Essay On Significance Of Human Rights In Modern Society

The Importance of The Bill of Rights in Society Today Essay

613 Words3 Pages

When the Second Constitutional Convention wrote the Constitution in 1787, there was a controversy between the federalists and the anti-federalists surrounding whether or not to have a Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists claimed that a bill of rights was needed that listed the guaranteed rights that the government could never take away from a person i.e. “inalienable rights.” A Bill of Rights was eventually deemed necessary, and has worked for over 210 years. There are many reasons why the ten amendments are still valid to this day, and the best examples are the First Amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment.
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.”…show more content…

As one can see, personal freedom is an incredibly important part to our modern day society.
Amendment V guarantees that a person cannot be forced to or be put into the position to incriminate himself, makes it so that a person cannot be tried twice for the same case, or if anything is taken from a person, it is not without “just compensation.” The Fifth Amendment gives people the right to remain silent, as to not accidentally incriminate themselves. It is only fair that the defendant is allowed to say however much, or little he or she wants. The Fifth Amendment also protects people who have been found innocent, and if new evidence surfaces after the trial that would incriminate the defendant, the double jeopardy rule, which says “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” makes it so that they cannot be brought back to trial. Finally the Fifth Amendment compensates people who have had personal property taken or destroyed by the government. The rights given to a citizen of the United States by the Fifth Amendment are only fair, and they are still important to this day. Amendment VI gives people the right to a quick and public trial in front of an impartial jury. This assures a fair trial. Trying to defend in a case where the jury comes into the courthouse with the preconceived notion that the defendant is already is nearly impossible and

Show More

For the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, see Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being",[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law[6] and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others,[1][3] and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances;[3] for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture and execution.[7]

The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and regional institutions.[3] Actions by states and non-governmental organisations form a basis of public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights[8] suggests that "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights". The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable scepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of continued philosophical debate;[9] while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety of rights[5] such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement, prohibition of genocide, free speech,[10] or a right to education (including the right to comprehensive sexuality education, among others), there is disagreement about which of these particular rights should be included within the general framework of human rights;[1] some thinkers suggest that human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid the worst-case abuses, while others see it as a higher standard.[1][11]

Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the events of the Holocaust,[6] culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights.[12] 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 European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century,[13] possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide and war crimes,[6] as a realisation of inherent human vulnerability and as being a precondition for the possibility of a just society.[5]

Whereas 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 ...

— 1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

— Article 1 of the United NationsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[14]

History of the concept

Main article: History of human rights

Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed in some form for much of human history, there is agreement that the earlier conceptions do not closely resemble the modern conceptions 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 realise 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".[15] The history of human rights can be traced to past documents, particularly Constitution of Medina (622), Al-Risalah al-Huquq (late 7th to early 8th century), Magna Carta (1215), the German Peasants' WarTwelve Articles (1525), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution (1791).[1]

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. One theory is that human rights were developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularisation of Judeo-Christian ethics.[16] The most commonly held view is that the 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.[12] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, rather they were the foundation[17] and constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being recognised in the course of early modern debates about rights.[18] 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.[19]Samuel Moyn suggests that the concept of human rights is intertwined with the modern sense of citizenship, which did not emerge until the past few hundred years.[20]

16th–18th century

The earliest conceptualisation of human rights is credited to ideas about natural rights emanating from natural law. In particular, the issue of universal rights was introduced by the examination of extending rights to indigenous peoples by Spanish clerics, such as Francisco de Vitoria and Bartolomé de Las Casas. In the Valladolid debate, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who maintained an Aristotelian view of humanity as divided into classes of different worth, argued with Las Casas, who argued in favour of equal rights to freedom from slavery for all humans regardless of race or religion.[21]

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions.[22] Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which articulated certain human rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

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". Although the term had been used by at least one author as early as 1742.[23]

19th century

In the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery.[6] A number of reformers, notably British Member of Parliament William Wilberforce, worked towards the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and abolition of slavery. This was achieved across the British Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807, which was enforced internationally by the Royal Navy under treaties Britain negotiated with other nations,[24] 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. In Russia, the reformer Tsar Alexander II ended serfdom in 1861,[6] although the freed serfs often faced restrictions of their mobility within the nation.

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 labour. 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 Civil Rights Movement, and more recent 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.

20th century

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. Analyst Belinda Cooper argued that human rights organisations flourished in the 1990s, possibly as a result of the dissolution of the western and eastern Cold War blocs.[25] Ludwig Hoffmann argues that human rights became more widely emphasised in the latter half of the twentieth century because it "provided a language for political claim making and counter-claims, liberal-democratic, but also socialist and post colonialist.[26]

  • Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam

Main article: Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

The CDHR was signed by member states of the OIC in 1990 at the 19th Conference of Foreign Ministers held in Cairo, Egypt. It was seen as the answer to the UDHR. In fact, the CDHR was "patterned after the UN-sponsored UDHR of 1948".[27] The object of the CDHR was to "serve as a guide for member states on human rights issues. CDHR translated the Qur'anic teachings as follows: "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.[27] The CDHR referenced Islamic Sharia[28] which includes Quran, Hadith, prophetic teachings and Islamic legal tradition.[citation needed]

Philosophy

Main article: Philosophy of human rights

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 behaviour 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.[29] Other positions attempt to categorise rights into basic types, rather than make claims about the function or derivation of particular rights.[30]

Criticism

The claims made by human rights to universality have led to criticism. Philosophers who have criticised the concept of human rights include Jeremy Bentham, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.[citation needed] Canadian 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.[31] 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.[32]Alain Pellet, a French scholar on international law, criticises "human rightism" approach as denying the principle of sovereignty and claiming a special place for human rights among the branches of international law;[33] French journalist Alain de Benoist questions human rights premises of human equality.[34] American scholar David Kennedy had listed pragmatic worries and polemical charges concerning human rights in 2002 in Harvard Human Rights Journal.[35]

Classification

Human rights can be classified and organised in several different ways. At an international level the most common categorisation of human rights has been to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.

Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Indivisibility

The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights.

— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis).

The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.

— Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993

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

Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.

Categorisation

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.[citation needed] Economic, social and cultural rights are argued[by whom?] to be:

  • aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights
  • ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should or should not be provided as a right
  • non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law
  • 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)
  • progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
  • resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
  • socialist, as opposed to capitalist
  • vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge.

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

  • capitalist
  • cost-free
  • immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
  • justiciable
  • negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
  • non-ideological/non-political
  • precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
  • real 'legal' rights

Australian politician Olivia Ball and British scholar 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, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.[36]

Three generations

Another categorisation, offered by Czech-French scholar 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. American human rights scholar 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.[37]

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

[T]he call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.

— Philip Alston[37]

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[38]

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."

International protection and promotion

Main article: International human rights law

In the aftermath of the atrocities of World War II, there was increased concern for 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 provided a basis for a comprehensive system of international law and practice for the protection of human rights. Since then, international human rights law has been characterised by a linked system of conventions, treaties, organisations, and political bodies, rather than any single entity or set of laws.[39] However, American analyst Pierre Leval suggested that respect for fundamental human rights in the world today (in 2013) is "dismal" within some nations:[40]

Despotic regimes murder, mutilate, and rape civilian populations and arbitrarily imprison and torture political opponents. Human traffickers, almost invariably operating with the protection of corrupt local officials and police, enslave children and young women in the sex trade. So long as the regimes that sponsor and protect these criminals remain in power, their crimes go unrecognized.

— Pierre N. Leval in Foreign Affairs, 2013[40]

United Nations Charter

Main article: United Nations Charter

The provisions of the United Nations Charter provided a basis for the development of international human rights protection in the opinion of British barrister Ian Brownlie.[39] 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".[41] 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[according to whom?] 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.[39] 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.[42] According to Shaw, 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.[42] The rights espoused in the UN charter were codified and defined in a non-binding context within 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

Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[14] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. It is generally viewed as the preeminent statement of international rights and has been identified as being a culmination of centuries of thinking along both secular and religious lines.[44] Although the UDHR is 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 tribunals.[citation needed] 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.

...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 LadyEleanor 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.[45] 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. According to Cassin, the final three articles place rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realised.[45] 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:[45]

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.[46][47] The inclusion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights[45][48] 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.[48]

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.[49] This debate over whether human rights are more fundamental than economic rights has continued to the present day. The United States declared after the World Food Summit that a right to be free from hunger does not give rise to any international obligations which has been interpreted as a negative duty.[50]

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 socioeconomic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights.[51]

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.[citation needed] Those in favour of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.[52][53]

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:

Customary international law

Main article: 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.[54]

International humanitarian law

Main articles: Geneva Conventions and 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 formalise 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.

United Nations system

Main article: United Nations

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.[55] 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.

— Article 1–3 of the United Nations Charter

Political bodies

Security Council

Main article: United Nations 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 authorise the use of force. It has been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.[56] For example, critics blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security Council for its failure regarding.[57]

On April 28, 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1674 that reaffirmed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and committed the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.[58]

General Assembly

Main article: United Nations General Assembly

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.[59] 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.[59] The assembly has several subsidiary organs that deal with specific human rights issues, such as the Special Committee on Decolonisation and the Special Commission against Apartheid (no longer operational). In addition the general assembly has set up a number of subsidiary organs that consider human rights issues in a number of high-profile contexts: such as the UN Council on Namibia, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practises in the Occupied territories and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable rights of the Palestine People.[60]

Human Rights Council

Main article: United Nations 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.[61] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[62] and reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter.[63] 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.[64]

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 take action when human rights violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the Security Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[65]

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.[66]

  • 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 [67]
  • 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.[68] 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.[68][69]
  • 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 regimes

Main article: Regional human rights regimes

International human rights regimes are in several cases "nested" within more comprehensive and overlapping regional agreements. These regional regimes can be seen as relatively independently coherent human rights sub-regimes.[70] Three principal regional human rights instruments can be identified; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has since 1950 defined and guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.[71] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed the Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.[71]

See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights institutions

Human rights promotion

Human rights continue to be promoted around the world through governmental organisations and museums including the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg

One thought on “Essay On Significance Of Human Rights In Modern Society

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *