Human rights are interdependent and indivisible: International protection of human rights - Essay Example

?Human rights are interdependent and indivisible: International protection of human rights Introduction Human rights are one of the most essential rights which are attributed to all citizens regardless of age, religion, creed, nationality, gender, and other demographic, political, or personal considerations. Human rights are considered universal as well as inalienable; they are also indivisible and interdependent. Their universality is based on the fact that once a person is born, he already possesses rights. The inalienability is founded on the fact that these rights cannot be taken away. The interdependent nature of the rights is based on the fact that all rights are equally important and cannot be enjoyed without others. Throughout history however, human rights violations have been rampant, often compromising the welfare of citizens. This paper shall discuss the fact that human rights are interdependent and indivisible. It will also discuss the international protection of human rights. This paper is being undertaken in order to provide an academic discussion on human rights including its varied manifestations and safeguards. Main body The idea of interdependence as well as the indivisibility of human rights does not include the concept of rights having a hierarchical presentation or enjoyment (Quane, 2009). The re-emergence of the concept of interdependence and indivisibility rose at a time when much focus was attributed by the international community on civil and political rights, mostly as a means of securing and supporting economic as well as socio-cultural rights (Quane, 2009). Essentially, the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights indicated the importance of establishing an equally reinforcing dynamism between the categories of rights. Human rights activists observe that it is not possible to enjoy civil and political rights and not also enjoy economic, as well as socio-cultural rights (Koch, 2003). Under these conditions, the poor would not have much freedom of choice. Moreover, even where rich citizens do not have freedom of choice, they may also not be able to avoid hunger and poverty (Koch, 2003). Such conceptualization supports the essence of interdependence and indivisibility of human rights, mostly based on the fact that human rights mutually support and reinforce each other and have equal weight and importance (Koch, 2003). Outside the above conceptualizations, there seems to be no other acceptable understanding for human rights. At present, the focus of international practice has mostly been on the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights, specifically in their implementation and importance (Quane, 2009). This can be seen in terms of human rights principles not having any particular reference to theory or any other associated justification for it. In effect, no significant attempt has been used to delineate between the interdependence and the indivisibility of human rights (Quane, 2007). Instead, the terms have often been applied interchangeably. With time, human rights have been referred to as both indivisible and interdependent, these terms being specific principles calling for the need to treat human rights fairly, equally and on the same footing (Crawford, 2006). This is the basic assessment of equality and fairness in human rights; and it is still the dominant understanding relating to the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes economic and socio-cultural rights as these rights are based on the understanding that their effective management can only be ensured in combination with each other (Quane, 2009). The concept of free human beings being able to secure civil and political liberties as well as freedom from fears and wants can only be ensured if the proper conditions are laid out with all people enjoying their civil and political rights, and their socio-economic-cultural rights (Quane, 2007). Such concept is supported because minus the civil and political rights, the people would not be able to insist on their economic, social, and cultural rights. In effect, without jobs or without their culture and traditions, the people would not be able to exercise, as well as enjoy their civil and political rights. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), supports the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights as it indicates that 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”. Even as signatories to the UDHR have accepted the principles of the rights, most of them did not allocate equal weight to the exercise of various rights (Asmal, 2007). Different western cultures have mostly prioritized civil and political rights, often sacrificing economic and social rights, including the right to work, to education, and to housing (Asmal, 2007). In a similar vein, the former Soviet bloc countries and other Asian states have mostly prioritized economic and socio-cultural rights; however, most of them have not secured civil and political rights (Quane, 2009). In effect, under these conditions, the indivisibility of human rights has not been easy to secure. Although the UN has often used the term indivisibility in terms of human rights, it has not established a detailed concept of indivisibility (Baxi, 2001). Some experts utilize the word indivisible and independent in the same context. Other practitioners indicate that these terms can be distinguished from each other (Baxi, 2001). Nickel (2008) reports that there are more interdependent than indivisible rights, and indivisibility does not hold as much meaning. The larger meaning of indivisibility is not therefore very clear. Various theorists suggest that it is mostly rhetorical, a specific indication that the particular categories of rights are legal or that their goal is mostly to protect the standards of human rights (Wilde, 1998). Indivisibility for other theories is also based on fundamental meanings, mostlyon securing a need in order to fully realise rights, and fully realise one’s humanity. Various human rights movements indicate that the modern understanding of human rights supports an indivisible and interdependent system of norms; in effect, it is not appropriate for governments to choose the human rights they would honour (Brems, 2009). The concept of indivisibility of human rights has been controversial for some Asian governments in recent years, especially as these Asian countries claim that the current ideas of human rights support Western values which are not often consistent with Asian values (Quane, 2009). In the same concept, Western governments, especially the US have not even ratified treaties on economic and socio-cultural rights (Quane, 2009) especially as they claim that the rights under these treaties are mostly aspirational. The current provisions of human rights are based on a specific set of internationally recognized human rights declarations and conventions which began with the UDHR in 1948; this was further supported by other treaties (Winston, 2011). Human rights support a system of norms which exist to secure human dignity by controlling the systems of oppression. Although there are specific justifications for these rights, understandably, they have been meant to counter oppression (Winston, 2011). This would be the reason why human rights advocates object to efforts by the government to indicate that some rights are non-binding, or to indicate that some classifications of human rights are not applicable to their societies (Carne, 2006). These governments recall that where exceptionalism and selectivity are unchallenged, oppression would likely arise. Such conceptualizations also help indicate why human rights are open-ended and why they are also expanding (Carne, 2006). With oppressors securing various new methods to oppress and repress, there is a need for human rights movements to secure various new norms in order to effectively challenge the new methods of human rights oppression and repression (Cassimatis, 2001). Indicating that rights are interdependent even with their distinctiveness also implies that the manifestation of any right calls for the enjoyment of others (Charlesworth, 1991). In effect, freedom of movement may be needed in order to secure other civil rights, including economic and political rights. The concept of interdependency supports division and does not want to defeat it (Charlesworth, 1991). It also considers rights based on how they are categorized. Moreover, even where these relations may often be dependent, there is still interdependency apparent in the conceptualization process. Conceptualized work relating to the interdependencies between rights has geared towards establishing supporting links between rights in order to support a bigger outlook (Crooms, 1997). However, as pointed out by Nickel (2008), considering relations between specific rights is enlightening and is sometimes unavoidable, but fully understanding such perspective needs much work. If there are numerous specific human rights, combining some with others will yield various places where specific supporting relations may manifest (Nickel, 2008). Nickel (2008) supports his concept of indivisibility, one which is founded on securing families in their rights, not so much individual rights and their associations with each other. The interdependence in other words is not too problematic if more people accept that a right has to be justified (Nickel, 2008). It would become an issue when one of the rights considered interdependent is not fully justified. Indivisibility is difficult to specifically define and understand because its understanding is often conceptual and symbolic (Cross, 2001). Hobbes declares how significant a sovereign is, especially where he is indivisible of his sovereignty (cited by Winston, 2011). Where something is indivisible, dividing it would cause it to lose its efficacy. Based on the debates on human rights declaration, countries supporting the one-legally binding contract mostly referred to the following concepts: where the covenant did not secure economic, cultural and social rights they may never be secured in the treaty. Moreover, there seems to be a need to ensure that the Western countries would focus on protecting economic, social, and cultural rights in the same way as they sought to secure civil rights (Winston, 2011). However, various states that were emerging from colonial regimes also understood that economic, social, and cultural rights are individual rights and that it is up to the postcolonial governments to implement and secure these rights. A debate on indivisibility soon emerged from these discussions (Winston, 2011). The concept of indivisibility at some point during the 1950s shifted to the concept of economic, social, and cultural rights as rights essential to the fulfilment of policy goals of various postcolonial states in Latin America and the Middle East (Winston, 2011). During the 1950s, economic as well as social rights became an important element in seeking self-determination among global citizens. As the 1960s rolled along, the need to end colonialism and its related applications, including racism and apartheid became an important human rights discussion (Winston, 2011). The first International Conference on Human Rights during the 1970s covered discussions on revisionism and emerging forms of indivisibility which now included the fact that economic, social, and cultural rights being highlighted more than civil and political rights (Winson, 2011). Such considerations became apparent in the Proclamation of Teheran where it was laid out that “since human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible, the full realization of civil and political rights without the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights is impossible”. In effect, securing significant progress in the management of human rights is based on sound and effective policies related to social and economic development. As various treaties and covenants were enforced in the 1970s, the UN reassessed various global issues and placed them under the coverage of human rights, including unjust economic order, arms trade, persistent colonialism, underdevelopment, and poverty (Winston, 2011). The concept of indivisibility clearly supported economic and cultural rights in relation to other global concerns, eventually recognizing the fact that the right to development is also an indivisible and interdependent human right. By the end of the Cold War, more human rights discussions were noted, especially with the emergence of human rights organizations seeking to protect human rights (Winston, 2011). Moreover, at some point, the discussions on the indivisibility of human rights were now more balanced, and mostly based on the acceptance of the fact that protecting civil and political rights and forsaking economic, social, and cultural rights would also compromise the enjoyment of the former (Dupre, 2009). In effect, there is an element of interchangeability in the fact that economic, social, and cultural rights are requisite rights essential in securing civil and political rights. Conclusion Human rights are interdependent and indivisible. In effect, they cannot exist without other rights, nor can they be separated from other rights. The enjoyment of one set of rights is often compromised especially where other rights are not equally protected and secured. Civil and political rights cannot have superiority over economic rights because where citizens are going hungry and are unable to secure their economic viability, they would not be able to effectively practice their political and civil rights. There is a need also to understand the concept of interdependence of these rights, especially in terms of securing common developmental goals. In effect, the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights is founded on principles of the centrality of goals for various states and global citizens, especially in terms of ensuring organic unity. References Agbakwa, S., 2002. Reclaiming humanity: economic, social, and cultural rights as the cornerstone of African human rights. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 5(177). Asmal, K., 2007. Designing a bill of rights for a diverse society. European Human Rights Law Review, 6, p. 597. Baxi, U., 2001. Too many, or too few, human rights?. Human Rights Law Review 1(1). Carne, G., 2006. Reconstituting human security in a new security environment: On Australian, Two Canadians and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australian Year Book of International Law, 25(1). Cassimatis, A., 2001. International trade and human rights - which human rights?' International Trade and Business Law Annual, 6(19). Charlesworth, H., 1991. Resolving conflicting human rights standards in international law: remarks. American Society of International Law Proceedings, 85, p. 336. Crawford, J., 2006. The creation of states in international law. London: Routledge. Crooms, L., 1997. Indivisible rights and intersectional identities or, what do women's human rights have to do with the race convention. Howard Law Journal, 40(3), p. 619. Cross, F., 2001. The error of positive rights. UCLA Law Review 48, p. 857. Dupre, C., 2009. Unlocking human dignity: towards a theory for the 21st century. European Human Rights Law Review, 2, p. 190. Koch, I., 2003. The justiciability of indivisible rights. Nordic J. Int’l L., 72(3). Nickel, J., 2008. Rethinking indivisibility: towards a theory of supporting relations between human rights. Hum Rts. Q., 48, pp. 984-985. Quane, H., 2007. Rights in conflict? The rationale and implications of using human rights in conflict prevention strategies. VA. J., Int’l L. 47(463), pp. 472–75, 477–81. Quane, H., 2009. A further dimension to the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights?: recent developments concerning the rights of indigenous peoples. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 25, pp. 49-83. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993. World Conference on Human Rights. Vienna, Austria. Wilde, R., 1998. NGO Proposals for an Asia-Pacific human rights system. Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, 1, p. 137. Winston, M., 2011. On the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. College of New Jersey [online]. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Huma/HumaWins.htm [Accessed 01 January 2012]. Read More