Human Rights

A brief Introduction

2022

Submitted to: Mr. Najeebullah Sahim

Submitted by: Floran Furmoly

Date:
 Acknowledgment

This report would not have been written without the deep enthusiasm and heartfelt intention
inside me by the grace of God Almighty.

Successful completion of any type of project requires succor

from different members of persons. I have also taken help from different people for the
preparation of this report.

Now, there is a little scramble to exposure my profound gratitude to these helpful people.

I pay my profound sense of gratefulness to Muslim English Language Institute (MELI), all my
instructors, and all MELI’s family for preparing us this opportunity to learn English Language in a
standard way.

I revere the patronage and moral support accorded to me by the instructor Mr. Najeebullah
Sahim, whose encouragement made it conceivable for me to accomplish this not so easy task.

My joy and love knows no bounds in expressing my cordial gratitude to my parents for their
interest and encouragement which were of great help to me.

I humbly extend my thanks to all the people who were there and cooperated with me, all
throughout the research period.
 Table of Contents

I: Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4
II. Human rights in ethics, law and social activism.......................................................................................4
III: Historical milestones..............................................................................................................................8
Are human rights the same for everyone?................................................................................................10
How are human rights put into practice?..................................................................................................12
1. The norm-creating process....................................................................................................................12
2. The norm-enforcing process..................................................................................................................13
3. Continuing and new challenges to human rights realization.................................................................15
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................16
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.....................................................................................................17

Abstract
Human rights are rights that individuals have simply by virtue of being human. These rights are
considered to be universal, non-conditional rights that states, governments, and private actors are
required to respect. There are various types of rights, generally classified under the rubric of
“generations” of civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights; and solidarity
rights. As the rights have become codified in various international instruments, this has resulted
in the clarification of the norms and has led to the establishment of enforcement techniques.
I: Introduction

Human rights constitute a set of norms governing the treatment of individuals and groups by
states and non-state actors on the basis of ethical principles regarding what society considers
fundamental to a decent life. These norms are incorporated into national and international legal
systems, which specify mechanisms and procedures to hold the duty-bearers accountable and
provide redress for alleged victims of human rights violations. After a brief discussion of the use
of human rights in ethical, legal and advocacy discourse and some historical background of the
concept of human rights, this essay will examine the tensions between human rights and state
sovereignty, the challenges to the universality of human rights, the enumeration of rights
recognized by the international community, and the means available to translate the high
aspirations of human rights into practice.

II. Human rights in ethics, law and social activism

There are numerous theoretical debates surrounding the origins, scope and significance of
human rights in political science, moral philosophy, and jurisprudence. Roughly speaking,
invoking the term “human rights” (which is often referred to as “human rights discourse” or
“human rights talk”) is based on moral reasoning (ethical discourse), socially sanctioned norms
(legal/political discourse) or social mobilization (advocacy discourse). These three types of
discourse are by no means alternative or sequential but are all used in different contexts,
depending on who is invoking human rights discourse, to whom they are addressing their claims,
and what they expect to gain by doing so. The three types of discourse are inter-related in the
sense that public reasoning based on ethical arguments and social mobilization based on
advocacy agendas influence legal norms, processes and institutions and thus all three modes of
discourse contribute to human rights becoming part of social reality.

A. Human rights as ethical concerns

Human rights have in common an ethical concern for just treatment, built on empathy or
altruism in human behavior and concepts of justice in philosophy. The philosopher and
economist, Amartya Sen, considers that “Human rights can be seen as primarily ethical
demands… Like other ethical claims that demand acceptance, there is an implicit presumption in
making pronouncements on human rights that the underlying ethical claims will survive open
and informed scrutiny.”1 In moral reasoning, the expression “human rights” is often not
distinguished from the more general concept of “rights,” although in law a “right” refers to any
entitlement protected by law, the moral validity or legitimacy of which may be separate from its
legal status as an entitlement. The moral basis of a right can draw on concepts such as natural
law, social contract, justice as fairness, consequentialism and other theories of justice. In all these
philosophical traditions, a right is conceived as an entitlement of individuals, either by virtue of
being human or because they are members of a political community (citizens). In law, however,
a right is any legally protected interest, whatever the social consequence of the enforcement of
the right on the wellbeing of persons other than the right-holder (e.g., the property right of a
landlord to evict a tenant, the right of a business to earn profits). To avoid confusion, it is helpful
to use the term “human right” or its equivalent (“fundamental right,” “basic freedom,”
“constitutional right”) to refer to a higher order right, authoritatively defined and carrying the
expectation that it has a peremptory character and thus prevails over other (ordinary) rights and
reflects the essential values of the society adopting it. Ethical and religious precepts determine
what one is willing to accept as properly a human right. Such precepts are typically invoked in
the debates over current issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, migration,
much as they were around slavery and inequality based on class, gender or ethnicity in the past.
Enlightenment philosophers derived the centrality of the individual from their theories of the
state of nature. Social contractarians, especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau, predicated the authority
of the state on its capacity to achieve the optimum enjoyment of natural rights, that is, of rights
inherent in each individual irrespective of birth or status. He wrote in Essay on the Origin on
Inequality Among Men that “it is plainly contrary to the law of nature…that the privileged few
should gorge themselves with superfluities, while the starving multitude are in want of the bare
necessities of life.”2 Equally important was the concept of the universalized individual (“the
rights of Man”), reflected in the political thinking of Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Thomas Paine
and the authors of the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789). The Enlightenment represents for the West both the
affirmation of the scientific method with the related faith of human progress and the formulation
of the human rights, which define the freedom and equality on which the legitimacy of modern
governments have henceforth been judged. Karl Marx and much of socialist thinking questioned
the “bourgeois” character of a limited interpretation of individual human rights and stressed
community interests and egalitarian values. The ethical basis of human rights has been defined
using concepts such as human flourishing, dignity, duties to family and society, natural rights,
individual freedom, and social justice against exploitation based on sex, class or caste. All of
these moral arguments for human rights are part of ethical discourse. The tension between
political liberalism and democratic egalitarianism, between Locke and Rousseau, between liberty
and equality, between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, have
been part of the philosophical and political ambiguity of human rights since the beginning of the
modern era. Whether human rights discourse is essentially ethical and philosophical or rather
essentially legal and political is a matter of dispute. Sen writes, “Even though human rights can,
and often do, inspire legislation, this is a further fact, rather than an constitutive characteristic of
human rights”3 , implying an inherent value of the concept of human rights, independent of what
is established in law. Legal positivists would disagree and consider law to be constitutive rather
than declarative of human rights.

B. Human rights as legal rights (positive law tradition)

“Legal positivists” regard human rights as resulting from a formal norm-creating process, by
which we mean an authoritative formulation of the rules by which a society (national or
international) is governed. While “natural rights” derive from natural order or divine origin, and
are inalienable, immutable, and absolute, rights based on “positive law” are recognized through a
political and legal process that results in a declaration, law, treaty, or other normative instrument.
These may vary over time and be subject to derogations or limitations designed to optimize
respect for human rights rather than impose an absolute standard. They become part of the social
order when an authoritative body proclaims them, and they attain a higher degree of universality
based on the participation of virtually every nation in the norm-creating process, a process that is
law-based but that reflects compromise and historical shifts. Think of the moral and legal
acceptability of slavery, torture, or sexual and racial discrimination over most of and
discrimination based on race or sex. The “International Bill of Human Rights” (consisting of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] of 1948, and two legally-binding treaties
opened for signature in 1966, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), along with the other
human rights treaties of the United Nations (UN) and of regional organizations, constitute the
primary sources and reference points for what properly belongs in the category of human rights.
These legally recognized human rights are discussed below in Part IV.B. C. Human rights as
social claims Before they are written into legal texts, human rights often emerge from claims of
people suffering injustice and thus are based on moral sentiment, culturally determined by
contextualized moral and religious belief systems. Revolt against tyranny is an ancient tradition.
A modern precursor of social mobilization for human rights at the national level was the
response to the unjust condemnation of Captain Dreyfus in 1894 as a spy for the Germans, which
led Emile Zola to proclaim in his famous “J’Accuse…!”, an impassioned call to action that led to
the creation of the Ligue française des droits de l’homme in 1897, and numerous similar leagues,
which became federated in 1922 into the International Federation of Leagues for the Rights of
Man (now the International Federation for Human Rights), which spawned its counterpart in the
US in 1942, the International League for the Rights of Man, now functioning in New York as the
International League for Human Rights. Amnesty International (founded in 1961), the Moscow
Human Rights Committee (founded in 1970), and Helsinki Watch (founded in 1978 and
expanded into Human Rights Watchhuman history. The product of what has survived “open and
informed scrutiny” (Sen’s expression) is thus often found not in journals and seminars on ethics
and normative theory but rather at the end of the political or legislative process leading to the
adoption of laws and treaties relating to human rights, such as the relatively recent abolition of
slavery, torture in 1988) were among the more effective nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Latin America, Africa and Asia saw the creation of an extraordinary array of human rights
groups in the 1980s and 1990s, which have proliferated after the end of the Cold War. These
NGOs emerged as social movements catalyzed by outrage at the mistreatment of prisoners, the
exploitation of workers, the exclusion of women, children, persons with disabilities, or as part of
struggles against slavery, the caste system, colonialism, apartheid, or predatory globalization.
Such movements for social change often invoke human rights as the basis of their advocacy. If
the prevailing theories of moral philosophy or the extant codes of human rights do not address
their concerns, their action is directed at changing the theory and the legal formulations. NGOs
not only contributed to the drafting of the UDHR but also in bringing down Apartheid,4
transforming the political and legal configuration of East-Central Europe5 and restoring
democracy in Latin America.6 New norms emerged as a result of such social mobilization during
the second half of the twentieth century regarding self-determination of peoples, prevention and
punishment of torture, protection of vulnerable groups and, more recently, equal treatment of
sexual minorities and protection of migrants. The appeal to human rights in this advocacy
discourse is no less legitimate than the legal and philosophical modes of discourse and is often
the inspiration for the latter. Quoting Sen again, “The invoking of human rights tends to come
mostly from those who are concerned with changing the world rather than interpreting it… The
colossal appeal of the idea of human rights [has provided comfort to those suffering] intense
oppression or great misery, without having to wait for the theoretical air to clear.”

III: Historical milestones

The historical context of human rights can be seen from a wide range of perspectives. At the risk
of oversimplification, I will mention four approaches to the history of human rights. The first
approach traces the deeper origins to ancient religious and philosophical concepts of compassion,
charity, justice, individual worth, and respect for all life found in Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism,
Confucianism, Christianity and Islam.

Others trace modern human rights to the emergence of natural law theories in Ancient Greece
and Rome and Christian theology of the Middle Ages, culminating in the rebellions in the 17th
and 18th century Europe, the philosophers of the Enlightenment and the Declarations that
launched the French and American revolutions, combined with the 19th century abolitionist,
workers’ rights and women’s suffrage movements. A third trend is to trace human rights to their
enthronement in the United Nations Charter of 1945, in reaction to the Holocaust and drawing on
President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms and the impact of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights of 1948 on subsequent national constitutions and foreign policy and international treaties
and declarations.12 A fourth view is the very recent revisionist history that considers human
rights as peripheral in the aftermath of World War II and only significant as a utopian ideal and
movement beginning in the 1970s as an alternative to the prevailing ideological climate.
Table 1:

List of human rights Group Rights

1. Right to self-determination

2. Permanent sovereignty over natural

Civil and Political Rights (CPR)

1. Right to life

2. Freedom from torture

3. Freedom from slavery

4. Freedom from arbitrary arrest/detention

5. Right to humane treatment in detention

6. Freedom of movement and residence

7. Prohibition of expulsion of aliens

8. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief

9. Freedom of expression

10. Right to privacy

11. Non-imprisonment for debt

12. Fair trial (sub-divided into 16 enumerated rights)

13. Right to personhood under the law

14. Equality before the law

15. Freedom of assembly

16. Freedom of association

17. Right to marry and found a family

18. Rights of children

19. Right to practice a religion

20. Prohibition of war propaganda and hate speech constituting incitement

21. Right to hold office

22. Right to vote in free elections

23. Right to be elected to office

24. Equal access to public service

Are human rights the same for everyone?

The claim that human rights are universal holds that they are the same for everyone because
they are inherent in human beings by virtue of all people being human, and that human rights
therefore derive from nature (hence the term “natural rights”). The UDHR refers to “the inherent
dignity and … equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family [as] the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” The American Declaration of
Independence proclaims that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights” and the French Declaration of 1789 refers to the “natural,
unalienable, and sacred rights of man.” Another basis for saying that human rights are universal
is to rely on their formal adoption by virtually all countries that have endorsed the UDHR or
have ratified human rights treaties. Cultural relativists claim that human rights are based on
values that are determined culturally and vary from one society to another, rather than being
universal.21 There are several variants of this position. One is the so-called “Asian values”
argument, according to which human rights is a Western idea, which is at odds with the way in
which leaders in Asian societies provide for the needs of their people without making the
individual supreme, prioritizing instead the value of societal harmony and the good of the
collective. 22 A related view holds that the concept of human rights is a tool of Western
imperialism used to disguise political, economic and military ambitions of Western nations
against those in the developing world.23 A third is the “clash of civilizations” argument that only
the liberal West, among the roughly seven civilizations in the world, is capable of realizing
human rights since the other civilizations lack sufficient sense of the individual and the rule of
law.24 This issue of compatibility of human rights with diverse belief systems and religions has
special geopolitical repercussions in relation to Islam, for example, on which views are
divided25 and has been of considerable interest since the “Arab Spring” of 2011, in which both
Islamic and human rights values motivated peoples across the Middle East and North Africa to
overthrow deeply entrenched dictatorships, with very mixed results, and the emergence of
extremist terrorist organizations claiming to act according to their interpretation of Islam.

The World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993) addressed the general question of
balancing universal and cultural claims with this compromise language: All human rights are
universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must
treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same
emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical,
cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of
their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and
fundamental freedoms.27 This statement nevertheless captures an important feature of human
rights today, namely, that they are universal but must be realized in the context of the prevailing
values of each society. To understand fully the challenge such contextualization represents we
need to examine the means and methods through which universally accepted human rights are
put into practice.
How are human rights put into practice?

Human rights are traditionally studied in a global context through (1) the norm creating
processes, which result in global human rights standards and (2) the norm enforcement
processes, which seek to translate laudable goals into tangible practices. In addition, there are (3)
continuing and new challenges to the effectiveness of this normative regime.

1. The norm-creating process

The norm-creating process refers to authoritative decision-making that results in the formal
acknowledgement of specific rights and obligations in a given society and clarifies what is
expected to realize the rights in practice. The typical norm-creating process in international
human rights regarding a social issue begins with expression of concern by a delegate at a
meeting of a political body and lobbying for co-sponsors to a resolution, which is eventually
adopted by that body. Once the issue is on the agenda, a political body may then commission a
study, eventually leading to drafting a declaration, and then a convention, which has to be
ratified and enter into force and is possibly followed by the adoption of an optional protocol
providing for complaints procedures. All the major human rights issues, such as torture,
women’s rights, racial discrimination, disappearances, rights of children and of persons with
disabilities, went through these phases, lasting from ten to thirty years or more. This is how the
body of human rights norms has expanded considerably from the International Bill of Human
Rights to the current array of several hundred global and regional treaties. Following a related
process, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, have been addressed by other
treaties calling for criminal prosecutions of perpetrators.

2. The norm-enforcing process

Defining human rights is not enough; measures must be taken to ensure that they are respected,
promoted and fulfilled. In the domestic legal system, law is binding and the courts and the police
use force to compel compliance. In the international human rights regime, law is not treated in
quite the same way. The term “enforcement,” for example, refers to coerced compliance, which
is rare, while most efforts focus on “implementation”, that is, as wide range of supervision,
monitoring and general efforts to make duty-holders accountable. Implementation is further
subdivided into promotion (i.e., preventive measures that seek to ensure respect for human rights
in the future) and protection (i.e., responses to violations that have occurred in the past or are
ongoing). The means and methods of implementation may be summarized in three forms of
promotion and five forms of protection. Promotion of human rights is achieved through
developing awareness, standard setting and interpretation, and creation of national institutions.
Awareness of human rights is a precondition to acting on them and is advanced though
dissemination of knowledge (e.g., publications, information campaigns) and human rights
education at all levels. Second is standard-setting, the drafting of human rights texts, in which the
UN Commission on Human Rights, established in 1946, played a central role until it was
replaced in 2006 by the Human Rights Council. Numerous other bodies in the UN system, such
as the Commission on the Status of Women, and UN Specialized Agencies (such as the
International Labour Organization and UNESCO), as well as the regional organizations (Council
of Europe, Organization of American States, African Union, League of Arab States, Association
of Southeast Asian Nations) adopt and monitor other international human rights texts. The third
preventive or promotional means of implementation is national institution building, which
includes improvements in the judiciary and law enforcement institutions and the creation of
specialized bodies such as national commissions for human rights and offices of an ombudsman.

The protection of human rights involves a complex web of national and international
mechanisms to monitor, judge, urge, denounce, and coerce states, as well as to provide relief to
victims. Monitoring compliance with international standards is carried out through the reporting
and complaints procedures of the UN treaty bodies and regional human rights commissions and
courts. States are required to submit reports and the monitoring body— often guided by
information provided by NGOs—which examines progress and problems with a view to guiding
the reporting country to do better. The Human Rights Council also carries out a Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) of all countries, regardless of treaty ratification. Several optional
procedures allow individuals and groups (and sometimes other states) to petition these bodies for
a determination of violations. The quasi-judicial bodies (such as the Human Rights Committee or
the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) utilize various forms of fact-finding
and investigation and issue their views so that governments can take action to live up to their
human rights obligations. “Special procedures” refer to UN working groups, independent experts
and special rapporteurs or representatives mandated to study countries or issues, including taking
on cases of alleged violations, going on mission to countries and institutions, and to report back
on their findings and request redress from governments. The “thematic” rapporteurs are
specifically mandated to study issues such as forced disappearances, summary executions,
torture, toxic waste, and the rights to health, adequate food and housing. As of 2015 there were
some 41 “thematic mandates”. In addition, there were 14 “country mandates” covering Belarus,
Cambodia, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Eritrea, Haiti, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mali, Myanmar, Palestinian Territories, Somalia, Sudan
and Syrian Arab Republic. The second means of protection is adjudication of cases by fully
empowered courts, the main international ones being the International Court of Justice (which
can only decide cases between states that agree to submit their dispute to the Court), the
International Criminal Court (which can try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity,
war crimes and the crime of aggression), as well as the regional courts, namely, the European
Court of Human Rights (open to persons within the 47 member states of the Council of Europe);
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (open to the 25 states parties—23 active parties—to
the American Convention on Human Rights); and the African Court of Justice and Human
Rights (open to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, individuals and
accredited NGOs from those of the 54 African Union members that have ratified the protocol
establishing the Court, numbering 30 in 2016). Political supervision refers to the acts of
influential bodies made up of representatives of states, including resolutions judging the policies
and practices of states. The UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Assembly of the Organization of
American States, all have adopted politically significant resolutions denouncing governments for
violations of human rights and demanding that they redress the situation and often that they
provide compensation to the victims. Parliamentary Commissions and National Human Rights
Commissions, as well as local and international NGOs, also follow-up their investigations with
firmly worded and politically significant demands for change. This form of sanction may appear
toothless since it is not backed up with coercive force; nevertheless, in practice many
governments take quite seriously the pronouncements of such bodies and go to considerable
lengths to avoid such political “naming and shaming,” including by improving their human rights
performance. The seventh means of responding to human rights violations is through
humanitarian relief or assistance. Provision of food, blankets, tents, medical services, sanitary
assistance, and other forms of aid save lives and improve health of persons forcibly displaced,
often as a result of large-scale human rights violations. Refugees and internally displaced persons
come under the protection of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which
deploys massive amounts of aid, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the
International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF),
the World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and other agencies, as well as
major NGOs like Oxfam, Care, and the International Rescue Committee.

Finally, the use of coercion is available only to the UN Security Council, which can use its
powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to impose sanctions, cut off communications, create
ad hoc criminal tribunals, and authorize the use of force by member states or deploy UN troops
to put an end to a threat to international peace and security, which it has on occasion interpreted
to include human rights violations. Human rights considerations were part of the use of Chapter
VII in Cambodia, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq and other locations.

3. Continuing and new challenges to human rights realization

The adoption of norms and the implementation of accountability procedures are not enough to
eliminate the deeper causes of human rights deprivation. The most salient challenges to the
effectiveness of human rights at the global level relate to the reliance on the state to take
responsibility for correcting its ways; structural issues of the global economy favoring the
maximization of profits in ways over which human rights machinery has little or no control or
impact; and cultural conditions based on patriarchy, class, caste and ethnicity, which only change
slowly over time as power relations and mentalities change. In all these arenas, human rights are
highly political: to the extent that they are truly relevant to people’s lives they challenge the
state, the political economy and cultural traditions. At the same time, they offer a normative
framework for individuals and collectivities to organize for change, so that state legitimacy is
measured by human rights performance, the political economy is freed from gross economic
disparities and social inequities, and cultural identity is preserved and cherished in ways that are
consistent with prevailing values of individual autonomy and freedom. Appeals to human rights
in bringing about such change is usually supported, at least rhetorically, by the community of
nations and, in progressively more meaningful and effective ways, by networks of solidarity that
have profoundly changed societies in the past. That is how practices such as slavery, apartheid,
colonialism, and exclusions of all sorts have been largely eliminated. Similarly, environmental
degradation, poverty, terrorism, no representative government, discrimination based on sexual
orientation and an expanding array of other challenges in the 21st century will continue to test
the value of human rights as a normative and institutional guide to policy and practice.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed in
Paris, France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It defines the aspirations of the
international community to be guided by its 30 articles in national and international policy. This
is the full text of the Declaration:

PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the
highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law,
 Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for
the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples
and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for
these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him.
Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through
freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be
expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and
shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization,
through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization
and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his
dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself
and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other
means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and
periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary
social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether
born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and
fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional
education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to
all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his
personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations
as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the
rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and
the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms set forth herein.
 Conclusion

We started by asking whether human rights have to be considered only in legal terms and saw
that there are at least three modes of discourse concerning human rights: legal, philosophical and
advocacy. All three overlap, although historically people have risen up against injustices for
millennia and made respect for dignity integral to ethical and religious thinking, whereas the
enumeration of codes of universal human rights has a much shorter history, dating primarily
from the 18th century and especially from the inaugural moment of the UDHR in making human
rights an explicit feature of the post-World War II international legal order. We have examined
what “universal” means in a world of conflicting ideologies, religions, beliefs and values and
reviewed the content of the normative propositions accepted as belonging to this category of
“universal human rights,” while sounding a cautionary note about taking their separation into
two major categories too literally. Finally, we examined the processes by which human rights
norms are recognized and put into practice and referred to several challenges facing the 21st
century. In the coming decades, we can expect gaps to be filled in the institutional machinery of
Africa and Asia, and in making ESCR genuinely equal in importance to CPR, as well as in the
clarification of human rights standards in such areas as sexual orientation and advances in
science and technology, while refining the means and methods of human rights promotion and
protection. The essential value of human rights thinking and action, however, is unlikely to
change: it has served and will continue to serve as a gauge of the legitimacy of government, a
guide to setting the priorities for human progress, and a basis for consensus over what values can
be shared across diverse ideologies and cultures.
 Reference

Sources of human rights information:

1. University of Minnesota human rights
library (includes links to UN, other
organizations, training and education, and
centers for rehabilitation of torture survivors):
[Link]
2. International Service for Human Rights:
[Link]
3. Business and Human Rights:
[Link]
4. Equipo Nizkor: [Link]
5. New Tactics in Human Rights:
[Link]
6. Human Rights Internet (HRI):
[Link]
7. UPR Info: [Link]
C. Non-Governmental Organizations
1. Amnesty International:
[Link]
2. The Center for Economic and Social Rights
(CESR): [Link]
3. Human Rights First:
[Link]
4. Human Rights Watch: [Link]
5. International Commission of Jurists:
[Link]
6. International Federation for Human Rights
(FIDH): [Link]
7. Peoples Movement for Human Rights
Learning: [Link]
 Glossary

Jurisprudence Jurisprudence, or legal theory, is the theoretical study of the

propriety of law.
Conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or
Decent
moral behavior.
Relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing
Ethical
with these.
Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an
Invoking
action or in support of an argument.
Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for
Altruism happiness of other human beings or other animals, resulting in a
quality of life both material and spiritual.
the process of making people obey a law or rule, or making a
Enforcement
particular situation happen or be accepted

Equivalent equal in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.

Constitutional Relating to an established set of principles governing a state.

Insisting on immediate attention or obedience, especially in a

Peremptory
brusquely imperious way.
Capital punishment, also called death penalty, execution of an
Death penalty offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a
criminal offense.
not subject to being taken away from or given away by the
Inalienable
possessor.

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Contextualization the fact or process of considering something in its context

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

URP universal Render Pipeline

A rapporteur is a person who is appointed by an organization to

Rapporteur
report on the proceedings of its meetings.
a fee paid to an agent or employee for transacting a piece of
Commissions
business or performing a service

Cherished protect and care for (someone) lovingly.

Tyranny cruel and oppressive government or rule.

Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their

Dignity
own sake, and to be treated ethically.

Widowhood the state or period of being a widow or widower.