Human rights (referred to as HR hereafter) are a special category of rights that received attention following the horrors of the WWII. The UDHR signed on December 10, 1948 has the credit of attempting to give prominence to these rights. However, worldwide perception of HR is different for different people. While HR can be of moral nature for some, others consider it purely legal. There has been discord over what constitutes human rights, which further complicates its implementation. HR when in UN texts refers to rights recognized in written international and national law.
The historical evolution of HR is also debated. Some link it to the evolution of western political principles; others consider natural rights or religious documents as its base. Yet what remains common are a set of “universally valid principles and standards of behavior” that continue to inform human rights thinking. This however does not mean that the logic of HR has no moral basis, which is nothing but the recognition of the principle of acting as we expect others to and that no person may be treated as “means to an end, but as an end in themselves.” Irrespective of the perceived nature of HR, we may derive certain conclusions: HR can be logical and self evident for some, a feeling of victimization can lead to a sense of injustice, shared sense of injustice breeds solidarity and in this solidarity lies strength for those who believe that their HR has been violated and which transcends class, gender, and other distinctions.
Magna Carta of 1215, Bill of Rights of 1689, Locke’s Second Treatise or the Social Contract of Rousseau published in 1762, all could have played a role in the development of the concept of HR, yet none can claim the credit to itself, as all had limitations that could erode core values of HR as perceived today. There however was the Common Sense pamphlets of Thomas Paine published in 1776 that seem to have inspired the HR movement through a common feature: sentimentality about other people’s sufferings.
The modern concept of HR can be traced back to ideas and texts of 18th century such as the 1776 American Declaration of Independence or the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens. Yet these too had applicability limitations, where in most cases women and slaves were the excluded groups based on their perceived inability to exercise rational choice. The establishment of UN in 1945 and the subsequent adoption of UDHR were among the major developments in this field. The establishment and judgments of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal affected the internationalization of the idea of HR, as they promoted the idea of “international obligations owed to individuals because of their human worth.”
The adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1946, the creation of International Criminal Court in 2002, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights were milestones in the establishment and promotion of HR at national and international levels. These were followed by international treaties and efforts such as International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination 1969, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1981, Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1987, Convention on the Rights of the child 1990 and many others. However, while HR can be means of achieving certain goals and changing the current system, it also has certain limitations: It can be seen as alien to certain cultures, it can be perceived to have been used as a tool for interventional purposes or as means of undermining participatory politics. Though slavery was abolished in 1926, human trafficking of today’s world is a form of slavery that still continues.
President Wilsons’ 14 points emphasizing the right to self determination and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles HR are instances of political use of HR. The 1941 Four Freedoms of Roosevelt followed by the Atlantic Charter of 1941 are other instances of political decisions that happened to promote HR where the original intention may not have been so.
Since the idea of outside intervention for HR considerations is new, HR and national sovereignty has been in conflict for long. Though governments now create HR units or even ministries, HR in foreign policy has certain limitations: HR has become a tool for intervention in other countries, there are issues with its compatibility with oriental cultural values, promoting HR values for others has become means of keeping HR oriented dissent quite in one’s own country, and governments have been choosy in promotion of certain rights in certain regions. Inter-government conflicts led to the abolishment of the Commission on Human Rights - which had certain achievements in addressing HR issues in Southern Africa, Chile, Argentina and those associated with the Israeli occupation - and its replacement with the Human Rights Council. Luckily though, the new HR Council developed better mechanisms for the promotion of HR such as its Universal Periodic Review.
Today’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has grown in size and capacity and is beginning to shift focus from theory to more practical in field capacity building, as an entity that can go beyond state level agreements in raising concerns over HR violations.
The future of HR depends on our understanding of the “driving force behind HR,” on our ability to address conflict between our moral beliefs and practical cynicism towards rights, on realizing and internalizing the ever evolving nature of HR, on our ability to not rely on HR mechanisms and governments’ promise to fulfill them, on being patient but believing in change and the power of change, on our ability to help local organizations promote HR in accordance with their local contexts, to understand that HR is political as it governs the relation of individuals with each other and with governments and groups in positions of power and authority, and above all, on our determination to promote the “new vision of human rights which takes into consideration and attempts at solving issues such as poverty, hunger.”