradition, human rights are now often viewed as arising essentially
from the nature of humankind itself. The idea that all humans possess human rights simply by
existing and that these rights cannot be taken away from them are direct descendants of natural
rights.

However, a persistent opposition to this view builds on the criticisms of Burke and Bentham, and
even from the contractarian views of Rousseau's image of civil society. In this perspective rights do
not exist independently of human endeavour; they can only be created by human action. Rights are
viewed as the product a particular society and its legal system.

In this vein, Karl Marx also left a legacy of opposition to rights that hindered socialist thinkers from
accommodating rights within their theories of society. Marx denounced rights as a fabrication of
bourgeois society, in which the individual was divorced from his or her society; rights were needed in
capitalist states in order to provide protection from the state. In the marxist view of society, an
individual is essentially a product of society and, ideally, should not be seen in an antagonistic
relationship where rights are needed. (8) However, many socialists have come to accept certain
conceptions of rights in the late twentieth century. (9)
Thus, the history of political philosophy has been one of several centuries of debate. The child of
natural rights philosophers, human rights, has come to hold a powerful place in contemporary
political consciousness. However, neither preponderant belief in, nor even a consensus of support
for human rights do not answer the concerns raised by the earlier thinkers - are rights truly the
product of a particular vision and laws of a society? Or, are human rights so inherent in humanness
that their origins and foundations are incontestable?

A further difficulty, with profound implications, that human rights theories have to overcome is their
emergence from these Western political traditions. Not only are they a product of European natural
rights, but the particular rights that are viewed as `natural' have been profoundly shaped by the
liberalism that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. With human rights, the rhetorical framework
of the natural rights tradition has come to serve as a vehicle for the values of Western liberalism.

An easy and powerful criticism is that human rights cannot be universal. In their basic concept they
are a Western creation, based on the European tradition that individuals are separable from their
society. But one may question whether these rights can apply to collectivist or communitarian
societies that view the individual as an indivisible element of the whole society. Westerners, and
many others, have come to place a high value on each individual human, but this is not a value
judgment that is universal. There is substantive disagreement on the extent of, or even the need for,
any protection of individuals against their society.

In addition to this problem with the concept itself, there are strong objections to the

manner in which human rights have been conceptualized. Many lists of human rights read like
specifications for liberal democracy. A variety of traditional societies can be found in the world that
operate harmoniously, but are not based on equality let alone universal suffrage.

A question that will recur in later discussions is whether the `human rights' advocated today are
really civil rights that pertain to a particular - liberal - conception of society. To a large extent, the
resolution of this issue depends upon the ultimate goal of human rights. If human rights are really
surrogate liberalism, then it will be next to impossible to argue their inherent authority over
competing political values. In order for human rights to enjoy universal legitimacy they must have a
basis that survives charges of ideological imperialism. Human rights must have a universally
acceptable basis in order for there to be any substantial measure of compliance.

The development of modern human rights

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw continuing advances in social progress, for
example, in the abolition of slavery, the widespread provision of education and the extension of
political rights. Despite these advances, international activity on human rights remained weak. The
general attitude was that nations could do what they liked within their borders and that other
countries and the broader international community had no basis for intervening or even raising
concerns when rights were violated.
This is expressed in the term ‘state sovereignty’, which refers to the idea that whoever has the
political authority within a country has the power to rule and pass laws over that territory. Importantly,
countries agree to mutually recognise this sovereignty. In doing so, they agree to refrain from
interfering in the internal or external affairs of other sovereign states.
However, the atrocities and human rights violations that occurred during World War II galvanised
worldwide opinion and made human rights a universal concern.
 Word War II onwards

During World War II millions of soldiers and civilians were killed or maimed. The Nazi regime in
Germany created concentration camps for certain groups - including Jews, communists,
homosexuals and political opponents. Some of these people were used as slave labour, others were
exterminated in mass executions. The Japanese occupation of China and other Asian countries was
marked by frequent and large-scale brutality toward local populations. Japanese forces took
thousands of prisoners of war who were used as slave labour, with no medical treatment and
inadequate food.
The promotion and protection of human rights became a fundamental objective of the Allied powers.
In 1941, U.S. President Roosevelt proclaimed the 'Four Freedoms' that people everywhere in the
world ought to enjoy - freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from want and fear.

The war ended in 1945, but only after the destruction of millions of lives, including through the first
and only use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many countries were devastated by the
war, and millions of people died or became homeless refugees

This new organisation was the United Nations, known as the UN, which came into existence
in 1945.As the war drew to a close, the victorious powers decided to establish a world organisation
that would prevent further conflict and help build a better world.

The UN was created to fulfil four key aims:

 to ensure peace and security

 to promote economic development
 to promote the development of international law
 to ensure the observance of human rights.

In the UN Charter – the UN’s founding document – the countries of the United Nations stated that
they were determined:

'… to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small … and to
promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom …'

UN member countries believed that the protection of human rights would help ensure freedom,
justice and peace The UN's strong emphasis on human rights made it different from previous
international for all in the future. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"It is not a treaty..[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta."[8]Eleanor Roosevelt with the
Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly[9] in 1948, partly in response to the barbarism of World War II. The
UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights,
asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The
declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior 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 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.[10] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French
lawyer Rene 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.[10] 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:[10]
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.[11] The inclusion of both civil and political rights
and economic, social and cultural rights[10][12] was predicated on the assumption that basic human
rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. Though this
principle was not opposed by any member states at the time of adoption (the declaration was
adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Soviet bloc, Apartheid South Africa and Saudi
Arabia), this principle was later subject to significant challenges.[12]
The onset of the Cold War soon after the UDHR was conceived brought to the fore divisions over the
inclusion of both econonic and social rights and civil and political rights in the declaration. Capitalist
states tended to place strong emphasis on civil and political rights (such as freedom of association
and expression), and were reluctant to include economic and social rights (such as the right to work
and the right to join a union). Socialist states placed much greater importance on economic and
social rights and argued strongly for their inclusion.[13]
Because of the divisions over which rights to include, and because some states declined to ratify any
treaties including certain specific interpretations of human rights, and despite the Soviet bloc and a
number of developing countries arguing strongly for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity
Resolution, the rights enshrined in the UDHR were split into two separate covenants, allowing states
to adopt some rights and derogate others. Though this allowed the covenants to be created, it
denied the proposed principle that all rights are linked which was central to some interpretations of
the UDHR.[13][14]
Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of
international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by national and
other judiciaries.[15]
Human Rights 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.[16] However, they came
into force only in 1976, when they were ratified by a sufficient number of countries (despite achieving
the ICCPR, a covenant including no economic or social rights, the US only ratified the ICCPR in
1992).[17] The ICESCR commits 155 state parties to work toward the granting of economic, social,
and cultural rights (ESCR) to individuals.
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 are:

 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 1948, entry
into force: 1951) [3]
 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966,
entry into force: 1969) [4]
 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (entry
into force: 1981) [5]
 United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984) [6]
 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [7]
 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
their Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)
 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (entry into force: 2002)

International bodies
The United Nations

The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted
international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation.[18] All UN organs have advisory roles to
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 with regard to 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, sex, language, or religion.

Protection in the international level

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.[19] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[20] and reports
directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of
the United Nations Charter.[21] Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one member states sit on the
council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly.
Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their membership suspended for gross
human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with additional
meetings to respond to urgent situations.[22]
Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human rights
abuses and to provide the Council with reports.
The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council refer cases to the International
Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[23]

UN 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. They are supported by and are created by the treaty that they monitor, With the exception of
the CESCR, which was established under a resolution of the Economic and Social Council to carry
out the monitoring functions originally assigned to that body under the Covenant, they are technically
autonomous bodies, established by the treaties that they monitor and accountable to the state
parties of those treaties – rather than subsidiary to the United Nations, though in practice they are
closely intertwined with the United Nations system and are supported by the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the UN Centre for Human Rights.[24]

 The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The
members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make judgments on
individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional Protocol to the treaty.
The judgments, termed "views", are not legally binding. The member of the committee meets
around three times a year to hold sessions[25]
 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and makes
general comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to receive
complaints against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has come into
force. It is important to note that unlike the other treaty bodies, the economic committee is not an
autonomous body responsible to the treaty parties, but directly responsible to the Economic and
Social Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. This means that the Economic
Committee faces particular difficulties at its disposal only relatively "weak" means of
implementation in comparison to other treaty bodies.[26] Particular difficulties noted by
commentators include: perceived vagueness of the principles of the treaty, relative lack of legal
texts and decisions, ambivalence of many states in addressing economic, social and cultural
rights, comparatively few non-governmental organisations focused on the area and problems
with obtaining relevant and precise information.[26][27]
 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and conducts
regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgments on complaints against
member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to
prevent serious contraventions of the convention.
 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors the CEDAW. It
receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make judgments
on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol.
 The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their
performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and inspect
countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.
 The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports
submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.
 The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and
makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to
receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it.
 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008 to monitor
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive complaints
against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
 The Committee on Enforced Disappearances monitors the ICPPED. All States parties are
obliged to submit reports to the Committee on how the rights are being implemented. The
Committee examines each report and addresses its concerns and recommendations to the
State party in the form of "concluding observations".
Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division
of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW, which is
supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW formerly held all its
sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently meets at the United
Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The Human Rights Committee
usually holds its March session in New York City.

Regional human rights

There are many regional agreements and organizations promoting and governing human rights.

Africa

The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states.[28] Established
in 2001, the AU's purpose is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable
economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common
market.[29]
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of the
African Union tasked with promoting and protecting human rights and collective (peoples') rights
throughout the African continent as well as interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights and considering individual complaints of violations of the Charter. The Commission has three
broad areas of responsibility:[30]

 Promoting human and peoples' rights

 Protecting human and peoples' rights
 Interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
In pursuit of these goals, the Commission is mandated to "collect documents, undertake studies and
researches on African problems in the field of human and peoples, rights, organise seminars,
symposia and conferences, disseminate information, encourage national and local institutions
concerned with human and peoples' rights and, should the case arise, give its views or make
recommendations to governments" (Charter, Art. 45).[30]
With the creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (under a protocol to the
Charter which was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January 2004), the Commission will
have the additional task of preparing cases for submission to the Court's jurisdiction.[31] In a July
2004 decision, the AU Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human and Peoples' Rights would
be integrated with the African Court of Justice.
The Court of Justice of the African Union is intended to be the "principal judicial organ of the Union"
(Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, Article 2.2).[32] Although it has not yet been
established, it is intended to take over the duties of the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the African Union, interpreting all necessary laws and
treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights entered into
force in January 2004[33] but its merging with the Court of Justice has delayed its establishment. The
Protocol establishing the Court of Justice will come into force when ratified by 15 countries.[34]
There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international
community and NGOs[35]
Americas
The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization, headquartered in
Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas.
Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin
America, and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the
new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:[36]

 Strengthening democracy
 Working for peace
 Protecting human rights
 Combating corruption
 The rights of Indigenous Peoples
 Promoting sustainable development
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the
Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the bodies that comprise the
inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights.[37] The IACHR is a
permanent body which meets in regular and special sessions several times a year to examine
allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three
documents:[38]

 the OAS Charter

 the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
 the American Convention on Human Rights
The Inter-Americal Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 with the purpose of enforcing
and interpreting the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions
are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of
human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal
interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.[39]

Asia

Membership and expansion of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Note that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is
recognised or acknowledged by the member states as part of the People's Republic of China (PRC), but de
facto does not have any representation.

Main articles: Human rights in Asia, Human rights in East Asia, Human rights in Central Asia,
and Human Rights in the Middle East
There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights. Countries
vary widely in their approach to human rights and their record of human rights protection.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)[40] is a geo-political and economic organization
of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.[41] The organisation now also includes Brunei
Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.[40] In October 2009, the ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights was inaugurated, and subsequently, the ASEAN
Human Rights Declaration was adopted unanimously by ASEAN members on 18 November 2012.
The Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR) was adopted by the Council of the League of Arab
States on 22 May 2004.
Europe

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

Main article: Human rights in Europe

See also: Human rights in the Soviet Union and Category:European Court of Human Rights cases
The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest organisation working for European integration.
It is an international organisation with legal personality recognised under public international law and
has observer status with the United Nations. The seat of the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg in
France. The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human
Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.[42] These institutions bind the Council's members to
a code of human rights which, though strict, are more lenient than those of the United Nations
charter on human rights. The Council also promotes the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages and the European Social Charter.[43] Membership is open to all European states which
seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to
guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms.[44]
The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union, but the latter is expected to accede to
the European Convention and potentially the Council itself. The EU also has a separate human
rights document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[45]
The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human rights and
fundamental freedoms in Europe.[46] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed this
Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg.[46] In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the
Convention), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.[47]

Philosophies of human rights

Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become
part of social expectations.
One of the oldest Western philosophies on 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.

Natural rights
Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order which
is independent of transitory human laws or traditions.
Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or
natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to
be the father of natural law,[48] although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his
work of Thomas Aquinas.[49]
The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to
the Stoics.[50]
Some of the early Church fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law
into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas
Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf,
and John Locke.
In the Seventeenth Century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on
what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad
consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural
law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered
by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights
were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could
prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the
theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor.
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of
an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective
validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for
human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi
daremus (non-esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology.
John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two
Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went
against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow
the existing state and create a new one.
The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular
conception[51] of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of
natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.[52]
The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are
less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.[53]

Other theories of human rights

The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their
instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being.[54][55] Interest theories
highlight the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest:
Human rights law, applied to a State's own citizens serves the interest of states, by, for example,
minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by keeping the level of dissatisfaction with
the government manageable

— Niraj Nathwani in Rethinking refugee law[56]

The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior
based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection.[57][58][59]

Concepts in human rights

Indivisibility and categorization of rights
The most common categorization of human rights is 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 and in the ICCPR. Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICESCR. 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)
Although accepted by the signaturies to the UDHR, most of them do not in practice give equal
weight to the different types of rights. 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. For example, in the United States there is no universal access
to healthcare free at the point of use.[60] That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked
these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). 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.
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. 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.

— Philip Alston[61]

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.

— Philip Alston[61]

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[62]

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights." The term inalienable rights (or unalienable
rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and
cannot be surrendered."
The adherence to the principle of indivisibility by the international community was reaffirmed in 1995:
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The internationl
community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and
with the same emphasis.
— Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1995

This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).

Universalism vs cultural relativism

Map: Estimated Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) fashionable Africa. Data based on uncertain
estimates.

The UDHR enshrines, by definition, rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical
location, state, race or culture they belong to.
Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict
with some cultures and threaten their survival.
Rights which are most often contested with relativistic arguments are the rights of women. For
example, Female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It
is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a
violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in
some countries.
Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In
particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically
liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not
necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.
For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani,
articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying
that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be
implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[63] The former Prime Ministers of
Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s
that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and
foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore
authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by
Mahathir's former deputy:
To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who
gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.

— Anwar Ibrahim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2
December 1994

and also by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan who states that it is racist to assert that
Asians do not want human rights.[64][65]
An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as John
Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the
running of Empires themselves.[66][67]
Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures,
dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR
was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a
Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French Zionist and a representative from the Arab League,
amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.[12]
Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those
who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those who's human rights
are compromised are the powerless.[68] This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism
versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture.
Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic
discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights
are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's
adherence to this principle:
The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.

— 2005 World Summit, paragraph 120

State and non-state actors

Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as non-State actors.
Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not subject to human rights law
other than International Humanitarian Law, which applies to individuals.
Multi-national companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large
number of human rights abuses.[69] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the
actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multi-national companies is
both controversial and ill-defined. Multi-national companies' primary responsibility is to
their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies are often larger than the
economies of the states in which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political
power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to
human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the
UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:
the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization,
deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal
norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their
position of power.

— Jean Ziegler[70]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and
other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[71] These were considered by the Human
Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[72]

Human rights law

Main article: Human rights law

Human rights vs national security

Extrajudicial detention of captives in Guantanamo Bay.

Realism and national loyalties have been described as a destructive influence on the human rights
movement because they deny people's innately similar human qualities.[73]
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[74]), 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

— United Nations. The Resource[74]

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known
as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such International law obligations are binding on all states and
cannot be modified by treaty.

Fundamental Importance of Human Rights

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human
rights ideas into practice can helps us create the kind of society we want to live in.
In recent decades, there has been a tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human
rights ideas. This has had many positive results - knowledge about human rights can empower
individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.
Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels in society - in the
family, the community, schools, the workplace, in politics and in international relations. It is vital
therefore that people everywhere should strive to understand what human rights are. When people
better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of
society. A person's human rights cannot be taken away. In its final Article, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights states that no State, group or person '[has] any right to engage in any activity or to
perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein'.

This doesn't mean that abuses and violations of human rights don't occur. On television and in
newspapers every day we hear tragic stories of murder, violence, racism, hunger, unemployment,
poverty, abuse, homelessness and discrimination.
However, the Universal Declaration and other human rights treaties are more than just noble
aspirations. They are essential legal principles. To meet their international human rights obligations,
many nations have incorporated these principles into their own laws. This provides an opportunity for
individuals to have a complaint settled by a court in their own country.

Individuals from some countries may also be able to take a complaint of human rights violations to a
United Nations committee of experts, which would then give its opinion.
In addition, education about human rights is just as important as having laws to protect people. Long
term progress can really only be made when people are aware of what human rights are and what
standards exists.