Are Human Rights Universal, Inherent, Inalienable, and Indivisible - Essay Example

Are human rights universal, inherent, inalienable, and indivisible? (Words: 2154) Are human rights universal, inherent, inalienable, and indivisible?The understanding of the rights of individuals can be a challenging task, no matter if reference is made to a particular region or to the international community. However, these rights tend to face severe restrictions and violations especially in countries where social and political conflicts are part of daily social life. In practice the rights of individuals have been included in a concept known as human rights. These rights have been found to have certain qualities, being universal, inherent, inalienable and indivisible. The above qualities of human rights are explored in this paper. The literature published in regard to the particular subject has been reviewed so that the specific characteristics of human rights are adequately explained. The existence of the particular qualities, in regard to human rights is fully verified. However, the level at which each of these qualities is developed may not be standardized, depending on the local and international political and social environment. The term ‘rights’ has been related to different aspects of daily life; indeed, rights are likely to belong in one of the following categories: ‘civil, political and social’ (Teeple 2004, p.9). The above rights have been incorporated in a broad framework, named as ‘human rights’ (Teeple 2004, p.16). The need for securing the particular rights for all people worldwide has been highlighted through the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)’ (Teeple 2004, p.16, Appendix I). The Declaration aimed to set the terms on which the evaluation of people’s rights around the world should be based. Two are the articles where the characteristics of human rights, as analyzed in this paper, can be mostly identified: article 1 & 2 of UDHR (Appendix I). Through a different definition human rights have been described as ‘an indispensable part of human species’ (Ishay 2008, p.3). In general, human rights are considered as not being restricted by time or by distance (Wasserstrom 2007); however, the perceptions of people on human rights as of their content, historical background and geographical borders are highly differentiated (Wasserstrom 2007). In the context of a similar approach Andreopoulos et al. (2006) noted that human rights could be described more effectively by referring to their mission: ‘to guarantee freedom or emancipation’ (Andreopoulos et al. 2006, p.36). However, the above definition sets the enhancement of human rights as a term of their existence, a fact which is not verified in practice. Indeed, human rights exist independently of the local laws; since human rights have been established through a legal framework that applies globally, i.e. the Declaration of Human Rights, they should be respected no matter if they are supported by local laws or not, an issue also discussed below. In their initial form human rights have been related to a critical concept: equality. In regard to human rights the concept of equality is used for showing that for law all people are equal no matter their social or economic background (Teeple 2004, p.22). However, in practice, the promotion of equality in regard to human rights has been proved as a ‘non-realistic’ target in most countries worldwide (Teeple 2004). As already noted above, human rights have a critical characteristic: they are universal. This characteristic can be interpreted in different ways: a) these rights should be respected and protected by national laws, meaning that a national law that does not recognize one or more of these rights would be considered as opposed to international law (Teeple 2004, p.26) and b) human rights are applied globally; even when no national laws include provisions for the protection of these rights, these rights have to be respected at national level (Teeple 2004, p.26). In addition, in case of violation of these rights individuals can seek for protection either in national or the international courts; in other words, the human rights establish an international jurisdiction which could not be easily accepted for different types of conflicts (Teeple 2004, p.26). According to Leonard (2005) the particular characteristic of human rights, i.e. universality, is related to a particular fact: to the ‘universal dignity of humankind’ (Leonard 2005, p.777). Since this dignity is a basic characteristic of all humans, the universality of human rights could not be disregarded, even if national laws do not include rules for securing the respect of human rights locally (Leonard 2005). It should be noted that the universality of human rights can be difficult to be secured due to the existence of ‘different cultures and traditions worldwide’ (Mutua 2011, p.74). When referring to human rights as inherent rights it is implied that the appearance of these rights cannot be set at a particular time point, i.e. that these rights are ‘timeless and immanent’ (Teeple 2004, p.23). It can be assumed that the existence of these rights is not depended on specific social or political conditions; rather, these rights are autonomous and should be respected in any case, even if there is no relevant provision in laws applied locally (Teeple 2004). The above views could be criticized based on the following facts: human rights are not quite old; they have appeared ‘a few centuries ago’ (Teeple 2004, p.23). More over, their development in an integrate framework is ‘just dated about 50 years ago’ (Teeple 2004, p.23). At the next level, human rights are said to be indivisible. The particular term is used for showing that human rights are of equal value, i.e. that there is no case of considering ‘certain human rights as more important’ (Teeple 2004, p.24). In the context of this principle, the violation of human rights is fully prohibited no matter of the category in which each human right belongs (Teeple 2004). In other words, the distinction of human rights to more and less important cannot be allowed (Teeple 2004). Another important characterization of human rights is the following: human rights are considered as inalienable, a term which is mostly used for describing ‘social and political rights’ (Teeple 2004, p.24). The term inalienable is used for showing that no one is allowed to ‘take away these rights’ (Teeple 2004, p.24). In the same way, a person could not proceed to a resignation from his rights as such action would be considered as void (Teeple 2004). In practice, the respect of this characteristic of human rights is quite problematic; numerous institutions operating in different sectors have managed to set limits to human rights, an activity that is often presented as justified by the law, a claim that it is usually proved as false (Teeple 2004, p.24). Human rights in all their aspects, as described above, tend to interact. At this point, problems have been identified, meaning that not all characteristics/ qualities of human rights are always respected. This view is made clear if checking the relationship between civil and social rights (Teeple 2004). The above two categories of rights are often considered as closely related but, in practice, they are opposed (Teeple 2004). More specifically, ‘civil rights are exclusive while social rights are inclusive’ (Teeple 2004, p.39). This means that civil rights refer to humans as individuals while social rights refer to humans as members of the society (Teeple 2004). Based on the above example it could be stated that human rights are not fully indivisible. In the above case, it is possible for civil rights to be restricted while for social rights such practice would be more difficult to be developed. For example, in the context of a punishment imposed by law it is possible for prohibitions to be ordered against an individual in regard to one or more of his civil rights (Donnelly 2003). The above example also leads to concerns in regard to another characteristic of human rights: if human rights are actually inherent then no restrictions or prohibitions could be imposed in regard to these rights, even by the law; in practice, such restrictions are common usually on the basis that a superior right, the safety of the public, is considered to be threatened (Joseph 2009). Another example that shows the relationship between rights in each society is the following: corporate rights are based on the need of a business to secure the wealth of its shareholders (Teeple 2004, p.41). For achieving this target a business may use the natural resources of a region, especially water, for covering the needs of its operational units (Ife 2009). This activity can set in risk the right of people in local community in regard to the access to clean water, as this right is related to their right to live (Ife 2009). At this point, the rights of people in local community are not considered as being inherent and indivisible otherwise no threat against these rights would be allowed. Another case where the interaction of the characteristics of human rights is made clear is the right to vote. The specific right, being part of the civil rights, is awarded to all people who have reached a particular age (Grover 2010). This term is not considered as setting restrictions to this right since, by its nature, this right requires the ability of an individual to develop critical thoughts, an ability which is closely related to the age of the individual (Grover 2010). However, in the context of a criminal offence it is possible for restrictions to be imposed by the court in regard to the right of the offender to vote; such restrictions are opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human rights but they are allowed for protecting the rights of the public (Grover 2010). According to Teeple (2004) the most important example for showing the contradiction of human rights is the case of ‘women’s rights, as evaluated compared to men’s rights’ (Teeple 2004, p.48). In regard to the above case emphasis is given to the following phenomenon: there is no country in the international community where the rights of men are fully equal with those of women (Teeple 2004, p.48). Moreover, particular reference should be made to the rights of children. Despite the severe violation of children’s rights worldwide there is no legislative text that clearly defines the children’s rights and the consequences for these rights’ violation (Teeple 2004, p.59). In fact, even the UDHR is not effective in addressing this issue: among the provisions of the above legislative framework there is no provision addressing clearly the children’s rights: ‘only the articles 22, 25 and 26 can lead to assumptions for the importance of children rights but the expressions used are too vague’ (Teeple 2004, p.59). The contradiction that characterizes human rights is reflected in another fact: in conflicts developed around the world in regard to various aspects of social and economic life ‘all parties appear as supporters of human rights’ (Teeple 2004, p.97). For example, in an employment conflict both the employer and the trade union are likely to refer to the need for the promotion of human rights (Teeple 2004). This contradiction reveals a critical fact: the perceptions of people in regard to human rights can significantly vary. For example, for an employer human rights are interpreted on the basis that each individual is primarily ‘an economic man’ (Teeple 2004, 97). At the same time, for a labor union each individual is mostly regarded as a member of a group of persons with common interests, i.e. as ‘a social being’ (Teeple 2004, p.97). According to the analysis presented above human rights have all the characteristics that theorists and researchers have attributed to them: i.e. human rights are universal, inherent, inalienable, and indivisible. Indeed, the expansion of human rights worldwide, at least as a concept, cannot be doubted; still, the respect of human rights in all countries has not been secured (Mutua 2011). Moreover, all people have the right to ask for the respect of their rights, as included in the UDHR; in practice, this potential has been limited under the influence of local political and economic environment (Grover 2010). In addition, even if human rights are believed to be inherent still their appearance has been related to rather recent time points (Coomans 2000). Furthermore, it is quite difficult to understand the full equality of human rights since not all of these rights are equally protected by international law: for example, in UDHR no reference is made to ‘economic freedom or the right to hold property’ (Chauffour 2009, p.43). Reference should be also made to the extensive contradictions that characterize human rights, as these contradictions have been analyzed in this paper. It is for these reasons that human rights can be considered as having all the characteristics described in this paper, i.e. as being universal, inherent, inalienable, and indivisible, but rather at theoretical level; ‘the use of these rights in practice is quite problematic’ (Ife 2009, p.86) especially since different interpretations are given to the above rights (Koch 2009). Often these rights become a tool for promoting specific interests and not for securing equality and safety in society, a target that would be set as a priority for the human rights framework. References Andreopoulos, G., Arat, Z. and Juviller, P. (2006) Non-state Actors in the Human Rights Universe. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press. Chauffour, J. (2009) The Power of Freedom: Uniting Human Rights and Development. Washington: Cato Institute. Coomans, F. (2000) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Principles and Practice: An Anthology from the Work of Theo Van Boven. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Donnelly, J. (2003) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. New York: Cornell University Press. Grover, S. (2010) Young People’s Human Rights and the Politics of Voting Age. New York: Springer. Ife, J. (2009) Human Rights from Below: Achieving Rights Through Community Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ishay, M. (2008) The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley: University of California Press. Joseph, R. (2009) Human Rights and the Unborn Child. Leiden: BRILL. Koch, I. (2009) Human Rights As Indivisible Rights: The Protection of Socio-economic Demands Under the European Convention on Human Rights. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Leonard, T. (2005) Encyclopedia of the Developing World. New York: Psychology Press. Mutua, M. (2011) Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Teeple, G. (2004) The Riddle of Human Rights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/60UDHR/bookleten.pdf Wasserstrom, J. (2007) Human Rights and Revolutions. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Appendix I Universal Declaration of Human Rights (source: United Nations) Read More