Human rights

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. Doubts have been expressed about its ethical foundations, and about its philosophical consistency, but its emotional impact upon worldwide consciousness is beyond doubt. As a result, it has acquired considerable political importance, and has been embodied in a wide range of generally-accepted international treaty obligations. There have been numerous breaches of those undertakings, and there is widespread disagreement concerning the appropriate international response to such breaches.

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. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls 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:

"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".

Popular opinion

Digests of international public opinion on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights developed by the Council on Foreign Relations indicate majority support for it in more than twenty countries . There was support by majorities averaging 70 percent in all of the countries polled for the proposition that the United Nations should promote the rights that were advocated in the Declaration. In particular, there was majority support in all countries for the principles of non-discrimination, universal suffrage, social security, and for freedom to demonstrate and express opinion. Majorities in most, but not all, nations agree that followers of any religion should be allowed to assemble and practice in their country. There was support, even in China, for the proposition that the United Nations should actively promote human rights in member states.

Implementation

Overview

The paradoxical outcome has been that, although a substantial proportion of governments have undertaken detailed legal obligations to implement the human rights declarations, the incidence of failure to honour those obligations has also been high.

International

Implementation by the United Nations has been by the negotiation of the nine The United Nations human rights treaties with member governments. The treaties that have so far been adopted cover 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 "treaty body" of independent experts to monitor the implementation of its provisions. . Of the 201 member countries, upwards of 150 have ratified all but the three most recent of the treaties. Signatories have included countries with poor human rights records (excluding the three most recent, Belarus and Syria have ratified all of the treaties; China has ratified all but the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Cuba and Saudi Arabia have ratified all but the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

Signatory countries are required by tne treaties to submit periodic reports to the treaty bodies in accordance with a stipulated timetable. In fact only 16 percent of the reports due in 2010 and 2011 were submitted on time and only one-third of reports were submitted within a year of the due date - and a significant proportion of ratifications has never resulted in a report. Some of the treaty bodies can also take decisions in response to individual complaints of human rights violations. The governments concerned are expected to respond to decisions by the treaty bodies with explanations of how they intend to implement their proposed remedies. However, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, compliance with the decisions of the treaty bodies is low. Of 546 violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, there were satisfactory responses to only 67 of the decisions of the Human Rights Council.

Regional

The 47 states of the Council of Europe are party to the European Convention on Human Rights of which the European Court of Human Rights is the judicial organ. The Convention provides for individual petitions to the Court. The Court's response to a successful petition typically includes an individual remedy designed to restore the applicant to the position that he or she enjoyed prior to the violation, and a general remedy designed to prevent the violation from happening again.