Notes:Human Rights Primer
Notes of Justin v. Nicolas: Primer on Human Rights
What are human rights?
A right is a claim or entitlement that someone can assert before someone else. It is exercised to the extent that it does not interfere with the rights of someone else. It has been said that one person's right is another person's duty.
Rights are determined from human needs. All persons wish to attain the fullness of life and aspire to achieve a status of being not only to stay alive but also to maximize their human potentials. People establish states and governments in order to build societies that can best fulfill all human needs. Human Rights are that which make us human. In a very real way, States have a duty to do everything in their power to ensure the development of the human person. Thus, a human right is an entitlement or legal claim you - by virtue of being human—have against the State.
Human Rights are enshrined in our moral and legal systems. All societies have different laws that recognize, advance and protect human rights. It is for these reasons that we observe that human rights are protected in the Constitutions and national laws of many States around the world.
Human Rights are likewise recognized by the community of nations and are protected by various international enforcement mechanisms. Human Rights are also protected by treaties which governments have signed to oblige them to ensure that rights and freedoms will be protected in their territories.
What precipitated the recognition of these rights?
The principles that form the basis for human rights are as ageless as the history of humanity itself. However, it was not until the end of the World War II that the member States of the newly established United Nations agreed on a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and set down for the first time a list of human rights and fundamental freedoms. These are considered by the community of nations to be basic minimum standards by which governments should treat citizens.
As member states of the United Nations, All countries pledge to promote, respect, and observe the human rights recognized under the United Nations Charter. There exists an International Bill of Human Rights and other human rights conventions that make up a set of standards called international human rights law. Because of these developments, how a government treats its citizens is now a legitimate concern of the international community.
Former Secretary General of the UN, Boutros Boutros - Ghali, said that:
It is the State that the international community should principally entrust with ensuring the protection of individuals. However, the issue of international action must be raised when States prove unworthy of this task ... and when—far from being protectors of individuals—they become tormentors... In these circumstances, the international community must take over from the States that fail to fulfil their obligations.
... whether a State has the right to expect absolute respect from the international community when it is tarnishing the noble concept sovereignty by openly putting that concept to a use that is rejected by the conscience of the world and by the law. Where sovereignty becomes the ultimate argument put forward by authoritarian regimes to support their undermining of the rights and freedoms of men, women and children, such sovereignty - and I state this as a sober truth— is already condemned by history.
Slowly but surely governments are becoming aware of the importance of a good human rights record. A poor human rights record reflects badly on governments. It is bad for the image of the country; it is bad for business. Previously, governments have been able to get away with violations partly because people do not know what are their rights in law. For this reason, the slogan of the World Conference in Vienna was:
Human Rights: Know them, Demand them, Defend them.
Educating people, informing them and the outside world of what is happening will make it difficult for the State to issue credible denials or claim ignorance and may make the international community act.
Who are entitled to the enjoyment of these rights?
You do - they belong to every human being. They are UNIVERSAL, INALIENABLE, INTERDEPENDENT and INDIVISIBLE. They belong to everyone EQUALLY. Everyone is born with the same rights. They cannot be taken away, lost or surrendered regardless of a person’s character or status in life. A person’s rights must at all times be respected.
Which of all these rights come first?
None of them. They are all interrelated and indivisible. The pledge all member states of the United Nations take to advance human rights is a pledge to promote all human rights, as the General Assembly has observed:
Promotion and protection of one category of rights should never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of another.
What does respect mean?
To respect the rights of another person is to value that person's humanity rather than just that person’s personality. Respecting human rights involves:
a conscious effort to find our common essence beyond our apparent divisions, our temporary differences, our ideological and cultural barriers.
— Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General, in opening the World Conference on Human Rights 1993)
Human Rights is about protecting individuals from discrimination. Persons should not be discriminated against simply because of who they are or what they believe in.
Why should we respect the rights of persons who themselves have shown no humanity or respect for other people’s rights—such as torturers, murderers, and other criminals?
Because s/he is still a human being. Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, otherwise how do we know that s/he committed these serious crimes? Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and to be sentenced according to law if found guilty. This is what is meant by the rule of law.
Of course criminals should be brought to justice. However, the law is not about passion or emotion. It is about establishing what happened and attempting to ascertain the truth. This involves listening to each side and giving the person a chance to explain his/her actions. The law must after all hear before it condemns. Respecting human rights does not imply condoning the wrong committed – as justice requires that punishment be imposed after due process of law – but it is always about recognizing the humanity of other persons.
What is the difference between a human rights violation and a criminal offence?
Both involve wrongdoing. A crime is an act done by one or more persons that violates the domestic law of the country which forbids certain things from being done or considers certain acts to be harmful to society. A human rights violation, on the other hand, is committed by the State through its agents (the police, armed forces and anyone acting with the authority of the State) against the individual. It may also be a crime if domestic law has chosen to characterize it as such—as it should.
But aren't 'human rights' something imposed on the rest of the world by the West?
Human rights are not a western invention, nor do they encompass merely western values. They are to be found in each culture and in each of the world's great religions. Emphasis may vary from region to region and from country to country. Nonetheless, they represent the common bond that binds each individual to a common humanity—because all persons, regardless of where they are from are imbued with these rights.
These all sounds very political. Why should I be concerned?
The issue of "Human Rights" is a political issue. It concerns the relationship between the State and the individual. But it is also a legal issue. Your right to life, liberty and security is your legal right not to be arbitrarily arrested, detained or "disappeared" and killed. When you demand the government respect this or any other right, your legal right becomes a political demand.
Where a government ignores the will of the people and goes further and seeks to suppress the will of the people, it becomes a tyranny. As such, it loses the legitimacy by which it pretends to govern. All persons must become aware of their rights and be prepared to defend them. Likewise, we should all be prepared to stand up for the rights of others in order to secure our own.
A religious leader once wrote:
First they came for the Jewsand I did not speak out -because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade-unionistsand I did not speak out - because I was not a trade-unionist.
Then they came for me -and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemoller
What about the atrocities committed by armed opposition groups—aren't they human rights violations too?
Understandably, they are in the minds of the victims and their relatives. The State, of course, has the obligation to obtain justice for violations of the crimes of public order. The atrocities committed against individuals by armed opposition groups in the name of a cause or political goal also violate the basic standards by which human beings live. In moral terms there is little to distinguish them; but in legal terms, they are quite separate. Human Rights is primarily concerned with the way States behave towards individuals. The law is there to regulate the state in its use of power and to protect the individual from abuse.
Prepared by: Chito Gascon National INstitute for Policy Studies
SOURCE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS HANDBOOK by English & Stapleton
posted by jef_eleven @ 10:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home