Human rights

This article is concerned with the the human rights that have been established since the issue in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The term "human rights", as used in that declaration was an ethical construct, denoting entitlements that are deemed to be fully inherent in the existence of every human being, and whose existence is deemed to be independent of the beliefs and interests of the community in which that person lives. The intention stated in the declaration was that the implementation of its stated entitlements should be accepted as an obligation upon member countries of the United Nations and others. However, acceptance of that obligation by member countries has nearly always been qualified by reservations relating to the views and interests of their communities. Some qualifications were on the grounds that a community decision should take account of costs and benefits to all of its members. Others were on the grounds that the ethical beliefs of their community's culture differ from those reflected in the rights that were specified in the declaration.

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 abstention of the Soviet bloc countries, the necessary absence of the British and American colonies, and the exclusion of Germany, Italy and Japan. Also, the inclusion of China and Cuba shows that many of its proponents were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations. But although, its signatories may have, as Michael Ignatieff suggests, regarded the declaration as no more than "a pious set of cliches" " yet once articulated as international norms, rights language ignited both the colonial revolutions abroad and the civil rights revolution at home". As a result, positive action has in fact been taken in response to the declaration's call for its legislative implementation (articles 8 and 10). The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls a political compromise, the outcome of prolonged negotiation, but it has nevertheless survived as a framework for the creation of the "human rights instruments" that were to be the next step toward the realisation of its stated intentions.

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 "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". 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". 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. 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 , 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".