The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Insofar as we should admit rights intoour understanding of the world at all, communitarians say, we shouldsee them as part of ongoing practices of social self-interpretationand negotiation— and so as rules that can vary significantlybetween cultures. Status theories are subject to the objection that they lack theconceptual resources to explain why the rights we believe in areintricately “shaped” to accommodate the particularities ofdifferent contexts and different rightholders. An instrumental theoristcan appeal to any number of distinct interests, which are at stake forany number of differently-situated individuals, to explain why acertain right should be held only by certain persons or only incertain circumstances. The danger for such a theorist is that thewealth of normative resources at her command will permit theascription of whatever rights she favors. The theorist begins with therights that she wants to justify, then gives a “just so”story in terms of an optimal distribution of interests that leads toexactly those rights. Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissibleand which institutions are just.

By gathering and analyzing data on issues like gender-based violence and environmental impacts and using human rights recommendations from mechanisms like the Universal Periodic Review process, UNDP helps countries make informed, inclusive decisions. At a time when there are so many issues on which we find it difficult to reach a common basis of agreement, it is a significant fact that 58 states have found such a large measure of agreement in the complex field of human rights. This must be taken as testimony of our common aspiration first voiced in the Charter of the United Nations to lift men everywhere to a higher standard of life and to a greater enjoyment of freedom.

Freedom of thought and religion

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

On basicrights, which give them important forms of protection and control overtheir own lives.” (Scanlon 2003, 4) This third, contractualapproach to the justification of rights has received surprisinglylittle scholarly attention (Martin, 1985, Gilbert 2004). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turned 75 in 2023, continues to be the foundation of all international human rights law. Its 30 articles provide the principles and building blocks of current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other legal instruments. As we saw above, the language of rights is able to accommodaterightholders who are individuals as such, but also individualsconsidered as members of groups, as well as groups themselves, states,peoples, and so on. Indeed the non-individualistic potential ofrights-language is more than a formal possibility.

Criticisms such as O’Neill’s do not target the language of rights as awhole. They aim squarely at the passive rights, and especially atclaim-rights, instead of at the active privileges andpowers. Nevertheless, it is again plausible that the spread of rightstalk has encouraged the tendencies that these criticisms suggest. Themodern discourse of rights is characteristically deployed by those whosee themselves or others as potential recipients, entitled to insiston certain benefits or protections. However, the strength of status-based rights can also be seen as aweakness of the theory. One does not wish to be carried from the greatimportance of each individual to the implausible position that allfundamental rights are absolute.

According to the Roman jurist Ulpian, for example, natural law was that which nature, not the state, assures to all human beings, Roman citizens or not. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a defining document in history that outlines 30 articles affirming individual rights. These include such things as life, education and freedom from discrimination among many other important possessions everyone deserves to enjoy without interference or fear for their safety. States and other duty-bearers must comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in human rights instruments. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator, in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law.

The 30 rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR include the right to be free from torture, the right to freedom of expression, the right to education and the right to seek asylum. It includes civil and political rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and privacy. It also includes economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to social security, health and adequate housing. The duty to enforce international human rights law rests primarily with governments themselves. Governments are obligated to protect and promote human rights by prohibiting violations by officials and agents of the state, prosecuting offenders, and creating ways that individuals can seek help for rights violations, such as having competent, independent and impartial courts.

1 The Form of Rights: The Hohfeldian Analytical System

Rightsentitle their holders to make choices, and as Waldron says theimportance of a person’s having choices would be diminished if shewere forced to do the right thing. Even though the person has no(privilege-) right to perform an action that is wrong, it wouldnevertheless violate an important (claim-) right of hers for others tocompel her not to do that thing. To take the speech example, werespect the autonomy of speakers when we allow them to speakunmolested—even when they do wrong by expressing themselves indisrespectful ways. However, when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this differencedisappears.

One can be free in thisnon-forbidden way without having the physical ability to do what oneis free to do. You may be free to march in the parade, even when bothyour knees are sprained. The actions you are free to do in this sensemay or may not be possible for you, but at least they are notdisallowed. Will theorists and interest theorists have developed their positionswith increasing technical sophistication. The issues that divide thetwo camps are clearly defined, and the debates between them are oftenintense. (Kramer, Simmonds, and Steiner 1998) The seeminglyinterminable debate between these two major theories has encouragedthe development of alternative positions on the function ofrights.

The laws of war do not prohibit war, but set out rules on the conduct of hostilities by both national armed forces and non-state armed groups in order to protect civilians, provide for the humane treatment of all prisoners, and reduce wartime suffering. While customs of war have existed for thousands of years, international treaties restricting warfare date back about 150 years. Most commonly recognized today are the Geneva Conventions as well as treaties banning certain weapons, such as the Land Mines Treaty. More frequently, governments that commit human rights violations are held publicly accountable for their actions by nongovernmental organizations. Some organizations provide direct services such as legal counsel and human rights education.

However, the modern concept of human rights emerged after the atrocities committed during World War II. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, and it outlines the fundamental human rights that should be protected by every country. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that are entitled to every person, regardless of their nationality, race, gender, or any other factor. These rights are essential for the protection and well-being of individuals and are recognized and protected by the law.

Not all claim-rights are created by voluntary actions like signing acontract; and not all claim-rights correspond to duties in just oneagent. For example, a child’s claim-right against abuse existsindependently of anyone’s actions, and the child’s claim-rightcorrelates to a duty in every other person not to abuse her. Thisexample of the child’s right also the line illustrates how a claim-right canrequire duty-bearers to refrain from performing some action(i.e., that “phi” can be a negative verb such as“not abuse her”). A newly scientific and objective mode of thought led to the conception of the original state of humans as being one in which they could freely exercise innate behaviors and actions. Human rights data guides effective development including pinpointing gaps in access to justice.

Marlene Weeden