This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience.

Find out more on how we use

cookies and how you can change your settings. Accept Cookies

Navigation
 Skip to Content

WWW.COE.INT
HUMAN RIGHTSDEMOCRACYRULE OF LAW

ABOUT US

English

Connect

COMPASS
Manual for Human Rights Education
with Young people

 Home
 Youth Portal
 Table of Contents
 List of activities
 Human Rights Themes
 Other languages
 Resources
 Contact

You are here:

 1. Democracy and Human Dignity
2. Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people
3. Table of Contents
4. Chapter 4
5. The evolution of human rights

The evolution of human

rights

"All rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated."

Vienna Declaration, 1993

Promises, promises…
Our leaders have made a huge number of human rights commitments on
our behalf! If every guarantee that they had signed up to were to be met,
our lives would be peaceful, secure, healthy and comfortable; our legal
systems would be fair and would offer everyone the same protection; and
our political processes would be transparent and democratic and would
serve the interests of the people.
So what is going wrong? One of the small things that is going wrong is that
politicians are like the rest of us and will often take short cuts if they can get
away with it! So we need to know exactly what promises have been made
on our behalf and to start making sure that they are kept.

Question: Do you always do what you have said you will do? Even if no
one reminds you?

What are our Rights?

Being imprisoned is not the problem. The problem is to avoid surrender.
Nazim Hikmet

We know that we are entitled to have all human rights respected. The
UDHR, the ECHR and other treaties cover a wide range of different rights,
so we shall look at them in the order in which they were developed and
were recognised regionally or by the international community. The most
established way of classifying these rights is into 'first, second and third
generation' rights, so we shall follow this for the time being but, as we shall
see, such a classification has limited use and can even be misleading at
times. These categories, after all, are not clear-cut. They simply constitute
one way – amongst many – of classifying the different rights. Most rights
fall under more than one category. The right to express one's opinion, for
example, is both a civil and a political right. It is essential to participation in
political life as well as being fundamental to our personal liberty.

Civil and political rights (first generation rights)

These rights began to emerge as a theory during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries and were based mostly on political concerns. It had
begun to be recognised that there were certain things that the all-powerful
rulers should not be able to do and that people should have some influence
over the policies that affected them. The two central ideas were those of
personal liberty, and of protecting the individual against violations by the
state.
Civil and political rights today are set out in detail in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (ECHR), and they include rights such as the right to participate
in government and the prohibition of torture. These rights have traditionally
been regarded by many – at least in "the West" – as the most important
human rights. We shall see in the next section that this is a false view.

Human rights are prone to political abuse

During the Cold War, the countries of the Soviet block were severely
criticised for their disregard of civil and political rights. These countries
responded by criticising the western democracies, in turn, for ignoring key
social and economic rights, which we shall look at next. There was at least
an element of truth in both criticisms. It also illustrates how human rights
are prone to political abuse

"States and the international community as a whole continue to tolerate all

too often breaches of economic, social and cultural rights which, if they
occurred in relation to civil and political rights, would provoke expressions
of horror and outrage and would lead to concerted calls for immediate
remedial action."
Statement to the Vienna Conference by the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, 1993

Social, economic and cultural rights

(second generation rights)
First comes the grub then the morals.
Bertold Brecht

These rights concern how people live and work together and the basic
necessities of life. They are based on the ideas of equality and guaranteed
access to essential social and economic goods, services, and
opportunities. They became increasingly a subject of international
recognition with the effects of early industrialisation and the rise of a
working class. These led to new demands and new ideas about the
meaning of a life of dignity. People realised that human dignity required
more than the minimal lack of interference from the state as proposed by
the civil and political rights. Social, economic and cultural rights are outlined
in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) and also in the European Social Charter of the Council of
Europe.

Social, economic and cultural rights are based on the ideas of equality and
guaranteed access to essential social and economic goods, services, and
opportunities.

 Social rights are those that are necessary for full

participation in the life of society. . They include at
least the right to education and the right to found and
maintain a family but also many of the rights often
regarded as 'civil' rights: for example, the rights to
recreation, health care, privacy and freedom from
discrimination.
 Economic rights are normally thought to include the
right to work, to an adequate standard of living, to
housing and the right to a pension if you are old or
disabled. The economic rights reflect the fact that a
certain minimal level of material security is necessary
for human dignity, and also the fact that, for example, a
lack of meaningful employment or housing can be
psychologically demeaning...
 Cultural Rights refer to a community's cultural "way of
life" and are often given less attention than many of the
other types of rights. They include the right to
participate freely in the cultural life of the community
and, possibly, also the right to education. However,
many other rights, not officially classed as "cultural"
will be essential for minority communities within a
 society to preserve their distinctive culture: for
example, the right to non-discrimination and equal
protection of the law.

Solidarity rights (third generation rights)

The list of internationally recognised human rights has not remained
constant. Although none of the rights listed in the UDHR has been brought
into serious question in over 60 years of its existence, new treaties and
documents have clarified and further developed some of the basic
concepts that were laid down in that original document.

right to development, right to peace, right to a healthy environment, to

humanitarian assistance…

These additions have been a result of a number of factors: they have partly
come about as a response to changing ideas about human dignity, and
partly as a result of new threats and opportunities emerging. In the case of
the specific new category of rights that have been proposed as third
generation rights, these have been the consequence of a deeper
understanding of the different types of obstacles that may stand in the way
of realising the first and second generation rights.
The idea at the basis of the third generation of rights is that of solidarity;
and the rights embrace collective rights of society or peoples, such as the
right to sustainable development, to peace or to a healthy environment. In
much of the world, conditions such as extreme poverty, war, ecological and
natural disasters have meant that there has been only very limited progress
in respect of human rights. For that reason, many people have felt that the
recognition of a new category of human rights is necessary: these rights
would ensure the appropriate conditions for societies, particularly in the
developing world, to be able to provide the first and second generation
rights that have already been recognised.
The specific rights that are most commonly included within the category of
third generation rights are the rights to development, to peace, to a healthy
environment, to share in the exploitation of the common heritage of
mankind, to communication and humanitarian assistance.

There has, however, been some debate concerning this category of rights.
Some experts object to the idea of these rights because they are ‘collective
rights', in the sense of being held by communities or even whole states.
They argue that human rights can only be held by individuals. The
argument is more than merely verbal, because some people fear such a
change in terminology could provide a "justification" for certain repressive
regimes to deny (individual) human rights in the name of these collective
human rights; for example, severely curtailing civil rights in order to secure
"economic development".
There is another concern which is sometimes expressed: since it is not the
state but the international community that is meant to safeguard third
generation rights, accountability is impossible to guarantee. Who, or what,
is supposed to be responsible for making sure that there is peace in the
Caucasus or the Middle East, or that the Amazonian rainforest is not
destroyed and that appropriate measures are taken against climate
change?

Nevertheless, whatever we decide to call them, there is general agreement

that these areas require further exploration and further attention from the
international community. Some collective rights have already been
recognised, in particular under the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The
UDHR itself includes the right to self-determination and a human right to
development was codified in a 1986 UN General Assembly Declaration.
The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which
every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute
to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which
all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised. (UN
Declaration on the Right to Development).

Are some rights more important than others?

The different types of rights are far more closely connected with each other
than their labels suggest.

Social and economic rights had a difficult time being accepted on an equal
level with civil and political rights, for reasons which are both ideological
and political. Although it seems evident to the ordinary citizen that such
things as a minimum standard of living, housing, and reasonable conditions
of employment are all essential to human dignity, politicians have not
always been so ready to acknowledge this. One reason is undoubtedly that
ensuring basic social and economic rights for everyone worldwide would
require a massive redistribution of resources. Politicians are well aware that
that is not the type of policy that wins votes.
Such politicians therefore suggest that second generation rights are
different to first generation civil and political rights. The first claim often
made is that social and economic rights are neither realistic nor realisable,
at least in the short term, and that we should move towards them only
gradually. This is the approach that has been taken in the ICESCR:
governments only need to show that they are taking measures towards
meeting these aims at some point in the future. The claim, however, is
certainly open to dispute and appears to be based more on political
considerations than anything else. Many independent studies show that
there are sufficient resources in the world, and sufficient expertise, to
ensure that everyone's basic needs could be met if a concerted effort was
made.
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 "positive" rights). The argument states that it is not
realistic to expect governments to take positive steps, for example to
provide food for everyone, and that they are therefore not obliged to do so.
Without any obligation on anyone's part, there can be no right in any
meaningful sense of the word.
However, there are two basic misunderstandings in this line of reasoning.

Firstly, civil and political rights are by no means purely negative. In order,
for example, for a government to guarantee freedom from torture, it is not
enough just for government officials to refrain from torturing people!
Genuine freedom in this area often requires a system of checks and
controls to be put in place: policing systems, legal mechanisms, freedom of
information and access to places of detention – and more besides. The
same goes for securing the right to vote and for all other civil and political
rights. In other words, these rights require positive action by the
government in addition to refraining from negative action.

Secondly, social and economic rights, just like civil and political rights, also
require that governments refrain from certain activities: for example, from
giving large tax breaks to companies, or encouraging development in
regions that already possess a relative advantage, or imposing trade tariffs
which penalise developing countries – and so on.
Question: What positive action does a government need to authorise in
order to ensure genuinely free and fair elections?

Both self-determination and the right to development are … at once

individual and collective rights.
Chidi Anselm Odinkal

In actual fact, the different types of rights are far more closely connected
with each other than their labels suggest. Economic rights merge into
political rights; civil rights are often undistinguishable from social rights. The
labels can be useful in giving a broad picture but they can also be very
misleading. Many rights can fall into either category and rights from one
category may depend in their realisation on the fulfilment of rights in
another category.
It is therefore fitting to recall the understanding captured in the 1993 Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action, in which paragraph 5 recognises
that:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and

interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally
in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same
emphasis.

Other accounts for ‘core' and ‘other' rights

The ‘generations approach' is not the only effort in distinguishing between
rights in the light of the proliferation of rights. Some rights can be derogated
in times of public emergency; others cannot. Some rights are recognised as
being ‘jus cogens' or norms that have been accepted by the international
community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted:
examples include the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, and
systematic racial discrimination. Some rights are ‘absolute' in that they
cannot be subject to derogation or limitation in their manifestation, for
example the prohibition on torture. ‘Minimum core' obligations have been
identified in relation to certain economic and social rights, for example the
provision of essential primary health care, basic shelter and education.
Others may suggest that collective rights are core, in that they establish a
framework of protection within which individual rights can then be realised.
There is no clear consensus or single theory on this, and most observers
would reinforce the importance of emphasising the universality, indivisibility
and interdependence of rights.
Irrespective of the question of proliferation, however, science sometimes
triggers the need for the application of human rights norms to new
challenges, and these will be discussed below.

The advance of science

Everyone has the right […] to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits.
Article 27, UDHR

Council of Europe Oviedo Convention

Another area where new rights are being acknowledged is in health and
medical science. New scientific discoveries have opened up a number of
questions relating to ethics and human rights, in particular in the fields of
genetic engineering, and concerning the transplant of organs and tissues.
Questions on the very nature of life have had to be addressed as a result of
technical advances in each of these fields.
The Council of Europe responded to some of these challenges with a new
international treaty: The 1997 Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of
Biology and Medicine ("Oviedo Convention"). This convention has been
signed by 30 member states of the Council of Europe and ratified by ten. It
sets out guidelines for some of the problematic issues raised in the
previous section.

Summary of most relevant articles:

 Any form of discrimination against a person on grounds

of their genetic heritage is prohibited.
 Predictive genetic tests can be carried out only for
health purposes and not, for example, in order to
determine the physical characteristics that a child will
develop in later life.
 Intervention which aims to modify the human genome
may only be undertaken for preventative, diagnostic or
therapeutic purposes.
 Medically assisted procreation is not permitted where
this is designed to determine a future child's sex.
 Removal of organs or tissue from a living person for
transplantation purposes can be carried out solely for
the therapeutic benefit of the recipient.

Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to

another human being, whether living or dead, is probihited.
Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Dignity of the Human Being, Paris 1998

Genetic engineering is the method of changing the inherited characteristics

of an organism in a predetermined way by altering its genetic material.
Progress in this area has led to an intense debate on a number of different
ethical and human rights questions; for example, whether the alteration of
germ cells should be allowed when this results in a permanent genetic
change for the whole organism and for subsequent generations; or whether
the reproduction of a clone organism from an individual gene should be
allowed in the case of human beings if it is permitted in the case of mice
and sheep.

Question: Should there be limits to what scientists can research?

The progress of biomedical technology has also led to the possibility of

transplanting adult and foetal organs or tissues from one body to another.
Like genetic engineering, this offers huge potential for improving the quality
of some people's lives and even for saving lives - but consider some of the
problematic issues that are raised by these advances:

 If a life can be saved or improved by using an organ

from a dead body, should this always be attempted? Or
do dead bodies also deserve respect?
 How can we ensure that everyone in need has an equal
chance of receiving a transplant if there is a limited
supply of organs?
 Should there be laws concerning the conservation of
organs and tissues?
 Is there a rights approach to genetically modified foods
and feeds (GMOs)? If so, what is it?
 Download Compass
SHORTCUTS

 Promises, promises
 What are our Rights?
 The advance of science

CHAPTERS

 Chapter 1 - Human Rights Education and Compass: an introduction

 Chapter 2 - Practical Activities and Methods for Human Rights Education
 Chapter 3 - Taking Action for Human Rights
 Chapter 4 - Understanding Human Rights
 Chapter 5 - Background Information on Global Human Rights Themes
 Appendices
 Glossary

COUNCIL OF EUROPE PORTAL

Council of Europe, Avenue de l'Europe F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex, France - Tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00
Disclaimer - © Council of Europe 2023 - © Photo
credit - Contact - RSS

Contents
hide

(Top)


First-generation human rights


Second-generation human rights


Third-generation human rights

Fourth generation


Commentary


See also


Notes

Three generations of human rights

19 languages
 Article
 Talk
 Read
 Edit
 View history

Tools












From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rights

Theoretical distinctions

 Claim rights and liberty rights

 Individual and group rights
 Natural rights and legal rights
 Negative and positive rights

Human rights

 Civil and political

 Economic, social and cultural
 Three generations

Rights by beneficiary

 Accused
 Animals
 Children
 Consumers
 Creditors
 Deaf
 Disabled
 Elders
 Farmers
 Fetuses
 Humans
 Indigenous
 Intersex
 Kings
 LGBT
o Transgender
 Men
 Minorities
 Parents
o Fathers
o Mothers
 Patients
 Peasants
 Plants
 Prisoners
 Robots
 States
  Students
 Victims
 Women
 Workers
 Youth

Other groups of rights

 Assembly
 Association
 Asylum
 Civil liberties
 Digital
 Education
 Fair trial
 Food
 Free migration
 Health
 Housing
 Linguistic
 Movement
 Property
 Repair
 Reproductive
 Rest and leisure
 Self defense
 Self-determination of people
 Sexuality
 Speech
 Water and sanitation

 v
 t
 e

The division of human rights into three generations was initially proposed in 1979 by
the Czech jurist Karel Vasak at the International Institute of Human
Rights in Strasbourg. He used the term at least as early as November 1977.[1] Vasak's
theories have primarily taken root in European law.
In a speech two years later, his divisions follow the three watchwords of the French
Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.[2] The three generations are reflected in some of
the rubrics of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[citation needed] While
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists first- and second-generation rights, the
document itself does not specifically order them in accordance with Vasak's framework.

First-generation human rights[edit]

First-generation human rights, sometimes called "blue rights", deal essentially with
liberty and participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in
nature: They serve negatively to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-
generation rights include, among other things, the right to life, equality before the
law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property rights, the right to a fair trial,
and voting rights. Some of these rights and the right to due process date back to
the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Rights of Englishmen, which were expressed in
the English Bill of Rights in 1689. A more full set of first-generation human rights was
pioneered in France by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789,
and by the United States Bill of Rights in 1791.
They were enshrined at the global level and given status in international law first by
Articles 3 to 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later in the
1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In Europe, they were
enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953.

Second-generation human rights[edit]

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by
governments after World War II. They are fundamentally economic, social, and
cultural in nature. They guarantee different members of the citizenry equal conditions
and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed in just and
favorable condition, rights to food, housing and health care, as well as social
security and unemployment benefits. Like first-generation rights, they were also covered
by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and further embodied in Articles 22 to 28
of the Universal Declaration, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights.
In the United States of America, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a Second
Bill of Rights, covering much the same grounds, during his State of the Union Address
on January 11, 1944. Today, many nations, states, or groups of nations have developed
legally binding declarations guaranteeing comprehensive sets of human rights, e.g.
the European Social Charter.
Some U.S. states have enacted some of these economic rights; for example, the state
of New York has enshrined the right to a free education,[3][4] as well as "the right
to organize and to bargain collectively",[5] and workers' compensation,[6] in
its constitutional law.
These rights are sometimes referred to as "red" rights. They impose upon the
government the duty to respect and promote and fulfill them, but this depends on the
availability of resources. The duty is imposed on the state because it controls its own
resources. No one has the direct right to housing and right to education. (In South
Africa, for instance, the right is not, per se, to housing, but rather "to have access to
adequate housing",[7] realised on a progressive basis.[8])
The duty of government is in the realization of these positive rights.

Third-generation human rights[edit]

Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and social,
as expressed in many progressive documents of international law, including the
1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and other
pieces of generally aspirational "soft law".
Also known as Solidarity human rights, they are rights that try to go beyond the
framework of individual rights to focus on collective concepts, such as community or
people. However, the term remains largely unofficial,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] just as the also-used
moniker of "green" rights, and thus houses an extremely broad spectrum of rights,
including:

 Group and collective rights

 Right to self-determination
 Right to economic and social development
 Right to a healthy environment
 Right to natural resources
 Right to communicate and communication rights
 Right to participation in cultural heritage
 Rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability
The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights ensures many of those: the right to
self-determination, right to development, right to natural resources and right to
satisfactory environment.[16] Some countries also have constitutional mechanisms for
safeguarding third-generation rights. For example, the Hungarian Parliamentary
Commissioner for Future Generations,[17] the Parliament of Finland's Committee for the
Future [fi], and the erstwhile Commission for Future Generations in the Israeli Knesset.
Some international organizations have offices for safeguarding such rights. An example
is the High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. The Directorate-General for the Environment of the European
Commission has as its mission "protecting, preserving and improving the environment
for present and future generations, and promoting sustainable development".
A few jurisdictions have enacted provisions for environmental protection, e.g. New
York's "forever wild" constitutional article,[18] which is enforceable by action of the New
York State Attorney General or by any citizen ex rel. with the consent of the Appellate
Division.[19]
Fourth generation[edit]
Several analysts claim that a fourth generation of human rights is emerging, which
would include rights that cannot be included in the third generation, future claims of first
and second generation rights and new rights, especially in relation to technological
development and information and communication technologies and cyberspace.[20]
However, the content of it is not clear, and these analysts do not present a unique
proposal. They normally take some rights from the third generation and include them in
the fourth, such as the right to a healthy environment or aspects related to bioethics.
Some of those analysts believe that the fourth generation is given by human rights in
relation to new technologies,[20] while others prefer to talk about digital rights,[21] where a
new range of rights would be found, such as:

 The right to equally access computing and digital

 The right to digital self-determination
 The right to digital security
 The right to access one's own digital data (habeas data)[22]
Others point out that the differentiating element would be that, while the first three
generations refer to the human being as a member of society, the rights of the fourth
would refer to the human being as a species.

Commentary[edit]
Maurice Cranston argued that scarcity means that supposed second-generation and
third-generation rights are not really rights at all.[23] If one person has a right, others have
a duty to respect that right, but governments lack the resources necessary to fulfill the
duties implied by citizens' supposed second- and third-generation rights.
Charles Kesler, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and senior
fellow of the Claremont Institute, has argued that second- and third-generation human
rights serve as an attempt to cloak political goals, which the majority may well agree are
good things in and of themselves, in the language of rights, and thus grant those
political goals inappropriate connotations. In his opinion, calling socio-economic goods
"rights" inherently creates a related concept of "duties", so that other citizens have to be
coerced by the government to give things to other people in order to fulfill these new
rights. He also has stated that, in the U.S., the new rights create a "nationalization" of
political decision-making at the federal level in violation of federalism.[24] In his book Soft
Despotism, Democracy's Drift, Paul Rahe, professor at Hillsdale College, wrote that
focusing on equality-based rights leads to a subordination of the initial civil rights to an
ever-expanding government, which would be too incompetent to provide for its citizens
correctly and would merely seek to subordinate more rights.[25]
19th century philosopher Frederic Bastiat summarized the conflict between
these negative and positive rights by saying:
M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you
have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your
program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate
the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary". It is quite impossible for me to conceive
of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being
legally trampled underfoot.[26]
Economist Friedrich Hayek has argued that the second generation concept of "social
justice" cannot have any practical political meaning:
No state of affairs as such is just or unjust: it is only when we assume that somebody is
responsible for having brought it about ... In the same sense, a spontaneously working
market, where prices act as guides to action, cannot take account of what people in any
sense need or deserve, because it creates a distribution which nobody has designed,
and something which has not been designed, a mere state of affairs as such, cannot be
just or unjust. And the idea that things ought to be designed in a "just" manner means,
in effect, that we must abandon the market and turn to a planned economy in which
somebody decides how much each ought to have, and that means, of course, that we
can only have it at the price of the complete abolition of personal liberty. [27]
New York University School of Law professor of law Jeremy Waldron has written in
response to critics of the second-generation rights:
In any case, the argument from first-generation to second-generation rights was never
supposed to be a matter of conceptual analysis. It was rather this: if one is really
concerned to secure civil or political liberty for a person, that commitment should be
accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person's life that make it
possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty. Why on earth would it be worth
fighting for this person's liberty (say, his liberty to choose between A and B) if he were
left in a situation in which the choice between A and B meant nothing to him, or in which
his choosing one rather than the other would have no impact on his life?"[28]
Hungarian socialist and political economist Karl Polanyi made the antithetical argument
to Hayek in the book The Great Transformation. Polanyi wrote that an uncontrolled free
market would lead to repressive economic concentration and then to a co-opting of
democratic governance that degrades civil rights.[29]
The World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 opposed the distinction between civil
and political rights (negative rights) and economic, social and cultural rights (positive
rights) that resulted in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaiming that
"all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated".[30]