human rights: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

The concept of human rights has evolved over time, and various countries have emphasized different aspects of human rights principles and policy. Some nations have emphasized traditional civil and political rights (both individual and collective), whereas others—particularly communist and socialist regimes—have emphasized the concept of economic and social rights. Some governments have embraced both sets of principles.

In the United States, the concept of certain individual and collective rights—in particular, civil and political rights—as "natural" or "unalienable" can be traced back to colonial times, reflecting the influence of John Locke and other political theorists. This concept was clearly set forth in the Declaration of Independence and was codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The United States has long regarded international human rights standards as universal. It has rejected the arguments of nations such as China, which claim that such standards can be discounted as mere "Western" concepts and argue that human rights should be viewed through the prism of each nation's history and culture. Unlike many governments, the United States acknowledges that some human rights problems persist within its territory despite its generally good record and accepts that universal human rights standards involve study and criticism of such matters.

Initiatives Since World War II

World War II (1939–1945) gave impetus to the modern development of basic principles of human rights and to the general acceptance of the idea that the human rights practices of individual countries toward their own citizens are legitimate matters of international concern. The 1945 United Nations Charter included a general commitment to respect for human rights, but it was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948) that provided the basic statement of what have become widely accepted international human rights standards. The former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt played a key role in the formulation of the Universal Declaration.

Human rights principles, policy, and practices became an increased focus of popular and public attention in the United States during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Several influential nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were formed during this period to monitor and report on human rights matters. For example, both Human Rights Watch and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights were formed in 1978, and Physicians for Human Rights was formed in 1986. In addition, both the legislative and the executive branches of the U.S. government took significant steps during this period to make the promotion of human rights a government priority.

The new emphasis on human rights led to a congressional requirement for the annual submission by the Department of State of "a full and complete report" on the status of human rights practices around the world. The first of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices was submitted in 1977 (covering 1976). It surveyed the situation in eighty-two countries in less than 300 pages. By 2000, 194 individual reports were included, covering virtually every country in the world, and the overall report was more than 5,000 pages. The Country Reports evolved and expanded over the years, covering many of the rights included in the Universal Declaration and multilateral accords to which the United States is a party, as well as some rights in internationally accepted covenants to which the United States is not a party. Over time, the Country Reports added coverage of specific problems that became matters of public concern. For example, in the 1990s, Congress mandated coverage of children, indigenous people, refugees, and worker rights, and the State Department itself expanded coverage of women's rights, people with disabilities, and religious, national, racial, and ethnic minorities. Problems noted in the Country Reports can lead to the denial of aid and trade preferences. The Country Reports were initially subject to criticism as biased in some cases by policy concerns, and for many years the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights published an annual critique. However, by the late 1990s, the Country Reports were widely acknowledged to be a comprehensive and credible account of global human rights practices, and the Lawyers Committee had ceased publishing its critique.

In 1976, Congress established within the State Department a coordinator for human rights and humanitarian affairs; in 1977, under the Carter administration, which established human rights as a foreign policy priority, this position was upgraded to assistant secretary. In 1994, the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs was reorganized and renamed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, to reflect both a broader scope and a more focused approach to the inter-locking issues of democracy, human rights, and worker rights.

Broadening Human Rights Concerns

American efforts to encourage respect for human rights increased significantly during the 1990s. The United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1992 (however, by the early twenty-first century it had not yet ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, or a number of other key international conventions). While the Universal Declaration did not entail any legal obligations, the ICCPR bound nations to respect its provisions and report on their observance; the United States submitted its first report under the ICCPR in 1994.

Also in 1994, Congress created the position of senior adviser for women's rights in the State Department, and women's rights became a major focus of U.S. activity. In 1995, First Lady Hillary Clinton played a leading role in equating women's rights and human rights at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In 2000, the focus on women's rights was reflected in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which required a State Department report to Congress; the first report was submitted in 2001. Trafficking in persons—particularly women and children—is a significant transnational human rights problem, which became the focus of increased international attention in the late 1990s.

In the mid-1990s, growing public and congressional concern about religious persecution abroad led to calls for increased government action and reporting about such abuses. In 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher established the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to advise the secretary and the president on integrating the protection and promotion of religious freedom into U.S. foreign policy. In 1998, Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act, which provided for an ambassador-at-large, a bipartisan U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an annual State Department report, and possible sanctions against nations that restricted religious freedom.

During the 1990s, the United States placed increasing emphasis on encouraging democratization, promoting justice and accountability, and assisting the development of civil society. Through both direct assistance and the work of the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States promoted the development of key institutions and processes that provide the foundation for democratic governance, including support for free elections, free media, and free trade unions, training in the rule of law and the administration of justice, the empowerment of women, and the creation of NGOs and other institutions of civil society.

The United States also worked extensively with NGOs and international organizations to promote and protect human rights. The development of transnational human rights networks and a global human rights community, particularly after the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna and the Beijing Women's Conference, facilitated international debate over issues of democratization and justice. The 1998 arrest of General Au-gusto Pinochet in London at the request of a Spanish judge who wanted to try Pinochet in Spain for torture and political killings during his seventeen-year rule in Chile marked a watershed development. Although the British government ultimately allowed Pinochet to return home, his sixteen-month detention was a precedent for the globalization of efforts to assure justice and accountability. His near extradition helped generate a worldwide movement to hold heads of state accountable for human rights abuses committed while they were in power.

The U.S. government has played an active role in multilateral forums such as the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, pressing for resolutions critical of human rights abuses in countries such as China and Cuba. The United States has supported the efforts of regional bodies such as the Organization of American States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and has worked to build multilateral coalitions for human rights sanctions, monitoring, and relief efforts.

The United States also has worked to build new institutions to advance the protection of human rights. It supported the creation of the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights in 1993. Abuses and atrocities in Europe and Africa in the 1990s, including genocide in Rwanda and "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia, led to sustained efforts to further accountability and justice. In response to these crises, the United States played a key role in the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The United States also supported the establishment and efforts of national or international "truth commissions," where internal conflicts and the transition from authoritarian rule made them an essential part of the peace process. Such truth commissions can provide a forum for victims to detail atrocities committed and discredit the perpetrators, particularly if prosecution is impractical or impossible, as in South Africa.

However, at times, the United States has not fully supported some international institutions. Although in late 2000 it signed the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court, concern in Congress in particular that the court might be able to prosecute U.S. service personnel abroad has prevented ratification. In 2001, the U.S. government renounced the accord. Also in 2001, concern that some nations would seek to use the World Conference against Racism for political purposes led the United States to limit its participation.

The United States played a major role in developing the Convention against Torture, which it signed in 1992 and ratified in 1994. Subsequently, the executive branch established regulations to ensure that those who were likely to be tortured if returned to their country of origin could not be extradited or deported. The National Institute of Mental Health has provided significant funding for research into the problems of survivors of torture, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the Department of Health and Human Services has provided funding to organizations in major cities to identify torture survivors among refugee communities. The U.S. Agency for International Development has supported programs around the world to assist torture victims, and the United States has been the largest single donor to the UN Voluntary Fund on Torture. Since 1980, the United States has supported civil claims by torture victims. In 1992, the president and Congress worked together to enact the Torture Victims Protection Act and, in 1998, the Torture Victims Relief Act to support the efforts of torture victims who sought refuge in the United States to seek justice and compensation for their suffering.

The United States has focused increasingly on issues of worker rights and, particularly in the late 1990s, on problems such as forced labor (including forced child labor) and sweatshop labor. As part of its anti-sweatshop initiative, the U.S. government has awarded millions of dollars in grants to organizations that promote justice in the workplace. During the 1990s, the United States increasingly sought to promote corporate social responsibility in the global struggle for human rights. This concept entailed recognition that profits could not be considered apart from human costs, in terms of human rights, labor standards, and environmental issues, and that these factors should be integrated into business practices. The United States has worked closely with the International Labor Organization on worker rights problems around the world. The Department of State's Advisory Committee on Labor Diplomacy was established in 1999, as was the position of special representative for international labor affairs. In 2000, the United States played a leading role in the development and adoption of a business code of conduct aimed at preventing abuses by governments in developing nations where international corporations operate. A group of major energy and mining companies joined with human rights organizations in adopting this voluntary statement of principles.

At the start of the twenty-first century, the cause of democracy and respect for human rights continued to progress. In its 2000–2001 survey, Freedom in the World, Freedom House reported that there were 86 free countries, 58 partly free countries, and 48 countries rated not free (in which basic political rights and civil liberties were denied). This represented an improvement compared with the figures of 65, 50, and 50, respectively, in its 1990–1991 survey. Nonetheless, violations of basic human rights, severe persecution, and egregious abuses, still forma systematic pattern in much of the world.

Bibliography

Andreopoulos, George J., and Richard Pierre Claude, eds. Human Rights Education for the Twenty-First Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

Brown, Peter G., and Douglas MacLean, eds. Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Principles and Applications. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979.

Claude, Richard Pierre, and Burns H. Weston, eds. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action. 2d ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.

Dunne, Tim, and Nicholas J. Wheeler, eds. Human Rights in Global Politics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Hannum, Hurst, ed. Guide to International Human Rights Practice. 3d ed. Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational, 1999.

Human Rights Watch World Report 2000. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999.

Koh, Harold Hongju, and Ronald C. Slye, eds. Deliberative Democracy and Human Rights. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.

Meron, Theodore, ed. Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

Human rights are the rights individuals are said to have as human beings. They are claims on society - its members and government (Henkin, 1996). They are spelled out in international law, drawing on the norms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (Steiner and Alston, 2000). Russia has a long history of authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. Nikolai Berdyayev went so far as to connect the depth and longevity of Russian communism, a system inimical to human rights, to this persistent culture of despotism (1960). In the vivid phrasing of Alexander Radishchev, an eighteenth-century dissident, in his Journey from Saint Petersburg to Moscow (which landed him in Siberia), the rigid censorship under Catherine the Great resembled a restrictive nursemaid who stunts children's growth toward self-reliant maturity.

Human rights improved somewhat thanks to the liberating effects of Russia's rapid industrialization after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 and the judicial and local government reforms in 1864. In Tsarist Russia by 1914, a liberal and democratic socialist professional class of educators, lawyers, judges, social workers, women's rights advocates, and rapidly growing and mainly non-Bolshevik political parties increasingly demanded the protection of individual rights and a lawgoverned state. That meant broadening the selective westernization, launched two hundred years earlier by Peter the Great and aimed at strengthening Russia, to include the rights and freedoms he and his successors generally sought to exclude.

Following the abdication of Nicholas II in March 1917, the Provisional Government of March - November 1917 produced what the Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin himself called the freest country in Europe, before he and his minority party of Bolsheviks forcibly ended that freedom by sharply curbing human rights.

The Bolsheviks socially cleansed Russia's reformed courts, democratic professionals, and growing autonomous civil society. They held Russia to the constitutional principles that rights must serve the cause of socialism as interpreted by the Communist Party. Vladimir Lenin's death in 1924 opened the way to the consolidation of total power by Josef Stalin, his forced collectivization of the peasants, his five-year plans for heavy industrialization, and his purges of alleged enemies of the people.

The cultural thaw after Stalin's death in March 1953 ended with the ousting of Party leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1964. Ensuing trials of social satirists and critics sparked a courageous dissident movement in Russia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. Its members, who were promptly imprisoned or exiled, included Andrei Sakharov, proponent of East-West convergence; Yuri Orlov and the Moscow Helsinki Group; and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, chronicler of Soviet labor camps.

Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet leader from March 1985 to December 1991, introduced glasnost - openness or free expression - and soon after, perestroika - attempts at economic and political reform. Gorbachev freed political prisoners and exiles between 1986 and 1989. His UN speech of December 7, 1988, praised the once spurned Universal Declaration of Human Rights and revised the 1977 Constitution accordingly. But he reformed too little too late. Four months after his near-overthrow in the August 1991 coup by his own reactionary appointees, the Soviet Union split into three onceagain independent Baltic republics and twelve newly independent states, including the Russian Federation.

Boris Yeltsin, Russian president from 1991 until his resignation in 1999, forced on Russia the 1993 Constitution increasing presidential power but also containing Article 2: "The individual and his rights and freedom are the highest value. The recognition, observance and defense of the human rights and freedoms of the individual and the citizen are the obligation of the state." The Constitution proclaims a broad range of civil, political, social, and economic rights. Contrasting realities under overbearing and corrupt state administrations infringed on freedom of expression, religion, fair and humane justice, freedom of movement, and freedom from racial, ethnic, and homophobic bigotry, and hate crimes. Moreover, during the wars to retain Chechnya just about every human right was violated. Inequality, poverty, and homelessness haunted the land while the new rich lived high. Women experienced inequality and exploitation in employment, widespread divorce, abandonment, and domestic violence, and trafficking into prostitution. Life expectancy fell to third-world levels, especially among men, owing to stress, accidents, alcoholism, and the pervasive inadequacy of health care (Juviler, 2000; Human Rights Watch).

Such political and social human rights violations prompted the formation of numerous free but under-funded human rights advocacy groups - nongovernmental organizations. They ranged from Russian Soldiers' Mothers, who were against the wide abuses of military recruits, to the anti-Stalinist and pro-rights Memorial Society, to Muslim cultural and aid societies.

Seventy years of Communist social and legal cleansing are not overcome in a decade or two. In Ken Jowitt's words, "We must think of a 'long march' rather than a simple transition to democracy" (Jowitt, 1992, 189), with all sorts of human rights to redeem.

Bibliography

Berdiaev, Nicolas. (1960). The Origin of Russian Communism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Henkin, Louis. (1996). The Age of Rights, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Human Rights Watch World Report. (2003). <http://www.hrw.org/wr2kr/europe11.html>.

Jowitt, Ken. (1992). New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Juviler, Peter. (1998). Freedoms Ordeal: The Struggle for Human Rights and Democracy in Post-Soviet States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Juviler, Peter. (2000). "Political Community and Human Rights in Post-Communist Russia." In Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities, ed. Adamantia Pollis and Peter Schwab. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Steiner, Henry, and Alston, Philip. (2000). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

—PETER JUVILER

Since its inception as an independent nation, the United States has claimed a special relationship with the issue of human rights. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he captured—as well as spoke to—the yearnings of the colonists along the eastern seaboard of North America to break free from tyrannical rule across the Atlantic Ocean. Theirs was a collective action, of a people striving to achieve the right to determine their own form of government, but Jefferson's rhetoric struck a balance between those collective aspirations and the rights of individuals. It is worth noting that his most famous words on the subject of individual rights—"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"—are preceded by the collective right of "one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." Since 1776, Jefferson's sentiments as both an expression of collective as well as individual human rights have continued to draw the attention of peoples around the globe. Although Jefferson was primarily concerned with focusing on the specific grievances and complaints the colonists had against the British king George III, his language gave expression to larger sentiments, coming partly from the Enlightenment philosophy that had recently swept the Western world. As a result, his words seemed transcendent in thought, though they were not necessarily so in their application.

Indeed, there was one major problem with what Jefferson wrote. The nature of his insistence on the collective right of peoples to determine their own form of government, not to mention the right to pursue happiness as individuals, when juxtaposed with his ownership of slaves and his subsequent refusal to disavow the practice by releasing them, draws attention to the danger of assessing the United States' stand on human rights by national rhetoric alone. Or as David D. Newsom expressed it more recently, "United States diplomacy in the human rights field suffers inevitably from the contradictions between promise and fulfillment." Ever since 1776, America's diplomatic policymakers have spoken to the issue of human rights in both the collective and individual manifestations, and no one more eloquently than Thomas Jefferson. But as Newsom warned, the actual implementation of policies designed to address those concerns have not always lived up to their high-sounding intentions.

A major surprise occurred 225 years after Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, when the United States failed to retain its seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Coming in fourth in the voting in May 2001, behind France, Austria, and Sweden, the United States missed out because only three spots were available. Representatives from forty-three countries had pledged to Secretary of State Colin Powell prior to the vote that they would cast their ballots for the United States, more than enough for the United States to keep its place. But when the results were tabulated, it became clear that fourteen of them had not done as promised, leaving the United States off the commission for the first time since its creation in 1947.

At first glance, the removal of the United States, while Sudan, Libya, and China kept their seats because of the geographical division of placings, seemed almost Orwellian. That the land of Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Eleanor Roosevelt, and James Earl Carter, to name only four of the nation's most ardent and eloquent proponents of human rights, was excluded from the panel, while on it sat clear violators of their own people's rights like Sudan, where slavery still exists and where religious persecution and civil war have raged for decades, Libya, where dictator Muammar Qaddafi has ruled for decades through brutality against his own people and whose support of terrorism has been documented on a number of occasions, and China, where the government massacred protestors at Tiananmen Square in 1989 and where the persecution of groups like Falun Gong continued a decade later despite international pressure, appeared to make a mockery of the whole notion of a commission dedicated to monitoring and improving human rights conditions around the world.

In the aftermath of the vote that removed the United States, columnists and political pundits in Washington called the act outrageous, and cartoonists had a field day with images of Libya, Sudan, and China setting the human rights agenda. The consensus seemed to be that the United States had been wronged and that the nation's absence from the commission ridiculed the entire notion of promoting human rights. But the long history of America's relationship with human rights displays a series of domestic and international contradictions between the policies pursued and the rhetoric espoused by administration after administration. Considered in total, these contradictions raise serious questions about the nation's commitment to the very idea of human rights. In short, Newsom is right: the gap between ideal and practice has been substantial, and upon closer scrutiny, the American record on human rights has been far more ambiguous, less consistent, and marked by more blemishes than jingoistic boosters of national honor would like to admit.

Initial Contradictions

For the first century of its existence the United States, despite the language of the Declaration of Independence, did not advocate policies to effect human rights changes in other countries. Until 1865 the country faced a serious problem: no matter how eloquent Jefferson's pronunciation that all men are created equal, slavery remained a contentious domestic matter, indicating quite clearly that some men were not as equal as others. Slaves were considered property, not individuals, and the Supreme Court endorsed this idea with the Dred Scott decision in 1857. A resolution came only through a bloody, four-year civil war. Notwithstanding a northern victory and aggressive efforts by Radical Republicans in Congress to reform the South in the late 1860s and 1870s, the states of the South moved shortly after those years to impose a system of economic and political control over African Americans through sharecropping and Jim Crow segregation. The pattern of the southern states' actions received national ratification when the Supreme Court yet again provided its imprimatur for racist practices. This time the Court's Plessy v. Ferguson ruling in 1896 allowed for separate and decidedly unequal (despite pretenses) facilities for blacks and whites.

Meanwhile, Asian immigrants trying to enter the United States on the West Coast received a vastly different reception than the Europeans entering the nation through Ellis Island over three thousand miles to the east. Conditions on San Francisco Bay's Angel Island, where they were held pending review of their status, were deplorable, and more and more Chinese were barred from entering the United States after 1882. Finally, in the West, Indian tribes were forced off their lands to accommodate an onrush of white settlers to the region.

In short, human rights did not constitute a force in American diplomacy prior to 1913. The nation's struggle with slavery, the mistreatment of Asian immigrants, the efforts to relocate, if not eradicate, Indians, and the national proscription on women participating in the political process meant that the nation had far too many serious problems of its own to address. In addition, the nation had not reached the level of international prominence it would later achieve. The entrance of Woodrow Wilson into the White House, coupled with the outbreak of World War I, changed all that.

Woodrow Wilson

When the European nations went to war in August 1914, President Wilson saw the conflict as a sign that the old international system created by the Europeans had failed. Now was the time for new leadership. Wilson sought to create mechanisms for ensuring peace and stability, and one of his concerns was for the peoples of other nations. Wilson wanted to reconfigure the old diplomacy and replace it with an open system, one based on cooperation and communication. An ardent and eloquent advocate for liberalism, Wilson believed that democracy should prevail as the system of political governance around the world. In speaking to this issue time and again, he advocated the collective human rights of peoples to determine their own fates. More specifically, he pledged himself to the rights of eastern European peoples to choose their own form of government as the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed at the end of the war.

Wilson's call to liberalism came at a moment in world history when the United States rose from a regional power to a global one. American economic prowess provided the equipment and munitions France and Great Britain needed to fight the Central Powers from 1914 until the American entrance into the war in 1917. When they could no longer pay cash for the goods, the United States provided loans. In short, Woodrow Wilson possessed the economic and military clout to back up his calls for recognizing the collective rights of certain peoples.

The president's international commitment in this area, however, was not matched by any personal dedication to ensure that African Americans be allowed to participate in the domestic political process, nor did his push for self-determination extend to the victims of European colonialism in Africa, India, or East Asia. Like his predecessor from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson, Wilson was both eloquent and passionate on the theoretical rights of peoples, and he had problems reconciling his rhetoric with his practices. In addition to offering a hearty endorsement of D. W. Griffith's virulently racist film Birth of a Nation (1915), for example, Wilson pursued a domestic program shortly after coming into office that segregated the federal service, one of the few places where African Americans could enjoy some semblance of equal employment opportunities.

Regionally, Wilson acted with what had become customary American arrogance when he dispatched marines to Haiti in 1915, denying Haitians the right to determine their own political system. Indeed, Wilson intervened with military force more times in Central America and the Caribbean than any other president. He also spurned the inclusion of a racial equality clause at the Versailles Conference in 1919 when the matter was raised by the Japanese delegation. Better for the Japanese to be given territory in China against Chinese wishes than have any language referring to racial equality make its way into the final text.

Despite his actions toward nonwhites inside and outside the United States, Wilson managed to articulate the notion of peoples freely determining their own government, an idea that continues to draw the attention of repressed peoples around the world. Unfortunately, Wilson was thinking solely of those peoples in eastern Europe who had lived under the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In part, he was worried about how to contain the spread of communism coming out of the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and one way he hoped to achieve that goal was through the creation of a series of small states in the region, a sanitary cordon to thwart the movement of communism westward.

Wilson's rhetorical proclamations notwithstanding, the United States found it difficult to implement diplomatic policies that adhered to his commitments regarding democracy and collective rights. If anything, starting in the 1920s the United States began a consistent policy of supporting right-wing dictatorships around the world. As the historian David F. Schmitz has astutely noted in his study of U.S. support for these types of leaders, "promoting human rights and democracy demands a toleration of instability and change in regions considered crucial to American business or defense, often leaving no clear choice between conscience and self-interest and making strong, stable right-wing dictators attractive to policymakers." Thus, the ability of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini to bring stability and order to his nation during the 1920s meant more to American policymakers than his fascist inclinations. All three Republican presidents during the decade agreed that "order and stability had to be the primary considerations," stated Schmitz.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Atlantic Charter

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Atlantic Charter in August 1941 in conjunction with British prime minister Winston Churchill, the two leaders followed in Wilson's footsteps by renouncing any intentions for territorial acquisition and by proclaiming the right of all peoples to determine their own form of government. This did not mean that the British prime minister had suddenly experienced a change of heart and was now prepared to recognize the independence of all His Majesty's colonies. Churchill understood the provisions differently from Roosevelt, and the president did not have a problem with that, although he did ultimately wish to see an end to European colonial holdings. The context to this announcement, of course, was World War II, which had begun in September 1939, and which was not going well from the Allied perspective at the time of the Atlantic Charter. Germany had defeated France, invaded the Balkans, and was aggressively pushing back Soviet troops along the Eastern front. Great Britain stood alone in the West, since the United States had yet to enter the war. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to cast the struggle in moral terms, with the one side committed to freedom and collective rights in clear contrast to the despotism of the fascist nations.

Domestically, Roosevelt acquiesced to political pressure by issuing the executive order that allowed Japanese Americans along the West Coast to be rounded up and placed into camps in the interior. In all, 110,000 Japanese Americans were moved and the Supreme Court, which ruled the infringement on their civil rights to be perfectly legal in Hirabayashi (1943) and Korematsu (1944), once again acquiesced in the denial of individual liberties.

Although he did not take up the interventionist approach in Latin America with the same degree of alacrity as Wilson, neither did President Roosevelt press on the issue of human rights. He ignored the actions of the brutal dictator Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. He reached agreements with fascist leaders in Spain (General Francisco Franco), Vichy North Africa (Admiral Jean Darlan), and Italy (Pietro Badoglio from 1943) in an effort to win the war. Human rights were not expressly a part of the fight against fascism in Asia and Europe, but they were very much a part of the basic differentiation between the two sides.

Their different ideas about fundamental human rights became glaringly obvious at the end of the war as Allied troops made their way into the concentration camps set up by Germany to oversee the extermination of the entire Jewish population in Europe. Scenes of mass graves, crematoriums, and emaciated survivors testified to the Nazi determination to commit genocide.

The Un Declaration of Human Rights and President Harry Truman

With the defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan, the United States stood militarily triumphant and economically prosperous in 1945. Whereas the rest of the world's powers had suffered from the fighting, the United States possessed a combination of military, economic, and political power that, when combined with strong moral leadership, meant that its pronouncements on human rights could, if provided with sufficient backing, carry real weight.

In the place of Wilson's failed League of Nations came the United Nations, and prominent amongst its considerations was the issue of human rights. In 1948 the United Nations issued its Declaration of Human Rights, which listed, among others, the right to life, liberty, security of person, nationality, recognition before the law as a person, and freedom of movement, including leaving one's country of residence. People had the right to marry, own property, think freely in conscience and religious beliefs, have an opinion and express it freely, assemble peacefully, and take part in the functioning of government—thirty articles in all. It stated that people shall have the right to a free education, at least at the elementary level; people shall have the right to work; they shall have the right to "rest and leisure," and the right to "a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being" of the individual and family, "including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services." Playing a crucial role in the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights was Eleanor Roosevelt.

President Harry S. Truman offered his strong support for the UN's human rights work. At the same time that he spoke out in favor of protecting human rights worldwide, the president experienced political disappointment domestically. He failed in his effort to secure passage of a federal antilynching law. In many parts of the South, white citizens took matters into their own hands when it came to offering justice to African Americans who had either committed crimes or were simply thought to have committed them. Many times a mob hunted down the alleged perpetrator and executed a swift form of punishment, which usually involved hanging without the benefit of the legal proceedings. That this practice still existed in postwar America, and that certain senators refused to allow the passage of federal legislation outlawing it, spoke all too chillingly to the failure of the United States to practice what it espoused in the field of human rights.

Truman pressed ahead just the same. At a ceremony for laying the United Nations building's cornerstone on 24 October 1949, he spoke of the link between individual human rights and security: "The member nations have learned from bitter experience that regard for human rights is indispensable to political, economic, and social progress. They have learned that disregard of human rights is the beginning of tyranny and, too often, the beginning of war." Truman indicated that the success of the UN would be "measured by the extent to which the rights of individual human beings [were] realized," and he also included "economic and social progress" in the equation for determining success in realizing those goals.

The next year at Gonzaga University, Truman brought his message of individual human rights into the domestic sphere, speaking of the need to prevent "discrimination in our country because of religion, color, or national origin," all three of which were basic tenets of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Truman then indicated that "the same moral principles that underlie our national life govern our relations with all other nations and peoples in the world." Domestically, the president backed up his talk with action. He appointed a presidential Committee on Civil Rights to investigate the domestic situation; asked Congress in February 1948 to pass legislation to address the recommendations made by the committee; barred discrimination in federal employment that July; and moved to end discrimination in the armed forces, though the last of those would not be accomplished until the Korean War.

Much of what Truman did in the area of civil rights was politically motivated, to be sure, but Truman also worried about the ability of the Soviet Union to exploit America's racial problems internationally. His administration decided to support, through a legal brief, the effort to overturn the Supreme Court–sanctioned discrimination against African Americans as set forth in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. The president and many of his staff recognized the problems created internationally by the country's hypocritical position: publicly advocating human rights for peoples worldwide, while systematically denying those very same rights at home to some of the nation's citizens because of their skin color.

Brown v. Board of Education and the Eisenhower Administration

Unlike Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower possessed, at most, a tepid commitment to human rights, and his noticeable lack of enthusiasm evidenced itself in a number of telling ways. First, Eisenhower supported the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in overthrowing or attempting to overthrow governments in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), and Cuba (1960, though it was President Kennedy who ultimately authorized the ill-fated Bay of Pigs mission in April 1961). Indeed, in the case of Guatemala, the CIA abetted the overthrow of the democratically elected leader, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, ostensibly because his government was riddled with communists and constituted a threat to regional stability, although questions of land reform and their impact on U.S. business interests clearly played a role.

Eisenhower occasionally echoed Wilson's commitment to see peoples around the world determine their own form of government, but he did so primarily as part of a broader anticommunist effort. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was particularly strident in his anticommunism, but his rhetorical calls for Eastern European freedom ran into problems in 1956 when Hungarians sought to control their own destiny and withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev, found such actions unacceptable. In November, Soviet troops arrived in Budapest to quash the revolution. Shortly after the brutal outcome to the episode was apparent, President Eisenhower used the occasion of Human Rights Day on 10 December 1956 to express the nation's "deepest sympathy" for "the courageous, liberty-loving people of Hungary." But that was all; nothing more was done.

The real problem for the administration came in the form of the civil rights movement domestically and the growing attention it received outside the United States. The Supreme Court reversed Plessy in its historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas in May 1954, a ruling followed in 1955 by the Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama, and then by the refusal of Arkansas governor Orville Faubus to allow the integration of Little Rock's Central High School in the fall of 1957. A clearly distressed Eisenhower was compelled to call in the National Guard to enforce the court's decision and to protect from mob violence the African American students who were scheduled to attend the high school.

The embarrassment over strident domestic opposition to integration and to the equal participation by African Americans in the nation's social and political systems hurt the nation's image abroad. At the 1958 World's Fair in Brussels, as Michael L. Krenn has insightfully noted, the Eisenhower administration ran into trouble with the American exhibit. One State Department memo observed that continuing racial discrimination, along the lines of what had happened in Little Rock the previous year, "clearly result[ed] to some extent in the weakening of our moral position as the champion of freedom and democracy." Wanting to assert the nation's moral superiority vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, but having to concede that there were continuing domestic problems over integration, the State Department sent an exhibit to Brussels, "Unfinished Business," that acknowledged some of the problems still faced by African Americans. Although popular with audiences that visited the American pavilion, "Unfinished Business" closed for "renovations," which was a euphemism for deleting the sections that dealt with segregation and thus raised the ire of southern politicians back home. Senator Herman Talmadge, for example, a Democrat from Georgia, declared that segregation "was an issue for the individual states of America and 'cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be one of legitimate concern to the citizens of other countries.'" Of course, that has traditionally been the argument of all governments accused of violating their citizens' human rights, whether it be the United States in the 1950s; the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s; China after Tiananmen Square; or the Taliban government in Afghanistan early in the twenty-first century.

The Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford Presidencies

David P. Forsythe has argued that not much with respect to human rights happened during the 1960s, largely because the Kennedy administration was cut short by assassination and the Johnson administration became preoccupied with Vietnam. Yet however brief his time in the White House, President John F. Kennedy recognized the problem created by opposition to civil rights at home for the nation's international standing. Speaking before the United Nations in 1963, nearly fifteen years after the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Kennedy remarked, "The United States of America is opposed to discrimination and persecution on grounds of race and religion anywhere in the world, including our own nation. We are working to right the wrongs." Indeed, Kennedy, who argued that the competition with the Soviet Union was moving from Europe to the countries of the Third World, where mostly darker-skinned peoples lived, understood the need to address prejudice at home in order to appeal effectively to those peoples abroad. For his part, Lyndon B. Johnson ushered through two of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in American history: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson brought the power of the federal government to bear so as to ensure that the states could not continue discriminating against African Americans. The United States was finally beginning to act in the domestic sphere in accordance with its proclamations internationally.

Human rights lost ground as a matter of importance in the nation's diplomacy under President Richard M. Nixon and his national security adviser (and, later, secretary of state), Henry Kissinger. The two emphasized geographical, political, and strategic considerations. Human rights, whether individual or collective, were of little concern to them. In his rush to embrace Communist China in a geostrategic partnership against the Soviet Union, for example, Kissinger basically cast aside the collective rights of the Taiwanese, who had been America's ally in the Pacific against communist aggression since 1949. Kissinger's disdain for human rights came through clearly at other times, too. From the administration's support for the military overthrow of the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973 to the secret bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1973, the Nixon White House valued anticommunism, the exercise of power, and promoting stability over human rights.

Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 and his successor, Gerald Ford, did not exhibit any greater concern for human rights. Later, Ford would claim credit for supporting human rights by virtue of his signing the Helsinki Accord, also known as the final text from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which was signed by thirty-three nations in Helsinki, Finland, in 1975. At the time, however, the Ford administration thought of the agreement as more of a strategic pact than as one that brought a new human rights emphasis to U.S. diplomacy. It was the western European nations that insisted on the insertion of Breadbasket Three, which asserted that "the participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." Since the Soviet Union also signed the agreement, this language later became useful in criticizing Soviet practices in Eastern Europe.

Congressional Activism

A backlash arose from the lies about the Vietnam War told to Congress by Presidents Johnson and Nixon, and from Nixon's blatant usurpations of power, leading to the rise of what became known as the imperial presidency. In the 1970s representatives and senators took matters into their own hands and asserted themselves more aggressively into the nation's diplomatic processes, including the area of human rights. One of the most prominent in this respect was a Democratic representative from Minnesota, Donald Fraser. Beginning with hearings in 1973 before his subcommittee of International Relations Committee, Fraser repeatedly raised the issue of human rights and made it a matter of legitimate diplomatic discussion. Human rights would no longer be an afterthought.

More than simply discussing the issue, moreover, Congress decided to act. In 1974, it strengthened law relating to trade and human rights when it passed the Trade Assistance Act; section 504 specifically dealt with human rights, indicating that aid should be linked to human rights considerations. In 1978 that language was changed to make mandatory the link between assistance and human rights considerations. Also in 1974, Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act. Named after Democratic Senator Henry Jackson from Washington and Democratic Representative Charles Vanik from Ohio, the amendment insisted that for other nations to receive most-favored-nation status for trade purposes, they had to be certified as allowing their citizens the right to emigrate. The amendment targeted the Soviet Union for its refusal to allow Jews to leave for Israel. In 1976 Congress created the position of coordinator of human rights in the Department of State. As a result, the State Department reports on human rights conditions in countries receiving U.S. aid, totaling eighty-two in 1977. Twenty-three years later, and no longer focusing solely on aid recipients, the State Department published reports on 195 countries through its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In short, congressional action during the 1970s brought human rights into the nation's diplomatic considerations to an unprecedented degree.

President James Earl Carter

In this human-rights-friendly environment, Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976. Carter has justly received much attention for emphasizing human rights as part of his administration's diplomacy; he did not, however, invent the issue. Gaddis Smith has, along with other writers, shown that, in Smith's words, "Carter joined the crusade and made it his own." The principle impetus came from Congress, to the point that even such a strong supporter of human rights as Carter found himself arguing that Congress took human rights considerations too far. Still, Carter was more committed to promoting human rights than any other president into the early twenty-first century, in both words and action. As he wrote in his memoirs, "Our country has been strongest and most effective when morality and a commitment to freedom and democracy have been most clearly emphasized in our foreign policy."

Having grown up in the rural segregated South, Carter linked the issue of civil rights for African Americans with the promotion of human rights abroad and cited President Truman, of all the recent presidents, as "the strongest and most effective advocate of human rights on an international scale." He acknowledged problems with the nation's past conduct, admitting that "much of the time we failed to exhibit as an American characteristic the idealism of Jefferson or Wilson," but he rejected the accepted wisdom that the nation had to choose between realism and morality: "To me, the demonstration of American idealism was a practical and realistic approach to foreign affairs, and moral principles were the best foundation for the exertion of American power and influence." His secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, concurred fully in the need to promote human rights; even National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, himself more in tune with the geopolitical and strategic mind-set of Henry Kissinger than were Carter or Vance, conceded in his memoirs that "a major emphasis on human rights as a component of U.S. foreign policy would advance America's global interests by demonstrating to the emerging nations of the Third World the reality of our democratic system, in sharp contrast to the political system and practices of our adversaries."

Carter understood the inconsistency in the nation's past talk about human rights when considered alongside its efforts to deny rights to some of its own citizens. In his memoirs, he acknowledged that "I know perhaps as well as anyone that our own ideals in the area of human rights have not always been attained in the United States, but the American people have an abiding commitment to the full realization of these ideals." The problem for Carter was that despite his efforts to ensure that the nation's commitment to human rights was total and unconditional, he like his predecessors (and successors) had to deal with the international situation as it was, not as he wanted it to be. Thus, while he criticized certain governments, including the Soviet Union and the military regime in Argentina, for violating their people's basic human rights, he laid himself open to charges of inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, by ignoring violations in strategically vital allies like Iran, the Philippines, and South Korea.

Still, Carter made human rights a public commitment for his administration, in contrast to many of his predecessors. Speaking before the United Nations on 17 March 1977, he told the delegates, "The basic thrust of human affairs points toward a more universal demand for fundamental human rights. The United States has a historical birthright to be associated with this process." Secretary of State Vance spoke on 30 April 1977 at the University of Georgia School of Law on the integrity of the person, the fulfillment of basic needs, and classical civil and political liberties that required protection. Vance raised certain questions that needed to be asked when investigating human rights in other nations: What were the specifics of the human rights situation under examination? What were the prospects for effective action to bring about change? What were the historical and other perspectives needed to evaluate the situation reasonably? He also offered a slightly tempered sense of what could be expected: "We must always keep in mind the limits of our power and of our wisdom. A sure formula for defeat of our goals would be a rigid, hubristic attempt to impose our values on others."

President Carter followed on 22 May 1977 with a commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame, where he outlined his administration's premises for the nation's diplomacy. The first item that he mentioned was human rights: "We have reaffirmed America's commitment to human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy," he stated.

Carter followed these words with deeds. First, on 1 June 1977 he signed the American Convention on Human Rights, an agreement that was reached between the United States and the other nations of the Western Hemisphere seven and one-half years before on 22 November 1969 but not officially endorsed by either Presidents Nixon or Ford. Second, although it was Congress that mandated so many of the changes that led to greater attention being paid to human rights during the 1970s, it was Jimmy Carter who appointed an assistant secretary of state for human rights effective August 1977. His choice for the post was Patricia M. Derian, an aggressive advocate for civil rights albeit lacking diplomatic experience. That, however, did not cause her to back down from confrontations with seasoned diplomats, She repeatedly clashed with more traditionally minded State Department personnel, like Assistant Secretary Richard Holbrooke on East Asian issues or Ambassador Terence Todman on Latin American matters. Derian did not shape every position the administration took, but she gave concrete evidence of a newfound commitment to human rights, however short lived it ultimately turned out to be.

As international events unfolded in 1978 and 1979, Carter began to focus his energies on more traditional considerations in the nation's diplomacy. First came the war between Somalia and Ethiopia in the horn of Africa, which National Security Adviser Brzezinski viewed as a Soviet proxy war for control over yet another vital region. Further difficulties arose with the collapse of traditional right-wing allies in Nicaragua (Anastasio Somoza in 1979) and Iran (Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1979). Andrew Young's resignation as ambassador to the United Nations in August 1979 effectively ended Carter's push on human rights in that international organization. And things only got worse. In Iran, students stormed the American embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and took Americans hostage. A month later the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Concern over human rights quickly fell into the background, and nowhere did that become clearer than in South Korea. When President Park Chung Hee was assassinated in October 1979 and succeeded by a military regime led by Chun Doo Hwan in December, and when that government decided to suppress brutally an uprising in the southern city of Kwangju in the spring of 1980, Carter said nothing, despite his earlier criticisms of Park's record on human rights. Administration officials feared that South Korea could become another Iran. In short, even a president as rhetorically committed to promoting human rights as Jimmy Carter found himself overwhelmed by strategic considerations that weighed in on the side of protecting stability.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush

Congress and President Jimmy Carter made enough of human rights as a central tenet of American diplomacy so that subsequent chief executives could not ignore the issue entirely, regardless of how little attention they really wanted to give the matter. The Reagan administration, for example, took Kissinger's emphasis on geographical, strategic, and political considerations, combined that with its own brand of politically conservative, fervent anticommunism, and added the requisite dose of human rights rhetoric in castigating the Soviet Union, all the while supporting right-wing dictators throughout the world. The spokesperson for the administration on this topic was the ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick. In a 1979 article she had criticized the Carter administration for failing to discern the difference between authoritarian (good) and totalitarian (bad) regimes around the world. The former were to be embraced as friends and allies, because of their ability eventually to change and their present inflexibility when it came to communism. The latter regimes not only would not change, they were communist. Matters of human rights abuses by authoritarian leaders were far less important in her schematic than their willingness to tow the anti-communist line. This was the theoretical framework the administration wanted to employ in its support of right-wing dictators.

The Reagan administration, therefore, offered its full support for repressive governments in places like El Salvador and Guatemala. In both countries the administration lied and covered up numerous atrocities and human rights abuses by the military, all in the name of supporting anticommunism. But from President Reagan's perspective, his predecessor's policies had fared no better. In a 1981 interview with Walter Cronkite, Reagan said with respect to the Carter administration's contradictory behavior on human rights, "We took countries that were pro-Western, that were maybe authoritarian in government, but not totalitarian … [that] did not meet all of our principles of what constitutes human rights, and we punished them at the same time that we were claiming detente with countries where there are no human rights." Secretary of State George P. Shultz assessed the situation similarly. He pointed to the differences between the East and West on moral principles, principles from which their basic policies arose. He argued that human rights could not be used to spurn other nations. That was a cop-out, he insisted, stating that although it made certain Americans feel better about themselves in their righteous indignation, it did not promote the kind of real change that improved human rights. On the contrary, according to Kirkpatrick and Shultz, U.S. pressure on Iran, Nicaragua, and South Vietnam in the 1970s to conform to certain human rights practices brought about these regimes' downfalls, which decidedly worsened the day-to-day circumstances faced by the millions of peoples in those countries.

The practical test for the Reagan administration position came in South Africa, where the administration took to the idea of working with the apartheid regime in the hope of bringing about affirmative changes in race relations there. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Chester Crocker coined the term "constructive engagement" when discussing the administration's policy toward the white minority government. The idea was to reassure the South African leaders of American support in their time of transition to democracy. That was the option preferred by the administration; the other was to isolate South Africa through sanctions in an effort to force the situation. Congress, as it had during the 1970s, took a more activist position and in 1986 passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, which imposed economic sanctions on South Africa until significant changes were made, in direct opposition to the Reagan administration's constructive engagement policy.

Elsewhere, the Reagan administration appeared to have better luck, though not because of its dedication to constructive engagement or democratic principles. In the Philippines, longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos stepped aside and allowed the election of Corazon Aquino in 1986, but the principal impetus for change came from the Filipinos. Reagan hesitated at key moments until the matter was all but decided.

The Bush administration made much the same argument on constructive engagement with respect to China in 1989, even after the government had cracked down on the Tiananmen Square protestors, using the People's Liberation Army to crush them on 3 June. Bush secretly sent two high-ranking advisers—National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger—to Beijing on 30 June to assure the Chinese leadership that his administration still intended to promote Sino-American relations once the furor over Tiananmen died down. The president sent the two to China again in December, the same month that the administration announced the release of $300 million in business contracts between American corporations and the Chinese government that had been suspended in the wake of Tiananmen. The administration was intent on downplaying human rights violations.

On 20 December 1989 the United States invaded Panama. The official reasons floated for the invasion ranged from harassment by Panamanian Defense Forces of American military officials (and their wives), to Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega's involvement with drug trafficking, to human rights violations. The drug connection was well-known in the early 1980s, but Noriega then cleaned up his act to the point where he received a letter from the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1986 that thanked him for his cooperation in stopping the drug trade. The last of the reasons given was a sheer fabrication, since the Bush administration was more than willing to ignore much more serious human rights violations in China and Iraq or, closer to home, in El Salvador and Guatemala.

The Clinton Years

Since 1989 the United States has faced a number of humanitarian crises, including ones involving the gross violation, either individually or collectively, of human rights. In 1994, for example, some in the Hutu majority in Rwanda orchestrated massive killings of Tutsis beginning in April. The brutal massacres clearly violated the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, but governments around the world refused to intervene to stop the killing. The administration of William Jefferson Clinton purposely avoided using the word genocide because to have uttered it publicly might have obligated the United States to take action under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved in December 1948 but not signed by the United States until 4 November 1988. Instead, the administration used phrases like "acts of genocide." When questioned as to the difference between genocide and acts of genocide, Christine Shelley, a State Department spokesperson, responded that "clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label." When pressed as to how many "acts of genocide" were needed to constitute "genocide," Shelly answered, "That's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer." In other words, better to avoid the issue through linguistic parsing than acknowledge what was truly happening and doing something about it. President Clinton apologized for America's inaction while visiting Rwanda in 1998, but that was years after 800,000 people had been massacred.

The proliferation of independence movements in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse apparently arose in partial response to Woodrow Wilson's call at the end of the First World War to support such efforts. To their surprise, however, those groups seeking U.S. assistance in their attempts to form independent governments ran into traditional American worries about instability possibly ensuing. In 1999, to cite one example, the leaders of Kosovo traveled to Rambouillet, France, to discuss its status within Yugoslavia. Meeting with American secretary of state Madeleine Albright, they found the United States much less keen than they had hoped regarding their desire to separate from Serbia and what remained of the Yugoslav republic. From the American perspective, supporting independence for Kosovo would set a dangerous precedent: What of the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, the Tibetans in western China, and the Taiwanese? If those peoples also publicly asserted their desire for independent states, the consequences could possibly involve the United States in a major war, especially in the case of Taiwan. Hence, the Clinton administration remained exceedingly cautious about supporting the collective human rights of the Kosovars, despite their obvious suffering at the hands of the Serbian authorities led by Slobodan Milosevic.

America's Record At Home

In 2001, Francis Fukuyama wrote about the debate between "rights" and "interests" and what difference it makes to speak of "human rights" as opposed to "human interests." More specifically, he delved into why certain groups assert claims to rights when what they are really discussing are interests. In a sense, this is merely a broadening of what Jefferson began when he wrote of the "right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The United Nations declaration is about "universal human rights," not human interests, and after incisively noting the distinction between the two, Fukuyama concluded that the reason for the proliferating assertions of "rights" in the half century after the UN's declaration had to do with how "rights trump interests because they are invested with greater moral significance." The problem with injecting human rights issues into the nation's diplomacy, he insisted, was that they set up a basic premise for the nation's diplomacy that could never really be fulfilled: "A country that makes human rights a significant element of its foreign policy tends toward ineffectual moralizing at best, and unconstrained violence in pursuit of moral aims at worst." Jimmy Carter seemed to have discovered that the hard way.

On another level, Americans still fail to understand how arrogant some of their national pronouncements on human rights seem to peoples in other countries. While condemning human rights infractions elsewhere, Americans blithely go about ignoring or rationalizing their own society's violations. To cite one example, polls generally show that a vast majority of Americans consider the death penalty a domestic matter, and popular support for allowing states to execute prisoners convicted of certain crimes remains high, although revelations in the late 1990s and early 2000s demonstrated the inconsistent, indeed arbitrary, way in which the death penalty is frequently applied, not to mention the fact that a good number of death-row inmates had recently been proven innocent through DNA testing. The governor of Illinois went so far as to suspend all executions pending a review of the state's legal system regarding capital cases. Nongovernmental organizations that monitor human rights abuses around the world, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, regularly cite the use of the death penalty as a violation of human rights, and the United States receives special mention since some of its states also allow for individuals under the age of eighteen to receive the death penalty for certain crimes. That puts the United States in the same league as Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, nations not normally listed as standing at the forefront of the world's human rights protectors. And it gets even worse. In 2001, 52 percent of all death-row inmates were African American or Latino, far in excess of their percentage of the general population, which in 2000 stood at 24.8 percent, suggesting a disparity based on racial and ethnic prejudice. Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that statistical findings of uneven sentencing across racial lines regarding capital cases do not constitute sufficient evidence of racial bias. An intent to discriminate must be proven in each case, the court ruled, a nearly impossible burden for defendants appealing their convictions. The United States signed the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but by 2001 had not ratified it, largely because of objections to the covenant's prohibition against using the death penalty on individuals under the age of eighteen.

President George W. Bush

That the United States failed to retain its seat on the UN Commission on Human Rights, on second thought, begins to look less and less outrageous when the long history of the nation's own violations is considered. Compounding those problems is resentment at the fact that the United States is the only truly global power. The administration of George W. Bush has not done much to allay concerns or ease tensions. Its unilateral decision to reject the Kyoto Agreement on curbing global warming, its resolve to withdraw from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia in order to pursue a National Missile Defense plan, and the refusal to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Council on Racism in Durban, South Africa (and then the withdrawal of the delegation) all seemed to mark even more examples of American arrogance.

The Bush administration argued that it sent only a low-level delegation to Durban to protest the language already proposed by Arab delegates calling Israeli's treatment of Palestinians as racist; the president also objected to discussing reparations for past acts of slavery. Whatever the reasons, the Bush administration should have weighed the importance of the nation's past leadership in the field of human rights against its displeasure over particular language in draft texts prior to the start of the conference. David D. Newsom was right to call attention to the disparity between the ideals articulated by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, or Eleanor Roosevelt and the reality of the actions pursued or not by the United States. But Jimmy Carter was right when he argued that the nation could not shirk its duty to promote human rights just because of its own imperfections.

Bibliography

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981. New York, 1983.

Carter, Jimmy. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. New York, 1982. The most vocal president on human rights in the nation's history discusses his reasons for making it so important to his administration's diplomacy.

Chomsky, Noam. Deterring Democracy. New York, 1991. Essential for understanding the duplicitous language employed by policy-makers to rationalize actions.

Forsythe, David P. Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered. Gainesville, Fla., 1988. A very good discussion of Congress's assertiveness after 1973.

——. "Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect." Political Science Quarterly 105 (autumn 1990): 435–454. One of his many excellent writings on the topic, this one being especially useful as a summary.

Fukuyama, Francis. "Natural Rights and Human History." The National Interest 64 (summer 2001): 19–30.

Kirkpatrick, Jeane. "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Commentary 68 (November 1979): 34–45. The classic criticism of the Carter administration's policies.

Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York, 1977.

Krenn, Michael L. "'Unfinished Business': Segregation and U.S. Diplomacy at the 1958 World's Fair." Diplomatic History 20 (fall 1996): 591–612.

Lapham, Lewis. "The American Rome: On the Theory of Virtuous Empire." Harper's Magazine (August 2001). A biting analysis of the hypocrisy in American diplomacy and human rights.

Mower, A. Glenn, Jr. The United States, the United Nations, and Human Rights: The Eleanor Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter Eras. Westport, Conn., 1979.

——. Human Rights and American Foreign Policy: The Carter and Reagan Experiences. New York, 1987.

Newsom, David D., ed. The Diplomacy of Human Rights. Lanham, Md., 1986. Good collection of articles that covers a wide range of topics relating to the subject.

Schmitz, David F. Thank God They're on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921–1965. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1999. A chilling reminder of how stability has usually trumped human rights in, among other things, considering what governments to support.

Smith, Gaddis. Morality, Reason, and Power: American Diplomacy in the Carter Years. New York, 1986. A helpful and succinct overview of the Carter administration, including its emphasis on human rights.

Smith, Tony. America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, N.J., 1994. A ringing and eloquent endorsement of the benefits provided by America's efforts to promote democracy, but best if read in conjunction with Schmitz.

Vance, Cyrus R. Hard Choices: Critical Years in America's Foreign Policy. New York, 1983.

Vincent, R. J., ed. Foreign Policy and Human Rights: Issues and Responses. Cambridge, 1986.

— T. Christopher Jespersen

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Personal liberties that protect individuals and groups against individual or state conduct prohibited by international law or custom.

Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction.

Specific human rights include the right to personal liberty and due process of law; to freedom of thought, expression, religion, organization, and movement; to freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, language, and sex; to basic education; to employment; and to property. Human rights laws have been defined by international conventions, by treaties, and by organizations, particularly the United Nations. These laws prohibit practices such as torture, slavery, summary execution without trial, and arbitrary detention or exile.

History

Modern human rights law developed out of customs and theories that established the rights of the individual in relation to the state. These rights were expressed in legal terms in documents such as the English Bill of Rights of 1688, the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776, the U.S. Bill of Rights added to the U.S. Constitution in 1789, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen added to the French Constitution in 1791.

Human rights law also grew out of earlier systems of international law. These systems, developed largely during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were predicated on the doctrine of national sovereignty, according to which each nation retains sole power over its internal affairs without interference from other nations. As a result, early international law involved only relations between nation-states and was not concerned with the ways in which states treated their own citizens.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the notion of national sovereignty came under increasing challenge, and reformers began to press for international humanitarian standards. In special conferences such as the Hague Conference of 1899 and 1907, nations created laws governing the conduct of wars and handling of prisoners.

Not until after World War II (1939-45) did the international community create international treaties establishing human rights standards. The United Nations, created in 1945, took the lead in this effort. In its charter, or founding document, the United Nations developed objectives for worldwide human rights standards. It called for equal rights and self-determination for all peoples, as well as "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion" (art. 55). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948, also became an important human rights document.

To develop the U.N. Charter into an international code of human rights law, the international community created a number of multilateral human rights treaties. The two most significant of these are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, both put into effect in 1976. These treaties forbid discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. The two covenants, along with the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and an accord called the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), constitute a body of law that has been called the International Bill of Human Rights.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes protections for the right to life, except after conviction for serious crime (art. 6); freedom from torture and other cruel and inhumane punishment (art. 7); freedom from slavery and prohibition from slave trade (art. 8); freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (art. 9); humane treatment of prisoners (art. 10); freedom of movement and choice of residence (art. 12); legal standards, including equality before the law, fair hearings before an impartial tribunal, presumption of innocence, a prompt and fair trial, the right to counsel, and the right to review by a higher court; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (art. 18); and freedom of association, including association in trade unions (art. 22).

The Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights protects additional rights, many of which have yet to be realized in poorer countries. These include the right to work (art. 6); to just wages and safe working conditions (art. 7); to social security and social insurance (art. 9); to a decent standard of living and freedom from hunger (art. 11); to universal basic education (art. 13); and to an enjoyment of the cultural life and scientific progress of the country.

The international community has also adopted many other human rights treaties. These include the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948); the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1953); the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (revised 1953); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment (1987); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).

In addition to worldwide human rights agreements, countries have also established regional conventions. These include the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

The United States and Human Rights

Although the United States was an active participant in the formation and implementation of international human rights organizations and treaties following World War II, and although it ratified selected treaties such as the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery in 1967 and the Convention on the Political Rights of Women in 1976, it did not ratify any of the major rights treaties until 1988, when it approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Four years later it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The U.S. Senate, which has authority to ratify all treaties, has been slow to review and approve human rights provisions, for a number of reasons. Senators have expressed concern about the effect of international treaties on U.S. domestic law. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Treaties therefore stand as federal law, though they are not considered to be law if they conflict with the Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148 [1957]). In some cases a treaty federalizes an issue that was previously governed by state law.

Conservative senators blocked early ratification of human rights treaties largely out of concern that the treaties would invalidate racial segregation laws that existed in the United States until the 1960s. Many human rights advocates claimed that these laws violated existing international treaties. Some senators argued that human rights should fall under domestic authority only and should not be subject to international negotiations. Others contended that ratification of human rights treaties would federalize areas of law better left to the states.

Since the late 1960s, such objections in the Senate have been overcome by attaching to treaties modifying terms called reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs). RUDs modify the treaties so that their effect on U.S. law will be acceptable to the two-thirds majority required for treaty ratification in the Senate. A reservation, for example, may state that the United States will not accept any element of a treaty found to be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution or existing laws, or that ratification will not federalize areas of law currently controlled by the states.

The U.S. Congress has also enacted its own human rights legislation. Under the leadership of Representative Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.) during the 1970s, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs added language to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (22 U.S.C.A. § 2151 et seq.) that required the president to cancel military and economic assistance to any government that "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights," including torture and arbitrary detention without charges (§§ 2151n, 2304). This new legislation authorized the State Department to collect and analyze data on human rights violations. Congress has also passed laws that require cutting off or limiting aid to countries with significant human rights violations.

In 1977 Congress gave human rights greater priority within the executive branch by creating a new State Department office, the Bureau on Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, headed by an assistant secretary of state (Pub. L. No. 95-105, 91 Stat. 846). In 1994 the administration of President Bill Clinton renamed the office the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The bureau is charged with administering programs and policies to promote democratic institutions and respect for human rights and workers' rights around the world. It also presents to Congress an annual report on the status of human rights all over the globe.

Nongovernment Organizations

Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and other international human rights organizations closely monitor states' compliance with human rights standards. These groups also publicize rights violations and coordinate world public opinion against offending states. In many cases they induce governments to modify their policies to meet rights standards.

Domestic human rights organizations such as the Vicaria de Solidaridad, in Chile, and the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines also play a significant role as human rights watchdogs, often at great personal risk to their members.

See: Civil Rights; Genocide; Nuremberg Trials.

Rights

Theoretical distinctions

Natural and legal rights Claim rights and liberty rights Negative and positive rights Individual and Group rights

Human rights divisions

Three generations Civil and political Economic, social and cultural

Right holders

Animals · Humans Men · Women Fathers · Mothers Children · Youth · Students Minorities · LGBT

Other groups of rights

Authors' · Digital · Labor Linguistic · Reproductive

v • d • e

The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.

Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."^[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

Contents

• 1 History
• 2 International norms
  • 2.1 Humanitarian Law
  • 2.2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • 2.3 Law
    • 2.3.1 Treaties
    • 2.3.2 Enforcement of law
    • 2.3.3 Universal Jurisdiction
• 3 International bodies
  • 3.1 United Nations
    • 3.1.1 Human Rights Council
    • 3.1.2 Security Council
    • 3.1.3 Other UN Treaty Bodies
• 4 Regional human rights
  • 4.1 Africa
  • 4.2 Americas
  • 4.3 Asia
  • 4.4 Europe
  • 4.5 Oceania
• 5 Philosophies
  • 5.1 Natural rights
  • 5.2 Social contract
  • 5.3 Reciprocity
  • 5.4 Other theories of human rights
• 6 Concepts in human rights
  • 6.1 Indivisibility and categorization
    • 6.1.1 Indivisibility
    • 6.1.2 Categorization
  • 6.2 Universalism vs. cultural relativism
  • 6.3 State and non-state actors
  • 6.4 Theory of value and property
  • 6.5 Reproductive rights
• 7 Legal issues
  • 7.1 Human rights vs. national security
  • 7.2 Human rights violations
• 8 Currently-debated rights
  • 8.1 Water
  • 8.2 Environmental rights
  • 8.3 Future generations
  • 8.4 Gay rights
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 Bibliography
• 12 External links

History

The history of human rights covers thousands of years and draws upon religious, cultural, philosophical and legal developments throughout recorded history. Several ancient documents and later religions and philosophies included a variety of concepts that may be considered to be human rights. Notable among such documents are the Cyrus cylinder of 539 BC, a declaration of intentions by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great after his conquest of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; the Edicts of Ashoka issued by Ashoka the Great of India between 272-231 BC; and the Constitution of Medina of 622 AD, drafted by Muhammad to mark a formal agreement between all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews and Pagans.^[3][4] The English Magna Carta of 1215 is particularly significant in the history of English law, and is hence significant in international law and constitutional law today.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789.

Much of modern human rights law and the basis of most modern interpretations of human rights can be traced back to relatively recent history. The British Bill of Rights (or “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown”) of 1689 made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions in the United Kingdom. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which established certain legal rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded a number of fundamental rights and freedoms into law.

These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The term human rights probably came into use sometime between Paine's The Rights of Man and William Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in The Liberator saying he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights"^[5]

Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States.

The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian law, to be further developed following the two World Wars.

The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place during them were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments. The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the end of World War I. The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its Charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights which were later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the League's role. This body was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an important role in international human rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars the United Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law which now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

International norms

Humanitarian Law

Original Geneva Convention in 1864.

The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in armed conflict, and build on the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions were revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.

The Geneva Conventions define what is today referred to as humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the controlling body of the Geneva conventions.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly^[7] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered to be a central component of international customary law which may be invoked under appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries.^[8] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

“	...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world	”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.^[9] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.^[9] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:^[9]

“	Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.	”
—Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.^[10] The inclusion of both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights^[9][11] was predicated on the assumption that basic human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Eastern Bloc, Apartheid South Africa and Saudi Arabia), however this principle was later subject to significant challenges.^[11]

The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into two distinct and different covenants, a Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and another Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Over the objection of the more developed states [Capitalist], which questioned the relevance and propriety of such provisions in covenants on human rights, both begin with the right of people to self-determination and to sovereignty over their natural resources. Then the two covenants go different ways (see, Louis Henkin, The International Bill of Rights: The Universal Declaration and the Covenants, in International Enforcement of Human Rights 6-9, Bernhardt and Jolowicz, eds, (1987))

The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were added early. Western States then fought for, and obtained, a division into two covenants. They insisted that economic and social right were essentially aspirations or plans, not rights, since their realization depended on availability of resources and on controversial economic theory and ideology. These, they said, were not appropriate subjects for binding obligations and should not be allowed to dilute the legal character of provisions honoring political-civil rights; states prepared to assume obligations to respect political-civil rights should not be mitments. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights. See Louis Henkin, Introduction, The International Bill of Rights 9-10 (1981).

Because of the divisions over which rights to include, and because some states declined to ratify any treaties including certain specific interpretations of human rights, and despite the Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries arguing strongly for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution, the rights enshrined in the UDHR were split into two separate covenants, allowing states to adopt some rights and derogate others.^{[citation needed]} Though this allowed the covenants to be created, one commentator has written that it denied the proposed principle that all rights are linked which was central to some interpretations of the UDHR.^[12][13]

v • d • e Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
General principles Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property
Context, limitations and duties Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility  · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Category:Human rights · Human rights portal

Law

Human rights law is a system of laws, both domestic and international, designed to promote human rights.

Treaties

In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have signed this treaty, creating human rights law.

Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant are:

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969) [1]
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (entry into force: 1981) [2]
• United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984) [3]
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [4]
• International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)

Enforcement of law

The enforcement of international human rights law is the responsibility of the Nation State, and its the primary responsibility of the State to make human rights a reality. There is currently no international court that upholds human rights law (the International Criminal Court deals with crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide), although the Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights that acts as a court of last appeal for human rights issues in member states (see the section Europe below).^[14]

In practice, many human rights are very difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered to take legal action to enforce them.

Universal Jurisdiction

Universal jurisdiction is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens.^[15]

International bodies

United Nations

Main article: United Nations

The UN General Assembly

The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation.^[16] Human rights are primarily governmed by the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different human rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN with regard to human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate to:

“	...achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.	”
—Article 1-3 of the United Nations Charter

Human Rights Council

United Nations Human Rights Council logo.

The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit to replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of human rights.^[17] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly^[18] and reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter.^[19] Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations.^[20]

Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human rights abuses and to provide the Council with reports.

The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council take action when human rights violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the Security Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.^[21]

Security Council

United Nations Security Council.

The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of force (including in the context of peace-keeping operations), or override member nations sovereignty by issuing binding Security Council resolutions. Created by the UN Charter, it is classed as a Charter Body of the United Nations. The UN Charter gives the Security Council the power to:

• Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
• Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
• Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
• Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary.

The Security Council hears reports from all organs of the United Nations, and can take action over any issue which it feels threatens peace and security, including human rights issues. It has at times been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.^{[citation needed]}

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes the Security Council the power to refer cases to the Court, where the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.

Other UN Treaty Bodies

A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was made in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The degree of unanimity over these conventions, in terms of how many and which countries have ratified them varies, as does the degree to which they are respected by various states. The UN has set up a number of treaty-based bodies to monitor and study human rights, under the leadership of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). The bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties. They are created by the treaty that they monitor.

• The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The eighteen members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make judgements on individual complaints against countries which have ratified the treaty. The judgements are not legally binding.

• The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and makes general comments on ratifying countries performance. It does not have the power to receive complaints.

• The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and conducts regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgements on complaints, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to prevent serious contraventions of the convention.

• The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors the CEDAW. It receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make judgements on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol.

• The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their performance every four years and comments on them. It may visit and inspect individual countries with their consent.

• The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.

• The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it.

Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Treaties and Commission Branch of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW meets at United Nations headquarters in New York; the other treaty bodies generally meet at the United Nations Office in Geneva. The Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City.

Regional human rights

The three principal regional human rights instruments are the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European Convention on Human Rights.

See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights institutions

Africa

Emblem of the African Union.

The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states.^[22] Established in 2001, the AU's purpose is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market.^[23]

The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights is the regions principal human rights instrument and emerged under the aegis of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) (since replaced by the African Union). The intention to draw up the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was announced in 1979 and the Charter was unanimously approved at the OAU's 1981 Assembly. Pursuant to its Article 63 (whereby it was to "come into force three months after the reception by the Secretary General of the instruments of ratification or adherence of a simple majority" of the OAU's member states), the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights came into effect on 21 October 1986 – in honour of which 21^st of October was declared "African Human Rights Day".^[24]

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of the African Union tasked with promoting and protecting human rights and collective (peoples') rights throughout the African continent as well as interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and considering individual complaints of violations of the Charter. The Commission has three broad areas of responsibility:^[25]

• Promoting human and peoples' rights
• Protecting human and peoples' rights
• Interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

In pursuit of these goals, the Commission is mandated to "collect documents, undertake studies and researches on African problems in the field of human and peoples, rights, organise seminars, symposia and conferences, disseminate information, encourage national and local institutions concerned with human and peoples' rights and, should the case arise, give its views or make recommendations to governments" (Charter, Art. 45).^[25]

With the creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (under a protocol to the Charter which was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January 2004), the Commission will have the additional task of preparing cases for submission to the Court's jurisdiction.^[26] In a July 2004 decision, the AU Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human and Peoples' Rights would be integrated with the African Court of Justice.

The Court of Justice of the African Union is intended to be the “principal judicial organ of the Union” (Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, Article 2.2).^[27] Although it has not yet been established, it is intended to take over the duties of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the African Union, interpreting all necessary laws and treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights entered into force in January 2004^[28] but its merging with the Court of Justice has delayed its establishment. The Protocol establishing the Court of Justice will come into force when ratified by 15 countries.^[29]

There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international community and NGOs.^[30]

v • d • e Human rights in Africa
Sovereign states	Algeria · Angola · Benin · Botswana · Burkina Faso · Burundi · Cameroon · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Comoros · Democratic Republic of the Congo · Republic of the Congo · Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) · Djibouti · Egypt1 · Equatorial Guinea · Eritrea · Ethiopia · Gabon · The Gambia · Ghana · Guinea · Guinea-Bissau · Kenya · Lesotho · Liberia · Libya · Madagascar · Malawi · Mali · Mauritania · Mauritius · Morocco · Mozambique · Namibia · Niger · Nigeria · Rwanda · Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic · São Tomé and Príncipe · Senegal · Seychelles · Sierra Leone · Somalia · South Africa · Sudan · Swaziland · Tanzania · Togo · Tunisia · Uganda · Zambia · Zimbabwe
Dependencies, autonomies, other territories	Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla (Spain) · Madeira (Portugal) · Mayotte / Réunion (France) · Puntland · St. Helena (UK) · Socotra (Yemen) · Somaliland · Southern Sudan · Western Sahara · Zanzibar (Tanzania)
Italics indicate an unrecognised or partially recognised country. 1 Transcontinental country.

Americas

The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas. Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin America^{[citation needed]}, and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:^[31]

• Strengthening democracy
• Working for peace
• Protecting human rights
• Combating corruption
• The rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Promoting sustainable development

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the bodies that comprise the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights.^[32] The IACHR is a permanent body which meets in regular and special sessions several times a year to examine allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three documents:^[33]

• the OAS Charter
• the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
• the American Convention on Human Rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 with the purpose of enforcing and interpreting the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.^[34]

Many countries in the Americas, such as the United States, Colombia, Cuba, and Venezuela, have been accused of human rights violations.

v • d • e Human rights in North America
Sovereign states	Antigua and Barbuda · Bahamas · Barbados · Belize · Canada · Costa Rica · Cuba · Dominica · Dominican Republic · El Salvador · Grenada · Guatemala · Haiti · Honduras · Jamaica · Mexico · Nicaragua · Panama1 · Saint Kitts and Nevis · Saint Lucia · Saint Vincent and the Grenadines · Trinidad and Tobago1 · United States
Dependencies and other territories	Anguilla · Aruba1 · Bermuda · British Virgin Islands · Cayman Islands · Clipperton · Greenland · Guadeloupe · Martinique · Montserrat · Netherlands Antilles1 · Puerto Rico · Saint Barthélemy · Saint Martin · Saint Pierre and Miquelon · Turks and Caicos Islands · United States Virgin Islands
1 Territories also in or commonly reckoned elsewhere in the Americas (South America).

v • d • e Human rights in South America
Sovereign states	Argentina · Bolivia · Brazil · Chile · Colombia · Ecuador · Guyana · Panama1 · Paraguay · Peru · Suriname · Trinidad and Tobago1 · Uruguay · Venezuela
Dependencies	Aruba1 / Netherlands Antilles1 (Netherlands) · Falkland Islands / South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (UK) 2 / French Guiana (France)
1 Territories also in or commonly reckoned elsewhere in the Americas (North America and/or Central America).  2 Territories also in or commonly reckoned to be in Antarctica.

Asia

There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights. Countries vary widely in their approach to human rights and their record of human rights protection.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)^[35] is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.^[36] The organisation now also includes Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.^[35] Its aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, and the promotion of regional peace^[35]

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an economic and political organization of eight countries in Southern Asia, representing almost 1.5 billion people. It was established in 1985 by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan. In April 2007, at the Association's 14th summit, Afghanistan became its eighth member.^[37]

The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) is a trade bloc involving the seven Arab states of the Persian Gulf, with many economic and social objectives. Created in 1981, the Council comprises the Persian Gulf states of Yemen Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.^[38]

The Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) is a body created in 2002 to promote Asian cooperation at a continental level, helping to integrate the previously separate regional organizations of political or economical cooperation. The main objectives of the ACD are as follows:^[39]

• To promote interdependence among Asian countries in all areas of cooperation by identifying Asia's common strengths and opportunities which will help reduce poverty and improve the quality of life for Asian people whilst developing a knowledge-based society within Asia and enhancing community and people empowerment;
• To expand the trade and financial market within Asia and increase the bargaining power of Asian countries in lieu of competition and, in turn, enhance Asia's economic competitiveness in the global market;
• To serve as the missing link in Asian cooperation by building upon Asia's potentials and strengths through supplementing and complementing existing cooperative frameworks so as to become a viable partner for other regions;
• To ultimately transform the Asian continent into an Asian Community, capable of interacting with the rest of the world on a more equal footing and contributing more positively towards mutual peace and prosperity.

None of the above organisations have a specific mandate to promote or protect human rights, but each has some human rights related economic, social and cultural objectives.^[40][39]

A number of Asian countries are accused of serious human rights abuses by the international community and human rights organisations.^[41]

v • d • e Human rights in Asia
Sovereign states	Afghanistan · Armenia1 · Azerbaijan1 · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Brunei · Burma2 · Cambodia · People's Republic of China · Cyprus1 · East Timor3 · Egypt4 · Georgia1 · India · Indonesia · Iran · Iraq · Israel · Japan · Jordan · Kazakhstan4 · North Korea · South Korea · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Laos · Lebanon · Malaysia · Maldives · Mongolia · Nepal · Oman · Pakistan · Philippines · Qatar · Russia4 · Saudi Arabia · Singapore · Sri Lanka · Syria · Tajikistan · Republic of China5 · Thailand · Turkey4 · Turkmenistan · United Arab Emirates · Uzbekistan · Vietnam · Yemen
Dependencies, autonomies, other territories	Aceh · Adjara1 · Abkhazia1 · Akrotiri and Dhekelia · Altai · British Indian Ocean Territory · Buryatia · Christmas Island · Cocos (Keeling) Islands · Guangxi · Hong Kong · Inner Mongolia · Iraqi Kurdistan · Jakarta · Khakassia · Macau · Nagorno-Karabakh · Nakhchivan · Ningxia · Northern Cyprus · Palestine (Gaza Strip · West Bank) · Papua · Sakha · South Ossetia1 · Tibet · Tuva · West Papua · Xinjiang · Yogyakarta
Italics indicates an unrecognised or partially recognised country.  1 Sometimes included in Europe, depending on the border definitions.  2 Also known as Myanmar.  3 Sometimes included in Oceania, and also known as Timor-Leste.  4 Transcontinental country.  5 Commonly known as Taiwan.

Europe

The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest organisation working for European integration. It is an international organisation with legal personality recognised under public international law and has observer status with the United Nations. The seat of the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg in France. The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.^[14] These institutions bind the Council's members to a code of human rights which, though strict, are more lenient than those of the United Nations charter on human rights.^{[citation needed]} The Council also promotes the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Social Charter.^[42] Membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms.^[43]

The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union, but the latter is expected to accede to the European Convention and potentially the Council itself.^{[citation needed]} The EU also has a separate human rights document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.^[44]

The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.^[45] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed this Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.^[45] In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention), the Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.^[46]

The European Court of Human Rights is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (rather than states).^[45]

v • d • e Human rights in Europe
Sovereign states	Albania · Andorra · Armenia1 · Austria · Azerbaijan2 · Belarus · Belgium · Bosnia and Herzegovina · Bulgaria · Croatia · Cyprus1 · Czech Republic · Denmark · Estonia · Finland · France · Georgia2 · Germany · Greece · Hungary · Iceland · Ireland · Italy · Kazakhstan3 · Latvia · Liechtenstein · Lithuania · Luxembourg · Republic of Macedonia · Malta · Moldova · Monaco · Montenegro · Netherlands · Norway · Poland · Portugal · Romania · Russia3 · San Marino · Serbia · Slovakia · Slovenia · Spain · Sweden · Switzerland · Turkey3 · Ukraine · United Kingdom (England • Northern Ireland • Scotland • Wales)
Dependencies, autonomies, other territories	Abkhazia 2 · Adjara1 · Adygea · Akrotiri and Dhekelia · Åland · Azores · Bashkortostan · Chechnya · Chuvashia · Crimea · Dagestan · Faroe Islands · Gagauzia · Gibraltar · Guernsey · Ingushetia · Jan Mayen · Jersey · Kabardino-Balkaria · Kalmykia · Karachay-Cherkessia · Republic of Karelia · Komi Republic · Kosovo · Madeira7 · Isle of Man · Mari El · Mordovia · Nagorno-Karabakh1 · Nakhchivan1 · North Ossetia-Alania · Northern Cyprus1 · South Ossetia 2 · Svalbard · Tatarstan · Transnistria · Udmurtia · Vojvodina
Italics indicates an unrecognised or partially recognised country.  1 / 7 Entirely in Asia / on the African Plate, but historically considered European.  2 Partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the border definitions.  3 Has part of its territory in Asia.

Oceania

See also: Human rights in Australia

There are no regional approaches or agreements on human rights for Oceania, but most countries have a well-regarded human rights record.

Australia is the only western democracy with no constitutional or legislative bill of rights, but a number of laws have been enacted to protect human rights and the Constitution of Australia has been found to contain certain implied rights by the High Court. However, Australia has been criticised at various times for its immigration policies, treatment of asylum seekers, treatment of its indigenous population, and foreign policy.

v • d • e Human rights in Oceania
Australasia	Australia · Christmas Island · Cocos (Keeling) Islands · New Zealand1 · Norfolk Island
Melanesia	East Timor2 · Fiji · New Caledonia · Papua New Guinea3 · Solomon Islands · Vanuatu
Micronesia	Federated States of Micronesia · Guam · Kiribati · Marshall Islands · Nauru · Northern Mariana Islands · Palau
Polynesia	American Samoa · Cook Islands · French Polynesia · Hawaii · Niue · Pitcairn Islands · Samoa · Tokelau · Tonga · Tuvalu · Wallis and Futuna
1 Often included in Polynesia.  2 Often included in Southeast Asia.  3 Often included in Australasia.

Philosophies

Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations.

One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds.

Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls) - a social contract.

Natural rights

Main articles: Natural law and Natural right

Natural law theories base human rights on a “natural” moral, religious or even biological order that is independent of transitory human laws or traditions.

Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law,^[47] although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas.^[48]

The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.^[49]

Some of the early Church Fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke.

In the Seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor.

Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology.

John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.

The Belgian philosopher of law Frank Van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception^[50] of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.^[51]

The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.^[52]

Social contract

The Swiss-French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested the existence of a hypothetical social contract where a group of free individuals agree for the sake of the common good to form institutions to govern themselves. This echoed the earlier postulation by Thomas Hobbes that there is a contract between the government and the governed - and led to John Locke's theory that a failure of the government to secure rights is a failure which justifies the removal of the government.

International equity expert Paul Finn has echoed this view:

“	the most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and officials.	”
—Paul Finn[53]

The relationship between government and the governed in countries which follow the English law tradition is a fiduciary one. In equity law, a politician's fiduciary obligations are not only the duties of good faith and loyalty, but also include duties of skill and competence in managing a country and its people. Originating from within the Courts of Equity, the fiduciary concept exists to prevent those holding positions of power from abusing their authority. The fiduciary relationship between government and the governed arises from the governments ability to control people with the exercise of its power. In effect, if a government has the power to abolish any rights, it is equally burdened with the fiduciary duty to protect such an interest because it would benefit from the exercise of its own discretion to extinguish rights which it alone had the power to dispose of.^[53]

Reciprocity

The Golden Rule, or the ethic of reciprocity states that one must do unto others as one would be treated themselves; the principle being that reciprocal recognition and respect of rights ensures that one's own rights will be protected. This principle can be found in all the world's major religions in only slightly differing forms, and was enshrined in the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" by the Parliament of the World's Religions in 1993.

Other theories of human rights

The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being.^[54][55] Interest theories highlight the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest:

“	Human rights law, applied to a State's own citizens serves the interest of states, by, for example, minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by keeping the level of dissatisfaction with the government manageable	”
—Niraj Nathwani in Rethinking refugee law[56]

The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection.^[57][58][59]

Main article: Human security

Human security is an emerging school of thought which challenges the traditional, state-based conception of security and argues that a people-focused approach to security is more appropriate in the modern interdependent world and would be more effective in advancing the security of individuals and societies across the globe.

Philosopher Fredreich Nietzsche has argued to the effect that those who speak most vehemently about their rights, doubt at the bottom of their soul if they truly have any.

Concepts in human rights

Indivisibility and categorization

The most common categorization of human rights is to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.

Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Indivisibility

The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

“	The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights	”
—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis).

The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

“	All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis	”
—Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993

This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).

Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. For example, in the United States there is no universal access to healthcare free at the point of use.^[60] That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.

Categorization

Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be:^[61]

• positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)
• resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
• progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
• vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge
• ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right
• socialist, as opposed to capitalist
• non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law
• aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

• negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
• cost-free
• immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
• precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
• non-ideological/non-political
• capitalist
• justiciable
• real 'legal' rights

In The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Amongst several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.^[62]

Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:

“	If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.	”
—Philip Alston[63]

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

“	...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.	”
—Philip Alston[63]

“	Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation.	”
—Olivia Ball, Paul Gready[64]

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights." The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."

Universalism vs. cultural relativism

Map: Estimated Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain estimates.

The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to.

Proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures, which may have practices conflicting with human rights.

For example female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries.

Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.

For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.^[65] The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir's former deputy:

“	To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.	”
—A Ibrabim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2 December 1994

and also by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan who states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.^[66][67]

An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves.^[68][69]

Cultural relativism is a self-detonating position; if cultural relativism is true, then universalism must also be true. Relativistic arguments also tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.^[11]

Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those who's human rights are compromised are the powerless.^[70] This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture.

Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle:

“	The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.	”
—2005 World Summit, paragraph 120

State and non-state actors

Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as non-State actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not generally subject to human rights law other than under International Humanitarian Law, which applies to individuals.^{[citation needed]} Also, certain national instruments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), impose human rights obligations on certain entities which are not traditionally considered as part of government ("public authorities").^{[citation needed]}

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.^[71] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.^{[citation needed]} Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

“	the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.	”
—Jean Ziegler[72]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.^[73] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.^[74]

Theory of value and property

See also: Property

Henry of Ghent articulated the theory that every person has a property interest in their own body.^[75] John Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour."^[76] In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." To deny valid property rights according to Locke is to deny human rights. The British philosopher had significant impacts upon the development of the Government of the UK and was central to the fundamental founding philosophy of the United States. Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his Theories of Surplus Value, seeing the beginnings of a theory of surplus value in Locke's works. In Locke's Second Treatise he argued that the right to own private property was unlimited as long as nobody took more than they could use without allowing any of their property to go to waste and that there were enough common resources of comparable quality available for others to create their own property. Locke did believe that some would be more "industrious and rational" than others and would amass more property, but believed this would not cause shortages. Though this system could work before the introduction of money, Marx argued in Theories of Surplus Value that Locke's system would break down and claimed money was a contradiction of the law of nature on which private property was founded.^[77]

Reproductive rights

Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.^[78] The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:

“	Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.	”
—World Health Organisation[14]

Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.^[79] The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."^[80][79]

Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.^[81] Reproductive rights may also be understood to include education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, protection from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation (MGM).^{[78][79][81][82]}

Legal issues

Human rights vs. national security

See also: National security and Anti-terrorism legislation

With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable^[83]), the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency - although

“	the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure	”
—United Nations. The Resource[83]

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such United Nations Charter obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.

Examples of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese American internment during World War II,^[84] Stalin's Great Purge,^[85] and the actual and alleged modern-day abuses of terror suspects rights by some western countries, often in the name of the so-called War on Terror.^[86][87]

Human rights violations

See also: Genocides in history

Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to human rights violations of United Nations laws. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations.

Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.

Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in their opinion) violate at least some human rights significantly.^[88]

There are a wide variety of databases available which attempt to measure, in a rigorous fashion, exactly what violations governments commit against those within their territorial jurisdiction.^{[citation needed]} An example of this is the list created and maintained by Prof. Christian Davenport at the University of Maryland.^[89]

Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations.

When a government closes a geographical region to journalists, it raises suspicions of human rights violations. Seven regions are currently closed to foreign journalists:

• Chechnya, Russia [5]
• Jaffna, Sri Lanka [6]
• Myanmar (Burma)
• North Korea
• Papua, Indonesia [7]
• Peshawar, Pakistan [8]
• Tibet, People's Republic of China [9]

v • d • e International criminal law
Sources of international criminal law	Customary international law · Peremptory norm · Hague Conventions · Geneva Conventions · Nuremberg Charter · Nuremberg Principles · United Nations Charter · Genocide Convention · Convention Against Torture · Rome Statute
Crimes against international law	Crime against humanity · Crime against peace · Crime of apartheid · Genocide · Piracy · Slave trade · War crime · War of aggression
International courts	Nuremberg Trials · International Military Tribunal for the Far East · Khabarovsk War Crime Trials · International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia · International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda · Special Court for Sierra Leone · Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia  · Special Tribunal for Lebanon International Criminal Court
History	List of war crimes · List of convicted war criminals
Related concepts	Command responsibility · Laws of war · Universal jurisdiction

Currently-debated rights

Events and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances of technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo of human rights thinking.

Water

See also: Water politics and Right to water

There is no current universal human right to water, binding or not, enshrined by the United Nations or any other multilateral body. In November 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a non-binding comment affirming that access to water was a human right:

“	the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.	”
—United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

This principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.^[90] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.^[91]

Environmental rights

The onset of various environmental issues, especially climate change, has created potential conflicts between different human rights. Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem and healthy environment, but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these. Such as the conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons.^[92] In the area of environmental rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.^{[citation needed]}

Future generations

In 1997 UNESCO adopted the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation. The Declaration opens with the words:

“	Mindful of the will of the peoples, set out solemnly in the Charter of the United Nations, to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and to safeguard the values and principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all other relevant instruments of international law.	”
—Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation

Article 1 of the declaration states "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring that the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded." The preamble to the declaration states that "at this point in history, the very existence of humankind and its environment are threatened" and the declaration covers a variety of issues including protection of the environment, the human genome, biodiversity, cultural heritage, peace, development, and education. The preamble recalls that the responsibilities of the present generations towards future generations has been referred to in various international instruments, including the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (World Conference on Human Rights, 1993) and a number of UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the protection of the global climate for present and future generations adopted since 1990.^[93]

Gay rights

Main article: Gay rights

Current gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered by some^{[94][95][96][97][98]} to be human rights. Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.^[99]

See also

• Customary international law
• Discrimination
• Economic freedom
• Freedom (political)
• Global governance
• Human responsibilities
• Human security

References

1. ^ Houghton Miffin Company (2006)
2. ^ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948".
3. ^ See:
   • Firestone (1999) p. 118;
   • "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam Online
4. ^ See:
   • Watt, Muhammad at Medina
   • R. B. Serjeant (1964), "The Constitution of Medina", Islamic Quarterly 8, p. 4
5. ^ Mayer (2000) p. 110
6. ^ Eleanor Roosevelt: Address to the United Nations General Assembly 10 December 1948 in Paris, France
7. ^ (A/RES/217, 1948-12-10 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris)
8. ^ Ball, Gready
9. ^ ^{a b c d} Glendon, Mary Ann (July 2004). "The Rule of Law in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 2 (5), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/5/.
10. ^ Glendon (2001)
11. ^ ^{a b c} Ball, Gready (2007) p.34
12. ^ Ball, Gready (2007) p.35
13. ^ Littman, David G. (19 January 2003). Human Rights and Human Wrongs, http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-littman011903.asp. "The principal aim of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was to create a framework for a universal code based on mutual consent. The early years of the United Nations were overshadowed by the division between the Western and Communist conceptions of human rights, although neither side called into question the concept of universality. The debate centered on which "rights" — political, economic, and social — were to be included among the Universal Instruments".
14. ^ ^{a b c} "Council of Europe Human Rights". Council of Europe. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
15. ^ Kissinger, Henry (July/August 2001). "The Pitfall of Universal Jurisdiction". Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a-kissinger/the-pitfalls-of-universal-jurisdiction.html.
16. ^ Ball, Gready (2007) p.92
17. ^ "United Nations Rights Council Page", United Nations News Page.
18. ^ "The United Nations System" (PDF).
19. ^ UN Charter, Article 39
20. ^ Ball, Gready (2007) p.95
21. ^ The Security Council referred the human rights situation in Darfur in Sudan to the ICC despite the fact that Sudan has a functioning legal system
22. ^ "AU Member States". African Union. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
23. ^ "AU in a Nutshell". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
24. ^ African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
25. ^ ^{a b} "Mandate of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
26. ^ "PROTOCOL TO THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES` RIGHTS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES` RIGHTS". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
27. ^ "PROTOCOL OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE AFRICAN UNION" (PDF). African Union.
28. ^ "Open Letter to the Chairman of the African Union (AU) seeking clarifications and assurances that the Establishment of an effective African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights will not be delayed or undermined" (PDF). Amnesty International (5 August 2004).
29. ^ "African Court of Justice". African International Courts and Tribunals. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
30. ^ "Human Rights Watch Africa". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
31. ^ "OAS Key Issues". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
32. ^ "Directory of OAS Authorities". Organization of American States. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
33. ^ "What is the IACHR?". Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
34. ^ "Inter-American Court on Human Rights homepage". Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
35. ^ ^{a b c} "Overview ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
36. ^ Bangkok Declaration. Wikisource. Retrieved March 14, 2007
37. ^ "South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation homepage". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
38. ^ "The Concept and Foundations and Objectives of the CCASG". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
39. ^ ^{a b} "About the Asia Cooperation Dialogue". Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
40. ^ "Charter of CCASG". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
41. ^ "Human Rights Watch Asia". Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
42. ^ "Social Charter". Council of Europe. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
43. ^ "The Council of Europe in Brief". Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
44. ^ Juncker, Jean-Claude (11 April 2006). "Council of Europe - European Union: "A sole ambition for the European Continent"" (PDF). Council of Europe. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
45. ^ ^{a b c} "Historical Background to the European Court of Human Rights". European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
46. ^ "About the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture". European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
47. ^ Shellens (1959)
48. ^ Jaffa (1979)
49. ^ Sills (1968, 1972) Natural Law
50. ^ van Dun, Frank. "Natural Law". Retrieved on 2007-12-28.
51. ^ Kohen (2007)
52. ^ Weston, Burns H.. "Human Rights". Encyclopedia Britannica Online, p. 2. Retrieved on 2006-05-18.
53. ^ ^{a b} Salevao (2005) p.76
54. ^ Fagan, Andrew (2006). "Human Rights". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 2008-01-01.
55. ^ Finnis (1980)
56. ^ Nathwani (2003) p.25
57. ^ Arnhart (1998)
58. ^ Clayton, Schloss (2004)
59. ^ Paul, Miller, Paul (2001): Arnhart, Larry. Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right p.1
60. ^ Light (2002)
61. ^ Scott (1989
62. ^ Ball, Gready (2007) p.37
63. ^ ^{a b} Alston (2005)
64. ^ Ball, Gready. (2007) p.42
65. ^ Littman (1999)
66. ^ Ball, Gready (2007) p.25
67. ^ Chee, S.J. (3 July 2003). Human Rights: Dirty Words in Singapore, Activating Human Rights and Diversity Conference (Byron Bay, Australia).
68. ^ Tunick (2006)
69. ^ Beate (2005)
70. ^ Ignatief, M. (2001) p.68
71. ^ "Corporations and Human Rights". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
72. ^ "Transnational corporations should be held to human rights standards - UN expert". UN News Centre (13 October 2003). Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
73. ^ "Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights". UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
74. ^ "REPORT TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ON THE SIXTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION (E/CN.4/2004/L.11/Add.7)" (PDF). United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
75. ^ Tierney (1997)
76. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
77. ^ Vaughn (1978)
78. ^ ^{a b} Cook, Rebecca J.; Mahmoud F. Fathalla (September 1996). "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing". 'International Family Planning Perspectives' 22 (3): 115–121. doi:10.2307/2950752, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0190-3187%28199609%2922%3A3%3C115%3AARRBCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E. Retrieved on 8 December 2007.
79. ^ ^{a b c} Freedman, Lynn P.; Stephen L. Isaacs (Jan. - Feb. 1993). "Human Rights and Reproductive Choice"". 'Studies in Family Planning' 24 (1): 18–30, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-3665%28199301%2F02%2924%3A1%3C18%3AHRARC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A. Retrieved on 8 December 2007.
80. ^ "Proclamation of Teheran". International Conference on Human Rights (1968). Retrieved on 2007-11-08.
81. ^ ^{a b} Amnesty International USA (2007). "Stop Violence Against Women: Reproductive rights" (HTML) (in English). SVAW. Amnesty International USA. Retrieved on 2007-12-08. ""Reproductive rights - access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making - are human rights; they are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are founded upon principles of human dignity and equality, and have been enshrined in international human rights documents. Reproductive rights embrace core human rights, including the right to health, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children, and the right to be free from sexual violence. Reproductive rights include the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children, and the right to have the information and means to implement those decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. Reproductive rights also include the right to the highest standards of sexual and reproductive healthcare.""
82. ^ Template
83. ^ ^{a b} "The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies". United Nations. Retrieved on 2007-12-31.
84. ^ Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT TIMELINE
85. ^ The Great Purge
86. ^ "Fox News Report". Fox News.
87. ^ "UK Law Lords Rule Indefinite Detention Breaches Human Rights". Human Rights Watch.
88. ^ Amnesty International Report 2004, Amnesty International. 2004. ISBN 0862103541.
89. ^ Davenport, Christian. "Stop Our States (SOS): Analyzing and Ending State Repression". Retrieved on 2008-01-19.
90. ^ Sutherland, Ben (17 March 2003). "Water forum no 'talking shop'". BBC News.
91. ^ "2003 International Year of Water website press kit". United Nations Department of Public Information. Retrieved on 2007-12-28.
92. ^ Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. Also available here and here.
93. ^ Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation
94. ^ "2000 CCAR Resolution". Retrieved on 2008-10-12.
95. ^ "2003 URJ Resolution". Retrieved on 2008-10-12.
96. ^ "JOHN GEDDES LAWRENCE AND TYRON GARNER V. STATE OF TEXAS". Retrieved on 2008-10-12.
97. ^ "Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions". Retrieved on 2008-10-12.
98. ^ Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
99. ^ "Human Rights Campaign". Retrieved on 2007-12-31.

Bibliography

• Amnesty International (2004). Amnesty International Report. Amnesty International Publications. ISBN 0862103541 ISBN 1-887204-40-7
• Alexander, Fran (ed) (1998). Encyclopedia of World History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198602235
• Alston, Philip (2005). "Ships Passing in the Night: The Current State of the Human Rights and Development Debate seen through the Lens of the Millennium Development Goals". Human Rights Quarterly. Vol. 27 (No. 3) p.807
• Arnhart, Larry (1998). Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature SUNY Press. ISBN 0791436934
• Ball, Olivia; Gready, Paul (2007). The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights. New Internationalist. ISBN 1-904456-45-6
• Barzilai, Gad. (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472113151
• Chauhan, O.P. (2004). Human Rights: Promotion and Protection. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 812612119X.
• Cook, Rebecca J.; Fathalla, Mahmoud F. (September 1996). "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing". International Family Planning Perspectives Vol.22 (No.3): p.115-121
• Davenport, Christian (2007a). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521864909
• Davenport, Christian (2007b). State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science.
• Donnelly, Jack. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801487765
• Ellerman, David (2005). Helping People Help Themselves: From the World Bank to an Alternative Philosophy of Development Assistance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472031422
• Esposito, John L. (2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195125592
• Esposito, John L. (2005). Islam: The Staight Path. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195182669
• Finnis, John (1980). Natural Law and Natural Rights Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198761104
• Forsythe, David P. (2000). Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. International Progress Organization. ISBN 3-900704-08-2
• Forsythe, David P. (2005). The Humanitarians: The International Committee of the Red Cross Cambidge University Press. ISBN 0521848288
• Freedman, Lynn P.; Isaacs, Stephen L. (Jan-Feb 1993). "Human Rights and Reproductive Choice". Studies in Family Planning Vol.24 (No.1): p.18-30
• Ignatieff, Michael (2001). Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691088934
• Glendon, Mary Ann (2001). A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House of Canada Ltd. ISBN 0375506926
• Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck; Esposito, John L. (1998) Islam, Gender, and Social Change. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 0195113578
• Hitchens, Christopher (2002). The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Verso. ISBN 1859843980
• Houghton Miffin Company (2006). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Miffin. ISBN 0618701737
• Jaffa, Harry V. (1979). Thomism and Aristotelianism; A Study of the Commentary by Thomas Aquinas on the Nicomachean Ethics Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313211493 (reprint of 1952 edition published by University of Chicago Press)
• Jahn, Beate (2005). "Barbarian thoughts: imperialism in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill". Review of International Studies 13-06-2005 31: 599-618 Cambridge University Press
• Jones, Lindsay. Encyclopedia of religion, second edition. ISBN 0-02-865742-X
• Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh (eds) (2007). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures. Brill Publishing. ISBN 9004128182
• Kennedy, Duncan (1982). Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy. Journal of Legal Education Vol.32 (No. 591)
• Khadduri, Majid (1978). "Marriage in Islamic Law: The Modernist Viewpoints". American Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 26 (No. 2): pp. 213-218.
• Köchler, Hans (1981). The Principles of International Law and Human Rights. hanskoechler.com
• Köchler, Hans. (1990). "Democracy and Human Rights". Studies in International Relations, XV. Vienna: International Progress Organization.
• Kohen, Ari (2007). In Defense of Human Rights: A Non-Religious Grounding in a Pluralistic World. Routledge. ISBN 0415420156 , ISBN 978-0415420150
• Landman, Todd (2006). Studying Human Rights. Oxford and London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-32605-2
• Lewis, Bernard (1992). Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195053265
• Lewis, Bernard (21 January 1998). "Islamic Revolution". The New York Review of Books Vol.34 (Nos. 21 & 22)
• Light, Donald W. (2002). "A Conservative Call For Universal Access To Health Care" Penn Bioethics Vol.9 (No.4) p.4-6
• Littman, David (1999). "Universal Human Rights and 'Human Rights in Islam'". Midstream Magazine Vol. 2 (no.2) pp. 2-7
• Maan, Bashir; McIntosh, Alastair (1999). "Interview with William Montgomery Watt" The Coracle Vol. 3 (No. 51) pp. 8-11.
• Mayer, Henry (2000). All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. St Martin's Press. ISBN 0312253672
• McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (ed) (2005). Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an: vol 1-5 Brill Publishing. ISBN 9004147438. ISBN 978-9004147430
• McLagan, Meg (2003) "Principles, Publicity, and Politics: Notes on Human Rights Media". American Anthropologist. Vol. 105 (No. 3). pp. 605-612
• Hershock, Peter D; Ames, R.T.; Stepaniants, M. (eds). Technology and Cultural Values on the Edge of the Third Millennium. (Selected papers from the 8 th East-West Philosophers Conference). Honolulu: U of Hawai’i Press, 2003. 209-221.
  • Möller, Hans-Georg (2003). How to Distinguish Friends from Enemies: Human Rights Rhetoric and Western Mass Media.
• Nathwani, Niraj (2003). Rethinking Refugee Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 9041120025
• Paul, Ellen Frankel; Miller, Fred Dycus; Paul, Jeffrey (eds) (2001). Natural Law and Modern Moral Philosophy Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521794609
• Clayton, Philip; Schloss, Jeffrey (2004). Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802826954
• Robertson, Arthur Henry; Merrills, John Graham (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719049237.
• Salevao, Lutisone (2005). Rule of Law, Legitimate Governance and Develoment in the Pacific. ANU E Press. ISBN 1920942556
• Scott, C. (1989). "The Interdependence and Permeability of Human Rights Norms: Towards a Partial Fusion of the International Covenants on Human Rights". Osgood Law Journal Vol. 27
• Sills, David L. (1968, 1972) International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. MacMillan.
• Shellens, Max Salomon. 1959. "Aristotle on Natural Law." Natural Law Forum 4, no. 1. Pp. 72–100.
• Schimmel, Annemarie (1992). Islam: An Introduction. SUNY Press. ISBN 0791413276
• Sen, Amartya (1997). Human Rights and Asian Values. ISBN 0-87641-151-0.
• Shute, Stephen & Hurley, Susan (eds.). (1993). On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. New York: BasicBooks. ISBN 046505224X
• Steiner, J. & Alston, Philip. (1996). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 019825427X
• Sunga, Lyal S. (1992) Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 0792314530
• Tahir-ul-Qadri, Muhammad (2005), Huquq al Insania fil Islam (Human Rights in Islam). Minhaj Publishers. 365-M-Model
• Tierney, Brian (1997). The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802848540
• Tunick, Mark (2006). "Tolerant Imperialism: John Stuart Mill's Defense of British Rule in India". The Review of Politics 27-10-2006 68: 586-611 Cambridge University Press
• Vaughn, Karen I. (1978) "John Locke and the Labor Theory of Value" Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 2 (No. 4) pp.311-326

External links

• November 23: Arkansas judge tells parents to leave Tony Alamo compound to regain custody of seized children
• November 9: Gay marriage banned in three states; other ballot measures decided
• October 20: Iran to stop executing children
• September 26: Controversial evangelist leader Tony Alamo arrested in child sex investigation
• September 22: Dr. Aafia’s son freed by Kabul, flown to Islamabad

• United Nations- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• United Nations- Human Rights
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• The Universal Human Rights Index of United Nations documents
• Human Rights Blog

v • d • e Human rights
Fundamental concepts and philosophies Fiduciary law · Freedoms · Group rights · Natural and legal rights · Negative and positive rights · State sovereignty · Universality · Universal jurisdiction
v • d • e Organisations and institutions International institutions Committee on the Rights of the Child · International Criminal Court · Human Rights Commission · Human Rights Committee · Human Rights Council · UN Security Council Regional bodies African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · African Court of Justice · European Court of Human Rights · European Committee for the Prevention of Torture · Inter-American Commission on Human Rights · Inter-American Court of Human Rights Multi-lateral bodies European Union · Council of Europe · Organisation of American States (OAS) · UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) · UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) · International Labour Organization (ILO) · World Health Oragnization (WHO) · UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) · Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) · UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) · Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) · UN Population Fund (UNFPA) · UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) · UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) · UN Development Programme (UNDP) · Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) · UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) Major NGOs Amnesty International · Human Rights Watch · International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Legal instruments Declarations Cairo Declaration of Human Rights · Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man · Paris Principles International law UN Convention Against Torture · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women · Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination · Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Convention on the Rights of the Child · UN Migrant Workers' Convention · International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid · International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance · International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights · International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Regional law African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights · European (Conventions on Human Rights · Conventions for the Prevention of Torture · Social Charter) · American Convention on Human Rights · Inter-American Convention (on Forced Disappearance of Persons · to Prevent and Punish Torture · on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women · on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities) International humanitarian law Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide · Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees · Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees · Geneva Conventions · Hague Conventions · Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Concepts that may be considered as human rights Civil and political Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Equality before the law · Adequate remedy · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression (freedom of information) · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life Economic, social and cultural Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work · Right to property (and intellectual) · Right to culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food Reproductive Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Genital integrity · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting War and conflict Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war
Human rights by continent Africa · Asia · Europe · North America · Oceania · South America

v • d • e Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
General principles Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property
Context, limitations and duties Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility  · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Category:Human rights · Human rights portal

v • d • e Human topics
Anatomy · Appearance · Art · Behavior · Biology · Body · Civilization  · Communication · Condition · Culture · Development · Evolution · Genetics · Health · Mind · Nature · Rights · Sexuality · Society ( Types of Societies ) · Technology

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)