Psychology Wiki

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics · Consciousness · Philosophy of Language · Philosophy of Mind · Philosophy of Science · Social and Political philosophy · Philosophies · Philosophers · List of lists

Animal rights
Children's rights
Collective rights
Client rights
Civil rights
Equal rights
Fathers' rights
Gay and Lesbian Rights
Group rights
Human rights
Inalienable rights
Individual rights
Legal rights
Men's rights
Natural right
Negative & positive
Reproductive rights
Social rights
"Three generations"
Women's rights
Workers' rights
Youth rights
File:Magna Carta.jpg

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] Legal human rights treat each human being exclusively individual, so as to differentiate responsibility for cause and effect in a population, based on some chosen morals or beliefs. Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly 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.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[2]

International norms

Humanitarian Law

File:Original Geneva Conventions.jpg

Original Geneva Convention in 1864.

Main article: Geneva Conventions
Main article: Humanitarian law

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

Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta."[3] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[4] 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.[5] 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.[6] 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.[6] 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:[6]

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.[7] The inclusion of both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights[6][8] 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.[8]

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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] 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.[9][10]

Template:Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


Main article: International human rights law
Main article: International human rights instruments

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


Main article: Human rights law

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

Main article: Human rights 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).[11]

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

Main article: Human rights law

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.[12]

International bodies

United Nations

Main article: United Nations
File:UN General Assembly hall.jpg

The UN General Assembly

The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted international jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation.[13] Human rights are primarily governed 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

File:United Nations Human Rights Council logo.png

United Nations Human Rights Council logo.

Main article: United Nations Human Rights Council

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.[14] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[15] and reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter.[16] 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.[17]

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.[18]

Security Council

Main article: United Nations Security Council
File:United Nations Security Council.jpg

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.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

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


File:Logo of the African Union.png

Emblem of the African Union.

Main article: Human rights in Africa

The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states.[19] 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.[20]

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 21st of October was declared "African Human Rights Day".[21]

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:[22]

  • 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).[22]

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.[23] 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).[24] 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[25] 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.[26]

There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international community and NGOs.[27]

Template:Africa topic


File:Seal of the Organization of American States (English title).svg

Emblem of the Organization of American States

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[How to reference and link to summary or text], 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:[28]

  • 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.[29] 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:[30]

  • 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.[31]

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

Template:North America topic Template:South America topic


File:ACD Map Expansion.png

Membership and expansion of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Note that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is recognised or acknowledged by the member states as part of the People's Republic of China (PRC), but de facto does not have any representation.

Main article: Human rights in 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)[32] 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.[33] The organisation now also includes Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.[32] Its aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, and the promotion of regional peace[32]

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.[34]

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.[35]

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:[36]

  • 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.[37][36]

A number of Asian countries are accused of serious human rights abuses by the international community and human rights organisations.[38]

Template:Asia topic


File:European flag in the wind.jpg

The Flag of Europe is the flag of both the European Union and the Council of Europe.

File:European Court of Human Rights.jpg

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Main article: Human rights in 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.[11] 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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] The Council also promotes the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Social Charter.[39] 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.[40]

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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] The EU also has a separate human rights document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[41]

The European Convention on Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950 human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.[42] 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.[42] In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention), the Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.[43]

The European Court of Human Rights is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (rather than states).[42]

Template:Europe topic


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.

Template:Oceania topic


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 article: Natural law

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,[44] although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas.[45]

The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.[46]

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[47] 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.[48]

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.[49]

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[50]

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.[50]


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.[51][52] 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[53]

The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection.[54][55][56]

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 Friedrich 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).


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.[57] 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.


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:[58]

  • 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.[59]

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[60]

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[60]

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[61]

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

Main article: 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.[62] 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.[63][64]

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.[65][66]

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.[8]

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.[67] 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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] 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").[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.[68] 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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] 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[69]

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.[70] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[71]

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.[72] 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."[73] 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.[74]

Reproductive rights

Main article: reproductive rights

Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[75] 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[11]

Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.[76] 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."[77][76]

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.[78] 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).[75][76][78][79]

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[80]), 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[80]

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,[81] Stalin's Great Purge,[82] 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.[83][84]

Human rights violations

File:Burma 3 150.jpg

Aung San Suu Kyi is a prisoner of conscience and pro-democracy campaigner in Burma

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.[85]

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.[How to reference and link to summary or text] An example of this is the list created and maintained by Prof. Christian Davenport at the University of Maryland.[86]

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]

Template:International Criminal Law

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.

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.[87] In the area of environmental rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

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.[88]

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights

Main article: LGBT social movements

Current LGBT rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, gay adoption rights, and protection from discrimination are considered by some[89][90][91][92][93] to be human rights. Current campaigns, such as the Human Rights Campaign, specifically focus on the rights of the LGBT community.[94]

Part of this debate includes a proposed UN declaration on LGBT rights which would for the first time condemn “discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity” [95]. While receiving widespread global support, including signatures from the member states of the European Union, opposition has come from several UN member nations, most notably the Vatican, where the Vatican’s permanent observer at the UN, indicated his belief that the declaration would discriminate against states which support "traditional" marriage[96].


Although both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasize the importance of a right to work, neither of these documents explicitly mention trade as a mechanism for ensuring this fundamental right. And yet trade plays a key role in providing jobs.[97]

Some experts argue that trade is inherent to human nature and that when governments inhibit international trade they directly inhibit the right to work and the other indirect benefits, like the right to education, that increased work and investment help accrue.[98] Others have argued that the ability to trade doesn't affect everyone equally -- often groups like the rural poor, indigenous groups and women are less likely to access the benefits of increased trade. [99]

On the other hand, others think that it is no longer primarily individuals but companies that trade, and therefore it cannot be guaranteed as a human right.[How to reference and link to summary or text] Additionally, trying to fit too many concepts under the umbrella of what qualifies as a human right has the potential to dilute their importance. Finally, it is difficult to define a right to trade as either "fair"[100] or "just" in that all trade regimes create winners and losers, and changing the rules only creates different losers, not necessarily fewer.[101]


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.[102] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.[103]

See also


  1. Houghton Miffin Company (2006)
  2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
  3. Eleanor Roosevelt: Address to the United Nations General Assembly 10 December 1948 in Paris, France
  4. (A/RES/217, 1948-12-10 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris)
  5. Ball, Gready
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Glendon, Mary Ann (July 2004). The Rule of Law in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights 2.
  7. Glendon (2001)
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 Ball, Gready (2007) p.34
  9. Ball, Gready (2007) p.35
  10. Littman, David G. (19 January 2003). Human Rights and Human Wrongs.
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Council of Europe Human Rights. Council of Europe. URL accessed on 2008-01-04. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "autogenerated1" defined multiple times with different content
  12. Kissinger, Henry (July/August 2001). The Pitfall of Universal Jurisdiction. Foreign Affairs.
  13. Ball, Gready (2007) p.92
  14. includeonly>"United Nations Rights Council Page", United Nations News Page.
  15. The United Nations System. (PDF)
  16. UN Charter, Article 39
  17. Ball, Gready (2007) p.95
  18. 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
  19. AU Member States. African Union. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  20. AU in a Nutshell. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  21. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
  22. 22.0 22.1 Mandate of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  25. 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.
  26. African Court of Justice. African International Courts and Tribunals. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  27. Human Rights Watch Africa. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  28. OAS Key Issues. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  29. Directory of OAS Authorities. Organization of American States. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  30. What is the IACHR?. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  31. Inter-American Court on Human Rights homepage. Inter-American Court on Human Rights. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Overview ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  33. Bangkok Declaration. Wikisource. Retrieved March 14, 2007
  34. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation homepage. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  35. The Concept and Foundations and Objectives of the CCASG. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  36. 36.0 36.1 About the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Asia Cooperation Dialogue. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  37. Charter of CCASG. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  38. Human Rights Watch Asia. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  39. Social Charter. Council of Europe. URL accessed on 2008-01-04.
  40. The Council of Europe in Brief. URL accessed on 2008-01-04.
  41. Juncker, Jean-Claude. Council of Europe - European Union: "A sole ambition for the European Continent". (PDF) Council of Europe. URL accessed on 2008-01-04.
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 Historical Background to the European Court of Human Rights. European Court of Human Rights. URL accessed on 2008-01-04.
  43. About the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. URL accessed on 2008-01-04.
  44. Shellens (1959)
  45. Jaffa (1979)
  46. Sills (1968, 1972) Natural Law
  47. van Dun, Frank. Natural Law. URL accessed on 2007-12-28.
  48. Kohen (2007)
  49. Weston, Burns H.. Human Rights. Encyclopedia Britannica Online, p. 2. URL accessed on 2006-05-18.
  50. 50.0 50.1 Salevao (2005) p.76
  51. Fagan, Andrew (2006). Human Rights. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL accessed on 2008-01-01.
  52. Finnis (1980)
  53. Nathwani (2003) p.25
  54. Arnhart (1998)
  55. Clayton, Schloss (2004)
  56. Paul, Miller, Paul (2001): Arnhart, Larry. Thomistic Natural Law as Darwinian Natural Right p.1
  57. Light (2002)
  58. Scott (1989
  59. Ball, Gready (2007) p.37
  60. 60.0 60.1 Alston (2005)
  61. Ball, Gready. (2007) p.42
  62. Littman (1999)
  63. Ball, Gready (2007) p.25
  64. Chee, S.J. (3 July 2003). Human Rights: Dirty Words in Singapore, Activating Human Rights and Diversity Conference (Byron Bay, Australia).
  65. Tunick (2006)
  66. Beate (2005)
  67. Ignatief, M. (2001) p.68
  68. Corporations and Human Rights. Human Rights Watch. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  69. Transnational corporations should be held to human rights standards - UN expert. UN News Centre. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  70. 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. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  71. 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. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  72. Tierney (1997)
  74. Vaughn (1978)
  75. 75.0 75.1 Cook, Rebecca J., Mahmoud F. Fathalla (September 1996). Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing. 'International Family Planning Perspectives' 22 (3): 115–121.
  76. 76.0 76.1 76.2 Freedman, Lynn P., Stephen L. Isaacs (Jan. - Feb. 1993). Human Rights and Reproductive Choice". 'Studies in Family Planning' 24 (1): 18–30.
  77. (1968). Proclamation of Teheran. International Conference on Human Rights. URL accessed on 2007-11-08.
  78. 78.0 78.1 Amnesty International USA (2007). Stop Violence Against Women: Reproductive rights. (HTML) SVAW. Amnesty International USA. URL accessed on 2007-12-08.
  79. Template
  80. 80.0 80.1 The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies. United Nations. URL accessed on 2007-12-31.
  81. Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT TIMELINE
  82. The Great Purge
  83. Fox News Report. Fox News.
  84. UK Law Lords Rule Indefinite Detention Breaches Human Rights. Human Rights Watch.
  85. (2004) Amnesty International Report 2004, Amnesty International.
  86. Davenport, Christian. Stop Our States (SOS): Analyzing and Ending State Repression. URL accessed on 2008-01-19.
  87. Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. Also available here and here.
  88. Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation
  89. 2000 CCAR Resolution. URL accessed on 2008-10-12.
  90. 2003 URJ Resolution. URL accessed on 2008-10-12.
  92. Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions. URL accessed on 2008-10-12.
  93. Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  94. Human Rights Campaign. URL accessed on 2007-12-31.
  97. Should trade be considered a human right?. COPLA.
  98. Fernandez, Soraya. Protecting access to markets. COPLA.
  99. Jones, Nicola and Hayley Baker. Untangling links between trade, poverty and gender. Overseas Development Institute.
  100. Ellis, Karen and Jodie Keane. Do we need a new 'Good for Development' label?. Overseas Development Institute.
  101. Mareike Meyn. Beyond rights: Trading to win. COPLA.
  102. Sutherland, Ben. Water forum no 'talking shop'. BBC News.
  103. 2003 International Year of Water website press kit. United Nations Department of Public Information. URL accessed on 2007-12-28.


  • 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.
  • Dees, Morris (2001). A Lawyer’s Journey. Chicago: American Bar Association. (Popular biography by innovative lawyer who pioneered use of civil suits to put white supremacist organizations out of business).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Marshall, Thurgood (2001). Thurgood Marshall: His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions and Reminiscences. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books. (A rare and revealing popular memoir by a distinguished contemporary Supreme Court justice).
  • 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
  • Stone, Irving (1943). Clarence Darrow for the Defense. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing Co. (Popular diography of innovative lawyer who largely invented the insanity defense).
  • 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

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).