Global Politics: Human Rights

This article discusses human rights in the context of global politics and international law. It traces the development of the idea from natural law to the official declaration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. The article discusses human rights in relation to international law, but also considers the role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in human rights work. The article points out criticisms that have been made against the notion of human rights, such as its ambiguity and lack of enforcement. The article concludes with a consideration of the future of human rights and the role of education in furthering human rights knowledge and achievement.

Keywords: Globalization; Human Rights; International Law; Natural Law; Political Treaties; Political Sociology; United Nations; Universal rights; Universalism

Overview

Formulating a Concept of Human Rights

The concept of human rights is not new. Throughout history, many different religions and philosophies have conceived of basic entitlements to which the individual has claim simply for being human. These entitlements have not always been articulated as "rights" and have not always been conceived of in the same way. There has also been wide variation in theories regarding the source of these rights, the practical claim to them, and the universality of the concept.

Since the 1948 passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), whenever the term human rights is used it usually evokes the idea of "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" and refers to the specific rights in the Declaration. Yet, as noted before, the idea of human rights is rooted in a much longer philosophical debate. Many philosophers wrote about natural law, or universal rights, during the Enlightenment era in Europe. These universal rights were seen as being fundamentally granted to everyone, usually considered as granted from God, and were conceived of separately from the legal rights granted by the state. As Edward Demenchonok has recounted,

In Europe, these fundamental rights were recognized

as sacred, while the state and its laws, positive

rights posited by human lawmakers, were considered

profane. Human rights imply not only an interest but

also a moral obligation (an individual's vocation

from God) and, therefore, they are superior to any

sociopolitical or utilitarian considerations.

Universal human rights are the ethical criteria for

positive social rights. Such an ethical justification

of rights was sustained by Kant, Fichte, von Humbolt,

and other representatives of German liberalism

(2009, p. 279).

Indeed, many of the early notions of human rights were discussed in terms of individual freedom, and the limitations (or lack of limitations) placed on the inherent freedom of humanity. Thus, in the philosophy of some Enlightenment thinkers, human rights superseded those of the state, making the state's laws valid only if they did not inhibit the individual's human rights. It should be noted, however, that the Enlightenment was also a period of philosophy in which many were harshly opposed to the idea of natural or universal rights, and they argued that any discussion of rights outside of the state was meaningless. This debate over whether human rights can possibly exist has continued throughout the centuries.

While philosophers had conceived of these rights for some time, the most frequently cited cases in which human rights are first demanded in written form are the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The American Declaration of Independence asserted 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." The French declaration of the Rights of Man likewise contended that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" (Sen, 2009, p. 355). The big development was that instead of just philosophizing about the existence of the rights, both of these documents were making a demand for the rights to be recognized and respected, and that demand had the promise of force behind it. Instead of operating separately from the State, both documents hold the State directly accountable to greater human rights.

Following these formal assertions that human rights had power (and emboldened by the successful revolutions with which both documents had been associated), the notion of human rights became more explicitly articulated in the global antislavery movements and later in new discussions over international law and accountability that came following World War I (Frezzo & Araghi, 2007). Yet, just as the notion of human rights came to be more and more widely accepted throughout the globe, the horrific events of World War II led to a renewed need for an international discussion of whether human rights were agreed upon, and if so, how they could be made into something more concrete than an ideological position.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

At the end of World War II, the international body of the United Nations was formed to promote peace and cooperation between nations. An early concern of the new UN was the issue of human rights. Coming on the heels of the genocide and massive human destruction that had occurred in the course of World War II in Europe and Asia, the need for protection of human rights was widely felt. As a result, the Charter of the United Nations calls for "reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person" (United Nations Charter, Preamble). Despite the widespread acceptance of the idea of human rights, many pointed out that the concept was still vague and that there was a need for a specific set of rights that could be internationally agreed upon and to which all nations could (or should) commit to respecting.

In 1947 work began on what would become the first global declaration of what human rights actually meant. The effort was undertaken by an international team of scholars and activists, including former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who was an active proponent of the need for universal human rights. The goal was to define what rights should be considered universal and protected and respected regardless of specific local laws and governmental ideology. The result, after several drafts, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 (Sen, 2009; Menke, 2009; Frezzo & Araghi, 2007; Glendon, 2001).

The UDHR consists of thirty articles and lists specific rights that are "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" (UDHR, Preamble). The rights range from general rights, such as "the right to life, liberty and security of person" (UDHR, Article 3) to more specific rights, such as freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (UDHR, Article 5). It is in these specific rights that the UDHR was such a pivotal move in human rights development, since the general notion of freedom and the right to pursue happiness had been present for centuries. The UDHR, as Amartya Sen describes, "takes a much larger list of freedoms and claims under its protective umbrella…This is quite a radical departure from the confined limits of the American Declaration of 1776 or the French affirmation of 1789" (Sen, 2009, p. 380).

It is important to note however, that the rights are not guaranteed in any forceful way by the UDHR. The UDHR is meant to affect the behavior of nations, but it cannot regulate that behavior. Thus, as Sen points out, "the framers of the Universal Declaration in 1948 clearly hoped that the articulated recognition of human rights would serve as a kind of template for new laws that would be enacted to legalize those human rights across the world," but there was no legal structure in place at the time of its adoption to force that to occur (Sen, 2009, p. 359).

Applications

Human Rights & International Law

The rights put forth in the UDHR are not binding, but in 1966 the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These two treaties make the rights put forth in the UDHR into international human rights law; and these laws are enforceable by the United Nations Security Council.

Other treaties have followed and have endeavored to make human rights law more clear and enforceable, with varying degrees of success. Many regional organizations, such as the Organization of American States (OAS), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU), among others, have also developed regional treaties and agreements to protect human rights in the member states. Christine Min Wotipka and Kiyoteru Tsutsui have pointed out,

… treaty systems sponsored by the United Nations

provide the backbone to the international human rights

regime. They have codified and legitimated human rights

ideas, served as inspiration for regional human rights

treaty systems, and have given leverage to

nongovernmental activists in promoting human rights

and publicizing violations. In the last 4 decades,

both the number of U.N. international human rights

treaties and that of states parties to these treaties

have increased dramatically (2008, p. 725).

Together these treaties comprise a complicated set of laws that have varying degrees of enforceability and power but stem from a basic commitment to protecting human rights. The development of the idea from a philosophical notion to a set of codified rights has been a long and important journey in global political cooperation which continues to develop today.

Human Rights & Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)

Human rights has become an arena for action for many international and national nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Amartya Sen has pointed out,

The ways and means of advancing the ethics of human

rights need not be confined only to making new laws

(even though sometimes legislation may turn out to

be the right way to proceed); for example, social

monitoring and other activist support provided by

such organizations as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty

International, OXFAM, Medecins san Frontieres Save

the Children, the Red Cross, or Action Aid (to consider

many different types of NGOs) can help to advance the

effective reach of acknowledged human rights. In many

contexts, legislation may not, in fact, be involved at

all (Sen, 2009, p. 364-365).

NGOs such as these carry out a variety of activities in order to advance, protect, and monitor human rights situations in various parts of the world. The organizations usually operate through a combination of international education campaigns and local organizing and monitoring. The general position of the majority of human rights-based NGOs is that human rights are inadequately being protected, and many use the tactics of traditional social movements to advocate for more protections. For example, according to Amnesty International's website,

Our mission is to conduct research and generate

action to prevent and end grave abuses of human

rights and to demand justice for those whose rights

have been violated. Our members and supporters

exert influence on governments, political bodies,

companies and intergovernmental groups. Activists

take up human rights issues by mobilizing public

pressure through mass demonstrations, vigils and

direct lobbying as well as online and offline

campaigning

(http://www.amnesty.org/en/who-we-are/about-amnesty-international).

These social movement tactics have brought human rights a great deal of attention in the public realm and have led to international campaigns against cases of gross violations of human rights.

NGOs have also been the driving force behind the advancement of expanded notions of human rights. Many advocacy groups have mobilized campaigns to either add additional rights or to clarify the protections included under the rights already present. Some examples include:

• Advocacy to create a human right to water,
• The protection of homosexual individuals and the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation,
• The abolition of the death penalty, and
• A more specific definition of reproductive rights.

Viewpoints

While the idea of human rights seems to have wide appeal, there has in fact been a great deal of criticism of the idea and attempts to put human rights into practice. These critiques have come from a great many angles. Some have centered on whether the concept is even legitimate. Others have criticized the failure of enforcement and the lack of accountability. The critiques present varying levels of rejection and reform — from throwing the notion out altogether to reformulating the idea into a different shape.

Questioning the Legitimacy of Human Rights

The existence of human rights, or the possibility of the existence of human rights, has been a key point of debate. Many have argued that the notion itself is just too vague. Sen notes, "Many philosophers and legal theorists see the rhetoric of human rights as just loose talk — well-meaning and perhaps even laudable loose talk — which cannot, it is presumed, have much intellectual merit" (2009, p. 355). Jeremy Bentham, creator of modern utilitarianism, is among the most cited early critics of the idea of natural rights. He argued that since these natural rights have no legislative power behind them, and since there was no structure that could enforce them, they did not exist as rights, merely as ideas. He argued that rights only come from laws, and that if one argues a right exists outside the law it is an incorrect usage of the term "right." (Sen 2009, p. 362). Of course Bentham was opposed to the idea on more than simply semantic terms. Utilitarianism was rooted in the concept of accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and inherent in the philosophy is a perspective that positions the individual's rights secondary to the greater collective good (as defined by the state).

Another critic who questioned the concreteness of human rights was Hannah Arendt. Arendt, famous for her political theory on power and totalitarianism, had seen the horrors of World War II first hand, and yet in 1949, after the UDHR was passed, she published a passionate critique of the idea of human rights as passed in the Declaration. Arendt's major contention was that the UDHR did nothing new—she argued it was merely a restating of previous Liberal notions of natural law and that the notion of human rights as put forth in UDHR was merely an "abstraction."

Christoph Menke explains, "Arendt's objection to the declarations of human rights, claiming that they exhibit a conspicuous lack of reality, attests to just this: they are of the order of an "ought," to which no "can" corresponds: no capacity for action or realization" (2007, p. 741–42). Arendt further elaborated her point similarly to Bentham, arguing that rights correspond with society, and that an individual is only given equal, or unequal, rights in relation to other members of the community. She posits that in the face of totalitarian Germany, Jews were stripped of their legal rights when they were no longer part of the state community and arguably left with only their "naked" human rights, which were, in effect, useless. (Menke 2007). Arendt took her critique further than Bentham, however, and instead of arguing that human rights do not exist, she argues that there is one human right, which is the right to be part of a community which can grant rights, or more precisely "the right to have rights" (Menke, 2007, p. 748). In this way, Arendt argues that to conceive of human rights in the Liberal Enlightenment sense as existing outside and separate from legal rights, is to continue the mode of thinking that was powerless in the face of the very atrocities to which the UDHR responds and seeks to prevent.

Problems of Enforcement

In much the same vein as Arendt, others have pointed to clear problems of enforcement. As noted earlier, the UDHR itself has no real enforceability, but the treaties that followed throughout the years do have varying degrees of enforceability, including the use of force authorized by the United Nations Security Council. The greatest criticism on this point, however, comes not from the legal status or power of enforcement but from the practical ability and the record of success and failure. A frequently cited case of a UN failure to enforce any protection of the human rights of a member nation is in the violent conflict in Rwanda in 1994, in which an estimated 500,000 to 1 million Tutsis were killed over a 4 month period. Despite frequent warnings, ongoing violence, and confirmed reports from UN peace-keepers on the ground, the Security Council was slow to respond and largely ineffective in protecting any of the human rights for which it is responsible. There have also been accusations that Security Council member states allowed their own national economic and political interests to affect the way they responded to the situation (Gourevitch, 1998). The criticism of a failure to act and an inability to fulfill the responsibility of human rights is pointed at the United Nations, but it presents a challenge to the way that human rights are conceived, and the viability of those rights in the real world.

Conclusion: The Future of Human Rights

The idea of human rights has evolved over time and continues to do so. The UN, regional cooperative bodies, states, NGOs, academics, and ordinary individuals are all actively participating in an ongoing project that seeks to create a world in which humans have certain entitlements and are protected from certain violations. The international nature of the discussion is particularly important as the world becomes increasingly connected through the processes of globalization. Human rights mandates provide a means to ensure that globalization is not done at the expense of the basic rights of individuals in less powerful nations and it provides a platform from which every human can make a claim.

The idea of human rights has been particularly aided by education campaigns and academic research and advocacy, and this approach offers a clear path forward for the continued discussion and development of the concept (Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld, & Barber 2008). For example, education campaigns in places where rights are being denied can help individuals recognize their right to protest such denials. In another way, education campaigns in politically and economically powerful nations about abuses taking place in less powerful nations can lead to campaigns such as divestment movements that may influence the situation from afar.

Amartya Sen has captured the spirit of human rights well, writing, "There is something very appealing in the idea that every person anywhere in the world, irrespective of citizenship, residence, race, class, caste, or community, has some basic rights which others should respect" (Sen 2009, p. 355). The global project to create a reality that exhibits this sentiment clearly has more work to do, and has both succeeded and failed in many ways. Yet, the underlying effort and the continued attempts to protect the freedoms and entitlements of all humans has led in positive directions and will no doubt continue to shape the way societies across the world interact and cooperate.

Terms & Concepts

Civil Rights: Rights an individual has with regard to the state.

Human Rights: Basic rights that apply to every individual human, regardless of other factors.

Natural Law: Law that is based on a power higher than the state and based on moral or religious authority; also called universal law.

Sovereignty: Ultimate individual power; in the case of states, it is the power to govern domestic affairs with the highest authority.

Universal Rights: Rights that based on notions of natural or universal law—rights to which an individual has a moral or ethical claim rather than a legal claim.

Universalism: The application of an idea to all places and times, regardless of local conditions.

Utilitarianism: The philosophy that "good" is defined as useful and the greatest good is what is useful to the most people (even if it is not "good" for all the people).

Bibliography

Amnesty International. (n.d.). About Amnesty International. Retrieved February 2, 2010.

Cole, W. M. (2012). Human rights as myth and ceremony? Reevaluating the effectiveness of human rights treaties, 1981–2007. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1131–1171. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Clark, R. (2012). Bringing the Media In: Newspaper Readership and Human Rights. Sociological Inquiry, 82, 532–56. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Demenchonok, E. (2009). 10. The universal concept of human rights as a regulative principle: Freedom versus paternalism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 68, 273–301. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Glendon, M.A. (2001). A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: Random House.

Gourevitch, P. (1999). We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Frezzo, M., & Araghi, F. (2009). Exorcising the specter of development: Human rights in the 21st century. Societies Without Borders, 4, 3–20. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Kessler, J. K. (2013). The invention of a human right: Conscientious objection at the United Nations, 1947–2011. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 44, 753–791. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Menke, C. (2007). The "Aporias of Human Rights" and the "One Human Right": Regarding the coherence of Hannah Arendt's argument. Social Research, 74, 739–762. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Pierce, A. (2014). US “Partnership” with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Its Effect on Civil Society and Human Rights. Society, 51, 68–86. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. New York: Penguin.

Torney-Purta, J., Wilkenfeld, B., & Barber, C. (2008). How adolescents in 27 countries understand, support, and practice human rights. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 857–880. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Wotipka, C., & Tsutsui, K. (2008). Global human rights and state sovereignty: State ratification of international human rights treaties, 1965–2001. Sociological Forum, 23, 724–754. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved February 1, 2010 from

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved February 1, 2010 from

Zhou, M. (2013). Public support for international human rights institutions: A cross-national and multilevel analysis. Sociological Forum, 28, 525–548. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Suggested Reading

Armaline, W., & Glasberg, D. (2009). What will states really do for us? The human rights enterprise and pressure from below. Societies Without Borders, 4, 430–451. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Benedek, W. (2008). Human security and human rights interaction. International Social Science Journal, 59, 7–17 Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Branco, M. (2009). Economics against human rights: The conflicting languages of economics and human rights. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 20, 88–102. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

De Schutter, O. (2012). The role of human rights in shaping international regulatory regimes. Social Research, 79, 785–818. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Erni, J. (2009). War, 'incendiary media' and international human rights law. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 867–886. Retrieved January 28, 2010, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Kleinig, J., & Evans, N. (2013). Human flourishing, human dignity, and human rights. Law & Philosophy, 32, 539–564. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.

Morris, L. (2012). Citizenship and Human Rights: Ideals and Actualities. British Journal of Sociology, 63, 39–46. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text.