Human rights

Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of the

world's first documents containing commitments
by a sovereign to his people to respect certain
legal rights

Human rights are moral principles or

norms[1] that describe certain standards
of human behaviour and are regularly
protected as natural and legal rights in
municipal and international law.[2] They
are commonly understood as
inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to
which a person is inherently entitled
simply because she or he is a human
being"[4] and which are "inherent in all
human beings",[5] regardless of their
nation, location, language, religion,
ethnic origin, or any other status.[3] They
are applicable everywhere and at every
time in the sense of being universal,[1]
and they are egalitarian in the sense of
being the same for everyone.[3] They are
regarded as requiring empathy and the
rule of law[6] and imposing an obligation
on persons to respect the human rights
of others,[1][3] and it is generally
considered that they should not be taken
away except as a result of due process
based on specific circumstances;[3] for
example, human rights may include
freedom from unlawful imprisonment,
torture, and execution.[7]

The doctrine of human rights has been

highly influential within international law
and global and regional institutions.[3]
Actions by states and non-governmental
organisations form a basis of public
policy worldwide. The idea of human
rights[8] suggests that "if the public
discourse of peacetime global society
can be said to have a common moral
language, it is that of human rights". The
strong claims made by the doctrine of
human rights continue to provoke
considerable scepticism and debates
about the content, nature and
justifications of human rights to this day.
The precise meaning of the term right is
controversial and is the subject of
continued philosophical debate;[9] while
there is consensus that human rights
encompasses a wide variety of rights[5]
such as the right to a fair trial, protection
against enslavement, prohibition of
genocide, free speech[10] or a right to
education, there is disagreement about
which of these particular rights should
be included within the general framework
of human rights;[1] some thinkers
suggest that human rights should be a
minimum requirement to avoid the
worst-case abuses, while others see it as
a higher standard.[1][11]

Many of the basic ideas that animated

the human rights movement developed
in the aftermath of the Second World
War and the events of the Holocaust,[6]
culminating in the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
Paris by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1948. Ancient peoples did
not have the same modern-day
conception of universal human rights.[12]
The true forerunner of human rights
discourse was the concept of natural
rights which appeared as part of the
medieval natural law tradition that
became prominent during the European
Enlightenment with such philosophers
as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and
Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and which
featured prominently in the political
discourse of the American Revolution
and the French Revolution.[6] From this
foundation, the modern human rights
arguments emerged over the latter half
of the 20th century,[13] possibly as a
reaction to slavery, torture, genocide and
war crimes,[6] as a realisation of inherent
human vulnerability and as being a
precondition for the possibility of a just
society.[5]

History

U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the

Continental Congress on 4 July 1776

Ancient peoples did not have the same

modern-day conception of universal
human rights.[12] The true forerunner of
human-rights discourse was the concept
of natural rights which appeared as part
of the medieval natural law tradition that
became prominent during the European
Enlightenment. From this foundation, the
modern human rights arguments
emerged over the latter half of the 20th
century.[13]

17th-century English philosopher John

Locke discussed natural rights in his
work, identifying them as being "life,
liberty, and estate (property)", and argued
that such fundamental rights could not
be surrendered in the social contract. In
Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights
and the Scottish Claim of Right each
made illegal a range of oppressive
governmental actions.[14] Two major
revolutions occurred during the 18th
century, in the United States (1776) and
in France (1789), leading to the United
States Declaration of Independence and
the French Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen respectively, both
of which articulated certain human
rights. Additionally, the Virginia
Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded
into law a number of fundamental civil
rights and civil freedoms.

We hold these truths to be self-

evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are
 endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

— United States
Declaration of
Independence, 1776

1800 to World War I

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
approved by the National Assembly of France, 26
August 1789

Philosophers such as Thomas Paine,

John Stuart Mill and Hegel expanded on
the theme of universality during the 18th
and 19th centuries. In 1831 William Lloyd
Garrison wrote in a newspaper called
The Liberator that he was trying to enlist
his readers in "the great cause of human
rights"[15] so the term human rights
probably came into use sometime
between Paine's The Rights of Man and
Garrison's publication. In 1849 a
contemporary, Henry David Thoreau,
wrote about human rights in his treatise
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience [2]
which was later influential on human
rights and civil rights thinkers. United
States Supreme Court Justice David
Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte
Milligan, wrote "By the protection of the
law, human rights are secured; withdraw
that protection and they are at the mercy
of wicked rulers or the clamor of an
excited people."[16]
Many groups and movements have
managed to achieve profound social
changes over the course of the 20th
century in the name of human rights. In
Western Europe and North America,
labour unions brought about laws
granting workers the right to strike,
establishing minimum work conditions
and forbidding or regulating child labour.
The women's rights movement
succeeded in gaining for many women
the right to vote. National liberation
movements in many countries
succeeded in driving out colonial
powers. One of the most influential was
Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his
native India from British rule. Movements
by long-oppressed racial and religious
minorities succeeded in many parts of
the world, among them the civil rights
movement, and more recent diverse
identity politics movements, on behalf of
women and minorities in the United
States.

The foundation of the International

Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864
Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva
Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations
of International humanitarian law, to be
further developed following the two
World Wars.

Between World War I and World War

II

The League of Nations was established

in 1919 at the negotiations over the
Treaty of Versailles following the end of
World War I. The League's goals included
disarmament, preventing war through
collective security, settling disputes
between countries through negotiation,
diplomacy and improving global welfare.
Enshrined in its Charter was a mandate
to promote many of the rights which
were later included in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

The League of Nations had mandates to

support many of the former colonies of
the Western European colonial powers
during their transition from colony to
independent state.

Established as an agency of the League

of Nations, and now part of United
Nations, the International Labour
Organization also had a mandate to
promote and safeguard certain of the
rights later included in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

the primary goal of the ILO

today is to promote
opportunities for women and
men to obtain decent and
productive work, in conditions
 of freedom, equity, security and
human dignity.

— Report by the Director

General for the
International Labour
Conference 87th Session

After World War II

On the issue of "universal", the

declarations did not apply to domestic
discrimination or racism.[17] Henry J.
Richardson III has argued:

All major governments at the time of

drafting the U.N. charter and the
Universal declaration did their best to
 ensure, by all means known to
domestic and international law, that
these principles had only international
application and carried no legal
obligation on those governments to be
implemented domestically. All tacitly
realized that for their own
discriminated-against minorities to
acquire leverage on the basis of legally
being able to claim enforcement of
these wide-reaching rights would
create pressures that would be
political dynamite.[18]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well
become the international Magna Carta."[19] Eleanor
Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1949

The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding
declaration adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly[20] in 1948,
partly in response to the barbarism of
World War II. The UDHR urges member
nations to promote a number of human,
civil, economic and social rights,
asserting these rights are part of the
"foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world". The declaration was
the first international legal effort to limit
the behavior of states and press upon
them duties to their citizens following
the model of the rights-duty duality.

...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

— Preamble to the
Universal Declaration of
 Human Rights, 1948

The UDHR was framed by members of

the Human Rights Commission, with
Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began
to discuss an International Bill of Rights
in 1947. The members of the
Commission did not immediately agree
on the form of such a bill of rights, and
whether, or how, it should be enforced.
The Commission proceeded to frame the
UDHR and accompanying treaties, but
the UDHR quickly became the priority.[21]
Canadian law professor John Humprey
and French lawyer Rene Cassin were
responsible for much of the cross-
national research and the structure of
the document respectively, where the
articles of the declaration were
interpretative of the general principle of
the preamble. The document was
structured by Cassin to include the basic
principles of dignity, liberty, equality and
brotherhood in the first two articles,
followed successively by rights
pertaining to individuals; rights of
individuals in relation to each other and
to groups; spiritual, public and political
rights; and economic, social and cultural
rights. The final three articles place,
according to Cassin, rights in the context
of limits, duties and the social and
political order in which they are to be
realized.[21] Humphrey and Cassin
intended the rights in the UDHR to be
legally enforceable through some
means, as is reflected in the third clause
of the preamble:[21]

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.

— Preamble to the
Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948
Some of the UDHR was researched and
written by a committee of international
experts on human rights, including
representatives from all continents and
all major religions, and drawing on
consultation with leaders such as
Mahatma Gandhi.[22] The inclusion of
both civil and political rights and
economic, social and cultural rights[21][23]
was predicated on the assumption that
basic human rights are indivisible and
that the different types of rights listed
are inextricably linked. Though this
principle was not opposed by any
member states at the time of adoption
(the declaration was adopted
unanimously, with the abstention of the
Soviet bloc, Apartheid South Africa and
Saudi Arabia), this principle was later
subject to significant challenges.[23]

The onset of the Cold War soon after the

UDHR was conceived brought to the fore
divisions over the inclusion of both
economic and social rights and civil and
political rights in the declaration.
Capitalist states tended to place strong
emphasis on civil and political rights
(such as freedom of association and
expression), and were reluctant to
include economic and social rights (such
as the right to work and the right to join a
union). Socialist states placed much
greater importance on economic and
social rights and argued strongly for
their inclusion.[24]

Because of the divisions over which

rights to include, and because some
states declined to ratify any treaties
including certain specific interpretations
of human rights, and despite the Soviet
bloc and a number of developing
countries arguing strongly for the
inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity
Resolution, the rights enshrined in the
UDHR were split into two separate
covenants, allowing states to adopt
some rights and derogate others.
Though this allowed the covenants to be
created, it denied the proposed principle
that all rights are linked which was
central to some interpretations of the
UDHR.[24][25]

Although the UDHR is a non-binding

resolution, it is now considered to be a
central component of international
customary law which may be invoked
under appropriate circumstances by
national and other judiciaries.[26]

Human Rights Treaties

In 1966, the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were
adopted by the United Nations, between
them making the rights contained in the
UDHR binding on all states.[27] However,
they came into force only in 1976, when
they were ratified by a sufficient number
of countries (despite achieving the
ICCPR, a covenant including no
economic or social rights, the US only
ratified the ICCPR in 1992).[28] The
ICESCR commits 155 state parties to
work toward the granting of economic,
social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to
individuals.

Since then numerous other treaties

(pieces of legislation) have been offered
at the international level. They are
generally known as human rights
instruments. Some of the most
significant are:

Convention on the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(adopted 1948, entry into force: 1951)
[3]
Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
(adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969)
[4]
Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) (entry into force:
1981) [5]
United Nations Convention Against
Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry
 into force: 1984) [6]
Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force:
1989) Convention on the Rights of the
Child
International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of their
Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)
Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) (entry into force:
2002)

International bodies
The United Nations
The UN General Assembly

The United Nations (UN) is the only

multilateral governmental agency with
universally accepted international
jurisdiction for universal human rights
legislation.[29] All UN organs have
advisory roles to the United Nations
Security Council and the United Nations
Human Rights Council, and there are
numerous committees within the UN
with responsibilities for safeguarding
different human rights treaties. The most
senior body of the UN with regard to
human rights is the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The
United Nations has an international
mandate to:

...achieve international co-

operation in solving
international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or
humanitarian character, and
in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for
all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion.
 — Article 1–3 of the United
Nations Charter

Protection in the
international level
Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights

Council, created at the 2005 World
Summit to replace the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, has a
mandate to investigate violations of
human rights.[30] The Human Rights
Council is a subsidiary body of the
General Assembly[31] and reports directly
to it. It ranks below the Security Council,
which is the final authority for the
interpretation of the United Nations
Charter.[32] Forty-seven of the one
hundred ninety-one member states sit on
the council, elected by simple majority in
a secret ballot of the United Nations
General Assembly. Members serve a
maximum of six years and may have
their membership suspended for gross
human rights abuses. The Council is
based in Geneva, and meets three times
a year; with additional meetings to
respond to urgent situations.[33]

Independent experts (rapporteurs) are

retained by the Council to investigate
alleged human rights abuses and to
provide the Council with reports.

The Human Rights Council may request

that the Security Council refer cases to
the International Criminal Court (ICC)
even if the issue being referred is outside
the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[34]

UN treaty bodies

In addition to the political bodies whose

mandate flows from the UN charter, the
UN has set up a number of treaty-based
bodies, comprising committees of
independent experts who monitor
compliance with human rights standards
and norms flowing from the core
international human rights treaties. They
are supported by and are created by the
treaty that they monitor, With the
exception of the CESCR, which was
established under a resolution of the
Economic and Social Council to carry out
the monitoring functions originally
assigned to that body under the
Covenant, they are technically
autonomous bodies, established by the
treaties that they monitor and
accountable to the state parties of those
treaties – rather than subsidiary to the
United Nations, though in practice they
are closely intertwined with the United
Nations system and are supported by
the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNHCHR) and the UN Centre for
Human Rights.[35]

The Human Rights Committee

promotes participation with the
standards of the ICCPR. The members
of the committee express opinions on
member countries and make
judgments on individual complaints
against countries which have ratified
an Optional Protocol to the treaty. The
judgments, termed "views", are not
legally binding. The member of the
committee meets around three times
a year to hold sessions[36]
The Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights monitors the
ICESCR and makes general comments
on ratifying countries performance. It
will have the power to receive
complaints against the countries that
opted into the Optional Protocol once
it has come into force. It is important
to note that unlike the other treaty
bodies, the economic committee is
not an autonomous body responsible
to the treaty parties, but directly
responsible to the Economic and
Social Council and ultimately to the
General Assembly. This means that
the Economic Committee faces
particular difficulties at its disposal
only relatively "weak" means of
implementation in comparison to
other treaty bodies.[37] Particular
difficulties noted by commentators
include: perceived vagueness of the
principles of the treaty, relative lack of
legal texts and decisions, ambivalence
of many states in addressing
economic, social and cultural rights,
comparatively few non-governmental
organisations focused on the area and
problems with obtaining relevant and
precise information.[37][38]
The Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination monitors the
CERD and conducts regular reviews of
countries' performance. It can make
judgments on complaints against
member states allowing it, but these
are not legally binding. It issues
warnings to attempt to prevent serious
contraventions of the convention.
The Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women
monitors the CEDAW. It receives
states' reports on their performance
and comments on them, and can
make judgments on complaints
against countries which have opted
into the 1999 Optional Protocol.
The Committee Against Torture
monitors the CAT and receives states'
reports on their performance every
four years and comments on them. Its
subcommittee may visit and inspect
countries which have opted into the
Optional Protocol.
The Committee on the Rights of the
Child monitors the CRC and makes
comments on reports submitted by
states every five years. It does not
have the power to receive complaints.
The Committee on Migrant Workers
was established in 2004 and monitors
the ICRMW and makes comments on
reports submitted by states every five
years. It will have the power to receive
complaints of specific violations only
once ten member states allow it.
The Committee on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities was
established in 2008 to monitor the
Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities. It has the power to
receive complaints against the
countries which have opted into the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Committee on Enforced
Disappearances monitors the ICPPED.
All States parties are obliged to submit
reports to the Committee on how the
rights are being implemented. The
Committee examines each report and
addresses its concerns and
 recommendations to the State party in
the form of "concluding observations".

Each treaty body receives secretariat

support from the Human Rights Council
and Treaties Division of Office of the
High Commissioner on Human Rights
(OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW,
which is supported by the Division for
the Advancement of Women (DAW).
CEDAW formerly held all its sessions at
United Nations headquarters in New
York but now frequently meets at the
United Nations Office in Geneva; the
other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The
Human Rights Committee usually holds
its March session in New York City.
Regional human rights
There are many regional agreements and
organizations promoting and governing
human rights.

Africa

Flag of the African Union

The African Union (AU) is a

supranational union consisting of fifty-
five African states.[39] Established in
2001, the AU's purpose is to help secure
Africa's democracy, human rights, and a
sustainable economy, especially by
bringing an end to intra-African conflict
and creating an effective common
market.[40]

The African Commission on Human and

Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-
judicial organ of the African Union
tasked with promoting and protecting
human rights and collective (peoples')
rights throughout the African continent
as well as interpreting the African
Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
and considering individual complaints of
violations of the Charter. The
Commission has three broad areas of
responsibility:[41]

Promoting human and peoples' rights

Protecting human and peoples' rights
Interpreting the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights

In pursuit of these goals, the

Commission is mandated to "collect
documents, undertake studies and
researches on African problems in the
field of human and peoples, rights,
organise seminars, symposia and
conferences, disseminate information,
encourage national and local institutions
concerned with human and peoples'
rights and, should the case arise, give its
views or make recommendations to
governments" (Charter, Art. 45).[41]

With the creation of the African Court on

Human and Peoples' Rights (under a
protocol to the Charter which was
adopted in 1998 and entered into force in
January 2004), the Commission will have
the additional task of preparing cases
for submission to the Court's
jurisdiction.[42] In a July 2004 decision,
the AU Assembly resolved that the future
Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
would be integrated with the African
Court of Justice.

The Court of Justice of the African Union

is intended to be the "principal judicial
organ of the Union" (Protocol of the
Court of Justice of the African Union,
Article 2.2).[43] Although it has not yet
been established, it is intended to take
over the duties of the African
Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights, as well as act as the supreme
court of the African Union, interpreting
all necessary laws and treaties. The
Protocol establishing the African Court
on Human and Peoples' Rights entered
into force in January 2004[44] but its
merging with the Court of Justice has
delayed its establishment. The Protocol
establishing the Court of Justice will
come into force when ratified by 15
countries.[45]
There are many countries in Africa
accused of human rights violations by
the international community and
NGOs.[46]

Americas

The Organization of American States

(OAS) is an international organization,
headquartered in Washington, D.C.,
United States. Its members are the thirty-
five independent states of the Americas.
Over the course of the 1990s, with the
end of the Cold War, the return to
democracy in Latin America, and the
thrust toward globalization, the OAS
made major efforts to reinvent itself to
fit the new context. Its stated priorities
now include the following:[47]

Strengthening democracy
Working for peace
Protecting human rights
Combating corruption
The rights of Indigenous Peoples
Promoting sustainable development

The Inter-American Commission on

Human Rights (the IACHR) is an
autonomous organ of the Organization
of American States, also based in
Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights, based
in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the
bodies that comprise the inter-American
system for the promotion and protection
of human rights.[48] The IACHR is a
permanent body which meets in regular
and special sessions several times a
year to examine allegations of human
rights violations in the hemisphere. Its
human rights duties stem from three
documents:[49]

the OAS Charter

the American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man
the American Convention on Human
Rights

The Inter-Americal Court of Human

Rights was established in 1979 with the
purpose of enforcing and interpreting the
provisions of the American Convention
on Human Rights. Its two main functions
are thus adjudicatory and advisory.
Under the former, it hears and rules on
the specific cases of human rights
violations referred to it. Under the latter,
it issues opinions on matters of legal
interpretation brought to its attention by
other OAS bodies or member states.[50]

Asia
Membership and expansion of the Asia
Cooperation Dialogue. Note that the Republic of
China (Taiwan) is recognised or acknowledged by
the member states as part of the People's Republic

of China (PRC), but de facto does not have any

representation.

There are no Asia-wide organisations or

conventions to promote or protect
human rights. Countries vary widely in
their approach to human rights and their
record of human rights protection.
The Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN)[51] is a geo-political and
economic organization of 10 countries
located in Southeast Asia, which was
formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand.[52] The organisation now also
includes Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam,
Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.[51] In
October 2009, the ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights was inaugurated, and
subsequently, the ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration was adopted unanimously
by ASEAN members on 18 November
2012.
The Arab Charter on Human Rights
(ACHR) was adopted by the Council of
the League of Arab States on 22 May
2004.

Middle East

Human rights abuse in the Middle East is

a common subject of criticism. Ahmed
Mansoor has become a household name
across globe for being detained in a
solitary confinement of the isolation
ward at the Al-Sadr Prison, Abu Dhabi. He
was jailed for 10 years on 29 May 2018
for criticizing UAE government's abuse of
human rights. The prominent human
rights advocate was hacked in a state
surveillance operation, in which his
iPhone was hacked and monitored by the
UAE government. He reportedly went on
a second hunger strike on 30 September
2019, after he was severely beaten up for
protesting against his arrest.[53]

Europe

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

The Council of Europe, founded in 1949,

is the oldest organisation working for
European integration. It is an
international organisation with legal
personality recognised under public
international law and has observer
status with the United Nations. The seat
of the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg
in France. The Council of Europe is
responsible for both the European
Convention on Human Rights and the
European Court of Human Rights.[54]
These institutions bind the Council's
members to a code of human rights
which, though strict, are more lenient
than those of the United Nations charter
on human rights. The Council also
promotes the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages and the
European Social Charter.[55] Membership
is open to all European states which
seek European integration, accept the
principle of the rule of law and are able
and willing to guarantee democracy,
fundamental human rights and
freedoms.[56]

The Council of Europe is separate from

the European Union, but the latter is
expected to accede to the European
Convention and potentially the Council
itself. The EU also has a separate human
rights document; the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European
Union.[57]

The European Convention on Human

Rights defines and guarantees since
1950 human rights and fundamental
freedoms in Europe.[58] All 47 member
states of the Council of Europe have
signed this Convention and are therefore
under the jurisdiction of the European
Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.[58]
In order to prevent torture and inhuman
or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the
Convention), the European Committee
for the Prevention of Torture was
established.[59]

Philosophies of human
rights
Several theoretical approaches have
been advanced to explain how and why
human rights become part of social
expectations.

One of the oldest Western philosophies

on human rights is that they are a
product of a natural law, stemming from
different philosophical or religious
grounds.

Other theories hold that human rights

codify moral behavior which is a human
social product developed by a process of
biological and social evolution
(associated with Hume). Human rights
are also described as a sociological
pattern of rule setting (as in the
sociological theory of law and the work
of Weber). These approaches include the
notion that individuals in a society
accept rules from legitimate authority in
exchange for security and economic
advantage (as in Rawls) – a social
contract.

Natural rights

Natural law theories base human rights

on a "natural" moral, religious or even
biological order which is independent of
transitory human laws or traditions.

Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato

and Aristotle, posited the existence of
natural justice or natural right (dikaion
physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius
naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said
to be the father of natural law,[60]
although evidence for this is due largely
to the interpretations of his work of
Thomas Aquinas.[61]

The development of this tradition of

natural justice into one of natural law is
usually attributed to the Stoics.[62]

Some of the early Church fathers sought

to incorporate the until then pagan
concept of natural law into Christianity.
Natural law theories have featured
greatly in the philosophies of Thomas
Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard
Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius,
Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke.
In the Seventeenth Century Thomas
Hobbes founded a contractualist theory
of legal positivism on what all men could
agree upon: what they sought
(happiness) was subject to contention,
but a broad consensus could form
around what they feared (violent death at
the hands of another). The natural law
was how a rational human being,
seeking to survive and prosper, would
act. It was discovered by considering
humankind's natural rights, whereas
previously it could be said that natural
rights were discovered by considering
the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the
only way natural law could prevail was
for men to submit to the commands of
the sovereign. In this lay the foundations
of the theory of a social contract
between the governed and the governor.

Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of

international law on natural law. He
wrote that "even the will of an
omnipotent being cannot change or
abrogate" natural law, which "would
maintain its objective validity even if we
should assume the impossible, that
there is no God or that he does not care
for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis,
Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous
argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse
Deum), that made natural law no longer
dependent on theology.
John Locke incorporated natural law into
many of his theories and philosophy,
especially in Two Treatises of
Government. Locke turned Hobbes'
prescription around, saying that if the
ruler went against natural law and failed
to protect "life, liberty, and property,"
people could justifiably overthrow the
existing state and create a new one.

The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van

Dun is one among those who are
elaborating a secular conception[63] of
natural law in the liberal tradition. There
are also emerging and secular forms of
natural law theory that define human
rights as derivative of the notion of
universal human dignity.[64]

The term "human rights" has replaced

the term "natural rights" in popularity,
because the rights are less and less
frequently seen as requiring natural law
for their existence.[65]

Other theories of human rights

The philosopher John Finnis argues that

human rights are justifiable on the
grounds of their instrumental value in
creating the necessary conditions for
human well-being.[66][67] Interest theories
highlight the duty to respect the rights of
other individuals on grounds of self-
interest:

Human rights law, applied to a

State's own citizens serves the
interest of states, by, for
example, minimizing the risk of
violent resistance and protest
and by keeping the level of
dissatisfaction with the
government manageable

— Niraj Nathwani in
Rethinking refugee law[68]
The biological theory considers the
comparative reproductive advantage of
human social behavior based on
empathy and altruism in the context of
natural selection.[69][70][71]

Concepts in human rights

Indivisibility and categorization of
rights

The most common categorization of

human rights is to split them into civil
and political rights, and economic, social
and cultural rights.

Civil and political rights are enshrined in

articles 3 to 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in the
ICCPR. Economic, social and cultural
rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28
of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and in the ICESCR. The UDHR
included both economic, social and
cultural rights and civil and political
rights because it was based on the
principle that the different rights could
only successfully exist in combination:

The ideal of free human beings

enjoying civil and political
freedom and freedom from
fear and want can only be
achieved if conditions are
 created whereby everyone may
enjoy his civil and political
rights, as well as his social,
economic and cultural rights

— International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights
and the International
Covenant on Economic
Social and Cultural Rights,
1966

This is held to be true because without

civil and political rights the public cannot
assert their economic, social and
cultural rights. Similarly, without
livelihoods and a working society, the
public cannot assert or make use of civil
or political rights (known as the full belly
thesis)

Although accepted by the signaturies to

the UDHR, most of them do not in
practice give equal weight to the
different types of rights. Western
cultures have often given priority to civil
and political rights, sometimes at the
expense of economic and social rights
such as the right to work, to education,
health and housing. For example, in the
United States there is no universal
access to healthcare free at the point of
use.[72] That is not to say that Western
cultures have overlooked these rights
entirely (the welfare states that exist in
Western Europe are evidence of this).
Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and
Asian countries have tended to give
priority to economic, social and cultural
rights, but have often failed to provide
civil and political rights.

Another categorization, offered by Karel

Vasak, is that there are three generations
of human rights: first-generation civil and
political rights (right to life and political
participation), second-generation
economic, social and cultural rights
(right to subsistence) and third-
generation solidarity rights (right to
peace, right to clean environment). Out
of these generations, the third generation
is the most debated and lacks both legal
and political recognition. This
categorisation is at odds with the
indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly
states that some rights can exist without
others. Prioritisation of rights for
pragmatic reasons is however a widely
accepted necessity. Human rights expert
Philip Alston argues:

If every possible human rights

element is deemed to be
essential or necessary, then
nothing will be treated as
though it is truly important.
 — Philip Alston[73]

He, and others, urge caution with

prioritisation of rights:

...the call for prioritizing is not

to suggest that any obvious
violations of rights can be
ignored.

— Philip Alston[73]

Priorities, where necessary,

should adhere to core concepts
(such as reasonable attempts
at progressive realization) and
 principles (such as non-
discrimination, equality and
participation.

— Olivia Ball, Paul

Gready[74]

Some human rights are said to be

"inalienable rights." The term inalienable
rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a
set of human rights that are
fundamental, are not awarded by human
power, and cannot be surrendered."

The adherence to the principle of

indivisibility by the international
community was reaffirmed in 1995:
 All human rights are universal,
indivisible and interdependent
and related. The international
community must treat human
rights globally in a fair and
equal manner, on the same
footing, and with the same
emphasis.

— Vienna Declaration and

Program of Action, World
Conference on Human
Rights, 1995

This statement was again endorsed at

the 2005 World Summit in New York
(paragraph 121).
Universalism vs cultural relativism

Map: Estimated Prevalence of Female Genital

Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain
estimates.

The UDHR enshrines, by definition, rights

that apply to all humans equally,
whichever geographical location, state,
race or culture they belong to.

Proponents of cultural relativism

suggest that human rights are not all
universal, and indeed conflict with some
cultures and threaten their survival.

Rights which are most often contested

with relativistic arguments are the rights
of women. For example, Female genital
mutilation occurs in different cultures in
Africa, Asia and South America. It is not
mandated by any religion, but has
become a tradition in many cultures. It is
considered a violation of women's and
girl's rights by much of the international
community, and is outlawed in some
countries.

Universalism has been described by

some as cultural, economic or political
imperialism. In particular, the concept of
human rights is often claimed to be
fundamentally rooted in a politically
liberal outlook which, although generally
accepted in Europe, Japan or North
America, is not necessarily taken as
standard elsewhere.

For example, in 1981, the Iranian

representative to the United Nations,
Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the
position of his country regarding the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
by saying that the UDHR was "a secular
understanding of the Judeo-Christian
tradition", which could not be
implemented by Muslims without
trespassing the Islamic law.[75] The
former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee
Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin
Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s
that Asian values were significantly
different from western values and
included a sense of loyalty and foregoing
personal freedoms for the sake of social
stability and prosperity, and therefore
authoritarian government is more
appropriate in Asia than democracy. This
view is countered by Mahathir's former
deputy:

To say that freedom is Western

or unAsian is to offend our
traditions as well as our
 forefathers, who gave their
lives in the struggle against
tyranny and injustices.

— Anwar Ibrahim in his

keynote speech to the Asian
Press Forum title Media
and Society in Asia, 2
December 1994

and also by Singapore's opposition

leader Chee Soon Juan who states that it
is racist to assert that Asians do not
want human rights.[76][77]

An appeal is often made to the fact that

influential human rights thinkers, such as
John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all
been Western and indeed that some
were involved in the running of Empires
themselves.[78][79]

Relativistic arguments tend to neglect

the fact that modern human rights are
new to all cultures, dating back no
further than the UDHR in 1948. They also
don't account for the fact that the UDHR
was drafted by people from many
different cultures and traditions,
including a US Roman Catholic, a
Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French
Zionist and a representative from the
Arab League, amongst others, and drew
upon advice from thinkers such as
Mahatma Gandhi.[23]

Michael Ignatieff has argued that

cultural relativism is almost exclusively
an argument used by those who wield
power in cultures which commit human
rights abuses, and that those who's
human rights are compromised are the
powerless.[80] This reflects the fact that
the difficulty in judging universalism
versus relativism lies in who is claiming
to represent a particular culture.

Although the argument between

universalism and relativism is far from
complete, it is an academic discussion
in that all international human rights
instruments adhere to the principle that
human rights are universally applicable.
The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the
international community's adherence to
this principle:

The universal nature of human

rights and freedoms is beyond
question.

— 2005 World Summit,

paragraph 120

State and non-state actors

Companies, NGOs, political parties,

informal groups, and individuals are
known as non-State actors. Non-State
actors can also commit human rights
abuses, but are not subject to human
rights law other than International
Humanitarian Law, which applies to
individuals.

Multi-national companies play an

increasingly large role in the world, and
are responsible for a large number of
human rights abuses.[81] Although the
legal and moral environment surrounding
the actions of governments is
reasonably well developed, that
surrounding multi-national companies is
both controversial and ill-defined. Multi-
national companies' primary
responsibility is to their shareholders,
not to those affected by their actions.
Such companies are often larger than
the economies of the states in which
they operate, and can wield significant
economic and political power. No
international treaties exist to specifically
cover the behavior of companies with
regard to human rights, and national
legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler,
Special Rapporteur of the UN
Commission on Human Rights on the
right to food stated in a report in 2003:

the growing power of

transnational corporations
 and their extension of power
through privatization,
deregulation and the rolling
back of the State also mean
that it is now time to develop
binding legal norms that hold
corporations to human rights
standards and circumscribe
potential abuses of their
position of power.

— Jean Ziegler[82]

In August 2003 the Human Rights

Commission's Sub-Commission on the
Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights produced draft Norms on the
responsibilities of transnational
corporations and other business
enterprises with regard to human
rights.[83] These were considered by the
Human Rights Commission in 2004, but
have no binding status on corporations
and are not monitored.[84]

Human rights law

Human rights vs national security
Extrajudicial detention of captives in Guantanamo
Bay.

Realism and national loyalties have been

described as a destructive influence on
the human rights movement because
they deny people's innately similar
human qualities.[85]

With the exception of non-derogable

human rights (international conventions
class the right to life, the right to be free
from slavery, the right to be free from
torture and the right to be free from
retroactive application of penal laws as
non-derogable[86]), the UN recognises
that human rights can be limited or even
pushed aside during times of national
emergency – although

the emergency must be actual,

affect the whole population
and the threat must be to the
very existence of the nation.
The declaration of emergency
must also be a last resort and a
temporary measure

— United Nations. The

Resource[86]

Rights that cannot be derogated for

reasons of national security in any
circumstances are known as peremptory
norms or jus cogens. Such International
law obligations are binding on all states
and cannot be modified by treaty.

Legal instruments and jurisdiction

The official logo of the ICC

The human rights enshrined in the UDHR,

the Geneva Conventions and the various
enforced treaties of the United Nations
are enforceable in law. In practice, many
rights are very difficult to legally enforce
due to the absence of consensus on the
application of certain rights, the lack of
relevant national legislation or of bodies
empowered to take legal action to
enforce them.

There exist a number of internationally

recognized organisations with worldwide
mandate or jurisdiction over certain
aspects of human rights:

The International Court of Justice is

the United Nations' primary judiciary
body.[87] It has worldwide jurisdiction.
It is directed by the Security Council.
The ICJ settles disputes between
nations. The ICJ does not have
jurisdiction over individuals.
The International Criminal Court is the
body responsible for investigating and
punishing war crimes, and Crimes
against humanity when such occur
within its jurisdiction, with a mandate
to bring to justice perpetrators of such
crimes that occurred after its creation
in 2002. A number of UN members
have not joined the court and the ICC
does not have jurisdiction over their
citizens, and others have signed but
not yet ratified the Rome Statute,
which established the court.[88]
The ICC and other international courts
(see Regional human rights above exist
to take action where the national legal
system of a state is unable to try the
case itself. If national law is able to
safeguard human rights and punish
those who breach human rights
legislation, it has primary jurisdiction by
complementarity. Only when all local
remedies have been exhausted does
international law take effect.[89]

In over 110 countries National human

rights institutions (NHRIs) have been set
up to protect, promote or monitor human
rights with jurisdiction in a given
country.[90] Although not all NHRIs are
compliant with the Paris Principles,[91]
the number and effect of these
institutions is increasing.[92] The Paris
Principles were defined at the first
International Workshop on National
Institutions for the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights in Paris on
7–9 October 1991, and adopted by
United Nations Human Rights
Commission Resolution 1992/54 of
1992 and the General Assembly
Resolution 48/134 of 1993. The Paris
Principles list a number of
responsibilities for national
institutions.[93]
Universal jurisdiction is a controversial
principle in international law whereby
states claim criminal jurisdiction over
persons whose alleged crimes were
committed outside the boundaries of the
prosecuting state, regardless of
nationality, country of residence, or any
other relation with the prosecuting
country. The state backs its claim on the
grounds that the crime committed is
considered a crime against all, which any
state is authorized to punish. The
concept of universal jurisdiction is
therefore closely linked to the idea that
certain international norms are erga
omnes, or owed to the entire world
community, as well as the concept of jus
cogens. In 1993 Belgium passed a law of
universal jurisdiction to give its courts
jurisdiction over crimes against
humanity in other countries, and in 1998
Augusto Pinochet was arrested in
London following an indictment by
Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon under the
universal jurisdiction principle.[94] The
principle is supported by Amnesty
International and other human rights
organisations as they believe certain
crimes pose a threat to the international
community as a whole and the
community has a moral duty to act, but
others, including Henry Kissinger (who
has himself been accused of war crimes
by several commentators[95][96][97]), argue
that state sovereignty is paramount,
because breaches of rights committed in
other countries are outside states'
sovereign interest and because states
could use the principle for political
reasons.[98]

Human rights violations

Human rights violations occur when any

state or non-state actor breaches any of
the terms of the UDHR or other
international human rights or
humanitarian law. In regard to human
rights violations of United Nations laws.
Article 39 of the United Nations Charter
designates the UN Security Council (or
an appointed authority) as the only
tribunal that may determine UN human
rights violations.

Human rights abuses are monitored by

United Nations committees, national
institutions and governments and by
many independent non-governmental
organizations, such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch,
World Organisation Against Torture,
Freedom House, International Freedom
of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery
International. These organisations
collect evidence and documentation of
human rights abuses and apply pressure
to promote human rights.
Wars of aggression, War crimes and
crimes against humanity, including
genocide, are breaches of International
humanitarian law.

See also
Animal rights
Discrimination
Freedom (political)
Global governance
Human Responsibilities
List of human rights organisations

Notes
1. James Nickel, with assistance from
Thomas Pogge, M.B.E. Smith, and
 Leif Wenar, 13 December 2013,
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Human Rights ,
Retrieved 14 August 2014
2. Nickel 2010
3. The United Nations, Office of the
High Commissioner of Human
Rights, What are human rights? ,
Retrieved 14 August 2014
4. Sepúlveda et al. 2004, p. 3"Archived
copy" . Archived from the original
on March 28, 2012. Retrieved
November 8, 2011.
5. Burns H. Weston, 20 March 2014,
Encyclopædia Britannica, human
rights , Retrieved 14 August 2014
6. Gary J. Bass (book reviewer),
Samuel Moyn (author of book being
reviewed), 20 October 2010, The
New Republic, The Old New Thing ,
Retrieved 14 August 2014
7. Merriam-Webster dictionary, [1] ,
Retrieved 14 August 2014, "rights
(as freedom from unlawful
imprisonment, torture, and
execution) regarded as belonging
fundamentally to all persons"
8. Beitz 2009, p. 1
9. Shaw 2008, p. 265
10. Macmillan Dictionary, human rights
– definition , Retrieved 14 August
2014, "the rights that everyone
should have in a society, including
the right to express opinions about
the government or to have
protection from harm"
11. International technical guidance on
sexuality education: an evidence-
informed approach (PDF). Paris:
UNESCO. 2018. p. 16. ISBN 978-
9231002595.
12. Freeman 2002, pp. 15–17
13. Moyn 2010, p. 8
14. "Britain's unwritten constitution" .
British Library. Retrieved
27 November 2015. "The key
landmark is the Bill of Rights (1689),
which established the supremacy of
Parliament over the Crown ...
providing for the regular meeting of
Parliament, free elections to the
Commons, free speech in
parliamentary debates, and some
basic human rights, most famously
freedom from 'cruel or unusual
punishment."
15. Mayer (2000) p. 110
16. "Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 119.
(full text)" (PDF). December 1866.
Archived from the original (PDF) on
7 March 2008. Retrieved
28 December 2007.
17. Paul Gordon Lauren, “First
Principles of Racial Equality: History
and the Politics and Diplomacy of
Human Rights Provisions in the
United Nations Charter,” Human
Rights Quarterly 5 (1983): 1–26.
18. Henry J. Richardson III, “Black
People, Technocracy, and Legal
Process: Thoughts, Fears, and
Goals,” in Public Policy for the Black
Community, ed. by Marguerite Ross
Barnett and James A. Hefner (Port
Washington, N.Y.: Alfred Publishing,
1976), p, 179.
19. Eleanor Roosevelt: Address to the
United Nations General Assembly
10 December 1948 in Paris, France
20. (A/RES/217, 10 December 1948 at
Palais de Chaillot, Paris)
21. Glendon, Mary Ann (July 2004).
"The Rule of Law in The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" .
Northwestern University Journal of
International Human Rights. 2 (5).
Archived from the original on 20
July 2011. Retrieved 7 January
2008.
22. Glendon (2001)
23. Ball, Gready (2007) p.34
24. Ball, Gready (2007) p.35
25. Littman, David G. (19 January
2003). "Human Rights and Human
Wrongs" . "The principal aim of the
1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) was to create
a framework for a universal code
based on mutual consent. The early
years of the United Nations were
overshadowed by the division
between the Western and
Communist conceptions of human
rights, although neither side called
into question the concept of
universality. The debate centered on
which "rights" – political, economic,
and social – were to be included
among the Universal Instruments"
26. Ball, Gready
27. This does not include the Vatican,
which although recognised as an
independent state, is not a member
of the UN.
28. Ball, Gready (2007) p.37
29. Ball, Gready (2007) p.92
30. "United Nations Rights Council
Page" . United Nations News Page.
31. "The United Nations System" (PDF).
32. UN Charter, Article 39
33. Ball, Gready (2007) p.95
34. The Security Council referred the
human rights situation in Darfur in
Sudan to the ICC despite the fact
that Sudan has a functioning legal
system
35. Shaw 2008, p. 311
36. "OHCHR | Introduction of the
Committee" . www.ohchr.org.
Retrieved 6 October 2017.
37. Shaw 2008, p. 309
38. Alston, ed. by Philip (1992). The
United Nations and human rights : a
critical appraisal (1. issued as pbk.
ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
p. 474. ISBN 978-0-19-825450-8.
39. "AU Member States" . African Union.
Archived from the original on 5
January 2008. Retrieved 3 January
2008.
40. "AU in a Nutshell" . Archived from
the original on 30 December 2007.
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
41. "Mandate of the African
Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights" . Archived from the
original on 20 January 2008.
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
42. "PROTOCOL TO THE AFRICAN
CHARTER ON HUMAN AND
PEOPLES' RIGHTS ON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AFRICAN
COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES'
RIGHTS" . Archived from the
original on 2 March 2012. Retrieved
3 January 2008.
43. "PROTOCOL OF THE COURT OF
JUSTICE OF THE AFRICAN UNION"
(PDF). African Union. Archived from
the original (PDF) on 24 July 2011.
Retrieved 4 January 2008.
44. "Open Letter to the Chairman of the
African Union (AU) seeking
clarifications and assurances that
the Establishment of an effective
African Court on Human and
Peoples' Rights will not be delayed
or undermined" (PDF). Amnesty
International. 5 August 2004.
45. "African Court of Justice" . African
International Courts and Tribunals.
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
46. "Africa" . Human Rights Watch.
hrw.org. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
47. "OAS Key Issues" . Retrieved
3 January 2008.
48. "Directory of OAS Authorities" .
Organization of American States.
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
49. "What is the IACHR?" . Inter-
Americal Commission on Human
Rights. Retrieved 3 January 2008.
50. "InterAmerican Court on Human
Rights homepage" . Inter-American
Court on Human Rights. Retrieved
3 January 2008.
51. "Overview ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS" .
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
52. Bangkok Declaration. Wikisource.
Retrieved 14 March 2007
53. "United Arab Emirates: Ahmed
Mansoor on hunger strike again
after being beaten in prison" . The
Gulf Centre for Human Rights.
Retrieved 30 September 2019.
54. "Council of Europe Human Rights" .
Council of Europe. Retrieved
4 January 2008.
55. "Social Charter" . Council of Europe.
Retrieved 4 January 2008.
56. "The Council of Europe in Brief" .
Retrieved 4 January 2008.
57. Juncker, Jean-Claude (11 April
2006). "Council of Europe –
European Union: "A sole ambition
for the European Continent" " (PDF).
Council of Europe. Retrieved
4 January 2008.
58. "Historical Background to the
European Court of Human Rights" .
European Court of Human Rights.
Retrieved 4 January 2008.
59. "About the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture" .
European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture. Retrieved
4 January 2008.
60. Shellens (1959)
61. Jaffa (1979)
62. Sills (1968, 1972) Natural Law
63. van Dun, Frank. "Natural Law" .
Retrieved 28 December 2007.
64. Kohen (2007)
65. Weston, Burns H. "Human Rights" .
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, p. 2.
Retrieved 18 May 2006.
66. Fagan, Andrew (2006). "Human
Rights" . The Internet Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 January
2008.
67. Finnis (1980)
68. Nathwani (2003) p.25
69. Arnhart (1998)
70. Clayton, Schloss (2004)
71. Paul, Miller, Paul (2001): Arnhart,
Larry. Thomistic Natural Law as
Darwinian Natural Right p.1
72. Light (2002)
73. Alston (2005)
74. Ball, Gready. (2007) p.42
75. Littman (1999)
76. Ball, Gready (2007) p.25
77. Chee, S.J. (3 July 2003). Human
Rights: Dirty Words in Singapore.
Activating Human Rights and
Diversity Conference (Byron Bay,
Australia).
78. Tunick (2006)
79. Beate (2005)
80. Ignatief, M. (2001) p.68
81. "Corporations and Human Rights" .
Human Rights Watch. Retrieved
3 January 2008.
82. "Transnational corporations should
be held to human rights standards –
UN expert" . UN News Centre. 13
October 2003. Retrieved 3 January
2008.
83. "Norms on the responsibilities of
transnational corporations and
other business enterprises with
regard to human rights" . UN Sub-
Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights.
Retrieved 3 January 2008.
84. "REPORT TO THE ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL COUNCIL ON THE SIXTIETH
SESSION OF THE COMMISSION
(E/CN.4/2004/L.11/Add.7)" (PDF).
United Nations Commission on
Human Rights. p. 81. Retrieved
3 January 2008.
85. Klitou, Demetrius The Friends and
Foes of Human Rights (ebook)
86. "The Resource Part II: Human Rights
in Times of Emergencies" . United
Nations. Retrieved 31 December
2007.
87. "Cour internationale de Justice -
International Court of Justice |
International Court of Justice" .
www.icj-cij.org.
88. United Nations. Multilateral treaties
deposited with the Secretary-
General: Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court .
Retrieved 8 June 2007.
89. "The Resource Part II: The
International Human Rights
System" . United Nations. Retrieved
31 December 2007.
90. "National Human Right Institutions
Forum – An international forum for
researchers and practitioners in the
field of national human rights" .
Archived from the original on 15
September 2002. Retrieved
6 September 2007.
91. "Chart of the Status of National
Institutions" (PDF). National Human
Rights Institutions Forum.
November 2007. Retrieved
6 January 2008. "ACCREDITED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL
COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF
NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
In accordance with the Paris
Principles and the ICC Sub-
Committee Rules of Procedure, the
following classifications for
accreditation are used by the ICC:

A: Compliance with the Paris

 Principles;
A(R): Accreditation with reserve –
granted where insufficient
documentation is submitted to
confer A status;
B: Observer Status – Not fully in
compliance with the Paris Principles
or insufficient information provided
to make a determination;
C: Non-compliant with the Paris
Principles."
92. "HURIDOCS" .
93. "National Human Rights Institutions
– Implementing Human Rights",
Executive Director Morten Kjærum,
The Danish Institute for Human
Rights, 2003. ISBN 87-90744-72-1,
page 6
94. Ball, Gready (2007) p.70
95. Hitchens (2002)
96. "Henry Kissenger" . Retrieved
6 January 2008.
97. "Gee, Marcus" . Toronto Globe &
Mail. 11 June 2002.
98. Kissinger, Henry (July–August
2001). "The Pitfall of Universal
Jurisdiction" . Foreign Affairs.
Archived from the original on 14
January 2009. Retrieved 6 January
2008.

References
Amnesty International (2004).
Amnesty International Report .
Amnesty International Publications.
ISBN 0-86210-354-1 ISBN 1-887204-40-
7
Alexander, Fran (ed) (1998).
Encyclopedia of World History. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-860223-5
Alston, Philip (2005). "Ships Passing in
the Night: The Current State of the
Human Rights and Development
Debate seen through the Lens of the
Millennium Development Goals".
Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 27 (No.
3) p. 807
Arnhart, Larry (1998). Darwinian
Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of
Human Nature SUNY Press. ISBN 0-
7914-3693-4
Ball, Olivia; Gready, Paul (2007). The
No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights.
New Internationalist. ISBN 1-904456-
45-6
Barzilai, Gad. (2003). Communities
and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal
Identities. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-11315-1
Chauhan, O.P. (2004). Human Rights:
Promotion and Protection. Anmol
Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 81-261-
2119-X.
Cook, Rebecca J.; Fathalla, Mahmoud
F. (September 1996). "Advancing
Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and
Beijing". International Family Planning
Perspectives Vol.22 (No.3): p. 115–
121 JSTOR 2950752
Davenport, Christian (2007a). State
Repression and the Domestic
Democratic Peace. New York:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-
521-86490-9
Davenport, Christian (2007b). State
Repression and Political Order. Annual
Review of Political Science.
Donnelly, Jack. (2003). Universal
Human Rights in Theory & Practice.
2nd ed. Ithaca & London: Cornell
University Press. ISBN 0-8014-8776-5
Ellerman, David (2005). Helping People
Help Themselves: From the World
Bank to an Alternative Philosophy of
Development Assistance. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-
472-03142-2
Esposito, John L. (2004). The Oxford
Dictionary of Islam. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-512559-2
Esposito, John L. (2005). Islam: The
Staight Path. Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0-19-518266-9
Finnis, John (1980). Natural Law and
Natural Rights Oxford: Clarendon
Press. ISBN 0-19-876110-4
Forsythe, David P. (2000). Human
Rights in International Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. International Progress
Organization. ISBN 3-900704-08-2
Forsythe, David P. (2005). The
Humanitarians: The International
Committee of the Red Cross
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-
521-84828-8
Freedman, Lynn P.; Isaacs, Stephen L.
(Jan–Feb 1993). "Human Rights and
Reproductive Choice". Studies in
Family Planning Vol.24 (No.1): p. 18–
30 JSTOR 2939211
Ignatieff, Michael (2001). Human
Rights as Politics and Idolatry.
Princeton & Oxford: Princeton
University Press. ISBN 0-691-08893-4
Glendon, Mary Ann (2001). A World
Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Random House of Canada Ltd. ISBN 0-
375-50692-6
Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck; Esposito,
John L. (1998) Islam, Gender, and
Social Change. Oxford University Press
US. ISBN 0-19-511357-8
Hitchens, Christopher (2002). The Trial
of Henry Kissinger. Verso. ISBN 1-
85984-398-0
Houghton Miffin Company (2006). The
American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language. Houghton Miffin.
ISBN 0-618-70173-7
Jaffa, Harry V. (1979). Thomism and
Aristotelianism; A Study of the
Commentary by Thomas Aquinas on
the Nicomachean Ethics Greenwood
Press. ISBN 0-313-21149-3 (reprint of
1952 edition published by University of
Chicago Press)
Jahn, Beate (2005). "Barbarian
thoughts: imperialism in the
philosophy of John Stuart Mill" .
Review of International Studies 13
June 2005 31: 599–618 Cambridge
University Press
Jones, Lindsay. Encyclopedia of
religion, second edition. ISBN 0-02-
865742-X
Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh
(eds) (2007). Encyclopedia of Women
& Islamic Cultures. Brill Publishing.
ISBN 90-04-12818-2
Kennedy, Duncan (1982). Legal
Education and the Reproduction of
Hierarchy . Journal of Legal Education
Vol.32 (No. 591)
Khadduri, Majid (1978). "Marriage in
Islamic Law: The Modernist
Viewpoints". American Journal of
Comparative Law Vol. 26 (No. 2):
pp. 213–218.
Köchler, Hans (1981). The Principles of
International Law and Human Rights .
hanskoechler.com
Köchler, Hans. (1990). "Democracy
and Human Rights". Studies in
International Relations, XV. Vienna:
International Progress Organization.
Kohen, Ari (2007). In Defense of
Human Rights: A Non-Religious
Grounding in a Pluralistic World.
Routledge. ISBN 0-415-42015-6,
ISBN 978-0-415-42015-0
Landman, Todd (2006). Studying
Human Rights. Oxford and London:
Routledge ISBN 0-415-32605-2
Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and
Slavery in the Middle East: An
Historical Enquiry. Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-505326-5
Lewis, Bernard (21 January 1998).
"Islamic Revolution" . The New York
Review of Books Vol.34 (Nos. 21 & 22)
Light, Donald W. (2002). "A
Conservative Call For Universal Access
To Health Care " Penn Bioethics Vol.9
(No.4) p. 4–6
Littman, David (1999). "Universal
Human Rights and 'Human Rights in
Islam'". Midstream Magazine Vol. 2
(no.2) pp. 2–7
Maan, Bashir; McIntosh, Alastair
(1999). "Interview with William
Montgomery Watt" The Coracle Vol. 3
(No. 51) pp. 8–11.
Mayer, Henry (2000). All on Fire:
William Lloyd Garrison and the
Abolition of Slavery. St Martin's Press.
ISBN 0-312-25367-2
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (ed) (2005).
Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an: vol 1–5
Brill Publishing. ISBN 90-04-14743-8.
ISBN 978-90-04-14743-0
McLagan, Meg (2003) "Principles,
Publicity, and Politics: Notes on
Human Rights Media" . American
Anthropologist. Vol. 105 (No. 3).
pp. 605–612
Hershock, Peter D; Ames, R.T.;
Stepaniants, M. (eds). Technology and
Cultural Values on the Edge of the
Third Millennium. (Selected papers
from the 8 th East-West Philosophers
Conference). Honolulu: U of Hawai’i
Press, 2003. 209–221.
Möller, Hans-Georg (2003). How to
Distinguish Friends from Enemies:
Human Rights Rhetoric and
Western Mass Media.
Nathwani, Niraj (2003). Rethinking
Refugee Law. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers. ISBN 90-411-2002-5
Paul, Ellen Frankel; Miller, Fred Dycus;
Paul, Jeffrey (eds) (2001). Natural Law
and Modern Moral Philosophy
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-
521-79460-9
Clayton, Philip; Schloss, Jeffrey (2004).
Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality
in Biological and Religious Perspective
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-
8028-2695-4
Robertson, Arthur Henry; Merrills, John
Graham (1996). Human Rights in the
World: An Introduction to the Study of
the International Protection of Human
Rights. Manchester University Press.
ISBN 0-7190-4923-7.
Salevao, Lutisone (2005). Rule of Law,
Legitimate Governance and
Develoment in the Pacific. ANU E
Press. ISBN 1-920942-55-6
Scott, C. (1989). "The Interdependence
and Permeability of Human Rights
Norms: Towards a Partial Fusion of
the International Covenants on Human
Rights". Osgood Law Journal Vol. 27
Sills, David L. (1968, 1972)
International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. MacMillan.
Shellens, Max Salomon. 1959.
"Aristotle on Natural Law." Natural Law
Forum 4, no. 1. Pp. 72–100.
Schimmel, Annemarie (1992). Islam:
An Introduction. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-
7914-1327-6
Sen, Amartya (1997). Human Rights
and Asian Values. ISBN 0-87641-151-0.
Shute, Stephen & Hurley, Susan (eds.).
(1993). On Human Rights: The Oxford
Amnesty Lectures. New York:
BasicBooks. ISBN 0-465-05224-X
Steiner, J. & Alston, Philip. (1996).
International Human Rights in Context:
Law, Politics, Morals. Oxford:
Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-825427-X
Sunga, Lyal S. (1992) Individual
Responsibility in International Law for
Serious Human Rights Violations,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 0-
7923-1453-0
Tierney, Brian (1997). The Idea of
Natural Rights: Studies on Natural
Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-
8028-4854-0
 Tunick, Mark (2006). "Tolerant
Imperialism: John Stuart Mill's
Defense of British Rule in India" . The
Review of Politics 27 October 2006 68:
586–611 Cambridge University Press
Vaughn, Karen I. (1978) "John Locke
and the Labor Theory of Value" Journal
of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 2 (No. 4)
pp. 311–326

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to:

Human rights

Universal Declaration of Human

Rights by the United Nations
 Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights
The Universal Human Rights Index of
United Nations documents

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Human_rights&oldid=923805742"

Last edited 26 days ago by Ost316

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.