Prepared by: Leri James B.

Ceblano
LLB-I-A

Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano

LLB-I-A

Assign Interna ASEA 1987 Republ Supreme Court Government

ed tional N Constitu ic Act Decisions Programs or
right in Covena Declar tion Projects
the nt on ation
univers Civil of
al and Huma
declara Politica n
tion l right Rights

Article 20. (1) Section [REPU G.R. No. 199894 In particular,

14(2) Every 14. (1) BLIC PEOPLE OF construing the
Everyon person No ACT THE constitutional pr
e charge person NO. PHILIPPINES, P esumption of
charged d with shall be 10389] laintiff-Appellee, innocence toget
with a a held to SEC. vs. her with the
criminal crimina answer 2. State CARLITO Circ. No. 2016-
offence l for a ment of CLARO y 16, PNP Anti-
shall offence criminal Policy. MAHINAY, Acc Illegal Drugs
have the shall be offense  In used-Appellant. Campaign Plan
right to presum without conson —Project:
be ed due ance Double Barrel.
Presu presume innoce process with G.R. No. 174369 Government lau
mption d nt until of law. the June 20, 2012 ds the
Of innocent proved (2) In all principl PEOPLE OF enforcement
Innoce until guilty criminal e of THE efforts as
nce proved accordi prosecuti presum PHILIPPINES, P having made
guilty ng to ons, the ption of laintiff-Appellee, great progress
accordin law in accused innocen vs. in ...
g to law. a fair shall be ce, the ZAFRA period programs 
and presumed 1987 MARAORAO y to rehabilitate a
public innocent Philippi MACABALAN man still
trial, until the ne G, Accused- clothed with a
by a contrary Constit Appellant. presumption of
compet is proved, ution innocence.
ent, and shall recogni
indepe enjoy the zes and
ndent right to guarant
and be heard ees the
imparti by right to
al himself bail or
tribuna and to be
l, at counsel, release
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

which t to be d on
he informed recogni
accuse of the zance
d is nature as may
guarant and cause be
eed the of the provide
right to accusatio d by
defence n against law.
. him, to
 (2) No have a
person speedy,
shall be impartial,
held and
guilty public
of any trial, to
crimina meet the
l witnesses
offence face to
on face, and
accoun to have
t of any compulso
act or ry
omissi process
on to secure
which the
did not attendanc
constit e of
ute a witnesses
crimina and the
l productio
offence n of
, under evidence
nationa in his
l or behalf.
internat However,
ional after
law, at arraignm
the ent, trial
time may
when it proceed
was notwithst
commit anding
ted and the
no absence
person of the
shall accused
suffer provided
greater that he
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

punish has been

ment duly
for an notified
offence and his
than failure to
was appear is
prescri unjustifia
bed by ble.
law at
the
time it
was
commit
ted.
(3) No
person
shall be
liable
to be
tried or
punish
ed
again
for an
offence
for
which
he or
she has
already
been
finally
convict
ed or
acquitt
ed in
accorda
nce
with
the law
and
penal
proced
ure of
each
ASEA
N
Membe
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

r State.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

Human Rights in Politics

On the article of “Four Human Rights Myths” three scholars talked about their
different views framework of human rights that affects today’s society.
The scholars gave their views on the problem of our modern society that
affects the human rights. Each has different says about the reason why violations
arose. One of them said that the transformation into moral panics of phenomena that
are rooted in the political economy of contemporary capitalism that urges people to go
against the government and who’s in the power let them know what the real problems
are in the society in the account of individual human rights.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

Four Human Rights Myths

Abstract
This paper examines work by three scholars who have recently subjected the
intellectual framework of human rights to critical scrutiny. For one, the central
problem is that the universality of human rights is too readily presumed. For another,
it is that the relative novelty of human rights is not properly appreciated. For yet
another, it is that human rights are treated as somehow beyond politics, as opposed to
being a politics in themselves. What are we to make of these claims? Where do they
lead us in policy terms? How does each stand with respect to the core practical
objective of putting abuses of human rights to an end?
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

Four Human Rights Myths

This paper examines work by three scholars who have recently subjected the
intellectual framework of human rights to critical scrutiny. For one, the central
problem is that the universality of human rights is too readily presumed. For another,
it is that the relative novelty of human rights is not properly appreciated. For yet
another, it is that human rights are treated as somehow beyond politics, as opposed to
being a politics in themselves. What are we to make of these claims? Where do they
lead us in policy terms? How does each stand with respect to the core practical
objective of putting abuses of human rights to an end? In early August 2011 riots
broke out in England. They started with the torching of two police cars in a suburb of
London, and before long there was arson and looting in cities across the country. How
could this happen? Why did it happen? There was much national soul-searching. In
his initial response, British Prime Minister David Cameron denounced the riots as
sheer deviance. ‘This is criminality, pure and simple’, he declared.1 But it soon
became clear that more needed to be said, and by the next week his analysis had
shifted to highlight what he took to be the underlying problem, namely, ‘the slow-
motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few
generations. Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no
consequences. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without
responsibilities. In a later statement, Cameron elaborated on that last aspect of the
moral collapse. ‘The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of
nowhere’, he said. ‘There are deep problems in our society’, among which is ‘a
growing sense that individual rights come before anything else’.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

A ‘concerted cuts that served to force the costs of financial crisis onto those
who could least afford them. In this context, the homology was, for Klein, again plain:
‘the people committing night-time robbery sure as hell know that their elites have
been committing day-time robbery’.10 So although the rioters issued no political
demands,11 the riots were, in her assessment, inescapably political – not so much a
mark of moral collapse as a sign of our ‘time of great taking’.12 In their respective
contributions to this debate over the English riots of August 2011, Cameron,
Chakrabarti and Klein each orient us in a different way in thinking about the
interrelation of human rights, morality and politics. Cameron sets a moralistic tone.
He is concerned about how human rights affect moral progress, or rather, how they
promote moral decline. Chakrabarti is a professional defender of human rights. For
her, on the contrary, it is necessary to insist on human rights as a core social good, and
she worries about how politics may be used to undermine their legal protection. In
Klein’s assessment, the real problem is instead depoliticisation – the transformation
into moral panics of phenomena that are rooted in the political economy of
contemporary capitalism. Klein does not refer to human rights in the article I spoke
of. Yet that very silence prompts reflection. If, as she puts it, governments, financial
institutions and other powerful economic agents are ‘looting with the lights on, as if
there was nothing at all to hide’,13 what kind of mythbusting about human rights is
indicated? That is the question I want to take up in this chapter, and in doing so, I
want to consider three different projects of mythbusting.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

The projects I will discuss are not vindicationist campaigns like Chakrabarti’s.
They are academic studies, undertaken for the sake of subjecting the general
intellectual framework of human rights to critical scrutiny. But how, on what basis,
and with reference to which perceived fallacies, illusions and mystifications? The first
author I will discuss is Joseph Raz. As we shall see, he points to misconceptions
touching on the justification for human rights and whether particular rights can be
shown really to exist. The second author is Samuel Moyn. He analyses distortions to
do with the history of human rights and how we tell it. And the final author is Wendy
Brown. She criticises ideological representations that belong with the legitimation of
human rights advocacy. Together these three scholars put before us an array of human
rights-related myths. But I shall argue that they leave out of account a powerful myth
which itself affects those myths and which cannot be captured in their terms.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

International Human Rights Law Theory
30 Pages Posted: 21 Jan 2010
Frederic Megret
McGill University - Faculty of Law
Date Written: January 20, 2010
Abstract
This draft textbook chapter on international human rights law theory aims to
give a comprehensive overview of the field to those interested in its ongoing
dilemmas. It covers both the theory of human rights, of international human rights,
and of international human rights law, as three integrated dimensions: human rights,
the international and the legal. I would recommend the chapter as an introduction to a
class on international human rights, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Note: although the chapter will be published in a different form in an actual book, I
anticipate that this electronic version will be updated at regular intervals, and will
therefore emerge as a live (although probably not quite real time) resource, that makes
the most of a medium such as SSRN to post up to date content.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

International human rights theory is a broad term that describes a variety of

foundational and conceptual dilemmas which scholars and practitioners of
international human rights engage with. These raise fundamental issues about the
nature, purpose, transformation and direction of human rights on the global level.
International human rights theory is not human rights “in theory”, a sort of utopian
blueprint of what might be, but the theory of international human rights as the set of
assumptions and general understandings that comprehensively structure the project’s
very daily operation. International human rights law can be analyzed here as the partly
deliberate, partly accidental fusion of three ideas: international (an environment, a
political set up, an idea), human rights (an ideological project), and law (a tool and a
project). The resulting dilemmas are therefore simultaneously human rights,
international and legal dilemmas. Human rights raise issues of the foundation, nature,
and content of right; their transplantation in the international arena raises issues about
what it means for human rights to become international and for the international to
become more dominated by the idea of rights; and the process of legalization of
human rights internationally then creates challenges for both human rights (which
may suffer distortions) and international law (which may come under challenge). In
practice these dilemmas are often difficult to disentangle. This chapter merely aims to
give a short overview of the sort of problems they create for those interested in
developing a theory of international human rights law. More perhaps than general
public international law, international human rights law has from its inception and
increasingly with time become a locus of disciplinary fusion: partly domestic, partly
legal; partly legal yet in very crucial ways moral and political.1 “International human
rights” as an object of study has contributed to blur many lines, so that today “human
rights studies” are typically a fusion of many approaches.2 The insights of the social
sciences, history, sociology, economics have all contributed tremendously to a study
that is often impoverished when it is exclusively envisaged as a legal byproduct.3
This does not necessarily detract from the distinctiveness of international human
rights law as a legal project, but it does raise central questions for international human
rights lawyers: how distinct is that law from the values it embodies? How distinct, in
turn, are human rights from the international law that has been one of the principal
vehicles of their universalization? This chapter is a broad overview of international
human rights theory research. As such, it will be more literature review than
systematic substantive engagement with the arguments that have been made over time
about the theory of international human rights. However, it is hoped that, in exploring
the agendas of scholars and thinkers, some sense of where the discipline’s core
dilemmas lie will emerge. The chapter will envisage, in succession, the theory of
human rights, the theory of international human rights, and the theory of international
human rights law, although these three levels of analysis are profoundly integrated.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

THE THEORY OF RIGHTS THE EXISTENCE, FOUNDATION AND

JUSTIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Much soul searching has gone into the issue
of whether rights actually “exist” in a fundamentally demonstrable way. There has
been a feeling that the movement would be on much firmer footing if it could make a
strong case about its intellectual bases. Although this is an issue that could be raised
in a strictly domestic context, the internationalization of rights has made it much more
sensitive,4 as the human rights movement came under a variety of attacks urging it to
better justify its founding assumptions. The traditional view is that human rights are
based on a strong truth or validity claim. Human rights exist, in a strong sense.5
Religious thinkers (e.g.: neo-scholastics such as De Vitoria and Suarez) gave the
initial impetus to some ideas about natural law as a ground for at least natural rights,6
but also human rights;7 secular natural law theorists believe that rights inhere in
human nature or are somehow inherently deducible from it;8 Enlightenment
philosophers believed they could be discovered and justify rights through Reason.
Immanuel Kant, for example, is often presented as one of the great human rights
thinkers, because of his attempt to deduce universally valid moral principles derived
from transcendental considerations. These strong ontological claims about rights have
come under substantial attack, although probably no more so than the Enlightenment
project in general and a certain unmitigated faith in the force of Reason. Attacks have
come from all kinds of political quarters. Political conservatives, from Burke
onwards, for example have had problems with the idea that rights belong equally to
all, preferring a more patrician model. A utilitarian like Jeremy Bentham once
described rights as “nonsense upon stilts”. Marxists were prone to see human rights as
little more than a liberal bourgeois ideology.9 20th Century totalitarianism have also
challenged the foundation of rights. The reaffirmation of rights after the Second
World War has coincided with a reassessment of the foundation of rights. To a large
extent, lawyers, whether domestic or international, have sought to affirm the existence
of rights on the basis of the existence of the Law itself – when it happens to support
the existence of rights - whether it be through constitutions or international
instruments. The problem with a merely positivistic theory of the foundation of rights
is that most human rights lawyers like to think that certain rights exist regardless of
whether the state has recognized them as such. In other words, domestic and
international human rights law is always tempted to reach beyond positive law,
especially at times when rights are arguably needed most, namely when a
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

state, for example, refuses to recognize them at all. Moreover, purely positivist
justifications of the existence or importance of rights can be quite shallow, as many
different actual attitudes to rights might lie behind the bare act of ratifying a human
rights treaty. Today, the foundation of human rights is more often seen to lie in a
variety of alternative foundations which one might describe as “intermediary”, i.e.
neither entirely metaphysical nor entirely positivist.10 Rights may not exist in a
strong sense, but they are not simply a random political choice and exert some sort of
higher claim to our normative commitments. Rights might not exist, in other words,
but they can certainly be justified. If nothing else, according to one popular
interpretation, the late modern claim to rights is based on the historical affirmation,
intuitive and empirical as it may be, that rights are necessary if humanity is to avoid a
repeat of the Holocaust (or various episodes of systematic rights violations
experienced in given society). 11 Alternatively, rights are presented sociologically as
a social construct emerging from the need to fight against oppression;12 In terms of
more distinctly philosophical and speculative discourse, the search for a foundation of
rights is marked by work at the intersection between moral and political philosophy.
Rights are a moral theory that calls to be translated in a particular political system.
Inevitably, the attempt to ground human rights involves difficult exercises about what
makes humans human, and how rights can respond to that fundamental intuition.
Possible foundations of rights thus include human beings’ rationality, their autonomy,
their aspiration to happiness, their fundamentally social nature, their inherent
freedom, etc. An alternative to looking at what human beings are, is to look at what
they want. Some utilitarian theorists, in particular, have sought to show how human
rights can protect certain values that are in themselves goods that all human beings
aspire to. The problem is that we know human beings to want very different things,
and that utilitarianism tends not to take their autonomy very seriously.13 The
temptation, thus, is to return to a naturalist or Kantian notion of human rights, based
on a moral theory about how human beings should treat each other (e.g.: as ends
rather than means), although how one translates an inter-personal theory of morality
into a fundamental political system is problematic. A certain skepticism has at times
emerged that the tension between utilitarian and deontological conceptions of rights
can ever be alleviated.14 Much thought has also gone into renovating some of the
bases of social contract theory in the context of a renewed interest in the notion of
justice. For example liberal theories of rights present them as the minimal
requirements of being able to live the good life, in a world that has become skeptical
of ever fully determining what the good life might be. In other words, liberalism
emphasizes a “thin theory” of the good society, one in which what matters is that
individuals be able to self-determine themselves and choose their own ends.15 Others,
expanding on earlier Enlightenment themes, have emphasized that rights are what the
members of a particular society
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

An Introduction to the History of International Human Rights Law

GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 346
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 346
31 Pages Posted: 3 Sep 2007
Dinah L. Shelton
George Washington University - Law School
Date Written: August 2007
Abstract
As part of a lecture series given at the International Institute of Human Rights, in
Strasbourg, France, in July 2003, the author presents an overview of the history of
international human rights law. The author explores numerous religious, political,
cultural, philosophical, economic and intellectual movements throughout history that
have informed and guided the development of human rights law on the global stage.
In doing so, the author examines the moral and ethical dimensions which underpin
international human rights law, including what she defines as the innate human desire
for protection from abuse. The author highlights the world's most significant historical
events and people who have influenced modern concepts of human rights law.
Despite the many successes of the human rights movement, the author draws attention
to international institutions established to protect human rights, which are often too
weak to address many contemporary human rights violations and atrocities occurring
in failed states or at the hands of non-state actors. As this area of international law
continues to develop, these shortcomings must be addressed if human rights progress
is to continue.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN

RIGHTS LAW Dinah Shelton, Professor of Law Lectures given at the International
Institute of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France July 2003 Preface: The extensive legal
protection for human rights that currently exists in national, regional and international
law is the product of millennia of struggle by individuals concerned with human
justice and well-being. These visionaries have provided inspiration and guidance,
some of them acting out of religious belief and duty, others out of compassion or a
sense of responsibility. Perhaps like Edmund Burke they believed that "All that is
necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men [and women] do nothing." Or, like
Margaret Mead they "d[id] not make the mistake of thinking that concerned people
cannot change the world; it is the only thing that ever has." This short course cannot
present a detailed history of all the intellectual, cultural, and legal developments that
have evolved and merged into the current international system for the protection of
human rights. It does, however, attempt to indicate the principal currents, events and
individuals who contributed to the present human rights era. I. National Cultural,
Religious and Legal Antecedents a. Religious traditions: "all of the major religions of
the world seek in one way or another to speak to the issue of human responsibility to
others." (Lauren, p. 5) • Hinduism (texts: Vedas, Agamas, Upanishads) address the
necessity for moral behavior, the importance of duty (dharma) and good conduct
toward others suffering in need. Practice charity and compassion for the hungry, the
sick, the homeless, and the unfortunate. All life is sacred, to be loved and respected.
"Noninjury (ahimsa) is not causing pain to any living being at any time through the
actions of one's mind, speech or body." (Veda) • Judaism: sacredness of the individual
endowed with worth and equal value. Isaiah 58:6-7: "undo the tongs of the yoke, let
the oppressed go free. . . share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless
poor into your house." • Buddhism: Respect for all life and duties of compassion and
charity; urged renunciation of differences of caste and rank in favor of universal
brotherhood and equality. • Confucianism: (texts: Analects, Doctrine of the Mean, and
Great Learning) Harmony and cooperation exist when duty and responsibility towards
others leads to treating all human beings as having equal work and recognizing that
"within the four seas, all men are brothers." The fundamental teaching "Do not
impose on others what you yourself do not desire." Analects, XV, 23. "If there be
righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character. If there is beauty in
the character,
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

there will be harmony in the home. If there is harmony in the home, there will
be order in the nation. If there be order in the nation, there will be peace in the world."
Great Learning, cited in Smith, 181. • Christianity: A message of equality: "there is
neither Greek nor Jew, nor slave nor free, nor man nor woman, but we are all one in
Christ." Gal. 3:28. Respect for others: "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you." • Islam: Charity or lifting the burdens of those less fortunate is one of the
pillars of belief. The Qur-an speaks to justice, the sanctity of life, freedom, mercy,
compassion and respect for all human beings. All races are equal and religious
toleration should be guaranteed. The first declaration of religious freedom in the
world proclaimed that Jews and Christians shall be protected from all insults and
vexations; they shall have an equal rights and shall practice their religion as freely as
the Muslims. Note that these texts generally do not speak of rights, but instead address
moral duties and responsibilities towards others. At the same time, the rationales
underlying these duties -- equality, human dignity, and the sacredness of life --
provide a foundation for the concept of human rights. b. Cultural and philosophical
roots • Hsün-tzu, Chinese philosopher @ 400 B.C.: "In order to relieve anxiety and
eradicate strife, nothing is as effective as the institution of corporate life based on a
clear recognition of individual rights." UNESCO, p. 303 • African traditions: see
UNESCO, pp. 43, 189, 269. • Greek philosophy: developed the idea of natural law
including equal respect for all citizens, equality before the law, equality in political
power and suffrage, and equality of civil rights. • Cicero: natural law and universal
justice binds all human society together and applies to all without distinction. Each
person has unique dignity which imposes on all the responsibility to look after others.
This natural law is eternal and unchangeable and valid for all nations and all times. •
John Locke: Second Treatise of Government (1690): every individual person in the
state of nature possesses certain natural rights prior to the existence of any organized
government. People are born in a state of perfect equality and enjoy all rights equally.
Societies and governments are formed to preserve these rights, not to surrender them.
• Jean-Jacque Rousseau: Man is born free with intrinsic worth. • Olympe de Gouge
(nom de plume of Marie Gouze): Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen
(France 1791): "woman is born free and remains equal to man in her rights". In 1793,
de Gouge was beheaded. • Thomas Paine introduced the expression "human rights" in
his best seller The Rights of Man (1791). He ascribed inspiration to the religious
traditions that all observed the unity of humankind and the equality of all individuals.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

• Mary Wollstonecraft (1792) publishes A Vindication of the Rights of Women. c.

National laws • Babylon: Code of Hammurabi (1795-1750 B.C.) The oldest legal
code known today was itself based upon earlier texts that are now lost. It represented
a codification and development of the customary law of the region. While many
aspects of it today are incompatible with human rights (in particular the punishments
imposed), other portions established basic human rights principles such as equal
protection of the law and remedies for mistreatment of prisoners. In the Preamble
Hammurabi expresses the fundamental purposes of government: "to bring about the
rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers, so that the
strong should not harm the weak . . . and enlighten the land, to further the well-being
of mankind." • Laws of the Pharaohs: "Make sure that all is done according to the law,
that custom is observed and the right of each man respected." Lauren, 10. • Persia:
Charter of Cyrus: liberty and security, freedom of movement and religious belief, the
right to property, and some other economic and social rights. • India: Edicts of Asoka
(300 B.C.): Guaranteed freedom of religion and other rights. Other Indian customary
law developed humanitarian laws of war, protecting all places of religious worship,
civilian houses and property against attack. The wartime principle of discrimination is
found in the Law of Manu: no killing is permitted of one who is sleeping; who is
without his armour; one who is naked; who is deprived of his weapons; one who is
only looking on and not fighting, and one who is engaged in fighting with another
person. Prisoners of war, the sick and the wounded were to be well treated. Nirmal, p.
2 • Spain, Kingdom of Leon (1188): Confirmation of the rights of the assembly
including the rights of an accused to a trial and the inviolability of life, honor, home
and property. • England: The Magna Carta (1215), Petition of Right (1628) and
Habeas Corpus Act (1679): Although imposed by - and largely for - the nobility, the
Magna Carta also contained more broadly applicable civil rights and established the
rule of law: "no freeman shall be arrested, or detained in prison or deprived of his
freehold . . . except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." •
Hungary: The Golden Bull (Aranybulla, 1222): During the reign of King András, the
Golden Bull recognized the “Hungarian Nation” and created the framework for an
annual meeting of the Diet. The text, considered the first written Hungarian
constitution, was issued at the insistence of the nobility to safeguard their rights. The
last item of the Golden Bull assures the right of individuals to disobey royal acts.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

Leri James B. Ceblano

Palawan State University - School of Law
1st year, Block A

History of Human Rights: RIGHTS

Human Rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the
world, from birth until death. These rights are inherent to all human beings, regardless
of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Such rights
include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of
opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is
entitled to these rights, without discrimination. The belief that everyone, by virtue of
his or her humanity, is entitled to certain human rights is fairly new. Its roots,
however, lie in earlier tradition and documents of many cultures.
According to the History of Human Rights, there are various documents asserting
individual rights, such the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the
French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the US Constitution
and Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today’s human rights
documents. However, many of these documents, when translated into policy,
excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious, economic,
and political groups. Nevertheless, oppressed people throughout the world have drawn
on the principles these documents express to support revolutions that assert the right
to self-determination.

Contemporary international human rights law and the establishment of the United
Nations (UN) have important historical antecedents. Efforts in the 19th century to
prohibit the slave trade and to limit the horrors of war are prime examples. In 1919,
countries established the International Labor Organization (ILO) to
oversee treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights, including their health
and safety. Concern over the protection of certain minority groups was raised by the
League of Nations at the end of the First World War. However, this organization for
international peace and cooperation, created by the victorious European allies, never
achieved its goals. The League floundered because the United States refused to join
and because the League failed to prevent Japan’s invasion of China and Manchuria
(1931) and Italy’s attack on Ethiopia (1935). It finally died with the onset of the
Second World War (1939).

My take on the topic is that the change on how humans acknowledge human rights
had been gradual rather than drastic. It took a long and slow process of identifying,
understanding, assessing and addressing such rights and the effects thereof.

Human Rights indeed is still more a dream than reality. Violations still exist in every
part of the world. Not only that, but women and children in particular are
marginalized in numerous ways, and the press is not free in many countries. While
some gains have been made over the course of the last decades, human rights
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

violations still plague the world today. Nevertheless, no matter how long and slow
the process is, I still see the world leading into a better future because little changes
are little improvements every day which have profound impacts on the recognition of
human rights.
Prepared by: Leri James B. Ceblano
LLB-I-A

OUTLINE FOR TERM PAPER

Assumption of innocence

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Discussion of the Right

B. Basis of the Right

II. BODY

A. How local and International Association protect the right

B. How does the government promote the right
C. What are the problems concerning Human rights
D. What are the possible solutions.

III. PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE REFFORM

A. Discuss the proposed legislative reform

B. Why is it needed
C. How can it improve the present

IV. CONCLUSION

A. Importance of the right

B. Why is it needed.