INTRODUCTION:

The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists
a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical
conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times. The contemporary idea of
human rights most clearly emerges during the 17th. And 18th. Centuries in Europe and the so-called
doctrine of natural law. The basis of the doctrine of natural law is the belief in the existence of a natural
moral code based upon the identification of certain fundamental and objectively verifiable human
goods. Our enjoyment of these basic goods is to be secured by our possession of equally fundamental
and objectively verifiable natural rights. The full Declaration of the doctrine of human rights only finally
occurred during the 20th. Century and only in response to the most atrocious violations of human rights,
exemplified by the Holocaust. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the
UN General Assembly on 10th. December 1948

Defining Human Rights

Human rights are the rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being human; they are a modern
and secular version of' natural rights'

Some Major Features of Human Rights

 Human rights are universal (in the sense that they belong to human beings everywhere
regardless of race, religion, gender and other differences)
 Fundamental (in that a human being’s entitlement to them cannot be removed)
 Indivisible (in that civic and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights are
interrelated and co-equal in importance); all are equal- political, economic, etc.
 Absolute; they can never be compromised by any treaty or conventions

UNDERSTANDING HUMAN RIGHTS PHILOSOPHY

 Moral and ethical questions have always been important in human rights
 What are the human rights? have always been the question of human.
 many cultures and and civilizations have developed ideas about dignity of individual human
beings
 However, these theories were traditionally rooted in religious belief, meaning that the
moral worth of the individual was grounded in divine authority, human beings seen as
creatures of God
 The prototype for the modern idea of human rights was developed in early modern Europe,
17th and 18th, in the age of reason/enlightenment in the form of "natural rights" -
 Advanced by political philosophers such as Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
such rights were described as 'natural', in that they were thought to be God-given and
therefore to be part of the very core of human nature and no one can take it away
 This led to the concept of limited government
 By the late eighteenth century, such ideas were expressed in the notion of the "rights of
man" (later extended by feminists to include the rights of women), which was used as a
means of constraining government power by defining a sphere of autonomy that belongs to
the citizen
  The US Declarations of independence (1776), which declared life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness to be inalienable rights, gave expression to such ideas, as did the French
Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen
 Since then, all the constitutions incorporate HUMAN RIGHTS IN their constitution
 Stalin who was dictator, when made constitution, gave enormous importance to human
rights
 Now there is clear division between human rights and government power

Philosophical Analysis of the Concept of Human Rights

Human rights are rights that attach to human beings and function as moral guarantees in support of
their claims towards the enjoyment of a minimally good life. It is pertinent to understand following
concepts to elaborate the concept of Human rights

Moral vs. Legal Rights

The distinction drawn between moral rights and legal rights as two separate categories of rights is of
fundamental importance to understanding the basis and potential application of human rights. Legal
rights refer to all those rights found within existing legal codes. A legal right is a right that enjoys the
recognition and protection of the law. In stark contrast, moral rights are rights that, it is claimed, exist
prior to and independently from their legal counterparts. The existence and validity of a moral right is
not deemed to be dependent upon the actions of jurists and legislators.

Claim Rights & Liberty Rights

A claim right is a right one holds against another person or persons who owe a corresponding duty to
the right holder. Liberty rights as rights which exist in the absence of any duties not to perform some
desired activity and thus consist of those actions one is not prohibited from performing. In contrast to
claim rights, liberty rights are primarily negative in character

Spiral model
In this model, states change their attitude towards human rights and eventually adopt the
language of human rights mainly through a reactive spiral, which leads towards the socialization
of the norms in the domestic sphere
 SPIRAL MODEL

Phase 1: repression and activation of network

 The starting point where the domestic societal opposition is too weak and too oppressed
 This phase of repression might last for a long time, since many oppressive states never make it
on to the agenda of the transnational advocacy network.
 Moreover, the degree of repression unfortunately determines to some degree whether
transnational networks can even acquire information about human rights conditions in the
country.
  Very oppressive governments sometimes do not become the subject of international campaigns
by the advocacy networks, because information gathering requires at least some minimal links
between the domestic opposition and the transnational networks if the latter is to gain access to
the norm-violating state
 Only if and when the transnational advocacy network succeeds in gathering sufficient
information on the repression in the ‘‘target state,’’ can it put the norm-violating state on the
international agenda moving the situation to phase 2

Phase 2: denial
 This stage is characterized first by the production and dissemination of information about
human rights practices in the target state.
 Such information is often compiled with the cooperation of human rights organizations in the
target state.

 The transnational network then starts lobbying international human rights organizations

 This "lobbying" usually involves some discursive activities in terms of moral persuasion. Western
governments and publics, for example, are reminded of their own identity as promoters of
human rights.

 Human rights organizations frequently remind Western states of their own standards in this
area and demand that they live up to them.

 Network activists often point to inconsistencies in Western state behavior, stressing that they
had condemned human rights violations in one state, but not another, where violations are just
as egregious. This also typically involves some "shaming."

 These lobbying activities might lead to some initial pressure on the target state to improve its
human rights conditions

 The initial reaction of the norm-violating state in the cases considered here is almost always one
of denial

 "Denial" means that the norm violating government refuses to accept the validity of
international human rights norms themselves and that it opposes the suggestion that its
national practices in this area are subject to international jurisdiction.

 The norm-violating government charges that the criticism constitutes an illegitimate

intervention in the internal affairs of the country

 Thus the initial ‘‘boomerang throw’’ (boomerang effect enables other actors to alter the affairs
of the world. The boomerang effect starts with a social movement that tries to convince its
domestic government to change something. The government might ignore the movement's
demands. So then the social movement either gives up or goes and gets allies.) often appears to
be counterproductive because it allows the state to solidify domestic support.
  It is interesting to note in this context that denial of the norm almost never takes the form of
open rejection of human rights, but is mostly expressed in terms of reference to an allegedly
more valid international norm, in this case national sovereignty.

Phase 3: tactical concessions

 If international pressures continue and escalate, the norm-violating state seeks cosmetic
changes to pacify international criticism.

 Although the norm-violating government might then temporarily improve the situation - for
example, by releasing prisoners

 The minor cosmetic changes, such as the release of prisoners, or greater permissiveness about
domestic protest activities, may allow the repressed domestic opposition to gain courage and
space to mount its own campaign of criticism against the government.

 At this point the repressive government is usually acting almost solely from an instrumental or
strategic position, trying to use concessions to regain military or economic assistance, or to
lessen international isolation.

 The increased international attention serves to create and/or strengthen local networks of
human rights activists whose demands are empowered and legitimated by the
transnational/international network, and whose physical integrity may be protected by
international linkages and attention.

 At the beginning of phase 3, the domestic human rights movement is often relatively small and
dependent on a handful of key leaders. Arresting or killing these leaders decapitates the
movement and the resulting fear paralyzes it. This, for example, is what happened in the case of
the repression of the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in China, and the initial response of
the Guatemalan overnment to human rights pressures

 If the cycle is not delayed, the domestic opposition is likely to gain strength. The fully mobilized
domestic NGO networks linked to the global human rights polity can then be activated at any
time

Phase 4: ‘‘prescriptive status

 The human rights norm to describe and comment on their own behavior and that of others
(Rittberger 1993: 10-11); the validity claims of the norm are no longer controversial, even if the
actual behavior continues violating the rules.
 following indicators for ‘‘prescriptive status’’; governments are considered as accepting the
validity of human rights norms if and when:
1 they ratify the respective international human rights conventions
including the optional protocols;
2 the norms are institutionalized in the constitution and/or domestic
law;
3 there is some institutionalized mechanism for citizens to complain
about human rights violations;
4 the discursive practices of the government acknowledge the
validity of the human rights norms irrespective of the (domestic
or international) audience, no longer denounce criticism as
‘‘interference in internal affairs,’’ and engage in a dialogue with
their critics.

Phase 5: rule-consistent behavior

 Governments might accept the validity of human rights norms, but still continue to torture
prisoners or detain people without trial and so on Sometimes, national governments are not
fully in control of their police and military forces, who commit the human rights violations

 In any case, it is crucial for this phase of the spiral model that the domestic-transnational-
international networks keep up the pressure in order to achieve sustainable improvements of
human rights conditions The particular difficulty in this phase is that gross violations of
fundamental human rights might actually decrease in the target state and that, therefore,
international attention might decline, too