Excerpts from the UN Charter.--Universal Declaration of Human Rights.--Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.--International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.--International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.--International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.--Optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.--American Convention on Human Rights. ; Mode of access: Internet.
This report presents five case studies on EU Human Rights Dialogues (HRDs). The case studies concern the HRDs with the African Union, China, India, Morocco and Peru. Building on the findings of the previous reports in Work Package 3 of the FRAME project, the aim of this report is to explore how domestic and organisation-based conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law emerge in HRDs and what consequences these conceptions entails for the HRDs' goals. The report starts with a description of the methodology used (Chapter II). Next, Chapter III puts HRDs in context by examining their institutional setting. The Chapter specifically focuses on three key issues: respect for sovereignty and the equality of participants; transparency; and the priorities of the dialogues. Chapter IV is dedicated to the case studies. The Chapter is divided in two parts: the first part focuses on General Human Rights Dialogues and the second on Formal Human Rights Dialogues. General HRD's are Dialogues of a general nature based on regional or bilateral treaties, agreements or conventions or strategic partnerships dealing systematically with the issue of human rights. The first case study in this category concerns India. This is an elaborate study. It fills a gap in the scholarly literature since the EUIndia HRD has so far been little researched. One of the main difficulties that the case study highlights with the HRD is that the EU is conditioned by an essentially Eurocentric world-view about India. The next case study in this first part of the Chapter concerns Peru. The research shows that although the EU's conceptions of human rights differ in some respects from the Peruvian, the Dialogue has been productive. The last case study in the part of General HRD's concerns European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), more specifically Morocco. This too is an elaborate case study which presents a much-needed addition to the academic literature. It details the institutional setting of the dialogue and describes to what extent diverging ...
"As I'm writing this, Christians are brutally murdering Muslims in the Central African Republic; people in Syria are being bombed, starved, and tortured; and homosexuals still face the death penalty in Iran as well as long prison sentences in countries like Uganda and Nigeria and persecution by thugs in many countries. These atrocities and many other disturbing phenomena are often called "human rights violations." What gives them this status? That is a question about which there has been a surprising amount of disagreement among political philosophers."
Human rights reflect a determined effort to protect the dignity of each and every human being against abuse of power. This endeavour is as old as human history. What is relatively new is the international venture for the protection of human dignity through internationally accepted legal standards and generally accessible mechanisms for implementation. That mission got a major impetus with the founding of the United Nations in 1945. While the primary focus of the international project for the realisation of human rights used to be on ways and means of limiting and governing political power, other institutions than the state are coming within its range of attention, too, including those of the corporate world. Recently, a 'human rights approach' to poverty has gained a prominent place on the development agenda. When human rights are seen as not just legal resources but also political instruments, this means that power is to be regarded as legitimate only if international human rights standards are followed. Legitimacy, in other words, becomes the core concept, referring to the right institutions and principles, the right procedures and also normatively acceptable outcomes. Hence, rights-based approaches to overcome poverty imply efforts to address economic injustices as well, in the first place at the level of the global economy as such.
Human rights are the fundamental rights and freedoms that belong to everyone, everywhere throughout their lifespan, by virtue of being human. They apply regardless of a person's thoughts, beliefs or behavours and cannot be permanently removed, though there are som circumstances under which they can be restricted, including when a person commits a crime or when they are detained under mental health legislation. Human rights are based on values such as dignity, respect, equality and authonomby and are enshrined in law.
Human rights are among the key concepts of sustainability science because they constitute the basis for sustainable well-being in any given society. Human rights form an understanding of a world in which individuals and peoples can trust in justice and claim rights by virtue of being human. The idea of an international human rights law is that it is not up to a specific government to decide how it treats individuals and peoples living in its territory. Thus, human rights form a discourse of emancipation with a universal outreach. They are essential to achieve sustainable development as specified inthe 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which indicates that the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is based on human rights. However, there are some tensions that continue to oppose SDGs to human rights. This is partly the case in relation to the rights of Indigenous peoples, an issue that will be further explicated in this contribution with regard to the situation of the Indigenous Sámi people. This chapter elaborates on the concept of human rights from the perspective of sustainability sciences. It explores human rights as a concept of law and as a concept of global politics, and it analyzes its differing functions depending on the contexts in which it is applied. This contribution considers the recent interconnections of human rights with the issues raised by sustainable development and the rights of Indigenous peoples. ; Peer reviewed
There is no end or teleology to the struggle for human rights. There is no economic development as warranty for the abolition of human rights violations. There is no justice system immune to examples of injustice and inhumane behaviour. However, universal human rights are one way to ensure that humanitarian movements win one victory at a time. The paper discusses how Portugal, Greece and Spain each have surprisingly diverse human rights struggles, depending on their histories. No wonder that in much different countries, western countries or else, the human rights struggles are so different. Regardless, these facts should not provide an excuse for social theory to avoid understanding what is universal wherever human rights activists are involved. Social theory should take as its goal to show how in each and every society, regardless of very different history, culture or politics, humans share universal needs and desires that transcend their differences.
This review article considers Samuel Moyn's book The Last Utopia:Human Rights in History in the context of recent trends in the writing of human rights history. A central debate among historians of human rights, in seekingto account for the genesis and spread of human rights, is how far current humanrights practice demonstrates continuity or radical discontinuity with previousattempts to secure rights. Moyn's discontinuity thesis and the controversysurrounding it exemplify this debate. Whether Moyn is correct is importantbeyond the confines of human rights historiography, with implications for theirmeaning in law, as well as their political legitimacy. This review argues that Moyn's book ultimately fails to convince, for two broad reasons. First, a more balanced judgment would conclude that the history of human rights is both one of continuity and discontinuity. Second, and more importantly, Moyn fails to offer a convincing account of the normativity of human rights. Undertaking a history of human rights requires a deeper engagement with debates on the nature and validity of human rights than Moyn seems prepared to contemplate.
The article investigates the availability of pornographic media to under-aged users, specifically the already marginalised under-aged sector of the South African population. It argues that the availability of pornography is just another illustration of the systemic discrimination against this section of the population. Theoretical, non-experimental and clinical evidence illustrating the negative impact that the exposure to pornography has on children is presented against the background of the social reality of South Africa. The article finds that exposure to pornography leaves children even more vulnerable than they already are. The investigation of relevant legislation indicates that those who broadcast and/or sell pornography contravene South African law. The article concludes that the effects of pornography on children are far-reaching and potentially harmful. Children should be more effectively protected against exposure to pornography. Lastly, the role of faith-based organisations (FBOs) and the possibilities of their effective involvement, is explored. ; http://www.hts.org.za ; hb2015
In the aftermath of gross human rights abuses, when, if at all, should we forego legal accountability? Human rights scholars debated this question in the 1980s and 1990s, in what was referred to as the "peace versus justice" debate. The "justice" side won the day among human rights advocates, among whom the dominant position is that legal accountability is a necessary response to atrocity and cannot be limited by political considerations (a position this Article terms "human rights absolutism'). However, this question has resurfaced in the twenty-first century, in intense debates with interlocutors outside the field of human rights. Faced with the development of international criminal justice, Alien Tort Statute litigation, and regional human rights court jurisprudence on the right to a remedy, courts, state officials, and conservative scholars argue that legal accountability should be limited to avoid hampering states' control of their internal affairs and international relations (a position this Article terms "sovereigntism"). Some scholars take a middle ground and argue that legal responses to gross human rights abuses should be limited only to avoid harm to peace or democratic decision-making. However, the latter have not yet offered a persuasive justification for their position nor a rationale for distinguishing peace and democratic decision-making from other values advanced by sovereigntists as limits to accountability. This Article offers a new middle ground between sovereigntism and human rights absolutism, under a position it terms "human rights realism." Drawing on American legal realism and grounded in human rights values, this approach mandates limiting legal accountability to avoid those consequences that threaten certain core human rights, and the Article identifies armed conflict and economic inequality as relevant consequences. This approach overcomes both human rights absolutists' denial of the politics of accountability mechanisms and sovereigntists' subordination of accountability to values ...
The situation of human rights in India is a complex one, as a result of the country's large size and tremendous diversity, its status as a developing country and a sovereign, secular, democratic republic, and its history as a former colonial territory. The Constitution of India provides for Fundamental rights, which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide for Freedom of Speech, as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad.
The ubiquity of human rights raises questions for the philosopher. If we want to understand these rights, where do we look? As a set of moral norms, it is tempting to think they can be grasped strictly from the armchair, say, by appeal to moral intuition. But what, if anything, can that kind of inquiry tell us about the human rights of contemporary politics, law, and civil society - that is, human rights as we ordinarily know them? This volume brings together a distinguished, interdisciplinary group of scholars to address philosophical questions raised by the complex status of human rights as both moral rights, on the one hand, and legally, politically, and historically practised rights, on the other.
Human rights are the foundation of democracy, a democratic society, freedom, justice and peace. Without human rights and awareness of their ownership, people cannot live in dignity. Human rights are the same for all of us, regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, political or other beliefs, social origin, national origin, sexual orientation. There are cases in which human rights may be limited, but only in very specific situations, usually defined in international documents or constitutions of individual countries (e.g. due to the protection of certain values by the state, or due to threats such as war or public security). In 1948, Poland was one of the eight states that abstained from voting on the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Until the transformation of the political system between 1989–1992, the number of international conventions dealing with the issue of human rights, which the Polish state had not ratified, has increased. Along with the democratization of public life in Poland and the accession process to the European Union, successive governments have signed certain conventions, but many important documents remain unratified or unimplemented, including significant conventions regarding the status of stateless persons or related to cluster munitions. This presentation aims at indication of the relation of Polish legislation and basic legal acts to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent conventions aimed at protecting those rights. On the basis of a short comparative analysis, I will try to indicate how important human rights are to Poland nowadays. ; Prawa człowieka są fundamentem demokracji, demokratycznego społeczeństwa, wolności, sprawiedliwości i pokoju. Bez praw człowieka i świadomości ich własności ludzie nie mogą żyć w godności. Prawa człowieka są takie same dla nas wszystkich, bez względu na rasę, płeć, religię, pochodzenie etniczne, przekonania polityczne, pochodzenie społeczne, pochodzenie narodowe, orientację seksualną. Zdarzają się przypadki, w których prawa człowieka mogą być ograniczone, ale tylko w bardzo szczególnych sytuacjach, zwykle zdefiniowanych w dokumentach międzynarodowych lub konstytucjach poszczególnych krajów (np. ze względu na ochronę niektórych wartości przez państwo lub z powodu zagrożeń, takich jak wojna lub bezpieczeństwo publiczne). W 1948 r. Polska była jednym z ośmiu państw, które wstrzymały się od głosu w sprawie ratyfikacji Powszechnej Deklaracji Praw Człowieka. Do czasu transformacji systemu politycznego w latach 1989–1992 wzrosła liczba konwencji międzynarodowych dotyczących kwestii praw człowieka, których państwo polskie nie ratyfikowało. Wraz z demokratyzacją życia publicznego w Polsce i procesem akcesyjnym do Unii Europejskiej kolejne rządy podpisały pewne konwencje, ale wiele ważnych dokumentów pozostaje nieratyfikowanych lub niewzmocnionych, w tym znaczące konwencje dotyczące statusu bezpaństwowców lub związane z amunicją kasetową. Prezentacja ta ma na celu wskazanie związku polskiego prawodawstwa i podstawowych aktów prawnych z Powszechną Deklaracją Praw Człowieka ONZ i późniejszymi konwencjami mającymi na celu ochronę tych praw. Na podstawie krótkiej analizy porównawczej postaram się wskazać, jak ważne są obecnie prawa człowieka dla Polski.
The capacity to abuse, or in general affect the enjoyment of human, labour and environmental rights has risen with the increased social and economic power that multinational companies wield in the global economy. At the same time, it appears that it is difficult to regulate the activities of multinational companies in such a way that they conform to international human, labour and environmental rights standards. This has partially to do with the organization of companies into groups of separate legal persons, incorporated in different states, as well as with the complexity of the corporate supply chain. Absent a business and human rights treaty, a more coherent legal and policy approach is required. Faced with the challenge of how to effectively access the right to remedy in the European Union for human rights abuses committed by EU companies in non-EU states, a diverse research consortium of academic and legal institutions was formed. The consortium, coordinated by the Globernance Institute for Democratic Governance, became the recipient of a 2013 Civil Justice Action Grant from the European Commission Directorate General for Justice. A mandate was thus issued for research, training and dissemination so as to bring visibility to the challenge posed and moreover, to provide some solutions for the removal of barriers to judicial and non-judicial remedy for victims of business related human rights abuses in non-EU states. The project commenced in September 2014 and over the course of two years the consortium conducted research along four specific lines in parallel with various training sessions across EU Member States. The research conducted focused primarily on judicial remedies, both jurisdictional barriers and applicable law barriers; non-judicial remedies, both to company based grievance. The results of this research endeavour make up the content of this report whose aim is to provide a scholarly foundation for policy proposals by identifying specific challenges relevant to access to justice in the European Union and to provide recommendations on how to remove legal and practical barriers so as to provide access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses in non-EU states.
This paper examines the idea of human rights, and how they should be justified. It begins by reviewing Peter Jones's claim that the purpose of human rights is to allow people from different cultural backgrounds to live together as equals, and suggests that this by itself provides too slender a basis. Instead it proposes that human rights should be grounded on human needs. Three difficulties with this proposal are considered. The first is the problem of whether needs are sufficiently objective for this purpose, to which it responds by drawing a distinction between human needs proper and societal needs. The second is the problem of overshoot: human needs are more expansive than human rights. It responds to this by arguing that where needs conflict, we make trade-offs before specifying the optimum set of human rights. The third is the problem of undershoot: needs cannot be used to ground civil and political rights. Here it suggests that some of these rights can be grounded directly in needs, others can be justified instrumentally, and yet others grounded in the human need for recognition. Finally the paper returns to Jones, and asks which approach to human rights is better able to justify them within both liberal and non-liberal cultures.
