Human rights: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
(exhibit Bentham quote from main text and provide an additional link)
imported>John R. Brews
Line 15: Line 15:
[[Karl Marx]] rejected the concept of rights that  "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ... and separated from the community", in favour of  "species-being rights"  that "deal with the individual who is part of his community rather than estranged from it"<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ Karl Marx;: ''On the Jewish Question'', 1844]</ref>.  
[[Karl Marx]] rejected the concept of rights that  "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ... and separated from the community", in favour of  "species-being rights"  that "deal with the individual who is part of his community rather than estranged from it"<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ Karl Marx;: ''On the Jewish Question'', 1844]</ref>.  


There have also been objections on the grounds of [[Ethics#Cultural Relativism|cultural relativism]] to the listing of rights in the Universal Declaration. Among the innate, human rights, it is argued, is the right to adopt a particular culture, and communities with different  cultures may be expected to adopt different concepts of human rights. It has been claimed, for example,  that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405436&http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1405436_code1270763.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1405436%26mirid%3D1&ei=3hUqUI6bL4PO0QXyxoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHIAAIY2b53lsjlhTTw2FZVZmdHHA&sig2=Nir8Uo7h8syxklmozEFcFw. Nghia Hoang: ''The 'Asian Values' Perspective of Human Rights: A Challenge to Universal Human Rights''. Vietnamese Institute of Human Rights, May 15, 2009]</ref>.  In that case,  cultural differences in the relationship between individual and collective human  rights may be expected to affect the degree to which the Declaration's rights are deemed to be offset by the needs of the community. The [[/Addendum#Bangkok Declaration|Bangkok declaration]], for example, argues that "while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds". It has  also been claimed that the Declaration is incompatible with [[Sharia]] law  <ref>[http://www.dhimmi.org/Islam.html David Littman: ''Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam"'',  Midstream (New York) February/March 1999]</ref>, and  member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference agreed in 1990  upon an amended version, the [[/Addendum#The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam |Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam]],  which stipulated that " all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia".
There have also been objections on the grounds of [[Ethics#Cultural Relativism|cultural relativism]] to the listing of rights in the Universal Declaration. Among the innate, human rights, it is argued, is the right to adopt a particular culture, and communities with different  cultures may be expected to adopt different concepts of human rights.  
 
It has been claimed, for example,  that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1405436&http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%2FSSRN_ID1405436_code1270763.pdf%3Fabstractid%3D1405436%26mirid%3D1&ei=3hUqUI6bL4PO0QXyxoCwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHIAAIY2b53lsjlhTTw2FZVZmdHHA&sig2=Nir8Uo7h8syxklmozEFcFw. Nghia Hoang: ''The 'Asian Values' Perspective of Human Rights: A Challenge to Universal Human Rights''. Vietnamese Institute of Human Rights, May 15, 2009]</ref>.  In that case,  cultural differences in the relationship between individual and collective human  rights may be expected to affect the degree to which the Declaration's rights are deemed to be offset by the needs of the community. The [[/Addendum#Bangkok Declaration|Bangkok declaration]], for example, argues that "while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds".  
 
It has  also been claimed that the Declaration is incompatible with [[Sharia]] law  <ref>[http://www.dhimmi.org/Islam.html David Littman: ''Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam"'',  Midstream (New York) February/March 1999]</ref>, and  member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference agreed in 1990  upon an amended version, the [[/Addendum#The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam |Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam]],  which stipulated that " all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia".


===Popular support===
===Popular support===

Revision as of 11:36, 15 August 2012

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

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

Introduction

Historical background

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the holocaust and by wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its content was new, there were precedents for its concept of universally innate human entitlements in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the absence among it signatories of many of the countries that are now members of the United Nations, and the fact that many of its signatories were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations[1]. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls [2] a political compromise, and rights were included that apparently stood little chance of unqualified implementation.

Philosophical objections

The concept of individual "inalienable" rights met immediate opposition when it was put forward in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Jeremy Bentham rejected the concept as "nonsense upon stilts", arguing that:[3]

"in proportion as it is right or proper, i.e. advantageous to the society in question, that this or that right—a right to this or that effect—should be established and maintained, in that same proportion it is wrong that it should be abrogated: but that as there is no right, which ought not to be maintained so long as it is upon the whole advantageous to the society that it should be maintained, so there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished".[3]

Karl Marx rejected the concept of rights that "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ... and separated from the community", in favour of "species-being rights" that "deal with the individual who is part of his community rather than estranged from it"[4].

There have also been objections on the grounds of cultural relativism to the listing of rights in the Universal Declaration. Among the innate, human rights, it is argued, is the right to adopt a particular culture, and communities with different cultures may be expected to adopt different concepts of human rights.

It has been claimed, for example, that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West[5]. In that case, cultural differences in the relationship between individual and collective human rights may be expected to affect the degree to which the Declaration's rights are deemed to be offset by the needs of the community. The Bangkok declaration, for example, argues that "while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds".

It has also been claimed that the Declaration is incompatible with Sharia law [6], and member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference agreed in 1990 upon an amended version, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which stipulated that " all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia".

Popular support

Implementation

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

Outcomes

Political responses

Performance

References