pratiyogita darpan magazine page 110

International Relations Article
International Human Rights Regime
Growth of Human Rights The development of human rights is closely associated with the
growth of democracy. It essentially involves the emphasis on and con-ceptualization of
rights of men against the rights of rulers. Initially the focus was on the political and
 civil rights but gradually, in 20th century, the domain of human rights was exten-ded to
 include social and economic rights also. The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle
postulated an Idealistic Theory of state in which state was viewed as a moral institu-tion
 essential and natural for the moral development of the individual. The individual could
achieve its fullest development only through the participation in the civic life as
provided and managed by the state. Since the state was viewed as an end in itself, the
right of individual to participate in the affairs of state was converted into a duty for
the sake of his own moral development. During middle ages, the Church asserted its
supremacy and political rights of individual were paid scant attention. It was, in fact,
only after the onslaught of Renaissance that the individual, as a human beings with
distinct identity, became the focus of attention in the intellectual thinking and
activities of society. The Renais-sance emphasized on the dignity of man who was endowed
with reason and was master of his destiny. The divine right theory of state was replaced
by the Social Contract theory, propounded by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. The historical
validity of this theory may not be proved, but its philosophical signi-ficance for the
 rights of man is beyond any doubt. This theory postulates that every man has certain
inalienable rights by birth even before the origin of state and which cannot be abro-gated
 by any social and political institution. Locke stated that the state is created to
protect these rights and if the state fails to protect them,
Arunoday Bajpai
people have the right to revolt against the state. The Social Contract theory and the
notion of natural rights had the profound impact on the evolution of democracy and
constitutional rights of citizens. The Glorious Revolution of Britain in 1688 recognized
 the rights of people to elect their rulers. Locke supported the ideals and achievements
 of Glorious Revolution. Thus, the dignity and worth of human beings enjoying certain
 basic rights became the foundational principle of liberal-democratic tradition. The
American Declaration of Indepen-dence, 1776 asserted, we hold these truths to be self
 evident that all men are created equal. The French Revo-lution raised the slogans of
liberty, equality and fraternity. The French Declaration of Rights of Man, 1789,
claimed, Men are born free and equal in respect of their rights. These ideals led to
 the expansion of liberal democracy and rights of man in different parts of the world.
 In 19th century, Karl Marx exposed the exploitative nature of capitalist order based on
 liberal democracy. He termed liberal demo-cracy as sham. Among other things, his ideas
 underlined the importance of the social and economic rights. These rights were
incorporated in the liberal democratic order and were given practical shape under the
 scheme of welfare state based on the ideology of positive liberalism. However, in 20th
century, democracy faced serious challenge from autho-ritative regimes of Germany and
 Italy supported by the ideologies of Nazism and Fascism respectively. In these countries
 all traces of demo-cratic rights of people were elimi-nated and the interests and
ideologies of the rulers became supreme. Many scholars claimed that the violation of.
 basic rights of people as the main cause of war. It was in this back-ground that Allied
powers fought the World War II to make the world
safe for democracy. The American President, Roosevelt declared in 1941 that the Four
Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from
want—are the prior conditions for the main-tenance of international peace and security.
 Meaning and Nature of Human Rights Human rights refer to those con-ditions of life which
 are available to all persons as human beings irres-pective of their caste, sex, religion,
 nationality or any of them.,According to Human Rights EnCyclopedia, human rights are
 those rights which belong to an individual or group of individuals as a consequence of
 being human. They refer to a wide con-tinuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance
 human agency and declared to be universal in nature, in some sense equally claimed for
all human beings. Thus, human rights are rights inherent to all human beings without
distinction of nationality, ethnic origin, sex, religion or any other ground. These
rights are universal, inalienable, interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. The
principle of universality of human rights denotes that these rights are available to all
persons irrespective of any distinction whatsoever among them. The human rights are
inalien-able in the sense that they cannot be taken away, except in rare conditions and
according to due process of law. These rights are also interrelated and indivisible in the
 sense that all categories of rights like political, civil, economic rights are
complementary to each other and one cannot be sacri-ficed for the sake of the other.
These rights are called human rights because they provide fundamental conditions necessary
for civilized human life. These rights are natural in the sense that they are self evident
truths and available to all persons by birth. The Human Rights may be distinguished
pratiyogita darpan magazine Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we
 fall.


from the Fundamental Rights con-tained in the Constitutions of various countries in the
sense that, the latter are enforced within the national juris-diction, whereas former are
enforced and applicable universally through-out the globe. The basic idea behind the Human
Rights is that there are certain rights which are to be res-pected in all parts of the
world for the sake of international peace and security as well as development of human
society. Theories of Natural Rights The most plausible explanation of human rights is
offered by the theory of Natural Rights. The theory of Natural Rights is called so because
 it is originated and grounded in the notion of Law of Nature, initially postulated by
Stoics and later elabo-rated by Romans. The Stoics held that human conduct should be
judged according to, and brought in to har-mony with, the Law of Nature. The Roman idea of
 jus gentium (law of nations) implied that there are certain universal rights which
extended beyond the rights of citizenship. The modern conception of natural laws implying
natural rights was elabora-ted primarily by the thinkers of 17th and 18th century such as
Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Locke and Rousseau. The theory of Natural Rights assumes
 that there are certain basic rights available to human beings by birth in the state of
nature before the origin of state and which are sanctioned by the law of nature. The very
purpose of the origin of state is to protect these rights. If the State fails to protects
these rights or abrogates these rights, the people have the natural right to overthrow the
state. John Locke, the main pro-pounder of natural rights, identifies three natural rights
namely right to life, liberty and property. Much of the philosophical base of the human
rights is derived from the theory of Natural Rights. The Principle of Reciprocity The
Golden Rule or the ethics of reciprocity states that one must do unto others as one would
be treated himself. This principle prescribes that reciprocal recognition and respect of
rights ensures that ones own rights would be protected. The principle of
reciprocity is found in almost all religions of the world. This principle was enshrined in
the Declaration towards a Global Ethic by the Parlia-ment of the World Religions in 1993.
 The other theories of human rights are The Instrumental Theory and the Interest theory.
The Instru-mental Theory is elaborated by the philosopher John Finnis. This theory
justifies human rights on the ground that these rights are instrumental in creating
necessary conditions for human well-being. Thus, the human rights should be available to
all as they are the fundamental require-ments for the survival and develop-ment of
civilized human beings. The Interest Theory asserts that the people respect the rights
of other individuals on the ground of their own self-interest. According to noted scholar
 Neeraj Nathwani, the human rights law, applied to a states own citizens serves the
interests of states by minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest and by
keeping the level of dissatisfaction among people within the manageable limits. Yet there
is another notion called Human Security Approach, which justifies human rights as a prior
 condition for ensuring human security. This school of thought challenges the traditional,
 state-based conception of security and argues that a people-focused approach to security
is more appropriate in modern interdependent world and would be more effective in
advancing the security of individuals and society across the globe. The international
 regime of human rights is a comple-mentary requirement to realize the new idea of human
 security. Criticism of Human Rights There are broadly two lines of criticisms against the
 notion of human rights. The first line of critics abhors any system of rights as a claim
against State and society. The conser-vative thinkers such as Edmund Burke, David Hume and
 more recently Alasdair McIntyre do not admit any system of natural rights as they are not
 sanctioned by society and culture and any public affir-mation of these rights may lead to
 social upheaval. The British legal philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, terms natural and human
rights as non-
sense upon stilts, as there can be no right without the legal sanction of the state. John
 S.tuart Mill also pro-claimed that rights ultimately are founded on utility. The
historicalist legal thinkers such as Sir Henry Maine and Savigny asserted that rights
are the function of cultural and environ-mental variables unique to particular
communities. The logical positivists of early 20th century insisted that the only truth
is that which can be established by verifiable experience and therefore any ethical
 pronounce-ment like human rights are not cog-nitively significant. Though Marxist ideas
 led to the emergence of the economic rights, yet Marx did not admit any role for a free
 human agency , which was subordinated to economic forces. The second line of criticism
of human rights relates to their main characteristics such as indivi4bility and
universality on various grounds. The opponents of indivisibility emphasize upon the
 categorization and priority of these rights as the civil and political rights are
fundamentally different from the economic, social and cultural rights in the sense that
 latter are positive, resource intensive, progressive, vague, ideologically divisive and
non-justiciable. In their book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights, Olivia Ball Paul
Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural
rights, it is easy to find example which do not fit the above categorization. Noted human
 rights expert Karel Vasak has offered another categorization under the title of Three
Generations of Human Rights (derived from three slogans- liberty, equality and fraternity
 of French Revolution): first generation of civil and political rights, second gene-ration
of economic, social and cultural rights and third generation of solidarity rights such as
right to peace and right to clean environment. Another expert, Philip Alston claims that,
 for pragmatic reasons, the prioritization of human rights is a widely accepted necessity.
 If every right is treated as important, nothing would be truly important. The idea of
cultural relativism is advanced against the element of universality of human rights by
scholars and political leaders of third world countries. It is
pratiyogita darpan magazine Sometimes it takes a good fall to really know where you stand.


rial interest resulting from cul-tural and scientific development. Human Rights Council
The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the UN system. It consists
of 47 members,
argued that the notion of human rights is a secularized version of Judeo-Christian
tradition, which is different from the cultural values of third world societies. Thus,
the debate over the nature of human rights goes unabated along with the continuing support
 to the culture of human rights. International Bill of Human Rights After the war, as the
inter-national community made efforts to evolve a new world order to ensure international
 peace and security, the question of basic rights of men became a matter of global concern.
 Since an international regime of these rights was to be evolved, they were termed as
human rights having universal character. The Charter of the UN affirmed its faith in the
fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of human person. The UN General
 Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948
incor-porating various civil, political, economic, cultural and social rights of all
human beings. Article 1 of the Declaration declares: all human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience---. Article 2
further affirms: everyone is enti-tled to all the freedoms set forth in this Declaration
 without distinction of any kind. Besides, the General Assembly also adopted two legally
 binding treaties in 1966- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which came into force
in 1976. These two Covenants along with the Uni-versal Declaration and other similar
covenants adopted from time to time are known as the International Bill of Human Rights.
 So far, the UN General Assembly has adopted nine covenants, which cover the wide range
of general as well as specific human rights. Also, the UN has evolved an elaborate
administrative arrangement for the better monitor-ing and enforcement of human rights.
The Human Right Council is the main enforcement UN agency. Some Voluntary Associations
 like Amnesty International (established in London in 1961) and Human Rights Watch
also supplement the activities of UN by raising the issues of human rights violations.
 The various Human Rights treaties, types of Human rights and the functioning of important
 human rights bodies are discussed below :
The Core International Human Rights Instruments There are nine core international human
 rights treaties. Each of these treaties has established a committee of experts to monitor
 implementation of the treaty provisions by its States parties. Some of the treaties are
supplemented by optional protocols dealing with specific concerns—S .N. Name of Human
Rights Treaty Date 1. ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
 Racial Discrimination Dec. 21, 1965 2. ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights Dec. 16, 1966 3. ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights Dec. 16, 1966 4. CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women Dec. 18, 1979 . CAT Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, / , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Dec. 10, 1984 6. CRC Convention
on the Rights of the Child Nov. 20, 1989 7. ICRMW International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Farnilies Dec.
18, 1990 8. 9. CPED CRPD International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
 Enforced Disappearance Dec. 20, 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Dec. 13, 2006
Categories of Human Rights As per the provisions contained in the Universal Declaration
 of Human Rights, the Human Rights may be classified into five categories: 1. Civil
 Rights : which include right to freedom of expression, move-ment, form association,
 right to nationality and to asylum. 2. Political Rights : which include right to take
 part in the political process of the government and right to equal access to hold public
 office. 3. Economic Rights : which include right to adequate standard of living, right
to property and right to rest and leisure, right to have social assistance. 4. Social
Rights : which include right to education and right to establish family. 5. Cultural
Rights : which include right to participation in the cul-tural life of community and
right to protection of moral and mate-
elected for a period of three years by the General Assembly. It is respon-sible for the
 promotion and protec-tion of human rights around the world. The Council was created by
the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006 with the main purpose of addressing situations
of human rights violations and making recommen-dations on them. The Human Rights Council,
replaced the Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Council is a forum empowered to
 prevent abuses, inequity and discri-mination, protect the most vulnerable and expose
perpetrators. The Human Rights Council is a separate entity from OHCHR. This distinction
 origi-nates from the separate mandates they were given by the General Assembly.
Nevertheless, OHCHR provides substantive support for the meetings of the Human Rights
 Council and follow-up to the Councils deliberations. Continued on Page 98
pratiyogita darpan magazine Cry. Forgive. Learn. Move on. Let your tears water the seeds of your
future happiness.
 

pratiyogita darpan magazine

pratiyogita darpan magazine subscribe

pratiyogita darpan magazine subscribe now

pratiyogita darpan magazine online subscription

pratiyogita darpan magazine shop online