INTRODCUTION

There are three generation of human rights: civil-political, socio-economic, and

collective-developmental (Vasek, 1977). The first two, which represent potential
claims of individual persons against the state, are firmly accepted norms
identified in international treaties and conventions. The final type, which
represents potential claims of peoples and groups against the state, is the most
debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. Each of these types
includes two further subtypes. Scholar Sumner B. Twiss delineates a typology:

Socio-economic human rights similarly include two subtypes: norms pertaining to the
provision of goods meeting social needs (for example, nutrition, shelter, health
care, education) and norms pertaining to the provision of goods meeting economic
needs (for example, work and fair wages, an adequate living standard, a social
security net).

(A second claim is that there is a fundamental theoretical difference between first

and second generation rights: that the first type of rights require governments
only to refrain from certain activities (these are so-called "negative" rights);
while the second require positive intervention from governments (these are )

Second-generation, “socio-economic” human rights guarantee equal conditions and

treatment. They are not rights directly possessed by individuals but constitute
positive duties upon the government to respect and fulfill them. Socio-economic
rights began to be recognized by government after World War II and, like first-
generation rights, are embodied in Articles 22 to 27 of the Universal Declaration.
They are also enumerated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights.

The second generation of human rights are based on the principles of social justice
and public obligation—they tend to be “positive” rights, based on continental
European conceptions of liberty as equality. This generation of human rights
developed through those who had a strong desire for the state to provide protection
for its neediest inhabitants via providing relief to the less fortunate. This
second generation of rights has since evolved into what are now known as “social”
or “economic” rights.

Important examples of second generation rights include:

Three Generations of Human Rights

HISTORY

Human rights are not a recent invention.

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity

have been important in the development of human societies. These ideas can be
traced back to the ancient civilisations of Babylon, China and India. They
contributed to the laws of Greek and Roman society and are central to Buddhist,
Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish teachings.
Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have
not left written records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and other indigenous societies
elsewhere.

*GREEK & ROMAN

 The historical origins of the idea of natural law are commonly traced back to
Ancient Greece.
Generally speaking, the roots of this idea are located in the works of Aristotle.
However, as Buckle
(1993) suggests, many theories of natural law are associated with the ideas of
"universalism" and
an "unchanging ethical order"; and to this extent, the roots of the idea of natural
law can also be
located in Plato's ethical theories.

1.1 Plato's "universalism" and the idea of an "unchanging ethical order"

Plato proposed that in the realm of ethics - as well as in the realm of mathematics
and aesthetics -
there exist abstract, eternal and universal truths that exist as elements of an
"unchanging natural
order". They exist independently of human observation and can be apprehended by
processes of
reasoning. In elaborating this theory, Plato suggested that the empirical facts of
ethical diversity
and disagreement in the world do not necessarily challenge the validity of
universal truths, because
diversity and disagreement do not preclude the conclusion of some views being right
and others
wrong2.

1.2 The development of theories of natural law and natural rights: The Roman,
Medieval and
Early Modern periods
The ideas of natural law and natural rights in the Roman World
The Roman lawyer Cicero is widely credited as transmitting the idea of natural law
from Ancient
Greece to the Roman world, and thereby to the Christian thinkers of the Medieval
period. The
following passage - regarded by many political theorists as the paradigmatic
statement of the idea
of natural law - reflects the ways in which the Ancient Greek ideas of natural law
were expounded
as a basis for political life in Roman times. The idea of natural law, with its
emphasis on the "facts"
of human nature, ultimately functioned to legitimise the idea of a single,
universal and eternal body
of law throughout the Roman Empire.

*The Early Modern period

Ideas about justice were prominent in the thinking of philosophers in the Middle
Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. An important strand in this thinking
was that there was a 'natural law' that stood above the law of rulers. This meant
that individuals had certain rights simply because they were human beings.

In 1215, the English barons forced the King of England to sign Magna Carta (which
is Latin for ‘the Great Charter’). Magna Carta was the first document to place
limits on the absolute power of the king and make him accountable to his subjects.
It also laid out some basic rights for the protection of citizens, such as the
right to a trial.

The ideas of natural law and natural rights continued to develop in the Early
Modern period. As in
previous periods, these ideas were invoked to promote and justify many different
theories and
agendas. Much of Reformation and Renaissance thought emphasised the sovereignty of
individual
conscience and humanism, and these ideas had a significant impact on thinking about
natural law
and natural rights. Yet as Vincent (1986, 23) notes, some of the thinkers of early
Reformation,
including Luther, invoked authorities such as St. Augustine and St Paul to enjoin
the obedience of
Christians to secular authorities, elaborating ideas that ultimately functioned to
legitimise the
absolute state.

John Locke: Natural rights, the social contract and the principle of consent

Natural rights. Individuals are born free and equal and are endowed with
natural rights in virtue
of their common humanity.
The social contract. Individuals come together to form governments in order
to secure their
natural rights more effectively. A social contract is formed between the
government and the
people to secure indivdual rights more effectively. The purpose of government
is to protect
individual rights.
The principle of consent. Individuals do not give up their natural rights
when they enter into the
social contract. The legitimacy of government depends on the consent of the
people.

Significant development in thinking about human rights took place in the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during a time of revolution and emerging
national identities.

The American Declaration of Independence (1776) was based on the understanding that
certain rights, such as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', were
fundamental to all people. Similarly, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man
and the Citizen (1789) challenged the authority of the aristocracy and recognised
the ‘liberty, equality and fraternity' of individuals. These values were also
echoed in the United States’ Bill of Rights (1791), which recognised freedom of
speech, religion and the press, as well as the right to ‘peaceable' assembly,
private property and a fair trial.

*The development of modern human rights

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw continuing advances in social
progress, for example, in the abolition of slavery, the widespread provision of
education and the extension of political rights. Despite these advances,
international activity on human rights remained weak. The general attitude was that
nations could do what they liked within their borders and that other countries and
the broader international community had no basis for intervening or even raising
concerns when rights were violated.
This is expressed in the term ‘state sovereignty’, which refers to the idea that
whoever has the political authority within a country has the power to rule and pass
laws over that territory. Importantly, countries agree to mutually recognise this
sovereignty. In doing so, they agree to refrain from interfering in the internal or
external affairs of other sovereign states.

However, the atrocities and human rights violations that occurred during World War
II galvanised worldwide opinion and made human rights a universal concern.

Word War II onwards

During World War II millions of soldiers and civilians were killed or maimed. The
Nazi regime in Germany created concentration camps for certain groups - including
Jews, communists, homosexuals and political opponents. Some of these people were
used as slave labour, others were exterminated in mass executions. The Japanese
occupation of China and other Asian countries was marked by frequent and large-
scale brutality toward local populations. Japanese forces took thousands of
prisoners of war who were used as slave labour, with no medical treatment and
inadequate food.

WORK

1)The right to just and favorable conditions of work

Federal Safety Regulation
In the years between 1900 and World War I, a rather strange band of Progressive
reformers, muckraking journalists, businessmen, and labor unions pressed for
changes in many areas of American life. These years saw the founding of the Federal
Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve System and much else. Work safety
also became of increased public concern and the first important developments came
once again on the railroads. Unions representing trainmen had been impressed by the
safety appliance act of 1893 and after 1900 they campaigned for more of the same.
In response Congress passed a host of regulations governing the safety of
locomotives and freight cars. While most of these specific regulations were
probably modestly beneficial, collectively their impact was small because unlike
the rules governing automatic couplers and air brakes they addressed rather minor
risks.11

In 1910 Congress also established the Bureau of Mines in response to a series of

disastrous and increasingly frequent explosions. The Bureau was to be a scientific,
not a regulatory body and it was intended to discover and disseminate new knowledge
on ways to improve mine safety.
2)The right of protection against unemployment
3)The right to equal work for equal pay
Workers’ Compensation Laws Enacted
Far more important were new laws that raised the cost of accidents to employers. In
1908 Congress passed a federal employers’ liability law that applied to railroad
workers in interstate commerce and sharply limited defenses an employee could
claim. Worker fatalities that had once cost the railroads perhaps $200 now cost
$2,000. Two years later in 1910, New York became the first state to pass a
workmen’s compensation law. This was a European idea. Instead of requiring injured
workers to sue for damages in court and prove the employer was negligent, the new
law automatically compensated all injuries at a fixed rate. Compensation appealed
to businesses because it made costs more predictable and reduced labor strife. To
reformers and unions it promised greater and more certain benefits. Samuel Gompers,
leader of the American Federation of Labor had studied the effects of compensation
in Germany. He was impressed with how it stimulated business interest in safety, he
said. Between 1911 and 1921 forty-four states passed compensation laws.

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-workplace-safety-in-the-united-states-
1880-1970/

4)The right to rest and leisure as an employee

5)The right to reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic paid holidays

In Europe, before the Enlightenment of the eighteenth and nineteenth century,

education was the responsibility of parents and the church. With the French and
American Revolution, education was established also as a public function. It was
thought that the state, by assuming a more active role in the sphere of education,
could help to make education available and accessible to all. Education had thus
far been primarily available to the upper social classes and public education was
perceived as a means of realising the egalitarian ideals underlining both
revolutions.[20]

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

citizens and their families