The idea of equality of all human beings by birth having equal
\nnatural rights that may be set in law is going back to the beginning of history
\nof human civilisation, rooted in historical past and is associated with the
\nstruggle of individuals against injustice. Although the term \u2018human rights\u2019 is
\nrelatively recent, the concept that an individual possesses certain basic,
\ninalienable rights as against a sovereign State had its origin in the
\nprinciples of Natural Law and Natural Rights or the Rights of Man (Cranston,
\n 1962).<\/p>\n
The concept of
\nNatural Law originated in ancient Greece. Under this concept an individual\u2019s
\nrights arise from nature and therefore cannot be given or assigned by the
\npolitical powers. The core principle of Natural Law is the principle of
\nmorality and therefore close connection exists between the law and morality.<\/p>\n
The idea of the
\nstate centred on equality for all its citizens arising from the law of nature
\nwas expressed by many ancient Greek philosophers. For example, Antiphon of
\nAthens describes all persons having equal natural needs regardless of their
\nposition in society. Antiphon recognises inequality as consequence of laws made
\nby humans. Antiphon\u2019s
\nTruth postulates freedom of
\nindividuals and equality of human beings in the spirit of democracy and
\nindividual rights (Bartosz Wojciechowski, Tomasz
\n Bekrycht, Karolina M. Cern, 2017).<\/p>\n
Many ideas on
\nrights, equality, justice and laws initially outlined by ancient Greek
\nphilosophers like Socrates and Plato were further developed by Aristotle
\n(384-322 BC). Aristotle\u2019s work on natural law is reflected in Nicomachean Ethics, some opening passages
\nof the Politics, and Chapters
\n10, 13, and 15 of the first book of the Rhetoric (Syse, 2004).<\/p>\n
In Aristotle\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s ideas and teaching paved the way for other The concept of Thomas Hobbes was the first who formulated John Locke, an English philosopher and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had adopted The classical Natural Law and more But what is a Cranston describes The United Nations Office of the The main features of human rights The primary aspect of human rights The other element Human rights are also Human rights Civil and political rights are considered first generation rights and uphold the freedom of the individual before the law and guarantee Social, economic and cultural rights (second generation rights recognised French jurist and director of Another feature of So in conclusion, human rights can be described and classified in an array of different ways depending on which source or concept the term \u2018right\u2019 arises from. The term right can be associated with the set of moral values as in natural law and therefore have no legal implications. The term right can also refer to the laws described in constitutions or treaties, some of them legally enforceable. The issue is that the legal rights can be subjected to change or can be withdrawn by the authority of the state. However, there is a nearly universal presumption that certain core values such as dignity and equality are inherent to human nature and therefor there is a moral basis for an individual to hold a set of rights by the virtue of being human. The positive aspect of this belief is that it is difficult to challenge or take it away through any legal process because it is just that \u2013 a belief or a subscription to particular set of moral values, arising from the nature of being human.<\/p>\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> [2]<\/a> [3]<\/a> [4]<\/a>
\nview political justice is possible only between free and equal citizens; he
\nsupports the individual\u2019s and private property rights. Aristotle advocates an
\nidea of natural right or the \u2018right by nature\u2019 that does not need a legislative
\nframework, laws and agreements as the natural rights exist separately from the
\nnorms established by humans. For better functioning society, where individuals
\ncan achieve their full potential, Aristotle proposes introduction of a
\ngoverning law based on reason and corresponding with political justice and
\nrights. All human beings, according to Aristotle, are conditioned by nature to
\ndevelop moral values: \u2018Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the
\nvirtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are
\nmade perfect by habit\u2019 (Aristotle, Nicomachean
\nEthics<\/em>,
\nbk. II, Ch. 1, 1103a24-25 cited in Syse, 2004).<\/p>\n
\nthinkers and philosophers who expanded on ideas of Natural Law. One of them was
\nThomas Aquinas, an Italian theologian, whose works advanced the theory of
\nnatural law in the 13th<\/sup> century in Europe. Although Aquinas never
\nuses the term human rights and did not develop a theory of human rights, he has
\nconceptualised Aristotelian teachings on natural law and justice in Nicomachean
\nEthics (Lisska, 2013). According to Aquinas, in analysis
\nderived from Aristotle\u2019s work, justice exists in two kinds: justice that is
\nnatural and justice that is positive. The natural justice exists by the nature
\nof the case and positive justice exists as a relationship between individuals
\nor between the citizen and the state. The concept of justice also implies the
\nprinciple of equality. Aquinas states that justice \u2018It is proper to justice, in
\ncomparison with the other virtues, to direct human persons in their relations
\nwith others; this is appropriate because justice denotes a kind of equality\u2019 (Thomas Aquinas, Summa
\nTheologiae, <\/em>IIa\u2013IIae. Q. 57, a. 1 cited in Lisska, 2013).<\/p>\n
\nNatural Rights emerged from the Natural Law in the era of Renaissance Humanism
\nin the early modern period, moving the emphasis from the society to individual.
\nNatural Rights gave the individual the power to challenge the injustice and
\nmake claims against the state where before the natural law was more concerned
\nwith the relationship between the state and the society.. During 18th century
\n\u2018Age of Enlightenment\u2019 the Natural Rights theory was conceptualised by Thomas
\nHobbes (1588 \u2013 1679), John Locke (1632 \u2013 1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712
\n\u2013 1778).<\/p>\n
\nthe theory of \u2018natural rights\u2019. He adopts the Aristotle\u2019s position on the matter
\nof equality between humans, stating that: \u2018The question who is the better man
\nhas no place in the condition of mere nature, where (as has been shown before)
\nall men are equal. The inequality that now is has been introduced by the laws
\ncivil\u2019 (Hobbes, 1651).<\/p>\n
\ncreator of classical liberalism, describes a \u2018state of nature\u2019 where the
\nnatural rights belong to each individual citizen, including right to life,
\nliberty and property. The natural rights also implied a principle of universality.
\nJohn Locke developed the idea in his book,\u2019 He argued in \u2018Two Treatises of
\nGovernment\u2019 no governmental authority has power to deprive individuals of these
\nrights because they exist before and separate to the creation of the civil or
\npolitical society. He describes a state of nature as: \u2018A state also of equality, wherein all the
\npower and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there
\nbeing nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank\u2019 (Locke, 1823).<\/p>\n
\nand conceptualised many of Locke\u2019s
\nideas on the Natural Law that eventually became the basis for the French
\nDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789. Rousseau proclaims in
\nhis book \u2018The Social Contract\u2019 that \u2018MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in
\nchains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater
\nslave than they\u2019 (Rousseau, 1762). Rousseau also uses
\nterms such as \u2018inalienability\u2019 and \u2018indivisibility\u2019 when talking about the
\nSovereign (a person or a group of persons that hold the highest power in the
\nstate; it is also applies to the legislator).<\/p>\n
\nmodern liberal and individualistic Natural Rights are historically connected
\nand express moral ideas rather than enforceable legal standards. This gives a
\nraise to dichotomy with the legal positivism of more modern times. Legal
\npositivism is asserting that the only significant legal norms are those defined
\nby enforceable positive law (the actual law of the actual state). Legal
\npositivism, as a critique of Natural Law rose to prominence in 18th<\/sup>
\nand 19th<\/sup> century and was articulated by John Austin and Jeremy
\nBentham. Bentham wrote in Anarchical Fallacies: \u2018Right is a child of law; from
\nreal laws come real rights, but from imaginary law, from \u2018Laws of nature\u2019, come
\nimaginary rights\u2026\u2019(Bentham, J. Anarchical Fallacies<\/em>, cited in Cranston, 1962). The legal
\npositivists and the proponents of Natural Law have one thing in common \u2013 they
\nacknowledge the difference that exists between positive right and moral right (Cranston, 1962).<\/p>\n
\nright? The main difficulty is that the term \u2018human rights\u2019 lacks a set
\ndefinition. It is commonly accepted that individuals and certain groups are
\nbearers of human rights (rights-holders), while the state (duty-bearer) is the
\nprime organ that can protect and\/or violate human rights.<\/p>\n
\nit as \u2018A human right by definition is a universal moral right, something which
\nall men, everywhere, at all times ought to have, something of which no one may
\nbe deprived without a grave affront to justice, something which is owing to
\nevery human being simply because he is human\u2019 (Cranston,
\n 1962).<\/p>\n
\nHigh Commissioner for Human Rights defines humans rights as \u2018rights inherent to
\nall human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national
\nor ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status\u2019[1]<\/a>.
\nWe are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. <\/p>\n
\nhave been stated in Article 5 of Vienna
\nDeclaration and Programme of Action 1993: \u2018All human rights are universal, indivisible,
\ninterdependent and interrelated\u2019[2]<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
\nis its universality; it is a right that held by all people equally regardless
\nof their status simply by virtue of being human. Being human is an inalterable
\nfact of nature (Donnelly, 2007). The principle of universality applies
\nregardless of social status or any other considerations or exceptions and
\nuniversality strongly implies non-discrimination. However, the principle of
\nuniversality sometimes challenged as it thought to impose Western values upon
\ncountries that do not share the same values. The challenge to universality lies
\nwith the selective application of the set of rights in by some governments
\nwhereby the national laws align with some rights within the human rights canon
\nbut not the others. Their argument is that certain human rights are not
\napplicable to certain societies. (Winston, 1993). However, there is a
\nlarge body of research showing that most societies and cultures practiced human
\nrights throughout their history (Donnelly, 2007). At the core of this
\nargument is confusion between human rights values such as justice and fairness
\nand practices or actions needed to realise these values. It would be fair to
\nsay that there is universality of values across different cultures but this universality
\nwould be limited when considered against legal norms set by various states.<\/p>\n
\nof human rights is their inalienability. The rights cannot be given or taken
\naway by any power of law or authority. More, the right-holder cannot surrender
\ntheir rights or give them away. <\/p>\n
\ninterdependent and interrelated. There is a correlation between one set of
\nrights and another and they cannot be considered in isolation as the concept of
\nindivisibility applies to the entire system or rights. At the same time, no
\nhuman right is absolute and sometimes rights have to be balanced against each
\nother. There are few arguments for interdependence of human rights, such as one
\ndeveloped by Henry Shue. In his book
\n\u2018Basic Rights\u2019 Shue argues that basic human rights to security, subsistence,
\nliberty and rights that protect an individual from torture and harm are rights
\nwhose enjoyment is necessary to the enjoyment of all other human rights, both
\nbasic and non-basic. He writes: \u2018When a right is genuinely basic, any attempt to enjoy any
\nother right by sacrificing the basic right would be quite literally
\nself-defeating, cutting the ground from beneath itself\u2019 (Shue, H. Basic Rights:
\nSubsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy<\/em>, 1980 cited in Macklem,
\n2015).<\/p>\n
\ncan be classified in a number of different ways. Most sources split them into
\ntwo groups: civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural
\nrights.<\/p>\n
\nfree participation in civil, economic, and political society, including right
\nto life, liberty, and personal security the right to speech and expression;
\nCivil and political rights are viewed as fundamental
\nhuman rights. The state has a duty and responsibility to uphold these
\nrights (they have been called \u2018negative rights\u2019 by virtue of absence of
\nviolation that is required to uphold them). <\/p>\n
\nafter World War II) include such rights as the right to a family; the
\nright to education; the right to health; the right to work and the right to
\nsocial security; right to cultural practices; right to speak own language. The
\nprotection of these rights supports the development of the individual\u2019s
\npotential and has an equality aspect to them. The social, economic, and
\ncultural rights are often considered \u2018positive rights\u2019, something that the
\nstates should aspire to and the governments to achieve through progressive
\nrealisation as such actions require financial and other resources. <\/p>\n
\nUNESCO\u2019s Division of Human Rights and Peace Karel Vasak also describes a third
\ncategory of rights (so called Third generation rights), which to date has no
\nlegal or political recognition \u2013 solidarity rights. Solidarity rights include
\nthe right to peace and self-determination, the right to the benefits of shared
\nnatural resources, right to clean environment. Most of these rights are
\ntransnational and they deal with the redistribution of wealth between nations.
\nVasak in his well-known essay titled \u2018A 30-year Struggle. The sustained efforts
\nto give force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights\u2019 writes:
\n\u2018Since these rights reflect a certain conception of community life, they can
\nonly be implemented by the combined efforts of everyone: individuals, states
\nand other bodies, as well as public and private institutions\u2019[3]<\/a>.
\nIn Vasak\u2019s opinion, the solidarity rights were important because it shifted the
\nemphasis from individualistic rights, which promote a culture of individualism,
\nmore towards social cohesion. Solidarity rights also seek to address the
\nproblems which increasingly can only be addressed through cooperation of the
\nstates at the global level.<\/p>\n
\nhuman rights can be described as correlation between human rights as both
\nfreedoms and duties. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration states, in its
\nfirst clause, that \u2018Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the
\nfree and full development of his personality is possible\u2019[4]<\/a>.
\nThis means that every citizen can exercise their rights but with that comes
\nresponsibility to support others in exercising of their rights. Only then the
\ncommunity can achieve its full developmental potential. The theory behind the
\nrelationship between the rights and duties was developed by the American legal
\nphilosopher Wesley
\nHohfeld (1879\u20131918)[5]<\/a>
\nwho postulated that rights have a requirement for either action or inaction and
\ngive raise to correlative duties. Some of his thinking is reflected in human
\nrights theory although Hohfeld\u2019s argument lies in the context of legal rights
\nrather than moral (Hohfeld, 1913). The concept of
\nduties in the modern human rights framework does not carry any legal meaning as
\nit would imply that exercising human rights can be contingent on performing
\ncertain duties and potentially can erode the protection of human rights.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/issues\/pages\/whatarehumanrights.aspx<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/en\/professionalinterest\/pages\/vienna.aspx<\/p>\n
\nVasak, K. \u2018A 30 year struggle\u2019, UNESCO Courier<\/em>, November 1977, 29. <\/p>\n
\nhttp:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/universal-declaration-human-rights\/<\/p>\n