If these notes turn out to be as useless as last minute exam motivation, kindly keep your

complaints to yourself, read at your risk.

HUMAN RIGHTS NOTES
Freedom as Human Rights
Poverty pushed you to state of unfreedom
Distinguishing btw civil/political rights and socio eco cultural rights is like drawing a line
on sand easy to draw hard to sustain.
First and Second-Generation Human Rights
The classification of human rights into "generations" helps explain the historical evolution of
the rights discourse.
 First Generation Rights: These are civil and political rights, often called "negative
rights" because they require the state to refrain from interfering with an individual's
liberty. They emerged from the Enlightenment and are enshrined in documents like the
U.S. Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Examples include
the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial.
 Second Generation Rights: These are socio-economic and cultural rights, often
called "positive rights" because they require the state to take proactive measures to
provide for its citizens. (infra) They arose in response to the social inequalities of the
industrial revolution. Examples include the right to work, housing, healthcare, social
security, and education.8
The core argument of Sen and Baxi is that while the first generation of rights is crucial, they
are largely meaningless for individuals who lack the second-generation rights. For a person
struggling with starvation, the right to vote or freedom of speech is a distant luxury.
How Poverty Leads to Unfreedom
Poverty is more than a lack of income; it is a profound state of unfreedom. Amartya Sen's work
provides the most comprehensive explanation for this.
 Poverty as Capability Deprivation: Sen argues that poverty should be defined not by
low income, but by a deprivation of capabilities.
 Unfreedom: For Sen, unfreedom is the lack of substantive opportunities and choices
a person has in their life. When a person is poor, their choices are severely limited. They
may have the "right" to a good education, but without the financial means or access to
a school, that right is a formal entitlement without any real substance. Poverty,
therefore, leads to a state of unfreedom by limiting a person's ability to act as a free
agent and pursue their goals.
Amartya Sen's Development, Freedom, and Capability Set
Sen's central thesis, as articulated in Development as Freedom, is that development is the
process of expanding human freedom. Economic growth is a tool for this, not the end goal
itself.
 Development: Is not merely an increase in GDP or industrialization. It is the removal
of major sources of unfreedom, such as poverty, tyranny, and lack of social
opportunities.
  Freedom: Is both the primary end goal of development and its principal means.
People's freedom to participate in political and economic life drives progress, and the
ultimate measure of that progress is the expansion of their freedom.
 Unfreedom: Is the state of being constrained by a lack of substantive choices. 19 This
includes not only political and civil repression but also economic deprivation, social
exclusion, and a lack of access to basic services.
 Capability Set: This concept is the cornerstone of Sen's theory. It moves beyond a
focus on resources (e.g., money or goods) and instead focuses on what people can do
or be with those resources. A person's "capability set" represents their true freedom. A
person with a large income but a severe disability may have a smaller capability set
than a person with less income but greater health and social opportunities.
In essence, Sen's framework connects these ideas by arguing that development must aim to
expand a person's capability set, thereby increasing their freedom and moving them out of a
state of unfreedom, which is fundamentally caused by poverty.
Upendra Baxi's westernised and neo global rights main point is that human rights aren't
just legal rules written down by governments. Instead, they are the constant, lived struggles
of ordinary people for dignity and survival. He argues that the traditional human rights system,
which is often tied to Western ideas and legal frameworks, doesn't do a good job of helping the
world's most vulnerable people.
In simple terms, Baxi believes:
 States can't be trusted as the sole protectors of rights. Governments often violate
human rights, so we can't rely on them alone to fix the problems.
 The "Right to be Human" is what truly matters. This isn't a legal right, but a
fundamental moral claim that people make just by existing. When a poor farmer fights
for their land or a displaced family demands a home, they are asserting this basic right
to be treated as a human being.
 Development itself can be violent. Projects meant to help a country's economy, like
building a new dam or factory, can actually cause immense suffering by displacing
communities and destroying their way of life. This is what he calls the "violence of
development."
 Freedom is fought for, not given. For Baxi, true freedom isn't a gift from a government
but something that marginalized people must constantly struggle for against powerful
forces.
Baxi's point of view is a critical reminder that while laws are important, the real fight for human
rights happens every day on the ground, in the struggles of people trying to secure their basic
dignity against a system that often works against them.
Domestic and statutory rights versus international human rights
The provided text comprehensively explains the complex relationship between domestic and
international human rights in a dualist legal system like India's. This relationship is not one of
automatic incorporation but rather a dynamic interaction where domestic courts act as a crucial
link, using international norms to strengthen and interpret national laws while navigating
fundamental ideological debates.
Domestic vs. International Human Rights
The core distinction lies in their origin and enforceability. Constitutional and statutory rights
are legally binding within a country because they are enshrined in its supreme law or enacted
by its legislature. A citizen can directly petition a domestic court for their enforcement. In
contrast, international human rights are global standards established by treaties and
customary law.1 They create an obligation for states on the international stage, but they are not
directly enforceable in domestic courts unless the state ratifies them and enacts corresponding
domestic legislation.
The Role of the Indian Judiciary
Despite India's dualist system, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in incorporating international
human rights principles into domestic law.2 Courts frequently cite international instruments,
even those not ratified, for several key reasons:
 Interpretation of Domestic Law: When a domestic law is vague or ambiguous, judges
refer to international human rights standards to interpret its meaning in a way that is
consistent with global norms.
 Filling a Legislative Vacuum: In the absence of a specific domestic law, courts can
use international conventions to establish guidelines and frameworks. The landmark
Vishaka case and JJ act is a prime example, where the Supreme Court cited
international conventions to create guidelines against sexual harassment at the
workplace before a dedicated law was passed.3
 Reflecting Evolving Global Consciousness: Citing these norms allows the judiciary
to align the country's legal system with the international consensus on human rights,
thereby strengthening the rule of law.
This judicial practice is further highlighted by the Mohammed Salimullah case, which
demonstrates the application of the principle of non-refoulement—a rule that a country cannot
return a person to a place where they would face persecution. India has not ratified the relevant
UN conventions, yet the court applied this principle, viewing it as a jus cogens (a fundamental,
peremptory norm of international law). This shows that certain human rights are considered so
universal that they bind states regardless of formal ratification.
The Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism Debate
French idea of natural rights later became Human Rights,
The idea of Human rights is different for every country in terms of their social political
cultural difference. E.g. Ambit of article 21 is different in different jurisdictions of the
world.
 Universalism asserts that human rights are inherent and apply to everyone, everywhere,
regardless of cultural context.
 Cultural relativism argues that human rights are shaped by cultural values and should
be interpreted accordingly.
This conflict is sharply visible in India's stance on the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
While India's Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution to
include protection from torture, the country has signed but not ratified the CAT. This creates a
clear contradiction:
  The Cultural Relativist Argument suggests that existing domestic laws are sufficient
and that ratifying the CAT would be an unwanted external imposition on India's
sovereignty.
 The Universalist Argument from human rights advocates counters that the prohibition
of torture is an absolute, universal right. They argue that India's failure to ratify the CAT
leaves a legal gap and prevents the country from being held accountable to international
standards on this fundamental issue, despite the Supreme Court's strong stance.
Example- South Africa has a long history where discrimination was structured mainly around
race/colour, especially under apartheid.
 India has historically experienced systemic discrimination primarily around caste,
though other bases (religion, gender, ethnicity) also exist.
So your comparison captures the major historical distinction accurately.
e.g. Burning USA flag do not fall under sedition as it is freedom of speech and expression but
the situation is different in other jurisdictions China or India.
ABORTION, DEATH PENALTY india has not rectified ICCPR protocol 1 and 2 shows
cultural realativism ETC WE NEVER SIGNED IT NOT UNIVERSAL IN NATURE
UDHR 30 ARTICLE NOT BINDING
Huntington's Core Thesis CLASH OF CIVILIZATION
In his book, Huntington argues that the end of the Cold War did not lead to a unified, peaceful
world. Instead, he predicted that the primary axis of future conflicts would be cultural and
civilizational, replacing the ideological divisions of the past (like capitalism vs. communism).
He identified several major civilizations (e.g., Western, Sinic, Islamic, Orthodox) and argued
that the "fault lines" between them would be the battle lines of the future. The core differences
are rooted in fundamental values, traditions, and, most importantly, religion.
Universalism is the belief that certain values, principles, and rights are applicable to all people,
regardless of their cultural background. Proponents of universalism often point to things like
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as evidence that a common, global human culture
is possible and desirable.
 Huntington's Rejection of Universalism: Huntington directly challenges this view.
He explicitly states that the Western belief in the universality of its values—such as
democracy, individualism, and human rights—is false, immoral, and dangerous.
o False: Because these values are products of a unique Western experience and are not
shared by other civilizations.
o Immoral: Because it justifies a kind of cultural imperialism where the West tries to
impose its norms on others.
o Dangerous: Because this imposition will inevitably lead to conflict and resentment from
non-Western civilizations that are increasingly asserting their own cultural identity
How human rights are decided?
[Link] Contract Theory: From State of Nature to Civil Society
Social contract theory, as articulated by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, posits that a society's
members agree to give up some of their freedoms in exchange for the benefits of an organized
society. This idea is foundational to how we think about rights.
 Thomas Hobbes: Human rights, in this view, are essentially decided by the state to
maintain order and prevent a return to the violent state of nature. They are not inherent
but are granted by the sovereign.
 John Locke: Therefore, human rights are not decided by the state; they are
fundamental, pre-existing rights that a legitimate government must uphold.
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "general will" of the community.8
2. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Bargaining Power Asymmetry
This concept shifts the focus from abstract philosophy to real-world politics. Bilateral
Investment Treaties (BITs) are agreements between two countries that set the rules for foreign
investment.10
Bargaining power asymmetry refers to a situation where one party (usually a powerful
developed nation or multinational corporation) has significantly more leverage than the other
(a developing or less powerful nation).
 How it Affects Human Rights: In this context, human rights are not decided
philosophically but through practical negotiations. A powerful country or corporation
might demand provisions in a BIT that prioritize investor protections over human rights
or environmental regulations. For example, a corporation might be able to sue a
government for implementing a new labor law or environmental protection that it
claims "expropriates" its profits. This can create a chilling effect, where countries are
hesitant to legislate in a way that protects human rights for fear of being sued for billions
of dollars. The content of human rights, in this situation, is effectively decided by a
bargain that favors the interests of powerful economic actors over the well-being of the
local population.
3. Deciding Human Rights in a Multicultural State
In a world of diverse cultures, the question arises: whose values should define human rights?
This is a central debate between universalism and cultural relativism.
 Jürgen Habermas (Communicative Action): Habermas offers a way for multicultural
states to decide on human rights through a process of deliberative democracy. He
argues that human rights are not a set of static, pre-given truths, nor are they simply a
product of a historical consensus. Instead, they are the result of an ongoing process of
rational discourse and public debate.
Though it seems like a ideal situation but the tone of the debate is already set by the
proposer between a to b and one cannot move to c and d in this debate. You think you
have choice but you don’t because your choice is restricted.
 "Extremely Utopian" (Ideal Universalism): This approach stands in stark contrast to
Habermas's process-oriented view. This perspective holds that human rights are a fixed,
objective, and timeless set of principles. They are not to be debated or decided by a
community but are inherent moral truths that all societies must recognize and
implement.
Manual scavengers
Manual scavenging is the caste-based, inhuman practice of cleaning, carrying, and disposing
of human excreta from insanitary toilets and open drains, often by hand.1 Despite being banned
by law, it persists due to deep-rooted social, economic, and systemic issues.
we're not paying the other person to clean but we're abusing our economic privilege &
capability to pay against the person who doesn't have the option as we have, is unfreed
in the eyes of Amartya Sen
MS Act do not prohibit manual scavenging it only prohibit it with bare hands.
The Social and Economic Reality of Manual Scavenging
The practice of manual scavenging is inextricably linked to India's caste system.3 For centuries,
the work of cleaning human waste has been a forced occupation for specific communities at
the bottom of the social hierarchy, primarily Dalits.4 This work is considered "polluting,"
reinforcing the social stigma and untouchability associated with these groups. 5 This historical
discrimination traps them in a cycle of poverty and social exclusion. 6 They are often denied
other forms of employment due to their caste and are therefore economically dependent on this
degrading work.7
The economic exploitation is further perpetuated by a tender system, particularly in
government organizations like the Indian Railways and various municipalities. Rather than
directly employing sanitation workers and providing them with proper equipment and benefits,
these bodies often outsource the work to private contractors through a tender system. 8 These
contractors then hire manual scavengers, paying them meagre wages and providing no safety
gear, thereby absolving the main agency of legal liability and accountability.
The Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA), a movement led by activist Bezwada Wilson, has
been at the forefront of the fight to eradicate this practice. 9 SKA has actively campaigned to
liberate scavengers and has filed numerous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to hold the
government and private entities accountable. Wilson, a Magsaysay Award winner, and SKA
have exposed the hypocrisy of a system that bans the practice but fails to provide genuine
rehabilitation and dignity to those involved.10
The Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act, 2013
The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
aims to completely eliminate manual scavenging. 11 However, it has been widely criticized for
its shortcomings in implementation.
 What the Act Does:
o It bans the employment of a person as a manual scavenger and prohibits the
construction of insanitary latrines. 12
o It makes the practice a cognizable and non-bailable offense.13
o It outlines provisions for the rehabilitation of identified manual scavengers,
including one-time cash assistance, skill development training, and housing
support.14
o It also prohibits the hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without
proper safety equipment.15
  The Act's Shortcomings:
o Loophole in Section 2(g): The Act defines a "manual scavenger" as someone
who cleans "before the excreta fully decomposes." This vague wording creates
a major loophole, as it can be interpreted to mean that cleaning decomposed
waste (or "sludge") is not manual scavenging, a distinction often exploited by
contractors and agencies.
o Sec 2(d) “hazardous cleaning” by an employee, in relation to a sewer or septic
tank, means its manual cleaning by such employee without the employer
fulfilling his obligations to provide protective gear and other cleaning devices
and ensuring observance of safety precautions, as may be prescribed or provided
in any other law, for the time being in force or rules made thereunder;
o Lack of Enforcement: Despite the law, manual scavenging continues, and
there is a severe lack of legal prosecution.16 Government bodies, including the
Railways, often claim they are free of manual scavengers while simultaneously
employing them through contractors.
o Compensation for Deaths: The Act does not explicitly mandate compensation
for deaths in sewer cleaning. While the Supreme Court has recently ordered
that families of sanitation workers who die on the job be paid compensation of
₹30 lakh, this is a judicial direction, not a statutory provision within the Act
itself.
o Rehabilitation Failures: The rehabilitation programs are often poorly
implemented. Many identified manual scavengers receive a one-time payment
but are not given the long-term support, skill training, or dignified employment
they need to truly escape the profession.
In essence, while the Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act, 2013, is a significant legal step,
it has failed to eradicate the practice on the ground. The persistence of manual scavenging
highlights the gap between legal intent and on-the-ground reality, where caste-based
discrimination, economic exploitation, and a lack of accountability continue to plague those
trapped in this dehumanizing work.21
Selective enforcement
Introduction to Selective Enforcement: This section established the core concept of selective
enforcement as the biased application of laws, highlighting its negative impact on the principle
of equality and its disproportionate effect on marginalized groups.
Analysis of Law Enforcement Discrepancies: This part delved into specific examples to
illustrate the concept.
1. Traffic Laws: Examined how traffic law enforcement can be a form of selective
enforcement, particularly when it is perceived as a revenue-generating activity rather
than a consistent effort to ensure public safety.
2. Pandemic Policing: Utilized the "COuntermapping Pandemic Policing Report to
provide a concrete case study. It detailed how police actions during the COVID-19
lockdowns in Madhya Pradesh disproportionately targeted the poor and marginalized
communities, demonstrating how existing laws can be used as tools for "casteist social
control." ”2 percent of the apprehended individuals belonged to SC/ST/OBC
community and over policing of marginalised section under the anti gambling and
 MP excise act. These showcase the deep rooted colonial and historical bias against
the poor and marginalised castes.
3. Criminal Justice for High-Profile Individuals: Addressed the query about Salman
Khan and Sanjay Dutt, arguing that their cases are often cited as examples of how
subjective enforcement agencies can be, even when the law itself is objective. It
highlighted the perception that wealth and fame can influence legal outcomes and
procedures.
Modern Slavery and Legal Insufficiency
Walk Free Foundation's reports
Modern slavery includes forced labour, forced or servile marriage, debt bondage, forced
commercial sexual exploitation, human trafficking, slavery-like practices, and the sale and
exploitation of children. In all its forms, it is the removal of a person’s freedom — their freedom
to accept or refuse a job, their freedom to leave one employer for another, or their freedom to
decide if, when, and whom to marry — in order to exploit them for personal or financial gain.
Modern Slavery and Legal Insufficiency
This part connects the abstract concept of modern slavery to real-world data and the failure of
legal systems.
 Scale of Modern Slavery: The Walk Free Foundation's Global Slavery Index reports
for 2013 and 2023 are used to show the immense scale of modern slavery in India,
consistently ranking the country with the highest number of people in such conditions.
 Legal Gaps: This section explains that despite having laws like the Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, these statutes are considered insufficient because they are
narrow in scope, poorly enforced, and lack adequate provisions for victim rehabilitation
and protection. This lack of effective enforcement undermines the very purpose of the
law.
Based on the CNN and Walk Free articles
The Human Cost of Fast Fashion
Modern slavery is deeply embedded in the supply chains of the global garment industry. The
industry has doubled in size in the last 15 years, largely due to the demand for fast fashion,
which fuels the exploitation of workers. Workers face exploitative conditions, including forced
labor and debt bondage.
The CNN article, "Silk Slaves," highlights this issue within India's silk industry. It reveals how
bonded labor traps individuals and families who are forced to work in terrible conditions to pay
off a debt. The documentary follows the story of a mother and daughter, Hadia and Naseeba,
who worked 12-hour days in a factory under extreme conditions to pay off a loan. Despite their
long hours, the loan doubled due to high interest rates, making it impossible to pay back6. This
cycle of debt and forced labor is a form of modern slavery7.
Causes and Contributing Factors
The documents identify several key factors that enable modern slavery in the garment industry:
 Poverty and Debt Bondage: The CNN article explains that workers are often forced
into debt bondage after taking out a loan. The GSI Garments Essay adds that forced
marriage is also a way to preserve this slave labor force in countries that sell cheap
 labor. As a survivor of forced child labor and forced marriage, Nasreen Sheikh reveals
in the GSI Garments Essay that forced marriage impedes girls' education and
opportunities, making them more vulnerable to exploitative work 10.
 Lack of Transparency: Businesses have increasingly complex global supply chains
that lack transparency regarding who is working where and under what conditions. This
allows companies to "turn a blind eye" to modern slavery risks and prioritize profit over
people12.
 Government and Corporate Inaction: According to the GSI Garments Essay, while
some governments are taking steps, there are serious gaps in legislation that companies
can exploit. The essay states that corporate social responsibility is often voluntary, and
modern slavery reporting legislation often lacks consequences for non-compliance.
Human Rights Violations
The exploitation detailed in these articles constitutes severe human rights violations:
 Forced Labor: Workers are compelled to work long hours under inhumane conditions,
often for little or no pay, violating their right to a fair and just wage and their freedom
of movement1515.
 Child Labor: The CNN report and the GSI Garments Essay reveal that children are
victims of this system. The CNN report notes that a child, Naseeba, had been working
in a silk factory for three years. Nasreen Sheikh, in the GSI Garments Essay, recounts
her own experience as a child working 12 to 15 hours a day in a textile sweatshop for
less than $2 per shift.
 Loss of Dignity and Autonomy: As Nasreen Sheikh notes, the lives of these workers
are "marred by poverty, inhumane working conditions, and unimaginable exploitation,"
with "suffering woven into each fiber"18. The CNN article also details the fear the
workers feel and their inability to leave due to debt and intimidation19.
The Call for Action
Both articles suggest solutions to combat modern slavery in the garment industry:
 From the GSI Garments Essay: The author calls for radical supply chain
transparency and non-negotiable, meaningful engagement from all businesses. The
essay also recommends modern slavery legislation that imposes a duty to protect
all workers and holds companies liable for inaction.
 From the CNN Article: The documentary, created as part of "The Freedom Project,"
works to highlight the issue and help people trapped in bonded labor find freedom. The
article notes that organizations like Jeevika work to identify bonded laborers and help
them file applications for their release and rehabilitation. This underscores the
importance of on-the-ground support and legal action.
4. Modern Slavery and Amartya Sen's Concept of "Unfreedom"
This final section provides a theoretical framework to understand the human cost of modern
slavery.
 Sen's Concept of Unfreedom: The response explains Amartya Sen's idea that
unfreedom is not just physical confinement but a deprivation of "substantive freedoms"
or capabilities—the ability to live a life one values.
  Modern Slavery as Ultimate Unfreedom: Modern slavery is positioned as the most
extreme manifestation of this unfreedom. The essay's author, a former child labourer,
serves as a living example of this concept, as her personal freedoms—to choose her
life, to get an education, to be safe—were completely taken away. This highlights that
modern slavery is a severe symptom of broader societal deprivations and systemic
failures that strip individuals of their autonomy. 3
HR AND ENVIRONMENT VANDHANA SHIVA BOOK EARTH DEMOCRACY
WHETHER HUMAN ARE PART OF Environment OR Environment IS FACET OF HUMAN
The Human-Environment Relationship: A Philosophical Divide
The understanding of the human-environment relationship in India and the West has been
shaped by fundamentally different philosophical traditions.
 The Ancient Indian View: Ancient Indian texts, including the Vedas and Upanishads,
espouse a worldview where humans are an integral part of nature.1 According to article
21 environment is inherent to human existence.
 The Cartesian Detachment: In stark contrast, the French mathematician and philosopher
René Descartes introduced the concept of Cartesian dualism. While primarily known
for the separation of mind and body, this philosophy has been widely interpreted to
extend to the separation of humans from nature. Descartes viewed the body as a mere
machine ("extended, non-thinking thing") and nature as a separate, inanimate entity to
be studied, controlled, and exploited by the human mind. This "detachment" from
nature paved the way for a more mechanistic and instrumental approach to the
environment, where it is seen as a resource for human use rather than a living system
of which we are a part.
2. The Narrow Definition of Development in India
Despite its ancient philosophical heritage, India's modern development trajectory has largely
adopted a Western-inspired, economic-centric model, leading to significant contradictions.
 Development as Economic Growth: In the post-independence era, India's
development model, inspired by the Soviet model of central planning, prioritized rapid
industrialization. The focus was on building heavy industries and capital-intensive
projects. This model defines development almost exclusively in terms of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and industrial output. A new factory is considered a measure
of progress because it creates jobs and contributes to the economy.
 Ignoring Human and Environmental Well-being: This narrow definition often
disregards crucial non-economic factors. As the user points out, setting up a factory is
seen as development, but ensuring healthcare and a pollution-free environment are
often treated as secondary concerns or "negative externalities." This is a fundamental
contradiction, as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to a healthy
environment as an extension of the right to life. The social and environmental costs of
this model are significant, including air and water pollution from coal-based power
plants, a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and depleted groundwater, all of which directly
affect public health and quality of life.
 E.g. villages and remote areas are considered underdeveloped
 E.g. Higher loans on the poorer countries indirectly on the basis of contribution.
Sustainable development: Define
Who decide what is development?
We adopted the idea Imperialism development they decide what is development. Impose it on
the other their economic interests.
RATHER THAN ADJUSTING OURSELF AS PER ENVIRONMENTAL, WE ARE
ADJUSTING ENVIRONMENT IN THE NAME OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELPOMENT
Positive and Negative Rights
In legal and political philosophy, the distinction between positive and negative rights is based
on the nature of the duty they impose on others, particularly the state.
 Negative Rights are "freedom from" something. They impose a duty on the state to
refrain from interfering with an individual's life or liberty. These rights are often
associated with civil and political liberties, as they require non-interference. For
example, the right to free speech is a negative right—it means the government cannot
stop you from speaking.
 Positive Rights are "entitlement to" something. They impose a duty on the state to take
action to provide a service, benefit, or good to its citizens. These are often social and
economic rights that require active provision by the government. For example, the right
to education or healthcare would be a positive right, as it obligates the state to provide
these services.
The Indian Supreme Court has recognized both types of rights, often reading them into the
fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
General Case Law
The Supreme Court has interpreted various rights as having both positive and negative
dimensions.
 Article 14 (Right to Equality) is a classic example. The Court has distinguished
between:
o "Equality before the law", a negative concept that means the state shall not deny
any person equal treatment under the law. It prohibits discrimination.
o "Equal protection of the laws", a positive concept that requires the state to take
affirmative action to ensure that all persons are treated equally in similar
circumstances. It compels the state to act to protect rights.
Right to Environment: Case Laws of the Supreme Court
The Indian Supreme Court has creatively interpreted the Right to a Healthy Environment as
an implicit part of the Right to Life under Article 21, thereby establishing it as both a positive
and negative right.
Right to Environment as a Negative Right
This interpretation restricts the state and private actors from engaging in activities that cause
environmental degradation. The state has a negative duty to not interfere with a citizen's right
to a clean environment.
  Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1985): This landmark
case, also known as the Dehradun Quarrying case, is a primary example. The
Supreme Court, in response to a public interest litigation, ordered the closure of several
limestone quarries in the Doon Valley. The Court held that the indiscriminate mining
was a violation of the fundamental right to life, as it caused severe ecological damage,
including landslides and water source depletion. The Court's order to cease an activity
(mining) is a clear demonstration of its enforcement of a negative right—the right to be
free from environmental harm caused by others.
Right to Environment as a Positive Right
This interpretation obligates the state to actively take measures to protect, preserve, and
improve the environment for the well-being of its citizens.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak case): Following a gas leak
from a factory in Delhi, the Supreme Court did not just order the closure of the factory
but also established the principle of absolute liability. The Court laid down that an
enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity has an absolute and non-delegable duty to
ensure no harm results from it. This ruling imposed a positive duty on industries and
the state to take proactive measures to prevent environmental disasters. It went beyond
merely stopping a harmful activity and commanded active, forward-looking
responsibility.
 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): The Supreme Court explicitly held that the
"right to life... includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air."
While the specific petition in this case was dismissed on technical grounds, the
judgment firmly established the right to a healthy environment as an enforceable
positive right. It affirmed that citizens can approach the court to compel the state to take
action to remove environmental pollution that is detrimental to the quality of life.
Norms
Norms are legal standards upon which legal concept/theories principles are based.
The normativity of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty, has been fundamentally reshaped to combat environmental injustice. This
jurisprudence has created legal norms that prioritize environmental protection and hold
polluters accountable, particularly when vulnerable communities are disproportionately
affected.
Here are four key case laws that illustrate the normativity of Article 21 in addressing
environmental injustice:
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Ganga Pollution Case)
 Principle Established: The Polluter Pays Principle was established as a legal norm.
 Normativity: The court recognized that the right to a clean environment is an integral
part of the right to life. It held that industries discharging untreated effluents into the
Ganga River were not only violating the law but also infringing upon the fundamental
right of the public to a clean and healthy environment. The normativity of this judgment
lies in its directive that the financial cost of preventing and remedying environmental
damage should be borne by the polluter, not the public. This principle shifted the burden
of environmental protection onto industries, thereby addressing environmental injustice
where the poor often suffer the most from corporate pollution.
2. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
 Principle Established: The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle were
formally incorporated into Indian environmental law.
 Normativity: This case dealt with the severe pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil
Nadu, which were contaminating groundwater and agricultural land, affecting the
livelihoods of local villagers. The court ruled that in cases of scientific uncertainty,
environmental protection must take precedence over development. This created a legal
norm requiring the government and industries to anticipate and prevent environmental
harm rather than simply reacting to it. It also reinforced that those who pollute must
compensate for the damage, underscoring the legal obligation to rectify environmental
injustice and protect the right to life of vulnerable communities.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
 Principle Established: The Absolute Liability Principle was reaffirmed, and the court
introduced the concept of "restitution".
 Normativity: In this case concerning the highly polluting chemical industries in
Rajasthan, the court held that once an activity is proved to be hazardous, the polluter is
absolutely liable for the harm caused, regardless of any negligence on their part. The
court further mandated that the polluter must pay not only for compensation but also
for the cost of environmental restoration and cleanup. This established a robust norm
that those who profit from hazardous activities must bear the full cost of any resulting
harm, thereby providing a powerful legal tool to counter the environmental injustice
faced by communities living near such industries.
4. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
 Principle Established: The right to a clean and healthy environment, including
pollution-free air and water, was explicitly recognized as a fundamental right.
 Normativity: The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes
the right to enjoy pollution-free water and air. While the court dismissed the specific
petition in this case, its pronouncement created a strong legal norm that a citizen has
the right to move the court for the prevention of pollution that may be detrimental to
the quality of life. This landmark statement made it possible for future public interest
litigation to be filed to protect the fundamental right of all citizens to a healthy
environment, particularly those who are marginalized and whose health is threatened
by environmental degradation.
Evolution of Human Rights
The historical evolution of human rights is a gradual, often uneven, process that has
transformed the idea of protections from specific, local charters into a global concept of
universal, inherent rights. The conquering of Babylonia and the British, American, and French
Revolutions represent pivotal moments in this evolution.
The Cyrus Cylinder: An Early Precedent
In 539 B.C., after conquering Babylon, Cyrus the Great issued a decree on a baked-clay
cylinder. The Cyrus Cylinder declared that all people were free to choose their own religion,
abolished slavery, and established racial equality. This document is widely recognized as the
world's first charter of human rights. While its scope was limited to Cyrus's empire, its
principles of tolerance and human dignity are seen as a precursor to the first four articles of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and laid a foundation for the idea that a ruler’s power
was not absolute.
British and American Revolutions
The path to modern human rights was greatly influenced by a series of legal and political
changes in England and its colonies that sought to limit the power of the sovereign.
 Magna Carta (1215): This "Great Charter" was a key turning point. 5 After King John of
England violated ancient laws, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which
introduced the principle that the king was not above the law. It established due process
and asserted that a person could not be imprisoned without cause, laying the
groundwork for the Rule of Law.
 English Bill of Rights (1689): Following the Glorious Revolution, this document
further limited the power of the monarchy and asserted the rights of Parliament. 9 It
guaranteed certain civil rights, such as the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment,
and influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights. 10
 American Revolution (1776): The American Declaration of Independence boldly
proclaimed that "all men are created equal" and are endowed with "certain unalienable
Rights," including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."11 inherent natural rights
that belong to all people. This concept of universal, God-given rights became a
foundational principle. The subsequent U.S. Bill of Rights (1791) enshrined these
freedoms, protecting rights like freedom of speech, religion, and the press from
government interference.
The French Revolution
The French Revolution was a turning point that explicitly placed the concept of universal rights
at the center of political change. Genesis of natural rights later became human rights.
Certain natural rights which cannot be taken away by anyone.
 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789): Inspired by Enlightenment
ideals and the American Revolution, this document was one of the most significant
charters of human liberties. Its central claim was that "Men are born and remain free
and equal in rights." It explicitly listed rights such as liberty, property, security, and
resistance to oppression. The Declaration also stated that all citizens were equal before
the law and had the right to participate in legislation. It enshrined freedom of religion
and speech, setting a standard for political and civil rights that would influence
constitutions and human rights documents worldwide.
While these revolutions laid the foundation for modern human rights, it's important to note that
their original application was often limited, as they largely excluded women, people of colour,
and other marginalized groups from their protections.
Human Rights and Group Rights: A Complex Relationship
The Basic Idea of Human Rights IN THE BOOK HUMAN RIGHTS THE HARD
QUESTION
The document starts with the idea that human rights are fundamentally individual rights
because they belong to each person. However, the author argues against the criticism that
human rights are "individualistic" in a negative way. The paper explains that human rights are
meant to protect and support all kinds of human life, including our social and community lives.
Individual Rights vs. Group Rights
The paper makes a clear distinction between these two types of rights:
 Individual Rights: These are rights held by a single person. Even if someone has a
right because they belong to a group (like a sports club or a religious group), it is still
an individual right. The person holds and exercises that right on their own. The paper
notes that most human rights, even those for specific categories of people like women
or children, are individual rights.
 Group Rights: These are rights that belong to the group as a whole, not just to each
member individually. A group has a group right if it has an interest as a collective entity.
The paper clarifies that individual rights like freedom of association and freedom of
expression are crucial for group activities. For example, two people debating are jointly
exercising their individual right to free expression, not a single collective right. Similarly, a
person's right to worship "in community with others" is an individual right that enables
collective action.
When a Right Must Be a Group Right
The document argues that some rights only make sense as group rights. The main example
given is the right of a people to self-determination.
 This is not a collection of individual rights, but a right belonging to the group as a
whole.
 The paper explains that if this were an individual right, a single person would have a
right to decide the fate of an entire group, which goes against the core human rights
idea that all individuals have equal moral standing.
Two Ways of Thinking About Group Rights
The paper describes two main ways to understand a group right:
1. Corporate Conception: This view sees a group as a single, separate entity with its own
rights, just like a corporation has legal rights. The rights belong to the group itself ("its"
rights), not to the members ("their" rights). The author suggests this view is hard to
reconcile with the idea that human rights are only for individual human beings.
2. Collective Conception: This is the preferred view in the document. It sees a group right
as a right held jointly by the individuals in that group. The rights are "their" rights, held
together as a unit. This is considered more consistent with human rights principles
because the rights are still held by human persons, just not on their own. The right to a
people's self-determination, for example, is a right held jointly by all the individuals in
that group.
Examples of Collective Human Rights
The paper provides several examples of rights that can be understood through the collective
model:
  Protection of Religious Sites: The desecration of a sacred site violates a collective
right of the religion's followers. It's a single right with a single object (the site), which
cannot be divided up among individuals.
 Language Preservation: The right of a minority group to have its language protected
is a collective right. The resources and effort needed for this are for the entire group,
and the loss of a language is a harm to the community as a whole.
 Indigenous Peoples' Rights: The document highlights that the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) explicitly recognizes group rights. These rights,
such as the right to maintain distinct institutions and cultural traditions, are collective
because their objects are things that indigenous people hold together.
CONFLICT
The Real-World Fear of Group Rights
Finally, the paper touches on the practical reason why many people are against the idea of group
rights: the fear of abuse of power. Human rights were created to protect individuals from
powerful groups, including governments. Granting rights to groups might accidentally give
more power to these entities, which could then be used to oppress individuals within the group.
The "fish example" is used in the article to draw a clear distinction between a true group right
and a "group-differentiated individual right," which are often confused. The core difference
lies in who the holder of the right is.
The Fish Example Explained
Imagine a situation where a right to fish in a specific area is granted to an indigenous
community.
 Group-Differentiated Individual Right: According to the article, this would be the
case if every individual member of that community has the right to fish on their own.
Each person, simply by being a member of the group, can go to that specific body of
water and fish. They do not need to get permission from the group as a whole, and their
decision to fish or not is a personal one. The right belongs to them as an individual,
even though it's a right they have only because of their group membership. This type of
right is what the article calls a "group-differentiated individual right."
 True Group Right: In contrast, a true group right would be vested in the indigenous
community as a collective entity. In this scenario, the right to fish belongs to the group
as a whole, not to any single person. The group would have to make a collective
decision about how to use that right—for example, by establishing rules for who can
fish, when, and how much, or by selling the right to another party to benefit the entire
community. No single individual could simply go and fish on their own without the
group's permission.
The key takeaway is that if a right can be exercised by an individual without a collective
decision, it is an individual right, even if it is a special right tied to their group. The term "group
right" should be reserved for rights that can only be exercised by the collective.
HR VERSES COPYRIGHT
The relationship between human rights and copyright law is a complex issue, particularly in
the context of the right to education (RTE). The core of the conflict lies in a fundamental
question: should the exclusive commercial rights of a creator or publisher take precedence over
the public's right to access knowledge and education?
The Rameshwar Photocopier case, also known as the Delhi University Photocopy case, is a
landmark legal battle in India that directly addressed this conflict.1
The Rameshwar Photocopier Case: RTE vs. Copyright
 The Parties: Major international publishers, including Oxford University Press and
Cambridge University Press, sued Rameshwari Photocopy Services, a small shop
licensed to operate within the Delhi School of Economics (part of Delhi University). 2
The publishers alleged that by creating and selling photocopied "course packs" for
students, the shop and the university were infringing on their copyrights. 3
 The Arguments:
o Publishers: Argued that the creation of course packs was an act of commercial
infringement.4 They maintained that their copyrights were being violated on a
massive scale, leading to a loss of revenue and undermining the economic
incentive for creating academic works.5
o Defendants (RPS & DU): Argued that their actions were protected under the
"fair dealing" provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.6 Specifically, they
invoked Section 52(1)(i), which allows for the "reproduction of any work by a
teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction."7 They contended that the purpose
of the photocopying was not commercial exploitation but to ensure equitable
access to education, especially for students who could not afford to buy all the
expensive textbooks.8
 The Verdict: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the university and the photocopy
shop.9 The court held that the right to education is a fundamental human right that must
be balanced with copyright law. It made several key observations:
o Copyright is a Statutory Right, not a Natural Right:10 The court emphasized
that copyright is a right granted by law, and as such, it is not absolute. 11 Its
purpose is to encourage creativity for the benefit of the public, not to provide
authors and publishers with unlimited control.
o Broad Interpretation of Fair Dealing: The court gave a liberal interpretation
to Section 52(1)(i), stating that the phrase "in the course of instruction" should
not be narrowly defined. It held that creating course packs, even with multiple
copies, was a legitimate act that fell within this exception, especially given the
socio-economic realities of a developing country like India. 12
o No Commercial Competition: The court found that the photocopy shop was
not a "competitor" to the publishers. It reasoned that students who were using
the course packs would likely not have purchased the expensive original books
anyway, so there was no demonstrable market loss for the publishers. 13.
 The Human Rights Perspective (RTE): From a human rights standpoint, the case
affirms that access to knowledge is a crucial component of the right to education,
as recognized in international instruments.14 When copyright laws create barriers to this
access (e.g., through prohibitively high costs), they can be seen as an impediment to a
fundamental human right.
Economic Globalization and its Impact
john linarelli misrey of international law
law sometime ensure that poverty is created so that rich becomes richer
Economic globalization is the dominant type of globalization, and it's powered by institutions
like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions promote policies that create a collective force of
capitalism. However, this has led to significant problems:
 Poverty and Inequality: The process of globalization has widened the gap between
the rich and the poor, and some documents assert that poverty is a violation of human
rights1.
 Power Imbalance: Globalization has created a power imbalance between developed
"North" and developing "South" nations. There are no forums like the WTO's Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) to address human rights violations caused by these economic
policies.
 Sovereignty vs. Supremacy: There's a core irony in international law. While the UN
Charter states that all nations have sovereign equality ARTICLE 1 the veto power
ARTICLE 27(3) of five countries in the UN Security Council ensures their political
supremacy, giving them an outsized say in global affairs.
The Response: Anti-Globalization and the Role of Human Rights
The negative effects of globalization have led to the anti-globalization movement, which
Rahmatullah Khan calls "law-making on the streets". This movement is a powerful example
of how individual rights like the freedom to protest and associate with others are used for
collective action to challenge powerful systems.
 Joseph Raz and Thomas Pogge: Philosophers like Joseph Raz and Thomas Pogge
provide a strong moral basis for this movement. Joseph Raz's "interest theory" of
rights suggests that the interest in not being in poverty is a fundamental human right.
Therefore, when international trade laws cause poverty, they are violating a basic
human right. This perspective, along with that of Thomas Pogge, argues that
international trade and investment laws have actually made poverty worse.
"Chapter 5 of Imperialism, Sovereignty and Making of International Law," ANTONY
ANGHIE
Globalization as a New Form of Imperialism
The document defines globalization as the triumph of capitalism and the internationalization
of production and financial services1. It is not a natural or neutral process but one "forcefully
advanced" by powerful international financial institutions (IFIs) like the
World Bank and the IMF2. The chapter directly links globalization to imperialism, citing
scholars like Samir Amin who view it as a new stage of imperialism aimed at market control,
resource looting, and the "super exploitation of the labor reserves in the periphery"3. The author
argues that international law itself is now a primary language through which this domination is
expressed4.
A central argument is that globalization has intensified inequalities between the West and the
Third World5. Despite the promises of opportunities and advantages, globalization has failed
to bring about the expected development for the majority of Third World states 6.
The "Good Governance" Initiative: A Modern "Civilizing Mission"
The document explains that "good governance" is a concept promoted by international law
and institutions to manage a globalized world7. On the surface, it seems like a new and positive
idea, promoting principles such as democracy, transparency, accountability, and respect for
human rights and the rule of law8. However, the author argues that in practice, this initiative is
a direct continuation of the "civilizing mission" from the colonial era9.
The document provides several key points to support this argument:
 Targeted at the Third World: The concept of "good governance" is almost exclusively
applied to developing, "Third World" states10. Even countries that have achieved
significant economic development are criticized for lacking it 11. The IFIs are in a
position to implement their understandings of governance in these states12.
 A Tool for Western Interests: The policies of good governance are designed to
"reproduce in the Third World a set of principles and institutions which are seen as
having been perfected in the West"13. The document argues that behind the rhetoric of
humanism and well-being, the real preoccupation of colonial governance—and now of
"good governance"—is to ensure that government enhances commerce and trade in
ways that benefit the West 14.
 Disguising Imperialism: The author contends that the claim of "good governance"
being a "new and important development" in international relations is a way to
disregard its imperial character15. By using the language of human rights and
democracy, institutions like the World Bank and IMF can legitimize their powerful
influence, even as they impose policies that violate human rights and shift the blame
for lack of development onto recipient countries16.
Corruption as a Violation of Human Rights and Good Governance
 The paper by C. Raj Kumar, "Corruption in India: A Violation of Human Rights,"
The core principle, as articulated in your request and the academic paper, is that corruption
is not merely a criminal law enforcement issue but a fundamental violation of human
rights. The principles of good governance—transparency, accountability, and the rule of
law—are inextricably linked to human rights, and corruption acts as a direct assault on
these principles.
The Scope of Interference
Corruption interferes with all aspects of human rights by discriminating against citizens
and hindering human development:
 Civil and Political Rights: Bypassing judicial or political processes through bribes
(like the contested divorce example) directly undermines the Rule of Law and the right
to a fair trial and due process3333. The lack of government transparency leads to civic
and political discontent 4.
 Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Corruption in the implementation of
government schemes (as you mentioned) or essential services (like the dead body wash)
prevents the most vulnerable citizens from accessing their entitlements. The paper
 argues that the expansion of the "right to life" jurisprudence in constitutional law
encompasses economic and social well-being (like the right to livelihood), which
corruption directly compromises.
The Rights-Based Approach to Addressing Corruption
The paper by C. Raj Kumar advocates for a Rights-Based Approach to anti-corruption,
which involves transforming social and economic goals from mere policy objectives into
enforceable rights.
This strategy rests on:
1. Recognition: Acknowledging corruption as a serious issue that violates human rights
and distorts the development process7.
2. Empowerment of the Citizenry: Making the citizens the "right-bearers" and the
government officials the "duty-holders," thereby increasing public vigilance and
creating a strong foundation for legal and institutional reform.
3. The Goal: Establishing a fundamental "Right to Corruption-Free Governance" or
a "Right to Corruption-Free Service" as a means of ensuring accountability and
promoting good governance.
2. The Two-Way Relationship (Corruption violates Human Rights and vice versa)
3. Legal and Institutional Framework Deficiencies
The paper critiques the existing anti-corruption framework for being insufficient to address the
systemic nature of the problem:
 Over-reliance on Criminal Justice: The current framework places "far too much
emphasis on the criminal justice system," a system that is often "facing a crisis due
to corruption and other problems" itself14.
 Colonial Impediments: Certain colonial-era laws, such as the requirement for prior
government sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC before a court can take
cognizance of an offense by a public servant, continue to grant protection to corrupt
officials and frustrate prosecution15.
 Lack of Political Will: Despite numerous legislative attempts since independence, the
"absence of the political will and sincerity" has resulted in most measures not
achieving their intended results16.
4. Cohesive Way Forward: Institutional Empowerment
To address corruption as a human rights issue, the paper proposes a cohesive approach focusing
on institutional and legal reforms:
 Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC): The paper stresses the
urgent need to establish an ICAC that possesses political and operational
independence to investigate even the highest levels of government . Such an institution
must have adequate resources and strong leadership of the highest integrity18.
 Whistleblower Protection: Statutory whistleblower protection is essential for
empowering the citizenry to fight corruption. The system must offer physical and legal
protection against retaliation and ensure a high degree of institutional credibility so
whistleblowers are confident that appropriate action will be taken.
  Role of Civil Society: Anti-corruption work must be people-centered. Since
corruption is a disempowering force, the most effective way to root it out is through
the empowerment of citizens both through grassroots initiatives and institutional
mechanisms. The existing Right to Information is highlighted as a successful
development in promoting transparency and accountability through citizen
empowerment.
 Judicial Governance: The judiciary should use its legitimacy to uphold the "right to
corruption-free governance" and is generally more effective in empowering other
institutions (like the ICAC) than in directly taking on the responsibility of fighting
corruption.
Machine bias and AI
Google's solution to accidental algorithmic racism: ban gorillas
1. The Nature of AI Discrimination: Sedimentation and Multiplication
Your statement highlights two critical properties of bias in AI:
 Sedimentation (Inherited Bias): AI models, particularly those based on machine
learning, are trained on vast datasets of real-world images and texts. If these datasets
are incomplete, non-representative, or reflect existing societal biases, the AI will learn
and sediment that discrimination. The Google Photos incident was a failure of the
training data to adequately represent and accurately label non-white faces, leading the
model to default to harmful, discriminatory classifications.
 Multiplication (Scalability of Harm): Unlike human prejudice, which is often
localized, AI discrimination multiplies within a fraction of seconds. A single flawed
algorithm is instantly deployed to billions of devices, causing immediate, widespread
harm. This contrasts sharply with traditional human bias, where the impact scales more
slowly. The algorithm’s ability to "see" and categorize instantly makes the spread of
bias exponentially faster and harder to contain once deployed.
2. Google's Solution: A Case Study in Superficiality
Google's response to the 2015 incident—the decision to permanently block the algorithm from
labeling any image with the words "gorilla," "chimpanzee," or "monkey"—was a form of
lexical censorship that prioritized immediate damage control over a genuine technical fix.
 Treating the Symptom, Not the Disease: The core problem was the computer vision
model's inability to accurately classify images of black people. By simply removing
the offensive output terms, Google only cleaned the surface. It did not fix the underlying
model that led to the misclassification in the first place. The "black box" of the
algorithm remained flawed.
 The Problem of Evasion: This action resulted in "gorilla blindness" across some of
Google's platforms. The system was now unable to identify the primates themselves,
even when they were the subject of the photo, demonstrating that the fix created an
evasion of classification rather than an improvement in accuracy. As the article notes,
this failure to find a sustainable solution highlights the immaturity of the "black box"
technology, where creators understand the powerful results but often don't understand
the exact "how and why" behind a specific decision.
  Widespread Industry Failure: The Flickr incident, where a similar feature auto-
tagged a black man as "ape" and a concentration camp as "jungle gym," confirms that
this challenge was industry-wide. The similar response by Flickr to remove "ape" from
its tagging lexicon further illustrates the common resort to superficial censorship rather
than structural reform of the machine learning model.
3. The "Black Box" and Lack of Accountability
The nature of modern machine learning, often described as a "black box," is central to why
these discriminatory issues persist:
 Opacity: It is often difficult or impossible, even for the creators, to trace the path of the
thousands of statistical connections and weighted decisions that lead to a specific output
label.
 Impunity: This opacity hinders accountability. When discrimination occurs, it is
challenging to point to a specific human programmer or a single line of code that
introduced the bias. Instead, the failure is diffused across the massive training data set
and the complex, non-linear function of the model.
Therefore, the "ban gorillas" episode serves as a powerful illustration of how the speed, scale,
and opacity of AI systems can instantly transmit, multiply, and entrench human and data-
derived biases, while the resulting solutions often fail to address the fundamental lack of
fairness and representational accuracy in the underlying technology.
Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human
Rights Law (IHRL)
Both IHL and IHRL aim to protect human beings, but they do so in different situations and
through different rules.
1. International Human Rights Law (IHRL)
 Applies at all times: in peace, internal tension, emergency, and even during war.
 It protects basic rights like the right to life, freedom of speech, equality, fair trial, etc.
 States have the duty to respect, protect, and fulfil these rights.
2. International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
 Also called the law of war or the law of armed conflict.
 Applies only during armed conflict—when there is a war or a situation similar to war.
 Its main aim is to protect people who are not fighting (civilians, medical workers, aid
workers) and to limit the methods of warfare.
In simple terms:
Human rights law = protects people all the time
Humanitarian law = protects people during war
Why Human Rights Were Sometimes Suspended in Non-Peaceful Times
During emergencies like war, civil unrest, or national threats, governments used to “suspend”
some human rights. This is called a derogation.
Examples of rights that governments can suspend:
 Freedom of movement
 Freedom of assembly
 Freedom from arbitrary detention (in limited ways)
Rights that can NEVER be suspended (non-derogable rights):
 Right to life
 Freedom from torture
 Freedom from slavery
 Principles of fairness in criminal law
 Recognition as a person before the law
When human rights were temporarily restricted because of war or internal violence,
International Humanitarian Law stepped in and took primary control, because it has clearer
and stronger rules on how to treat civilians, soldiers, and prisoners during conflict.
How IHRL and IHL Work Together
1. Complementary Relationship
 They do not replace each other; they work side by side.
 During war, both apply, but IHL becomes more specific and therefore more important.
2. “Lex specialis” Principle
This is a legal idea meaning:
When two laws apply at the same time, the more specific one dominates.
So during war:
 Human rights law is the general law
 Humanitarian law is the special law
Therefore, IHL overrides IHRL in matters of warfare, but only in those specific areas.
Difference in Application of IHL: Full-Fledged War vs Internal Disturbance
IHL applies differently depending on the type of conflict:
A. Full-Fledged War – International Armed Conflict (IAC)
Example: India vs Pakistan in 1971.
Features:
 Conflict between two or more states.
 All Geneva Conventions apply fully.
 Prisoners of war get full protections.
 Hospitals, civilians, religious sites must be protected.
  Use of certain weapons and tactics is banned.
This is the strongest application of IHL.
B. Internal Conflict – Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)
Example: Civil war, rebel groups fighting the government.
Features:
 Happens within one country.
 IHL applies, but in a more limited way.
 Only Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions + Additional Protocol II apply.
 Protects civilians, bans torture, protects wounded people.
BUT:
 No prisoner-of-war status (POWs).
 States are more sensitive because it affects their “internal sovereignty.”
C. Internal Disturbance / Riots / Protests
Example: Riots, protests, small-scale violence.
Features:
 Not large enough to be called an armed conflict.
 IHL does NOT apply.
 Only human rights law applies.
 Police action must follow IHRL standards (minimum use of force, etc.)
Relationship Between Sovereignty, Human Rights, Intervention, and the R2P Doctrine
(Explained Simply and Coherently)
Traditionally, sovereignty meant that a state had complete control over everything that
happened within its borders. This included control over its own people and their human rights.
Because of this, a state could sometimes hide behind the idea of sovereignty even while
committing serious human rights violations.
For example, in Rwanda, there were two ethnic groups. One group had straighter noses and
the other had flatter noses. This small physical difference became the basis for large-scale
discrimination and eventually genocide, where one community killed members of the other. If
the state itself is involved in the violence, it usually argues that “no one can interfere—this is
our internal matter.” This is what makes sovereignty a double-edged sword.
What International Law Says About Use of Force
According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, countries are prohibited from using force or
even threatening force against another state.
 This rule is also a customary international law principle, meaning almost all states
accept it.
 It protects a state’s sovereignty from external military intervention.
But this prohibition is not absolute. There are two major exceptions:
1. Self-Defense (Article 51)
If a state is attacked, it has the right to defend itself.
2. Intervention Authorized by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII)
When there is a threat to international peace—like genocide, war crimes, or crimes against
humanity—the Security Council can authorize intervention.
Why Intervention Is a Problematic Area
Intervention is a grey area because:
1. Sometimes countries intervene without real cause, pretending to protect human rights
but actually pursuing their own political interests.
2. Sometimes intervention is urgently needed (as in Rwanda), but states do nothing.
3. The decision lies with the UN Security Council, where the five permanent members
(P5)—USA, UK, Russia, China, France—have veto power.
The Veto Problem
The Security Council has 15 members:
 5 permanent (P5) with veto power
 10 non-permanent without veto
Even if 12 members agree to intervene in a genocide, one veto from any P5 member can
block the entire action.
This concentration of power makes humanitarian intervention difficult and often delayed.
The Solution: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Because interventions were mishandled and the Security Council often became stuck in veto
politics, the Canadian government led an international movement to rethink sovereignty.
This produced the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
What R2P Says
Sovereignty should no longer be understood only as authority or power, but as a
responsibility.
A state has the primary responsibility to protect its people from:
 Genocide
 War crimes
 Crimes against humanity
 Ethnic cleansing
If the state fails, or if it itself becomes abusive, it cannot hide behind sovereignty and prevent
the world from stepping in.
The Three Pillars of R2P
 1. Responsibility to Prevent
o States and the international community must try to stop violence before it
happens.
2. Responsibility to React
o If mass atrocities occur, the international community must take action—
diplomatically, economically, or militarily (as a last resort).
3. Responsibility to Rebuild
o After intervention, the international community must help rebuild the society so
stability returns.
Legal vs. Illegal Intervention
Legal Intervention
 Happens through the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.
 Follows international law.
Illegal Intervention
 Happens without Security Council approval.
 Can be:
o Legitimate (morally justified but legally questionable—e.g., NATO in Kosovo)
o Illegitimate (done for political gain, not human rights)