The key questions addressed are conceptualizing economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) and civil and political rights (CPR rights) and how they can be implemented in the international sphere. The former provokes whether or not those two rights can be comprehended in the same way while the latter speculates whether identical solutions can be used to integrate them worldwide.
This essay will argue that these two different rights can neither be conceptualized as the same nor be incorporated mainly because of historical accidents and consequences of the accidents such as nature of the rights and behaviours of imposing states and receiving states.
My argument develops in three parts. First I will examine historical events related to the rights in order to comprehend the fundamental of international human rights which consist of CPR and ESC rights. Second, I will explore the nature of the rights themselves. Third, I will consider purposes of implementing states and acceptability of states being influenced. Finally, I will demonstrate why two separated rights should integrate together under international human rights.
Historical accidents (Read page 166)
Human rights are remarkably created under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and gradually evolved. However, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (ICESC) were constituted only in 1966. At this time the U.S championed the former while the Soviet Union promoted the latter given the legacy of world war II and the Cold war. Despite the separated commitment, U.S still abuses civil and political rights in its own country such as discriminating black...
... middle of paper ...
...evelopment disparity and cultural relativism (Murdie and David, 2012).
References
Cohen, Joshua. "Minimalism about human rights: the most we can hope for?."Journal of Political Philosophy 12, no. 2 (2004): 190-213.
Gleick, Peter H. "The human right to water." Water Policy 1, no. 5 (1998): 487-503.
Ignatieff, Michael. "Moral prohibition at a price." 2005 (2005): 18-27.
Ignatieff, Michael. "The attack on human rights." Foreign Affairs (2001): 102-116.
Kumar, C. Raj. "National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Toward the Institutionalization and Developmentalization of Human Rights." Human Rights Quarterly 28, no. 3 (2006): 755-779.
Murdie, Amanda M., and David R. Davis. "Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs1." International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2012): 1-16.
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
Schattuck, John. “Overview of Human Right Practices, 1995,” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. March 1996: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 10 Oct 2013.
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
Condé, H. Victor. A Handbook on International Human Rights Terminology Human Rights in International Perspective; V. 8 Lincoln University of Nebraska Press, 2004.
Civil liberties and civil rights are some of the most controversial issues within today’s society and government. The debates upon these liberties and rights are paramount. Topics such as the infringement of government upon these rights, through laws and such, and even the infringement of society upon them, through the sentiments of equality that the people hold, seem to take center stage whenever they are discussed. This controversy stems from the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and its ambiguity upon the fourteenth amendment and how it should apply and grow with society. In my opinion, I feel that civil liberties and civil rights are crucial to our country as a whole, but to address them here, in their entirety, would be impossible and overall useless. Still, if I were in government and amending or interpreting the Constitution, while also keeping the changes I’d like to make to the Constitution in mind from my last essay, I would like to identify freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of happiness to be the most fundamental civil liberties and civil rights mentioned, and I would like to reiterate or add this to my constitution.
5. Segerfeldt, Fredrik, “Private Water Saves Lives,” CATO INSTITUTE, 2005, web. 6 Dec. 2009 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4462
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
This essay considers that the violation of human rights can indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence.
Barria, L., & Roper, S. (2010). The Development of institutions of human rights: A comparative stud. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_05/articles/883.html> [Accessed 2 March 2011] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report (2000) Human Rights and Human Development (New York) p.19
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,