Why Had Socio-Economic Rights Enjoyed Less Prominence than Civil Rights in Modern European History - Research Paper Example

Number and Number Why had Socio-Economic Rights Enjoyed Less Prominence than Civil Rights in Modern European History? Introduction In this study, the reasons why socio-economic rights enjoyed less prominence than the civil rights in modern European history will be provided in details. In order to address this question, there is a need to differentiate socio-economic rights from civil rights. Considering the past and current situation in Europe, this paper will provide evidences why civil rights is gaining importance in the modern European history. Significant Differences between Socio-Economic Rights and Civil Rights Socio-economic rights is different from civil rights in so many ways. Specifically the socio-economic rights focuses on fourteen human rights including: (1) the right to have a family; (2) right to have decent job and choices of employment; (3) right to own properties; (4) right to have access to good right to education; (5) right to proper nutrition; (6) right to social security; (7) right to social and medical assistance; (8) right to social welfare benefits; (9) right to health protection; (10) right to have good standard of living; (11) right to be respected and protected by the family; (12) right to receive social welfare benefits; (13) right to have moral protection; and (14) right to enjoy science and culture (United Nations Treaty Collection; Jackson, p. 2). Civil rights is different from socio-economic rights in the sense that civil are referring to constitutional rights which are specified under the bill of rights. Aside from the matters related to freedom of speech and press, civil rights includes the right to own properties, create and put into effect some contracts, respect religious beliefs of other people, and to receive due process in accordance to the law (Amar, pp. 216 – 217). The Past and Current Situation in Modern European History Back in 1951, six European states came into an economic agreement forming the European Union (EU). Today, there are 27 countries across European continent as members of the EU (Central Intelligence Agency). As a response to globalization, the initiative of the European Commission way back in 1969 is to coordinate the economic policies as well as to set a monetary integration among the European Union. Decision behind the European Union is to make the inter-regional and inter-state trading much easier (European Commission. The EU Single Market). In 1967, the European Community (EC) which is composed of three communities tied up with one another in order to form a single Commission, Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament (Central Intelligence Agency). Since the concept of integrating the socio-economic and political activities of several countries into a single body is new, trial and errors were made in order to establish effective policy that will work well for all members of the union. For example: With the purpose of establishing a single defence policy, the European Political Cooperation (EPC) was formed as the European Union foreign policy in 1970 (Europa Glossary a). Because of its flaws and limitations, the EPC was replaced with the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) which was passed through the Maastricht Treaty back in 1993 (Europa Glossary b). In 1987, the concept of EPC was changed forming the Single European Act (Europa Glossary a). The same concept applies when it comes to dealing with issues related to human rights law. In order to strengthen the laws which protects the rights of each person, the European Union is being challenged to establish a single policy that will serve as a guide to the 27 member countries. Discussion As a result of industrialization, distribution justice has gained less importance in the sense that people’s right to equal distribution of income or entitlement is no longer possible especially within a democratic nation. Rather than focusing on the concept of rights to entitlement, members of the European Union are more focused on strengthening its civil law. Civil right is strongly supported by the use of social contracts whereas natural law which is eternal or divine law is the basis in the development of civil law (Zagorin, p. 52). Hobbes explained that the absolute power can be justified through the use of social contracts (Hobbes, p. vii). Since developing a single rule and regulation through the use of social contract enables the government to conduct a peaceful legal transaction, the socio-economic right in European Union is enjoying less prominence as compared to the civil rights in modern European history. According to Hobbes, signing a social contract is a way of showing the willingness of people to cooperate with one another over certain social issues like human rights by surrendering their natural right to go for what they want rather than taking into consideration the equal rights of other people (Radcliffe, McCarty and Allhoff, pp. 217 – 218). To enable the European Union easily solve internal and external conflicts concerning issues related to human rights, the government in each of the member countries agreed to establish a unified law to avoid discrimination and irregularities in the legal system (Official Journal of the European Communities). Democratic countries are continuously searching for strategies that will enable them to cope with political, social, and economic changes that may occur during the 20th century. In line with this, people are debating whether it is best to follow representative or parliamentarian democracy in terms of governing the nation. For instance: question arises whether or not there is a need to develop a new form of governance to improve the electoral rights of the people given that a nation follows a participatory pattern (Magnette, p. 151). Specifically the European Union has been continuously undergoing the process of shaping its multi-layered policy based on a western-style representative democracy. In the past, European democracy is being practiced through the use of constitutionalism (Schmitter a & b, pp. 51 – 69). Today, European democracy is adopting with the use of growing reforms of arranging new governance (ibid). Since 2000s, the processes in the European governance increases democratic legitimacy because of the active participation of the civil society organizations (CSOs) which is composed of non-profit and non-governmental organizations (Armstrong; de Schutter). In a democratic world, the local citizens are given the right to participate in the process of political decision-making. It means that collective decisions which include the public participation are necessary when making important decisions that will contribute to the betterment of the entire nation (Benhabib, p. 69). Therefore, decision-making process in European governance should be deliberative and has to be practiced with participatory rights for European Union to have a democracy. To maintain a democratic form of government, CSOs can act as a representative of the general public in voicing out their individual concerns to the leaders of the European Union. Even though CSOs can act as a representative in terms of voicing out the public opinions of people concerning the development of policies, issues related to transparency remains a problem in terms of informing the CSOs about the development of government policies. Under the Regulation 1040/2001 of EC, it is stated that there is a limit with regards to public access to documents of European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the Commission (Official Journal of the European Communities). Even though these institutions are required to submit their annual reports, comitology or the committee system that monitors and delegate acts coming from the European Commission is often not included in their annual reports. Despite the fact that the absence of CSO intervention could make it is more difficult for the European Union to make a democratic political decision within the its governing system without facing problem and conflict coming from the general public and the rest of the government institutions, the European Commission prefers to follow a decentralized decision-making approach. In line with this, the reason why the European Commission favors a decentralized approach is because of the argument that “different services are responsible for their own mechanism of dialogue and consultation and that the use of over-legalistic approach will only result to the delay of implementing a policy” (Friedrich). Similar to the concept of participatory democracy, civic republicanism promotes the importance of “freedom and independence from arbitrary power” (Pettit, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy b). Because of the need to promote freedom from arbitrary power, civic republicans are avoiding the formation of autocratic government. The problem with civic republicanism is that it is not possible to govern a group of countries as a nation without the use of criminal and civil law. In the absence of legal system, it will be difficult for the government to give justice to people whose rights are being violated by another person. For this reason, for civic republicans to enjoy freedom, the government should still establish a domestic legal system that will govern the people towards having a sound relationship (Dagger a; Viroli). Given that the European Union becomes civic republicans, there will always be a ground for social injustice. Even if the government is able to create a set of criminal and civil law, civic republicans could still face socio-economic injustice because of their socio-economic position within the society (Viroli; Pettit a). In order to protect the people with their basic human rights, people should give way and respect the arbitrary power of government officials (Dagger, Neo-Republicanism and the Civic Economy, b; Lovett). In reality, the concept of civic republicanism and the development of a legal system contradict one another in the sense that there will always be a possibility that the freedom of a person will be threatened by uncertainties within the legal system (Braithwaite and Pettit). Furthermore, the use of civic republicanism could only promote the people’s dependency on government aids and distribution of government benefits in order to compensate for the insufficient income of most people (Lovett). For this reason, having a more democratized criminal and civil justice system is highly preferred by most countries around the world as compared to civic republicanism (Marti). The socio-economic rights of the people within the European Union are becoming less relevant because of its current political situation. Since the European Commission strongly supports the idea of using a decentralized decision-making approach, hearing out the citizens’ concern with regards to their socio-economic rights becomes less possible. In the long run, issues related to this matter will become less important because the leaders behind the European Union are more focused on addressing the economic and political matters rather than solving issues related to social problems. Aquinas viewed law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good” (Zagorin, p. 53). Since the European Union law serves as the body of treaties, law, and court judgment that works for the neighboring countries; it is easier on the part of the European Union to promote the importance of civil rights as compared to the socio-economic rights of the people. Conclusion Because of the complexity of the European Union governance, it is difficult for European Union to promote the socio-economic rights of the people. In order to effectively protect the people’s basic human rights, European Union tends to promote the importance of civil rights. In line with this, the European Union has already established its European Union law. Since the European Union law serves as the body treaty, law, and court judgment of all member countries, the promoting the civil rights of the people is possible. *** End *** References Amar, Akhil Reed. The Bill of Rights. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Armstrong, Kenneth A. "Rediscovering Civil Society: The European Union and the White Paper on Governance." European Law Journal (2002): Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 102-132. Benhabib, Seyla. Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy. In Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Braithwaite, John and Philip Pettit. Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. "Central Intelligence Agency." 2010. Introduction: European Union. 2 November 2010 . Dagger, Richard. “Republicanism and Crime,” in Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí (eds) Legal Republicanism: National and International Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009 a. —. "Neo-Republicanism and the Civic Economy." Politics, Philosophy, and Economics (2006 b): Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 151-173. de Schutter, Olivier. "Europe in Search of its Civil Society." European Law Journal (2002): Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 198-217. "Europa Glossary." 2010 a. European political cooperation (EPC). 2 November 2010 . "Europa Glossary." 2010 b. Common foreign and security policy (CFSP). 2 November 2010 . "European Commission. The EU Single Market." 2010. Historical overview. 2 November 2010 . Friedrich, Dawid. 2009. Participatory Democracy in the European Union? European Governance and the Inclusion of Civil Society Organisations in Migration and Environmental Policies. Presented at the Fifteenth International Conference of the Council for European Studies. . 2 November 2010 . Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Part 1. Forgotten Books, 2008. Jackson, Thomas F. From Civil Rights to Human Rights. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Lovett, Frank. "Domination and Distributive Justice." The Journal of Politics (2009): Vol. 71, pp. 817-830. Magnette, Paul. "European Governance and Civic Participation: Beyond Elitist Citizenship?" Political Studies (2003): Vol. 51, pp. 144-160. Marti, José Luis. “The Republican Democratization of Criminal Law and Justice,” in Samantha Besson and José Luis Martí (eds.) Legal Republicanism: National and International Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. "Official Journal of the European Communities." 29 June 1987. Single European Act. No. L 169. 2 November 2010 . "Official Journal of the European Communities." 30 May 2001. COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1040/2001. L 145/19. 2 November 2010 . Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997 a. —. "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." 18 May 2010 b. Republicanism. 2 November 2010 . Radcliffe, Elizabeth Schmidt, Richard McCarty and Fritz Allhoff. Late modern philosophy: essential readings with commentary. Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Schmitter, Philippe C. How to democratize the European Union...and Why Bother? New York,: Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000 a. —. Participation in Governance Arrangements: Is there any Reason to expect it will Achieve "Sustainable and Innovative Policies in a Multi-Level Context"? in Participatory Governance. Political and Societal Implications, edited by J. R. Grote and B. Gbikpi. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2002 b. "United Nations Treaty Collection." 11 February 2010. CHAPTER IV - Human Rights. 2 November 2010 . Viroli, Maurizio. Republicanism, Antony Shugaaar (tr.). New York: Hill and Wang, 2002. Zagorin, Peter. Hobbes and the law of nature. Princeton University Press, 2009. Total Number of Words: 1,868 Read More