Question 7

The question says that International Human Rights Law ,i-e, Universal Declaration for Human Rights left
it on the state’s discretion that what human rights they want to protect. In simple terms this means that
International Human Rights law is in the support of cultural relativism not universalism. Universal
Declaration for Human Rights is the source document for the International Human Rights Law and it is
clearly evident from its name that human rights are universal but in reality this is not true.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says “All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights….” And then Article 2 further elaborates there should be no
distinction in regard to anyone’s age, sex, religion, race, language or any-other basis. The first two articles
of UDHR clearly say that human rights are universal which means they apply equally to everyone without
any discrimination. Later in the Vienna Conference it was said that human rights are universal which
means that they are inter-dependent, inalienable and indivisible. Inter-dependent means that all the rights
dependent on each-other and indivisible mean that they cannot be separated. Inalienability is the concept
that tells that these are rights which cannot be taken back once given. All of these features of International
Human Rights Law were documented at different meetings and conferences that were held in regard to
UDHR and gives a clear idea that international law does not allow the states to maneuver the definition of
rights but this is not true. On practical grounds UDHR was drafted by Male White Men back in mid
twentieth century after the World War II and after its completion all the states were forced to adopt this
document at national level but the question is that when it was being drafted why didn’t those Male White
Men involved the representatives of other race, religion and sex. So when it comes to the enforceability it
can be said clearly that it’s not possible that every state can adopt this document completely. This shows
that there is a huge difference between the utopian document and the reality on practical grounds.

Article 18 UDHR say “Everyone has the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; ….
To manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” This is the law
incorporated in UDHR and requires the whole world to enforce this law in their respective states. It is
highly likely that they would have added this into their national legislation but in some states reality is
totally different when it comes to the interpretation of this law. India claims to be a secular state but all its
claims get collapsed when we looks at its national legislations against Sikhs and Muslims. The
Mahrashtra Animal Preservation Act 2015 imposed the ban on the possession of beef. The Indian
government also introduced “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance”, this law
made it mandatory that any human being who wants to change its religion must get permission from
government first. Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantreya Adhyadesh, 2020 (Freedom of Religion
Ordinance) put ban on the conversion of religion through marriages and if the government found
someone involved in this act then he will liable to 10 years of sentence and the marriage will be
declared null and void. All these legislations are too recent but UN, the watchdog for UDHR, has done
nothing against such interpretations.

Article 5 UDHR says “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.” This is the law that prohibits the torture but in many states there are
institutions that believe in torture and use this as a way to extract information from the detainees. UN
also introduced convention against the torture and a committee against the torture was also introduced.
The committee did research on the violation of Article 5 of UDHR and highlighted multiple situations
where the states believed that there is no way forward without torture. The US said that during armed
conflicts torture is the necessity of time and committee did publish this point in the report but did
nothing further which impliedly legitimize the existence of torture cells like Guantanamo Bay.

Article 19 UDHR says “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. This
allows everyone to speak anything they want to but we have seen its violation happening in Pakistan
another signatory of UDHR. In Pakistan during the last one year the law enforcement agencies have
illegally detained more than 3500 people to stop them from expressing themselves. The example of
this the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority has imposed ban on the T.V. channels from
showing the speech of Imran Khan who is the former prime minister of Pakistan and he is the leader
of the most popular political party of Pakistan. The state also forced the renowned journalist Arshad
Sharif to leave the country just because he was trying to express his thoughts on the recent political
instability and his thoughts were tilted against the army, the army which ruled Pakistan more than five
times in the form of dictatorship. During the last one year a political party has faced extreme fascism
but the International Court of Justice did nothing more than serving a notice to the government of
Pakistan and the foreign office has not even submitted a reply till date.

In conclusion it can be said that International Human Rights Law are universal on paper only but in
reality states interpret the law in the way they want to do it which ultimately compromises the sole
purpose of UDHR.

Question 3
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICRED) was
drafted in 1969. It was an attempt made by the United Nations to tackle the issues relating to the racial
discrimination. ICRED reaffirms the Article 1 UDHR by saying that all human beings must be treated
dignity and equality. As far as the question is concerned it is debatable that the Race Convention is
still relevant or not. Many scholars argue that ICRED was adopted to combat apartheid in South
Africa but it is of no relevance to the modern world.

The convention is mainly divided into three parts. The first defines the term ‘racial discrimination’.
According to the Article 1 of the convention racial discrimination is “any distinction, exclusion,
restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal
footing.” This definition neither applies to the distinctions states have to make between their own
citizens and non-citizens nor it applies to the laws regarding nationality unless those laws are racially
discriminatory in themselves. This definition has another aspect too and this was elaborated in the
Article 1(4) ICRED which says “separate right for different racial group” is not the need of the hour
because this was happening during US and South African regimes of apartheid. During those apartheid
everyone White and Black was considered as a human being but the discrimination was made on the
basis that Black deserves an inferior school, hospital and housing as compared the Whites. Article 2
Part I further elaborates the measures that a state should take for the elimination of racial
discrimination. This article asks the state not to engage in any act or practice of racial discrimination.
This also prohibits the state from sponsoring or supporting racial discrimination. This also encourages
the state to encourage “integrationist multi-racial organizations” and also encourages them to support
different organizations that are working against the racial discrimination. Article 3, 4 and 5 asks the
states to take measures to eradicate apartheid happening under their jurisdictions.

Part II of the convention moves from the substantive rights to describe the power of the committee. It
empowers the committee to take solid measures against the discrimination on the bases of race. State
parties are under a duty meet various reporting commitments. It also gave the power to the committee
to create its own rules and regulations. Part II also states that if any state is in the breach of ICRED
any other member state can bring this into the attention of the committee. Article 14 also empowers
the individuals to communicate violations to UN. Part III talks about the reservations, reservations
that are “incompatible with the object and purpose”.

The key trigger, however, for the Race Convention was apartheid, a form of late colonialism in South
Africa. Apartheid (which literally means separateness or segregation in Afrikaans) has now formally been
brought to an end in South Africa. Human rights, as we have noted on a few occasions, must evolve,
otherwise they lose relevance. In the context of continued discrimination on the basis of inter alia race
against migrants and those seeking asylum, the increasing rise of ‘Islamophobia’ in the West, continued
anti-Semitism, and the historic and contemporary marginalization of indigenous peoples, the specialized
and focused work of ICERD is as important now as it has ever been. To deal with this modern form of
Racial Discrimination the basic steps required are same as those steps that were needed to deal with
the South African apartheid and these steps have been highlighted in Article 3-5 of the ICRED.

In the modern world states are still reporting the issues of racial discrimination. The committee raised
an objection on increase number of attacks on minorities in UK by the police. The committee
published “[the]Committee regrets the increased use of ‘stops and searches’ by the police which
disproportionately affect members of minority ethnic groups, particularly persons of Asian and
African descent…The Committee is concerned that these measures may not only encourage racial
and ethnic stereotyping by police officers but may also encourage impunity and fail to promote
accountability in the police service for possible abuses.” Such steps by the UN shows that they are
genuinely concered about the enforcement of ICRED and steps taken by states after the recommendations
are published shows that the states are welcoming the ICRED even decades after its enforcibility.’

Therefore it can be said that ICRED is still of relevance in the modern world and the states are trying
their best to protect the human rights in regard to the racial discrimination and it is a huge success for the
ICRED and Unite Nations.

Question 4

Economic, social and cultural rights are basically those freedoms and privileges that people of a society
requires to live their lives with dignity and respect. These rights include right to earn, right to food,
shelter, clothing, right to health, right to education, right to practice culture and religion freely and many
more. States are under an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill economic, social and cultural rights.
Respect means that states has no legal authority to interfere with enjoyment of the right, protecting means
that the state is obligated to stop other actors from interfering with the enjoyment of rights lastly fulfill
supports the idea that a state is bound to take such steps that creates ease for the people to enjoy their
rights.

All the above mentioned rights are the most basic rights that a person must get to spend his life. Right to
health is a right which cannot be compared to right to sexuality. This is simply because if a society will
not get basic health facilities its mortality rate will get high and people will not get to a certain age at
which they could decide their gender. This example shows that basic rights, economic, social and cultural
rights, are more important than other rights.

ICESCR is the most operative covenant on human rights introduced by the UNHRC and UN ensures that
the states that are party to this covenant must ensure that they are taking necessary steps towards the
granting of economic, social and cultural rights to their people. Article 1 of ICESCR clearly states “All
peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” . This article
of ICESCR is supporting the idea that economic, social and cultural rights are the most basic and by
far the most important of all. The part 1 of ICESCR further elaborates the importance of all these
rights and obligates the state parties to promote the realization of the right of self-determination
amongst its people. According to the many scholars the rights that fall on the other side of the
spectrum are civil and political rights. According to UK human rights commission these rights
include, freedom from torture, fair trial rights, freedom of thought, religion and expression, privacy,
home and family life and equality and non-discrimination. However many scholars argue that ICCPR
falls under the umbrella of ICESCR; which means that economic, social and cultural rights are
basically three main types of the rights and all other rights fall under them. This argument can be
supported through Article 1 of ICESCR which clearly says that people have right of self-
determination and with the help of that they are free to choose their political status. Then ICCPR
talks about freedom of thought, religion and expression but it can be said that all these rights come
under the social rights, similarly home and family life comes under the social rights (Article 10
ICESCR). This can be said that ICCPR is only covering the social aspect of ICESCR. Furthermore
part iii of the ICESCR covers all the rights including workplace rights, freedom of expression, food
security and social security.

Therefore it can be concluded that economic, social and cultural rights are the umbrella rights and all
other rights fall under these which further supports the idea that these rights are the most important
ones and everyone deserves to enjoy these in today’s worlds. However third world or developing
states have problem in implementing these but UN and other international bodies are trying hard to
convince the states for the implementation of these basic and most rights.`