Meaning of Human Rights

Human rights are fundamental rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of their race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. These rights are considered universal and belong to every individual simply because they are human. They provide a framework for human dignity and equality, ensuring that all individuals are treated with respect and have the opportunity to live a life free from fear and want.

The modern concept of human rights emerged significantly after World War II as a response to the atrocities committed, leading to the international community's commitment to establish a global framework for protecting individual dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, is a foundational document that articulates these rights.

Inherent rights of all human beings

The idea of human rights being **inherent** means that they are not granted by any state, government, or society. They exist naturally and belong to individuals from birth. This inherent nature distinguishes human rights from rights that are granted by laws or constitutions of a particular country, which can potentially be withdrawn or limited. Human rights are considered to exist independent of the state's recognition, although states have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill them through legislation and policy.

Being inherent, these rights are considered the minimum standards for human dignity and well-being that no individual should be deprived of, irrespective of their circumstances.

Universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent

These are core characteristics that define the nature of human rights:

• **Universal:** Human rights apply to **everyone, everywhere**, without exception. They are not limited by geography, culture, or any other characteristic. This principle is enshrined in Article 1 of the UDHR: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The universality of human rights is a cornerstone of international human rights law.
• **Inalienable:** Human rights **cannot be taken away** or surrendered. No person can voluntarily give up their human rights, and no state or authority has the right to abolish or violate them. While some rights might be limited in specific, defined circumstances (e.g., freedom of movement may be restricted during a public health emergency), the rights themselves cannot be permanently removed.
• **Indivisible:** Human rights are considered a **unified body** where civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are all equally important and cannot be separated. You cannot claim some rights while denying others. For instance, the right to health is linked to the right to education and the right to work.
• **Interdependent and Interrelated:** The realization of one human right often **depends on the realization of other rights**. For example, the right to vote (political right) depends on the right to freedom of expression and assembly (civil rights) and the right to education (social right). Violation of one right can negatively impact the enjoyment of several other rights. These rights function together as a set, each contributing to the overall dignity and well-being of the individual.

Understanding these characteristics is crucial for grasping the philosophy and legal force behind human rights as a framework for achieving justice, equality, and peace globally.

Evolution of Human Rights Law

The concept of inherent rights belonging to individuals has roots in philosophical and legal traditions dating back centuries, but the modern framework of international human rights law is a relatively recent development, primarily emerging after World War II. The evolution involved a gradual shift from philosophical ideas and national declarations to a system of international treaties and enforcement mechanisms.

Ancient Concepts (Natural Law, Dharma)

Ideas resembling human rights can be found in various ancient civilisations and philosophical traditions. The concept of **Natural Law**, popularised by thinkers from ancient Greece and Rome, suggested that there are universal moral principles inherent in nature or reason, which govern human conduct and are independent of state laws. These principles were seen as the basis for certain inherent rights or entitlements.

In Indian tradition, the concept of **Dharma** encompassed a wide range of duties, rights, and prescribed conduct for individuals and rulers, aimed at maintaining cosmic and social order and righteousness. Principles of justice, fairness, and the duties of a ruler to protect the well-being of subjects can be seen as reflecting early notions of inherent moral obligations towards individuals.

While these ancient concepts lacked the universality, inalienability, and formal legal framework of modern human rights, they laid some philosophical groundwork by suggesting a moral order that transcends positive law.

Enlightenment Period

The **Enlightenment period** in Europe (17th and 18th centuries) was critical in shaping the modern concept of rights. Philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant developed theories of natural rights (life, liberty, property) and the social contract, arguing that governments are formed to protect these inherent rights of individuals. These ideas heavily influenced revolutionary movements.

This period saw the emergence of key national declarations of rights, such as the **American Declaration of Independence (1776)**, which proclaimed the unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and the **French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)**, which asserted the natural, imprescriptible, and inalienable rights of man (liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression).

These declarations were foundational in asserting individual rights against the state, but they were primarily national in scope and did not create international obligations.

Post-World War II Developments

The systematic atrocities and widespread human rights violations during World War II demonstrated the devastating consequences of the failure to protect fundamental human dignity within national boundaries. This led to a global consensus that the protection of human rights should no longer be solely a domestic matter but an international concern.

The international community recognised the need to establish a universal standard of human rights and create mechanisms to promote and protect these rights across borders. This post-war period marked the crucial transition from national rights declarations to a global commitment to human rights.

The United Nations Charter

The establishment of the **United Nations (UN)** in 1945 was a pivotal moment. The **UN Charter**, the founding document of the organisation, explicitly includes the promotion and protection of human rights as one of its main purposes. The Preamble to the Charter reaffirms "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small." Articles 1(3) and 55 of the Charter commit the UN and its member states to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

While the UN Charter did not define specific human rights, it created the institutional framework within which international human rights law would subsequently develop. It led directly to the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The International Bill of Human Rights:

Following the UDHR (1948), the UN worked on translating these declarations into legally binding treaties. This resulted in two major international covenants:

• **International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966):** Protects civil and political rights such as the right to life, liberty, security, fair trial, freedom of expression, assembly, and religion.
• **International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966):** Protects economic, social, and cultural rights such as the right to work, social security, education, health, and an adequate standard of living.

The UDHR, the ICCPR, and the ICESCR together form the **International Bill of Human Rights**, which is the core foundation of international human rights law. Subsequent treaties have been developed to address specific issues or groups, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Convention against Torture, and conventions on the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities, and migrant workers.

This evolution reflects a growing global consensus on the inherent dignity and rights of every individual and the need for international cooperation to protect these rights.

Scope of Human Rights Law

The scope of human rights law is extensive, covering a wide range of rights that are applicable universally. It encompasses various categories of rights, imposes obligations on states, and is derived from multiple legal sources. Its scope is continuously evolving to address new challenges and contexts.

Categories of Human Rights:

While human rights are indivisible and interdependent, they are often categorised for clarity:

• **Civil and Political Rights:** These rights relate to individual liberty and participation in political life. Examples include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; freedom from slavery; right to a fair trial; freedom of movement; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of assembly and association; right to privacy; right to marry and found a family; right to participate in government (right to vote and stand for election). These are often seen as "negative rights," requiring the state to refrain from interfering with individual freedoms.
• **Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:** These rights relate to social and economic security and participation in cultural life. Examples include the right to work; right to social security; right to an adequate standard of living (including adequate food, clothing, and housing); right to health; right to education; right to participate in cultural life; right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. These are often seen as "positive rights," requiring the state to take active steps to ensure their progressive realisation.
• **Group Rights / Collective Rights:** These rights belong to groups of people rather than individuals. Examples include the right to self-determination (for peoples); the rights of minorities (to enjoy their own culture, practice their own religion, and use their own language); the rights of indigenous peoples. While controversial historically, these are increasingly recognised as essential for protecting the distinct identity and well-being of certain groups.
• **Solidarity Rights / Third Generation Rights:** These are newer concepts of rights, often still in development, which relate to global issues and collective well-being. Examples include the right to development; the right to a clean environment; the right to peace; the right to humanitarian assistance. Their legal status and enforceability are often debated.

Table: Main Categories of Human Rights

Scope of Application:

• **State Obligations:** International human rights law primarily imposes obligations on **States**. States have a duty to **respect** human rights (refrain from violating them), **protect** human rights (prevent third parties from violating them), and **fulfill** human rights (take positive measures to ensure their enjoyment, especially for economic, social, and cultural rights).
• **Jurisdiction:** A State is generally responsible for human rights violations occurring within its territory and jurisdiction. The concept of jurisdiction can extend to actions taken by a State outside its territory but under its effective control.
• **Non-State Actors:** While primary obligations rest with States, the conduct of non-state actors, such as corporations or armed groups, is increasingly relevant. States have a duty to protect individuals from human rights abuses by non-state actors. There are also growing efforts to establish direct responsibilities for non-state actors, particularly in areas like business and human rights.

Sources of Human Rights Law:

The legal basis for human rights comes from:

• **International Treaties (Conventions, Covenants):** Legally binding agreements between States (e.g., ICCPR, ICESCR, Convention against Torture, Convention on the Rights of the Child). States that ratify these treaties undertake legal obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights contained within them and to implement them in their domestic law.
• **Customary International Law:** Practices followed by States out of a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). Certain human rights, particularly those considered fundamental (like the prohibition of torture, slavery, genocide), have attained the status of customary international law, meaning they are binding on *all* States, regardless of treaty ratification.
• **General Principles of Law:** Principles common to major legal systems (e.g., principles of fairness, due process).
• **Soft Law:** Non-binding instruments like declarations (e.g., UDHR), resolutions, guidelines, and recommendations. While not legally enforceable on their own, they shape the development of hard law and serve as authoritative interpretations. The UDHR, though a declaration, has become foundational and highly influential.
• **Judicial Decisions and Scholarly Writings:** Decisions of international courts and tribunals (like the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights) and the work of human rights experts contribute to the interpretation and development of human rights law.

The comprehensive scope of human rights law reflects the international community's commitment to establishing a global standard of dignity and rights for all, backed by a growing body of legal instruments and mechanisms for promotion and enforcement.

Magna Carta, 1215

The **Magna Carta**, or "Great Charter", signed by King John of England in 1215, is often cited as one of the earliest historical documents influencing the development of constitutional law and concepts related to individual rights. It was a peace treaty between the King and a group of rebellious barons, negotiated to avert civil war.

Historical Context and Purpose:

In the early 13th century, King John faced significant opposition due to his arbitrary rule, heavy taxation, and unsuccessful foreign policies. The barons, representing powerful landowners, forced the King to agree to a charter that limited his power and protected certain feudal rights and liberties. The Magna Carta was initially a document of specific rights for a privileged few (primarily the barons, the church, and certain free men), not a universal declaration of human rights for all.

Significance as an Influence on Rights Concepts:

Despite its limited scope and feudal context, the Magna Carta's significance lies in establishing certain fundamental legal principles that resonated through subsequent centuries and influenced modern human rights thinking:

• **Rule of Law:** It asserted that the King was not above the law and must abide by certain legal constraints. This principle of limiting the power of the ruler is foundational to constitutionalism and the protection of rights.
• **Due Process and Fair Trial:** Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated: No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. This clause is considered an early precursor to the right to liberty, due process, and judgment by one's peers, principles that are central to modern civil and political rights.
• **Access to Justice:** Clause 40 stated: To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. This principle asserted the right to access justice without delay or obstruction.
• **Limited Government Power:** Overall, the document was a recognition that the monarch's power was not absolute and could be limited by legal agreements and the rights of subjects.

While the Magna Carta did not articulate universal human rights as understood today, its assertion of legal limitations on sovereign power and recognition of certain fundamental liberties for individuals within the legal framework made it an important milestone in the historical struggle for rights.

American Declaration of Independence, 1776

Adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the **American Declaration of Independence** was a pivotal document in the American Revolution, announcing that the thirteen American colonies regarded themselves as independent states, no longer under British rule. Beyond its political significance, it contained powerful philosophical statements about the rights of individuals that profoundly influenced subsequent human rights declarations.

Key Assertions on Rights:

The Declaration famously articulates a philosophy rooted in Enlightenment ideals, particularly the concept of natural rights. Its most celebrated passage states:

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**.

It further asserts:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Influence on Human Rights Thinking:

The American Declaration of Independence was highly influential because it:

• **Asserted Unalienable Rights:** By proclaiming that individuals are endowed with inherent rights that cannot be taken away, it reinforced the idea that rights predate and are independent of government.
• **Defined the Purpose of Government:** It articulated the revolutionary idea that the primary purpose of government is to protect these inherent rights of the people, and that government's legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed. This challenged the divine right of kings and other forms of authoritarian rule.
• **Provided a Philosophical Basis:** Although it did not list a comprehensive set of rights or create legal obligations on governments beyond the newly formed United States, its clear and concise articulation of fundamental human entitlements provided a powerful philosophical foundation for the development of rights-based political thought globally.

Like the Magna Carta, the practical application of the rights declared in 1776 was initially limited (e.g., it did not apply to enslaved people). Nevertheless, its rhetorical power and philosophical grounding in universal human equality and inherent rights made it an enduring symbol and influence on subsequent movements and declarations advocating for human rights, including the French Declaration that followed just over a decade later.

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789

Adopted by the National Assembly during the early stages of the French Revolution in 1789, the **Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen** (Déclaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen) is a foundational document of both the French Revolution and modern human rights. It drew heavily upon Enlightenment philosophical ideals and the principles articulated in the American Declaration of Independence.

Key Assertions on Rights:

The Declaration proclaimed a set of individual and collective rights as universal and valid at all times and in every place. Key articles asserted:

• **Article 1:** Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. This echoed the principle of equality from the American Declaration.
• **Article 2:** The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are Liberty, Property, Security, and Resistance to Oppression. This clearly listed what were considered the fundamental natural rights.
• **Article 3:** The principle of all sovereignty rests essentially in the nation. No body and no individual may exercise authority which does not emanate expressly from the nation. This asserted the sovereignty of the nation and the people, rather than the monarch.
• **Articles on Specific Rights:** The Declaration also included articles on freedom of expression (Article 11), freedom of religion (Article 10), the right to property (Article 17), the right to a fair trial and protection against arbitrary arrest (Articles 7-9), and the principle of taxation based on ability to pay (Article 13).

Influence on Human Rights Law:

The French Declaration's influence was profound:

• **Universal Scope (Aspirated):** Although its initial application was within France, its language framed the rights as inherent to "Man" and "Citizen," contributing to the idea of universal entitlements.
• **Foundation for Republicanism and Citizenship:** It provided a blueprint for a society based on individual rights and the concept of active citizenship, influencing constitutional development in France and many other countries.
• **Categorisation of Rights:** It clearly articulated a range of civil and political rights, laying groundwork for the later categorisation of human rights.
• **Emphasis on Legality:** It stressed that rights should be defined and protected by law, and that government actions must be based on law (principle of legality).

The French Declaration, along with the American Declaration, solidified the Enlightenment ideals of natural rights and popular sovereignty into powerful political statements, becoming foundational texts for the modern concept of rights and influencing numerous constitutions and international human rights instruments that followed.

The Holocaust and the impetus for Universal Human Rights

While earlier periods laid philosophical and national groundwork for rights, the systematic state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazi regime during World War II, known as the **Holocaust**, served as a stark and horrifying demonstration of the consequences when the protection of human rights is left solely to the discretion of individual states. The scale and brutality of these atrocities revealed that national laws and constitutions could be perverted or ignored, leading to mass violations of the most fundamental rights, including the right to life.

The Realisation: National Protection Insufficient:

The Holocaust and the broader human rights abuses during World War II led to a global consensus that:

• The concept of state sovereignty could no longer be an absolute shield behind which governments could commit grave abuses against their own populations without international scrutiny or intervention.
• A universal standard of human rights was needed, one that transcended national borders and was applicable to all individuals, irrespective of their nationality or where they lived.
• An international framework was necessary to promote these standards and provide mechanisms for their protection and enforcement.

Impetus for Universal Human Rights:

The horrors of the Holocaust provided the most compelling and urgent impetus for the international community to commit to creating a global system for human rights protection. Key developments directly resulting from this realisation included:

• **Establishment of the United Nations (1945):** As noted earlier, the UN Charter explicitly made the promotion of human rights one of the organisation's core purposes. The desire to prevent future atrocities like the Holocaust was a driving force behind the UN's creation and its human rights mandate.
• **Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946):** The prosecution of Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity established the principle that individuals could be held accountable under international law for gross violations of fundamental human values, even if their actions were sanctioned by national law. This reinforced the idea of universal moral standards.
• **Drafting and Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948):** The UDHR was conceived as a direct response to the atrocities of the war. It was drafted under the leadership of figures like Eleanor Roosevelt and representatives from diverse legal and cultural backgrounds. The UDHR, adopted by the UN General Assembly, articulated for the first time on a universal level a comprehensive list of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights inherent to all human beings. Its universality was a conscious and direct repudiation of the Nazi ideology that denied fundamental rights to specific groups based on their identity.

While the UDHR itself was a declaration and not initially legally binding, it became the foundational document of international human rights law, inspiring numerous subsequent binding treaties and national constitutions. The profound shock of the Holocaust provided the essential political will and moral urgency needed to translate the philosophical ideas of inherent rights into a global legal and institutional framework aimed at preventing such horrors from ever happening again.