Human rights: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>John R. Brews (exhibit Bentham quote from main text and provide an additional link) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Philosophical objections=== | ===Philosophical objections=== | ||
The concept of individual "inalienable" rights met immediate opposition when it was put forward in the American [[Declaration of Independence]] and the [[/Addendum#The French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1798)|French Declaration of the Rights of Man]]. [[Jeremy Bentham]] rejected the concept as "nonsense upon stilts", arguing that "in proportion as it is right or proper, i.e. advantageous to the society in question, that this or that right—a right to this or that effect—should be established and maintained, in that same proportion it is wrong that it should be abrogated: but that as there is no right, which ought not to be maintained so long as it is upon the whole advantageous to the society that it should be maintained, so there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished"<ref | The concept of individual "inalienable" rights met immediate opposition when it was put forward in the American [[Declaration of Independence]] and the [[/Addendum#The French Declaration of the Rights of Man (1798)|French Declaration of the Rights of Man]]. [[Jeremy Bentham]] rejected the concept as "nonsense upon stilts", arguing that:<ref name=Bentham/> | ||
[[Karl Marx]] rejected the concept of rights that "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ...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". | {|align="center" style="width:90%;font-size:97%;" | ||
| | |||
<font face="Gill Sans MT">"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".</font><ref name=Bentham/> | |||
|} | |||
[[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". | |||
===Popular support=== | ===Popular support=== | ||
Line 24: | Line 30: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist|refs= | ||
<ref name=Bentham> | |||
{{cite book |author=Jeremy Bentham |editor=Sir John Bowring, ed |title=The works of Jeremy Bentham |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=AdwQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA501 |pages=p. 501 |chapter=Anarchical Fallacies; being an examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French revolution |volume=vol II |year=1843 |publisher=W. Tait |edition =3rd ed}} | |||
and see also [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1921&chapter=114226&layout=html&Itemid=27 Jeremy Bentham: ''Anarchical Fallacies, Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution'', 1843] | |||
</ref> | |||
|}} |
Revision as of 11:33, 15 August 2012
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
- ↑ Ignatieff, Michael: Human Rights as Politics and Human Rights as Idolatry (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000)
- ↑ Michael Kirby: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Fifty Years On (Speech at an UNESCO dinner at Sydney on 5 December 1998)
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Jeremy Bentham (1843). “Anarchical Fallacies; being an examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French revolution”, Sir John Bowring, ed: The works of Jeremy Bentham, 3rd ed. W. Tait, p. 501. and see also Jeremy Bentham: Anarchical Fallacies, Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution, 1843
- ↑ Karl Marx;: On the Jewish Question, 1844
- ↑ Nghia Hoang: The 'Asian Values' Perspective of Human Rights: A Challenge to Universal Human Rights. Vietnamese Institute of Human Rights, May 15, 2009
- ↑ David Littman: Universal Human Rights and "Human Rights in Islam", Midstream (New York) February/March 1999
- ↑ Navanethem Pillay: Strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body system, A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, June 2012