erm stato sociale ("social state") and the Turkish term sosyal devlet reproduces

the original German term. In French, the concept is expressed as l'État-providence.

Spanish and many other languages employ an analogous term: estado del bienestar –
literally, "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado
de bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de
providência – "providing state", denoting the state's mission to ensure the basic
well-being of the citizenry. In Brazil the concept is referred to as previdência
social, or "social providence".

Modern forms
Modern welfare programs are chiefly distinguished from earlier forms of poverty
relief by their universal, comprehensive character. The institution of social
insurance in Germany under Bismarck was an influential example. Some schemes were
based largely in the development of autonomous, mutualist provision of benefits.
Others were founded on state provision. In a highly influential essay, "Citizenship
and Social Class" (1949), British sociologist T. H. Marshall identified modern
welfare states as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare, and capitalism,
arguing that citizenship must encompass access to social, as well as to political
and civil rights. Examples of such states are Germany, all of the Nordic countries,
the Netherlands, France, Uruguay and New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the
1930s. Since that time, the term welfare state applies only to states where social
rights are accompanied by civil and political rights.

Changed attitudes in reaction to the worldwide Great Depression, which brought

unemployment and misery to millions, were instrumental in the move to the welfare
state in many countries. During the Great Depression, the welfare state was seen as
a "middle way" between the extremes of communism on the left and unregulated
laissez-faire capitalism on the right.[3] In the period following World War II,
some countries in Western Europe moved from partial or selective provision of
social services to relatively comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" coverage of the
population. Other Western European states did not, such as the United Kingdom,
Ireland, Spain and France.[11]

The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash
welfare benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind
welfare services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions,
welfare states can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among
their citizens, as well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they
spend their time.[12][13]

History
Ancient
Emperor Ashoka of India put forward his idea of a welfare state in the 3rd century
BCE. He envisioned his dharma (religion or path) as not just a collection of high-
sounding phrases. He consciously tried to adopt it as a matter of state policy; he
declared that "all men are my children"[14] and "whatever exertion I make, I strive
only to discharge debt that I owe to all living creatures." It was a totally new
ideal of kingship.[15] Ashoka renounced war and conquest by violence and forbade
the killing of many animals.[16] Since he wanted to conquer the world through love
and faith, he sent many missions to propagate Dharma. Such missions were sent to
places like Egypt, Greece, and Sri Lanka. The propagation of Dharma included many
measures of people's welfare. Centers of the treatment of men and beasts founded
inside and outside of the empire. Shady groves, wells, orchards and rest houses
were laid out.[17] Ashoka also prohibited useless sacrifices and certain forms of
gatherings which led to waste, indiscipline and superstition.[16] To implement
these policies he recruited a new cadre of officers called Dharmamahamattas. Part
of this group's duties was to see that people of various sects were treated fairly.
They were especially asked to look after the welfare of prisoners.[18][19]
The Roman Republic intervened sporadically to distribute free or subsidized grain
to its population, through the program known as Cura Annonae. The city of Rome grew
rapidly during the Roman Republic and Empire, reaching a population approaching one
million in the second century AD. The population of the city grew beyond the
capacity of the nearby rural areas to meet the food needs of the city.[20]

Regular grain distribution began in 123 BC with a grain law proposed by Gaius
Gracchus and approved by the Roman Plebeian Council (popular assembly). The numbers
of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to a high of an estimated
320,000 people at one point.[21][22] In the 3rd century AD, the dole of grain was
replaced by bread, probably during the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211 AD).
Severus also began providing olive oil to residents of Rome, and later the emperor
Aurelian (270-275) ordered the distribution of wine and pork.[23] The doles of
bread, olive oil, wine, and pork apparently continued until near the end of the
Western Roman Empire in 476 AD.[24] The dole in the early Roman Empire is estimated
to account for 15 to 33 percent of the total grain imported and consumed in Rome.
[25]

In addition to food, the Roman Republic also supplied free entertainment, through
ludi (public games). Public money was allocated for the staging of ludi, but the
presiding official increasingly came to augment the splendor of his games from
personal funds as a form of public relations. The sponsor was able to cultivate the
favor of the people of Rome.[26]

The concept of states taxing for the welfare budget was introduced in early 7th
century Islamic law.[27] Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam and is a
mandatory form of 2.5% income tax to be paid by all individuals earning above a
basic threshold to provide for the needy. Umar (584-644), leader of the Rashidun
Caliphate (empire), established a welfare state through the Bayt al-mal (treasury),
which for instance was used to stockpile food in every region of the Islamic Empire
for disasters and emergencies.[28]

piently on a small scale for centuries[36] in the form of merchant, renting and
lending activities and occasionally as small-scale industry with some wage labour.
Simple commodity exchange and consequently simple commodity production, which is
the initial basis for the growth of capital from trade, have a very long history.
Arabs promulgated capitalist economic policies such as free trade and banking.
Their use of Indo-Arabic numerals facilitated bookkeeping. These innovations
migrated to Europe through trade partners in cities such as Venice and Pisa. The
Italian mathematician Fibonacci traveled the Mediterranean talking to Arab traders
and returned to popularize the use of Indo-Arabic numerals in Europe.[37]

Capital and commercial trade thus existed for much of history, but it did not lead
to industrialization or dominate the production process of society. That required a
set of conditions, including specific technologies of mass production, the ability
to independently and privately own and trade in means of production, a class of
workers willing to sell their labor power for a living, a legal framework promoting
commerce, a physical infrastructure allowing the circulation of goods on a large
scale and security for private accumulation. Many of these conditions do not
currently exist in many Third World countries, although there is plenty of capital
and labor. The obstacles for the development of capitalist markets are therefore
less technical and more social, cultural and political.

Agrarianism
The economic foundations of the feudal agricultural system began to shift
substantially in 16th-century England as the manorial system had broken down and
land began to become concentrated in the hands of fewer landlords with increasingly
large estates. Instead of a serf-based system of labor, workers were increasingly
employed as part of a broader and expanding money-based economy. The system put
pressure on both landlords and tenants to increase the productivity of agriculture
to make profit; the weakened coercive power of the aristocracy to extract peasant
surpluses encouraged them to try better methods, and the tenants also had incentive
to improve their methods in order to flourish in a competitive labor market. Terms
of rent for land were becoming subject to economic market forces rather than to the
previous stagnant system of custom and feudal obligation.[38][39]

By the early 17th century, England was a centralized state in which much of the
feudal order of Medieval Europe had been swept away. This centralization was
strengthened by a good system of roads and by a disproportionately large capital
city, London. The capital acted as a central market hub for the entire country,
creating a very large internal market for goods, contrasting with the fragmented
feudal holdings that prevailed in most parts of the Continent.

Mercantilism
Main article: Mercantilism

A painting of a French seaport from 1638 at the height of mercantilism

The economic doctrine prevailing from the 16th to the 18th centuries is commonly
called mercantilism.[40][41] This period, the Age of Discovery, was associated with
the geographic exploration of the foreign lands by merchant traders, especially
from England and the Low Countries. Mercantilism was a system of trade for profit,
although commodities were still largely produced by non-capitalist methods.[42]
Most scholars consider the era of merchant capitalism and mercantilism as the
origin of modern capitalism,[43][44] although Karl Polanyi argued that the hallmark
of capitalism is the establishment of generalized markets for what he called the
"fictitious commodities", i.e. land, labor and money. Accordingly, he argued that
"not until 1834 was a competitive labor market established in England, hence
industrial capitalism as a social system cannot be said to have existed before that
date".[45]

Robert Clive with the Nawabs of Bengal after the Battle of Plassey which began the
British rule in India
England began a large-scale and integrative approach to mercantilism during the
Elizabethan Era (1558–1603). A systematic and coherent explanation of balance of
trade was made public through Thomas Mun's argument England's Treasure by Forraign
Trade, or the Balance of our Forraign Trade is The Rule of Our Treasure. It was
written in the 1620s and published in 1664.[46]

European merchants, backed by state controls, subsidies and monopolies, made most
of their profits by buying and selling goods. In the words of Francis Bacon, the
purpose of mercantilism was "the opening and well-balancing of trade; the
cherishing of manufacturers; the banishing of idleness; the repressing of waste and
excess by sumptuary laws; the improvement and husbanding of the soil; the
regulation of prices...".[47]

After the period of the proto-industrialization, the British East India Company and
the Dutch East India Company, after massive contributions from the Mughal Bengal,
[48][49] inaugurated an expansive era of commerce and trade.[50][51] These
companies were characterized by their colonial and expansionary powers given to
them by nation-states.[50] During this era, merchants, who had traded under the
previous stage of mercantilism, invested capital in the East India Companies and
other colonies, seeking a return on investment.

Industrial Revolution

The Watt steam engine, a steam engine fuelled primarily by coal propelled the
Industrial Revolution in Great Britain[52]
In the mid-18th century a group of economic theorists, led by David Hume (1711–
1776)[53] and Adam Smith (1723–1790), challenged fundamental mercantilist doctrines
- such as the belief that the world's wealth remained constant and that a state
could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state.

During the Industrial Revolution, industrialists replaced merchants as a dominant

factor in the capitalist system and affected the decline of the traditional
handicraft skills of artisans, guilds and journeymen. Also during this period, the
surplus generated by the rise of commercial agriculture encouraged increased
mechanization of agriculture.[citation needed] Industrial capitalism marked the
development of the factory system of manufacturing, characterized by a complex
division of labor between and within work process and the routine of work tasks;
and eventually established the domination of the capitalist mode of production.[54]

Industrial Britain eventually abandoned the protectionist policy formerly

prescribed by mercantilism. In the 19th century, Richard Cobden (1804–1865) and
John Bright (1811–1889), who based their beliefs on the Manchester School,
initiated a movement to lower tariffs.[55] In the 1840s Britain adopted a less
protectionist policy, with the 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws and the 1849 repeal of
the Navigation Acts.[56] Britain reduced tariffs and quotas, in line with David
Ricardo's advocacy of free trade.

Modernity
[icon]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (February 2017)

The gold standard formed the financial basis of the international economy from 1870
to 1914
Capitalism was carried across the world by broader processes of globalization and
by the beginning of the nineteenth century a series of loosely connected market
systems had come together as a relatively integrated global system, in turn
intensifying processes of economic and other globalization.[57][page needed] Later
in the 20th century, capitalism overcame a challenge by centrally-planned economies
and is now the encompassing system worldwide,[16][58] with the mixed economy being
its dominant form in the industrialized Western world.

Industrialization allowed cheap production of household items using economies of

scale while rapid population growth created sustained demand for commodities.
Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by 18th-century imperialism.[57]
[page needed]

After the First and Second Opium Wars and the completion of the British conquest of
India, vast populations of these regions became ready consumers of European
exports. Also in this period, areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands
were colonized. The conquest of new parts of the globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa,
by Europeans yielded valuable natural resources such as rubber, diamonds and coal
and helped fuel trade and inv

oung began a series of journeys through England and Wales, which he described in
books that appeared from 1768 to 1770: A Six Weeks' Tour through the Southern
Counties of England and Wales, A Six Months' Tour through the North of England and
the Farmer's Tour through the East of England. He claimed that these contained the
only first-hand information on the rentals, produce and stock of England. They were
favourably received and widely translated.

He toured the Kingdom of Ireland in 1776–1777, publishing his Tour in Ireland in

1780. The book was republished in 1897 and 1925, but with much of Young's social
detail removed.[15][16] The full text was republished in 1892 as "Arthur Young's
Tour in Ireland (1776–1779)" by Arthur Hutton.[17]
Young's first visit to France was in 1787. Travelling all over the country around
the start of the French Revolution, he described the condition of the people and
the conduct of public affairs at a critical juncture. His Travels in France
appeared in one large quarto volume in 1792, reprinted in two octavo volumes
(Dublin, 1793) and in an enlarged second edition in two quarto volumes (London,
1794).

On the French Revolution

An eye-witness to the French Revolution at the time of the fall of the Bastille in
1789, Young by 1792 had become an opponent of its violence and modified his
reforming views on English politics.[1] Seeing the burned châteaux at Besançon, he
was shocked by the provincial disorders, as he had been by the chaotic debates of
the National Assembly (for which he recommended John Hatsell's book on procedure).
[18] He and William Windham aligned themselves with Edmund Burke's views expressed
in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in Young's Plain and Earnest
Address to Britons of November 1792. This was endorsed by the loyalist Association
for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers.[19] In 1793
he opposed Charles Grey's reform motion in Parliament and wrote Example of France a
Warning to Britain.[20]

Still in 1793, Young played a role in recruiting the Suffolk Yeomanry, by pulling
together local groups of cavalry volunteers. The formation actually took place in
1794, although the cap-badge date of 1793 was later adopted.[21][22] He joined with
the radical Capel Lofft of Troston Hall in a proposal for a Suffolk ship-of-war to
be supported by subscription.[23]

Young returned to the subject of reform in 1798 with An Enquiry into the State of
Mind Amongst the Lowest Classes. He had attained a formidable position as
commentator and used it to call attention to urban unrest and the influence of Tom
Paine.[24]

Associations
Young's closest friend was John Symonds, a Cambridge academic, who became involved
in his writing as editor. Frederick Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol in 1782 held weekly
Thursday dinners at Ickworth for Symonds, Young and others.[25]

In the late 1780s the export of wool became contentious, but Young combined forces
with Sir Joseph Banks in opposing restrictions on this.[26] James Oakes of Bury St
Edmunds, a yarn dealer, was a friend of both Symonds and Young.[27] In the wool
controversy, Oakes was on the other side from Young, who argued that restricting
the export of wool was against the interests of landowners, while Oakes wished to
see the price of wool to spinners fall.[28]

A tour by Young was typically preceded by newspaper publicity and consisted of

social meetings with prominent farmers and agricultural improvers.[1] One in south-
west England in 1796 led to an acquaintance with Sir Francis Buller, 1st Baronet, a
judge and improver at Princetown on Dartmoor. Buller corresponded with Young on
agricultural matters. The relationship later became awkward, however, when Young's
son, the Rev. Arthur Young, was suspected of jury tampering in the trial of Arthur
O'Connor, on the basis of a letter to Gamaliel Lloyd of Bury St Edmunds, a radical.
Buller and the attorney-general took a belligerent attitude to the allegations,
when the letter was read out in court.[29][30]

Final years

Young's tomb at All Saint's Church, Bradfield Combust

From 1801, Young followed the evangelical teaching of Thomas Scott at the London
Lock Chapel, and was influenced by Charles Simeon.[31] In 1811 he became firm
friends with a niece of Frances Burney, Marianne Francis (1790–1832), who shared
his commitment to evangelical Christianity.[32][33] His sight, however, was
failing, and in that year he had an operation for a cataract, which proved
unsuccessful, leaving him blind.[1]

Young continued to publish pamphlets. He died in Sackville Street, London, on 12

April 1820, aged 78, after a painful illness caused by bladder calculus, and was
buried at Bradfield Combust church,[1] where his tomb, in sarcophagus form, is
inscribed, "Let every real patriot shed a tear, For genius, talent, worth, lie
buried here." The tomb is designated a Grade II listed structure.[34] He left an
autobiography in manuscript, which was edited (1898) by Matilda Betham-Edwards.

Legacy

One of Arthur Young's bookplates in a Royal Agricultural Society of England book

Young influenced contemporary observers of economic and social life, such as
Frederick Morton Eden and Sir John Sinclair. He was influential too on the American
improver John Beale Bordley.[35]

More recently Young has been studied for his methods of investigation. Richard
Stone (1997) presents him as a pioneer national income statistician, continuing the
work of Gregory King, who had lived a century before. Young produced three
estimates of the national income of England: in his Tour through the North of
England, Farmer's Tour through the East of England and Political Arithmetic. Brunt
(2001) emphasises how Young collected his information, and presents him as a
pioneer of sample surveys.

Works
Young built a reputation on the views he expressed as an agricultural improver, a
political economist and a social observer. At the age of 17, he published a
pamphlet On the War in North America. He also wrote four early novels, and
Reflections on the Present State of Affairs at Home and Abroad in 1759. In 1768 he
published the Farmer's Letters to the People of England, in 1771 the Farmer's
Calendar, which went through many editions, and in 1774 his Political Arithmetic,
which was widely translated.

to labor relations between workers and employers. These rights are codified in
national and international labor and employment law. In general, these rights
influence working conditions in relations of employment. One of the most prominent
is the right to freedom of association, otherwise known as the right to organize.
Workers organized in trade unions exercise the right to collective bargaining to
improve working conditions.

Contents
1 Labor Background
2 Core Labor Standards
3 Labor rights issues
3.1 Hour Limits
3.2 Child Labor
3.2.1 Child Labor in the United States
3.3 Workplace Conditions
3.4 Safety and Social Sustainability
3.5 Living Wage
3.6 Migrant Workers
3.7 Undocumented Workers
3.7.1 Undocumented Workers in the United States
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Labor Background
Throughout history, workers claiming some sort of right have attempted to pursue
their interests. During the Middle Ages, the Peasants' Revolt in England expressed
demand for better wages and working conditions. One of the leaders of the revolt,
John Ball famously argued that people were born equal saying, "When Adam delved and
Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" Laborers often appealed to traditional
rights. For instance, English peasants fought against the enclosure movement, which
took traditionally communal lands and made them private.

The British Parliament passed the Factory Act 1833 which stated that children under
the age of 9 could not work, children aged 9-13 could only work 8 hours a day, and
children aged 14-18 could only work for 12 hours a day.[1]

Labor rights are a relatively new addition to the modern corpus of human rights.
The modern concept of labor rights dates to the 19th century after the creation of
labor unions following the industrialization processes. Karl Marx stands out as one
of the earliest and most prominent advocates for workers rights. His philosophy and
economic theory focused on labor issues and advocates his economic system of
socialism, a society which would be ruled by the workers. Many of the social
movements for the rights of the workers were associated with groups influenced by
Marx such as the socialists and communists. More moderate democratic socialists and
social democrats supported worker's interests as well. More recent workers rights
advocacy has focused on the particular role, exploitation, and needs of women
workers, and of increasingly mobile global flows of casual, service, or guest
workers.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) was formed in 1919 as part of the
League of Nations to protect worker's rights. The ILO later became incorporated
into the United Nations. The UN itself backed workers rights by incorporating
several into two articles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which
is the basis of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(article 6-8). These read:

Article 23[2]

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for
himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if
necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of
his/her interests.[3]
Article 24[4]

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of
working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
The ILO and several other groups have sought international labor standards to
create legal rights for workers across the world. Recent movements have also been
made to encourage countries to promote labor rights at the international level
through fair trade.[3]

Core Labor Standards

Identified by the ILO in the ‘Declaration of the Fundamental Principles and Rights
at Work’,[5] core labor standards are “widely recognized to be of particular
importance”.[6] They are universally applicable, regardless of whether the relevant
conventions have been ratified, the level of development of a country or cultural
values.[7] These standards are composed of qualitative, not quantitative standards
and don't establish a particular level of working conditions, wages or health and
safety standards.[5] They are not intended to undermine the comparative advantage
that developing countries may hold. Core labor standards are important human rights
and are recognized in widely ratified international human rights instruments
including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), the most widely
ratified human rights treaty with 193 parties, and the ICCPR with 160 parties.[8]

The core labor standards are:

Freedom of association:[9] workers are able to join trade unions that are
independent of government and employer influence;
The right to collective bargaining:[10] workers may negotiate with employers
collectively, as opposed to individually;
The prohibition of all forms of forced labor:[11] includes security from prison
labor and slavery, and prevents workers from being forced to work under duress;[12]
Elimination of the worst forms of child labor:[13] implementing a minimum working
age and certain working condition requirements for children;
Non-discrimination in employment : equal pay for equal work.
Very few ILO member countries have ratified all of these conventions due to
domestic constraints yet as these rights are also recognised in the UDHR, and form
a part of customary international law they are committed to respect these rights.
For a discussion on the incorporation of these core labor rights into the
mechanisms of the World Trade Organization, see The Recognition of Labour Standards
within the World Trade Organisation. There are many other issues outside of this
core, in the UK employee rights includes the right to employment particulars, an
itemised pay statement, a disciplinary process at which they have the right to be
accompanied, daily breaks, rest breaks, paid holidays and more.[14]

Labor rights issues

Aside from the right to organize, labor movements have campaigned on various other
issues that may be said to relate to labor rights.

Hour Limits
Many labor movement campaigns have to do with limiting hours in the work place.
19th century labor movements campaigned for an Eight-hour day. Worker advocacy
groups have also sought to limit work hours, making a working week of 40 hours or
less standard in many countries. A 35-hour workweek was established in France in
2000, although this standard has been considerably weakened since then. Workers may
agree with employers to work for longer, but the extra hours are payable overtime.
In the European Union the working week is limited to a maximum of 48 hours
including overtime (see also Working Time Directive).

Child Labor
Labor rights advocates have also worked to combat child labor. They see child labor
as exploitative, and often economically damaging. Child labor opponents often argue
that working children are deprived of an education. In 1948 and then again in 1989,
the United Nations declared that children have a right to social protection.[15]

Child Labor in the United States

In the United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) restricts the
employment of children. The FLSA defines the minimum age for employment to 14 years
for non-agricultural jobs with restrictions on hours, restricts the hours for youth
under the age of 16, and prohibits the employment of children under the age of 18
in occupations deemed hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.[16]

In 2007, Massachusetts updated their child labor laws that required all minors to
have work permits.[17]

Workplace Conditions
Labor rights advocates have worked to improve workplace conditions which meet
established standards. During the Progressive Era, the United States began
workplace reforms, which received publicity boosts from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle
and events such as the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Labor advocates and
other groups often criticize production facilities with poor working conditions as
sweatshops and occupational health hazards, and campaign for better labor practices
and recognition of workers rights throughout the world.

Safety and Social Sustainability

Recent initiatives in the field of sustainability have included a focus on social
sustainability, which includes promoting workers' rights and safe working
conditions, prevention of human trafficking, and elimination of illegal child labor
from the sustainably sourced products and services.[18] Organizations such as the
U.S. Department of Labor and Department of State have released studies on products
that have been identified as using child labor and industries using or funded by
human trafficking. Labor rights are defined internationally by sources such as the
Norwegian Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (DIFI) and the International
Finance Corporation performance standards.[18]

Living Wage
The labor movement pushes for guaranteed minimum wage laws, and there are
continuing negotiations about increases to the minimum wage. However, opponents see
minimum wage laws as limiting employment opportunities for unskilled and entry
level workers.

Migrant Workers
Legal migrant workers are sometimes abused. For instance, migrants have faced a
number of alleged abuses in the United Arab Emirates (including Dubai). Human
Rights Watch lists several problems including "nonpayment of wages, extended
working hours without overtime compensation, unsafe working environments resulting
in death and injury, squalid living conditions in labor camps, and withholding of
passports and travel documents by employers. [19] Despite laws against the
practice, employers confiscate migrant workers' passports. Without their passports,
workers cannot switch jobs or return home.[1] These workers have little recourse
for labor abuses, but conditions have been improving.[20] Labor and social welfare
minister Ali bin Abdullah al-Kaabi has undertaken a number of reforms to help
improve labor practices in his country.[19]

Undocumented Workers
The right to equal treatment, regardless of gender, origin and appearance,
religion, sexual orientation, is also seen by many as a worker's right.
Discrimination in the work place is illegal in many countries, but some see the
wage gap between genders and other groups as a persistent problem.

Undocumented Workers in the United States

The National Labor Relations Act recognizes undocumented laborers as employees.
However, the supreme court case Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. Vs. NLRB established
that backpay could not be awarded to unlawfully fired undocumented employees due to
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.[21] In this court decision, it was
also stated that the U.S. would support FLSA and MSPA, without regard to whether or
not someone is documented.[22] Undocumented workers also still have legal
protection against discrimination based on national origin. The decision of the
Hoffman supreme court case primarily has affected undocumented laborers by
preventing them from getting backpay and/or reinstatement.[22]

While no undocumented individual is technically able to work in the United States

legally, undocumented folks make up 5% of the workforce.[22] In the U.S., people
who were born outside of the country tend to work in riskier jobs and have a higher
chance of encountering death on the job. The low wage sectors, which many
undocumented folks work in, have the highest rates of wage and hour violation.[22]
Estimates claim that 31% of undocumented people work in service jobs. Restaurant
work in particular has a 12% rate of undocumented workers.

Undocumented people can and have joined labor unions, and are even credited by a
2008 dissertation for "reinvigorating" the labor movement.[22] Because the NLRA
protects undocumented workers, it protects their right to organize. However the
NLRA excludes workers that are agricultural, domestic, independent contractors,
governmental, or related to their employers.[23] The right to speak up against
labor abuses was protected further by an immigration reform bill in 2013 with the
POWER act, which intended to protect employees who spoke out against labor
practices from facing detention or deportation.[23][24]

However, labor unions are not necessarily welcoming of immigrant workers. Within
unions, there have been internal struggles, such as when Los Angeles immigrant
janitors reorganized service workers. Being a part of the union does not
necessarily address all the needs of immigrant workers, and thus winning power
within the union is the first step for immigrant workers to address their needs.
[25]

Immigrant workers often mobilize beyond unions, by campaigning in their communities

on intersectional issues of immigration, discrimination, and police misconduct.[25]

See also
icon Organized labor portal
Journal of Individual Employment Rights
Economic, social and cultural rights
Decent work
Industrial democracy
Labor and employment law
Occupational health
Union Organizer
Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights
Workers' council
Worker cooperative
Workplace democracy
Strike action
Syndicalism
Social clause
Right to work
Socialism
Labour Day
Labor rights in American meatpacking industry

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 age, ethnic origin, location, language, religion,
ethnicity, 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]

Contents
1 History
1.1 1800 to World War I
1.2 Between World War I and World War II
1.3 After World War II
1.3.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1.3.2 Human Rights Treaties
2 International bodies
2.1 The United Nations
3 Protection in the international level
3.1 Human Rights Council
3.2 UN treaty bodies
4 Regional human rights
4.1 Africa
4.2 Americas
4.3 Asia
4.4 Europe
5 Philosophies of human rights
5.1 Natural rights
5.2 Other theories of human rights
6 Concepts in human rights
6.1 Indivisibility and categorization of rights
6.2 Universalism vs cultural relativism
6.3 State and non-state actors
7 Human rights law
7.1 Human rights vs national security
7.2 Legal instruments and jurisdiction
7.3 Human rights violations
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 External links
History
Main article: History of human rights

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
Main article: 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 states 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 state judiciaries 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)
[7]
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
Main article: 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
Main article: United Nations Human Rights Council
The UN Human Rights Council, created in 2005, has a mandate to investigate alleged
human rights violations.[30] 47 of the 193 UN 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.[31]

Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate

alleged human rights abuses and to report to the Council.

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.[32]

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.[33]

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[34]
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.[35] 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.[35][36]
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

See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights
institutions
There are many regional agreements and organizations promoting and governing human
rights.

Africa

Flag of the African Union

Main article: Human rights in Africa
The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-five African
states.[37] 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.[38]

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:[39]

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).[39]

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.[40] 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).[41] 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[42] 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.[43]

There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the
international community and NGOs.[44]
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:[45]

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.[46] 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:
[47]

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.[48]

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.
Main articles: Human rights in Asia, Human rights in East Asia, Human rights in
Central Asia, and Human Rights in the Middle East
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)[49] 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.[50] The
organisation now also includes Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and
Cambodia.[49] 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.

Europe

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

Main article: Human rights in Europe
See also: Human rights in the Soviet Union
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.[51] 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.[52]
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.[53]

The Council of Europe is an organisation that is not part of the European Union,
but the latter is expected to accede to the European Convention and potentially the
Council itself. The EU has its own human rights document; the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[54]

The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.[55] 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.[55] 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.[56]

Philosophies of human rights

Rights
HumanRightsLogo.svg
Theoretical distinctions
Claim rights and liberty rightsIndividual and group rightsNatural rights and legal
rightsNegative and positive rights
Human rights
Civil and politicalEconomic, social and culturalThree generations
Rights by beneficiary
AccusedAnimalsChildrenConsumersCreditorsDeafDisabled personsEldersFetusesGun
ownersHumansNativesIntersexKingsLGBTMenMinoritiesParents (Mothers,
Fathers)PatientsPlantsPrisonersStatesStudentsVictimsWomenWorkersYouth
Other groups of rights
Civil libertiesDigitalLinguisticPropertyReproductiveSelf defenseSelf-determination
of peopleWater and sanitation
vte
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
Main articles: Natural law and 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,[57]
although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work of
Thomas Aquinas.[58]

The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is
usually attributed to the Stoics.[59]

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[60] 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.[61]

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.[62]

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.[63][64] 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[65]
The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human
social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection.
[66][67][68]

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