INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN RIGH

Meaning Definition and Evolution

"To deny people their human rights are to challenge their very humanity." - Nelson Mandela.
The notion of ‘natural rights’ that was propounded in the 17th Century by John Locke,
urged that certain rights are ‘natural’ to individual as human beings, having existed even in
the ‘state of nature’ before the development of societies and emergence of the Sate.
Proponents of natural rights urged that ‘natural rights are rights belonging to a person by
nature and because he was a human being, not by virtue of his citizenship in a particular
country or membership in a particular religious or ethnic group.’ State is regarded as the
mere guarantor of rights. The inalienable nature of these rights makes it impossible for a
person or an institution to waive them.
The American Independence movement of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 were
inspired by the ideal of natural rights and they challenged govts that curtailed the natural
rights of people. It was during the French Revolution in 1789 that natural rights were
elevated to the status of legal rights with the formulation of the “Declaration of the Rights of
Man”. It defined the ‘natural and imprescriptible rights of man’ as ‘liberty, property, security
and resistance to oppression.’ The American Bill of Rights in 1791 also incorporated Natural
Rights. Even, the Suffragette Movement was premised on the natural equality between men
and women.
League of Nations came into being in 1919 aiming to promote ‘international cooperation and
to achieve international peace and security’ by imposing obligations on States to avoid war
and adhere to international rule of law’. Its failure in enforcing an international order was
evident in the outbreak of WWII, resulting in its dissolution in 1946.
The international Labour Organization (ILO) established in 1919 sought to promote social
justice as a prerequisite for ‘universal and lasting peace’ and laid down basic, humane, and
just conditions of work to be ensured by all Members to the ILO. In 1946, ILO became the
first specialised agency of the United Nations.
It was after the WWII that the need to acknowledge and safeguard human rights was
articulated at the global level in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948.
UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) emerged as a reaction to the atrocities
and oppression cause by the WWII. It was the first international acknowledgement of the
‘inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family
as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. It emphasised that ‘a common
understanding of these rights and freedoms is of great importance for the full realization’ of
the rights contained therein. About 58 States, representing diverse cultures and beliefs and at
different stages of development were involved in the drafting process.
Along with the Soviet Bloc, the insertion of social and economic rights in the UDHR is
attributable to several “Third world States’ of Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East. The
UDHR contained rights that were culturally and politically acceptable to most countries
across the world, thereby imparting a universal character to the Declaration. The Indian
Constitution exemplifies common understanding of basic human rights as it incorporates the
principles outlined in the UDHR in the form of Fundamental Rights and DPSP.
The UDHR was premised on the principle of universality and non-discrimination.
Art 1. States, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The rights and
freedoms contained in the declaration were regarded as being available to all without
“discrimination of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.” It was not binding on its signatories. Upon its
adoption, the Commission on Human Rights (appointed by the economic and Social Council
of the UN) began to formulate a treaty that would be binding on States, so as to effectively
realise the rights recognized by the UDHR. In 1966, The United Nations General
Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and the International Covenant on economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
These two covenants, the optional protocols along with UDHR, formed the International Bill
of Human Rights.
The International Bill of Rights has laid down the foundation for formulation and adoption
of human rights treaties and has incorporated concerns relating to equality, non-
discrimination, education, health, social security, administration of justice, social
development, violence against women, and the status of refugees and minorities.
The universality of human rights is often challenged – referred to as the North-South
divide- by States that seek to emphasize one se of rights over another. However, this notion
is faulty. Sashi Tharoor opines that, it is not the inability to safeguard rights of citizens in as
much as the perception of the rights as universal that is problematic. Cultural relativists are
of the view that while in the West an individual and his/her rights are considered above
group rights, it might not be universally applicable and that certain societies of the south are
community based and gives importance to group rights. The aggressive promotion of a
universal standard of human rights is sometimes viewed as a paternalistic attempt to impose
alien Western values. Human Rights must be understood in the oct of specific people’s
culture, community and traditions and be dynamic is its principle to accommodate changing
global needs.
Some nations have recorded reservations against certain provision of the Convention
on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). For instance, Islamic
countries have objected as it is opposed to the Shariah system of law. The enforcement of
rights under conventions is often impaired by sovereign nations claiming that purported
universal rights are in conflict with their cultures.
CONSTITUTONAL FRAMEWORKOF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Part III of the Indian Constitution contains fundamental rights, which the Indian SC in
the case of I.C. Golak Nath vs State of Punjab stated to be modern version of natural rights.
These are available to citizens with a corresponding duty on the Indian State and its
instrumentalities for their implementation and protection. Fundamental Rights are not
absolute in nature and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions.
India has ratified several human rights conventions
1. The Parliament derives powers from Art 253 of the Constitution, can enact laws in
order to incorporate the provisions of the treaties within India’s domestic legal
framework.
2. Art 51(c) requires the Sate to endeavour to foster respect for international law and
treaty obligations.
Provisions of international treaties have been utilized by the judiciary to bridge numerous
gaps between existing laws and internationally accepted standards.
Visakha vs State of Rajasthan, the SC proceeded to fill the existing void in the domestic law
with respect to the prevention of sexual harassment using outcomes from CEDAW and laid
down guidelines to be followed at the workplace. The Supreme Court stated that as far as the
international conventions were consistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with
its spirit, they must be read into the provisions of the Constitution to ‘enlarge the meaning
and content thereof, to promote the object of the constitutional guarantee’.

CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Distinctions are positive and negative human rights:
1. Positive Human Rights- requires the State to take active steps towards their
realization. E.g. - a right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical care,
the right to housing, or the right to a job.
2. Negative Human Rights- refers to freedoms that the State must not encroach upon
such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime,
protection against being defrauded, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and
the right not to be enslaved by another.
During the formulation of the International Covenant, a sharp distinction was made between
civil and political rights, on the one hand and Social, Economic and Cultural rights on
the other.
This division emerged because of politics of the Cold War, wherein the West sought to
underline the political oppression faced by people under Communist regimes. The emphasis
was therefore on civil and political rights while according to secondary treatment to the
economic, social, and cultural rights cherished by the Soviet Union and its allies. While civil
and political rights were negative in nature, most of the social, cultural, and economic rights
envisaged under the ICESCR mandated resource allocation for their realization. It was felt
that, owing to the requirement if resources, the implementation of such rights would be
difficult.
Art. 2 of the ICCPR required Sate Parties to respect and ensure to all individuals the rights
contained therein and to take legislative measures if necessary to give effect to the rights.
The ICSCER, on the other hand, sought compliance dependent on the availability of
resources of a State and envisaged ‘progressive full realization’ of the rights contained
therein. This relegated socio-economic rights to a secondary status in relation to civil and
political rights.
GENERATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
1. First Generation rights- Civil and Political Rights are referred to as first Generation
Rights and provide certain basic guarantees for an individual in relationship to the
State; they involve inviolability of the individual against any invasive action by the
State. They demand freedom from coercive action by the State against an individual.
They are enshrined in Art 3-21 of the UDHR. First generation rights are related to
LIBERTY.
2. Second Generation Rights- require action by the State to provide certain basic needs
or amenities to an individual. They necessitate certain actions and provisions by the
State for it to fulfill its obligations. They include Art 22-27 of the UDHR. They are
related to EQUALITY.
The focus of both the generations of rights has been on individual.
3. Third Generation Rights-have been developed to provide for the relationship
between individuals, the collectivity, and the State. It includes right to self-
determination, right to development; right to participate in and benefit from the
common heritage of humankind; and the right to a healthy environment, amongst
many other collective rights. They are related to FRATERNITY.
The hierarchy within the broad framework of human rights is apparent in the way the two
Covenants deal with them. While it was imperative for states to provide for civil and
political rights immediately upon ratification, through legislation, if necessary, they could
‘progressively realize’ the socio-economic rights. Such a distinction contradicts every
idea of human rights as a set of ideals, which are indivisible. Civil and political rights
cannot be enjoyed in the absence of basic social, economic, and cultural rights. The
interdependence of rights must be acknowledged and provided for to ensure a better
life.

LEGAL POSITION IN INDIA:

The Indian Constitution reflects the above classification of human rights.
1. Civil and Political rights are contained in Part III (fundamental Rights) of the
Constitutions and are justiciable, they can be enforced through a court of law.
2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are contained in Part Iv (directive Principles
of State Policy (DPSP)) are non-enforceable in a court of law but are ‘fundamental to
governance’.
 However, the Indian Supreme Court has been instrumental in enforcing socio-economic
rights as fundamental rights. For instance, right to education was interpreted to eb a part
of the right to life, which is guaranteed as a fundamental right. Indirectly, the right to
education was elevated to the status of a fundamental right capable of enforcement. Later,
through Amendment, Art 21A, which stipulated the right to education to be a
fundamental right, was inserted.
CAN HUMAN RIGHTS BE DEROGATED FROM?
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights classifies rights into which are:
1. DEROGABLE- they may be suspended.
2. NON DEROGABLE- which cannot be suspended.
In the event of an officially proclaimed public emergency, which threatens the life of the
nation, the former rights can be limited or restricted. However, there are certain rights which
cannot be curtailed even during an emergency. The non-derogable rights are stipulated under
Art 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are:
Pg 6 (11)
Art 359 of the Indian Constitution states that the right to move any court for the enforcement
of the fundamental rights can be suspended by the order of the President while a
Proclamation of Emergency is in operation. However, no such restriction can be placed on
the right to life (Art 21) and the protection in respect of conviction for offences available to
persons under Art 20. It means that right to life, the right not to be prosecuted for an act or
omission that was not an offence at the time at which it was committed, and the right not to
be prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence and to be compelled to be
witness against oneself, are non-derogable rights within the Indian Constitution.

__________________________
 CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD GENERATIONAL RIGHTS

Human Rights were an answer to the oppressive institutions, policies, and practices. Second
and Third generation rights are discerned to be responses to the economic and political
oppression that was the by-product of Colonialism and Capitalism. (Include Globalization).
The proponent of the classification of rights into three generation was Karel Vasek, a
former Director of the Human Rights and Peace Division of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He stated that civil and political rights
constitute the first tier followed by social, economic, and cultural rights. Finally, group rights
such as the right to development and environmental rights, formed the third generation of
rights.
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the result of 1993 World Conference
on Human Rights, asserted that ‘all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent
and interrelated’. The Declaration stated that human rights and fundamental freedoms would
have to be respected and promoted by all States irrespective ‘of their political, economic, and
cultural systems.’
HIERARCHY WITHIN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS:
The Aftermath of WWII led most country to protect their territorial integrity and
sovereignty. International law was in a nascent state. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) emerged as an instrument of consensus on certain basic rights that all
humans were entitled to, and which were to be regarded by all states. However, it lacked
implementation mechanism and was merely persuasive in nature. The objective was to
formulate a binding treaty that would incorporate the rights contained in the UDHR and
provide for an implementation mechanism. It was guided by several political and ideological
factors.
The Cold War between the communist bloc and the West had its implications on the
articulation of international human rights. While the Soviet Union placed emphasis on
social and economic rights keeping with its socialist agenda, the West promoted civil
and political rights and deemed social and economic rights incapable of immediate
enforcement. It was asserted by the West that incorporation of both sets of rights within the
same treaty would not be pragmatic, as the implementation mechanism would significantly
vary.
While civil and political rights were to be realized by way of positive action through the
formulation of programmes by the State. Therefore in 1966 two instruments were
created to appease the divergent interests- the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICERSCR). Committees have been formed under both Covenants to monitor the
compliance of State Parties with their obligations.
Article 2(1) ICESCR- ‘Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps,
individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and
technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively
the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means,
including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.’
Article 2(1) ICCPR- Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to
ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status’.
The differentiated perception of civil and political rights, social, economic, and cultural
rights is apparent from the language imposed on States that are party to the Covenants.
While under the ICCPR, State Parties were required to ‘respect and ensure’ to all individuals
the right recognized therein, under the ICESCR State Parties had to undertake steps to
achieve ‘progressively the full realization of the rights’ contained in the Covenant. It was felt
that economic, social, and cultural rights mandate resource allocation towards their
realization. Given that countries were at various stages of development and progress, it
would be unfair to impose an immediate burden upon States. However, the ICESCR imposed
certain immediate obligations on the State as were highlighted in the General Comment on
Art 2 by Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The General Committee indicates that the duty to ensure that relevant rights will be
exercised without any discrimination was a positive obligation imposed by the Covenant that
required immediate discharge and not something that could be realized ‘progressively.’
Another significant difference is the absence of a provision in the ICESCR requiring State
Parties to provide for judicial remedies. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in its General Covenant (No.9) states that the straightjacketing of economic, social,
and cultural rights in manner that precludes any resort to judicial enforcement would be
‘arbitrary and incompatible’ with the fundamental principle of indivisibility and
interdependence of human rights. There has been a conscious attempt by many human rights
mechanisms at promoting economic, social, and cultural rights and establishing that human
rights are interdependent.
For instance, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its comment on Right
to Education, regards the right to be a civil and political right, since it is central to the full
and effective realization of those rights, and an economic, social and cultural right. The
Comment states the right to education to be illustrative of the indivisibility and
interdependence of all human beings.
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ICESCR:
The ICESCR call for the progressive realization of rights by undertaking efforts to that end
while keeping in mind the maximum available resources. The General Comment states that
the onus is on the State to show that it has made every effort to use all resources at its
disposition to satisfy, as a matter of priority, the minimum obligations. Only if it fails in its
efforts may the plea of inadequacy of resources be sustained. The Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes that despite inadequacy of resources, the
obligation remains for a State Party to strive to ensure the widest possible environment of the
relevant rights under the prevailing circumstances.

Through its General Comments, the Committee stipulates certain core minimum
standards that must be observed and for which the plea of inadequate resources cannot
be sustained. For instance, in its General Comment on Art 11 concerning the right to
adequate food, the Committee sets out the core content of the right to be :’ availability of
food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free form
adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture; the accessibility of such food in
ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.
Obligation is imposed on State Parties to ensure access to the minimum essential food in
ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights.
Obligation is imposed on State Parties to ensure access to the minimum essential food, which
is sufficient, nutritionally adequate, and safe, and to ensure freedom from hunger.
In its Comment on the right to education, the Committee states that even if resources are
inadequate, international assistance and cooperation can be sought, and that it is the duty of
the international community to provide such assistance in accordance with Article 2(1) of the
ICESCR.
The demand for social and economic rights stems from the need to recognize the basic
requirements of all individuals to fulfill the inherent dignity of the human beings. It is
the duty of the State to ensure that the life and liberty of the people are not encroached upon.
There is also a positive duty on the State to ensure that its policies be informed by the
directives contained within the Constitution of India. Whilst the Constitution states that the
directives are not enforceable in court of law, it nonetheless regards he principle to be
fundamental to the governance of the country and mandates the State to apply these
principles while formulation laws (Art 37).
The Indian Judiciary has played a significant role in granting justiciability to social and
economic rights contained in Part IV of the Constitution by interpreting them to be critical to
the enjoyment of ‘life’ under Article 21. With the recognition of the right to education as a
fundamental right it has revolutionized the realization of social rights. As the Supreme Court
has stated in the Paschim Bangal Khet mazdoor Sabha case, financial constraints cannot be a
ground for the State to deny its constitutional obligations. In fact such attempts may illustrate
the unwillingness of the State to realize these rights.
To suggest that availability of economic resources is a condition precedent to ensuring and
providing economic and social rights is to denigrate the universality of human rights and
create an undesirable hierarchy of rights. It is imperative to realize that a right to life without
a concomitant fundamental right to food, health, housing and education renders the right to
life meaningless.
JUDICIAL SYNTHESIS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE
PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY IN INDIA
Social, Economic and Cultural rights are contained in Part IV of the Indian Constitution,
which prescribes the DPSP. These principles are not inherently justiciable. Nonetheless, The
Indian SC has been instrumental in making them justiciable by elevating them to the status
of a fundamental right. The expansive interpretation of the right to life rendered by the SC
in Francis Coralie Mullin vs Union Territory of Delhi has served the basis for enforcing
economic, social and cultural rights.
With the judicial recognition of the right to education as a fundamental right, there was a
perceptible shift from the welfare approach towards social and economic rights to a concrete
rights-based approach. Whilst there existed various policies and programmes that sought to
ensure education for all, they were not capable of being enforced and created no right for the
beneficiaries.
In Mohini Jain Vs State of Karnataka , the Court held that the right to free education for
children under the age of 14 years was a fundamental right in view of Art 45 of the
Constitution. It interpreted it to be a part of the Fundamental right to life.
The legislative recognition of the right to education came with 86th Amendment to the
constitution in 2002.
Art 21A has been inserted which recognizes the right to education to be a fundamental right
and imposes a duty on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children
from the age of 6 -14 yrs.
In Paschim Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samity vs State of West Bengal, the SC has held that
Art 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of very person.
Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The State cannot avoid their
constitutional obligations in that regard on account of financial constraints.’
IS THERE A RIGHT TO FOOD?
In 2001, a writ petition was submitted to the SC by People’s Union of Civil Liberties
(PUCL) vs Union of India and Others) in the wake of large number of deaths in Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh and Orissa during a drought. It alleged that this occurred despite the
availability of surplus food stocks. Initially, the case was brought against the GOI, the Food
Corp of India (FCI) and six state govts., in the specific context of inadequate drought relief.
Subsequently, the case was extended to the larger issue of chronic hunger, with all sates and
Union territories as respondents.
Relying on the expansive interpretation of Art 21 to mean the right to live with dignity and
all that goes along with it, the petition argues for the right to food be within the purview of
the right to life under Art 21. It is the response of the central an the State govt to the drought
situation that is being challenged as a violation of the right to food.
The petitioners alleged that the breakdown of the Public Distribution System indicated
negligence on the part of the state and that the monthly quota per family under the system
failed to meet the nutritional standards set by the ICMR. The apathy of the State govts was
illustrated by the claim that despite a surplus food stocks rotting in god downs and
warehouses of the State Govts, there was no system of distribution put in place to provide
any of this surplus to the starving. Whilst govt of Rajasthan had a Famine Code, it was not
implemented or complied with. PUCL moved the SC for order to eb passed against the Govt
of Rajasthan, requiring it to: provide immediate open-ended employment at the legal
minimum wage to at least once member per household in all drought affected villages for a
continuous period of at least 6 months; provide ‘ Gratuitous relief’ to persons unable to work
pas per the provisions of the Famine Code; and to raise the Public Distribution System
entitlement per family. It also sought for direction to the Government of Rajasthan, to the
extent necessary to cover all expenses associated with these relief measure.
SC has passed various interim orders requiring state govts to identify families below the
poverty line and issue cards to them; distribute 25kg of grain per family per months and to
implement mid-day meal.
IS THERE A RIGHT To WORK? – pg. 6
RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT AS A THIRD GENERATION RIGHT:
Karel Vasek, a former Director of the Huma Rights and Peace Division of Unesco, was the
first person to have designated a separate category of rights that were essentially collective
rights, that is third generation right. This included the right to development. Demand for
collective rights came from developing countries and derived from the third ideal of the
French revolution- fraternity.
The 1986, the Declaration on the Right to Development was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly. The Declaration regards the human person to be the central subject of
development, and an active participant and beneficiary of the right. It regards the right to
development to be inalienable, entitling all peoples to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy
economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and
fundamental freedoms can be fully relaised. Aduty has been imposed on states to formulate
developmental policies in consonance with the above construction of the right to
development. The Declaration envisages active international cooperation with a view to
promoting the development initiatives of developing countries.
The Declaration was the first human rights instrument to lay emphasis on the
indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and fundamental freedoms and
urges thatequal attention with respect to implementation, promotion and protection of
civil, political, economic and cultural rights is mandated. This construction has altered
the understanding of ‘development’ as it is no longer perceived to be restricted to economic
growth. It signifies creation of an order wherein all persons can realise their fundamental
rights and freedoms.
The above construction of developenment makes unsustaible the principle of the greatest
good for the greatest number. Rather it provide that development policies must ensure the
development of all persons and not an imbalanced development of the powerful. For
instance, the building of damns that spell displacement of the population surrounding it
indicates a skewed notion of development. The view of the Indian Govt, which has been
supported by the judiciary, that displacement is inevitable and unavoidable is liable to
challenge as it defeats the essence of development. The prevalent notion of development
continues to overemphasize economic growth whilst the concerns of certain sections of the
population remail inadequately addressed.
 THE EVALUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: AN OVERVIEW IN HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE:
-KAMRUZZAMAN
INTRODUCTION:
As the Second World War appeared to be drawing to a close, world leaders started planning
for banishing war and resorting sustainable peace. The United Nations Charter envisaged
promotion of Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion as one of the means
for that end. On the 10th December, 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted and
proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration for the first time
generated a common standard of rights for all peoples and all nations without any
discrimination [1]. Human Rights are mostly inherent and natural rights, the execution,
preservation or enjoyment of Human Rights is simply impossible. It is also true that without
ensuring the Human Rights the development of life is quite impossible. In this regard every
nation follows the international instrument of Human Rights. In this sense, in 2009 a
National Human Rights Commission is established in Bangladesh to protect the human
rights of its citizens.
CONCEPTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Rights are something people demands or desires for their self-Development. Rights are those
basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. Hobbhouse says, “Rights are
what we may expect from others, and others from us and all genuine tights are conditions of
social welfare”. Thomas Paine, a French first used the term ‘Human Rights’ While
translating the French Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen from French to English,
But unfortunately he was detained.
Human Rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. The
basic rights and freedoms, to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the Human
Rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live in dignity. The basic rights
and freedoms, to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and
liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. To violate
someone’s human right is to treat that person as though she or he were not a human being.
These are basically few natural rights which cannot be denied, but at the same time not
guaranteed by Statutory Law. It is the obligation of the state to promote and protect human
rights.
The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English language describes the “Human
Rights” expression as under, “The right to be free from Governmental violations of the
integrity of the persons”. “Human Rights means Right to life, Right to liberty, Right to
equality and Right to dignity of a person guaranteed by the constitution of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh and such other Human Rights documents and ratified by the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh and enforceable by the existing laws of the Bangladesh”
(National Human Rights Commission Act, 2009 Section-2(f).
TYPES OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Human Rights are the integrated, broad and covered a wide range of rights. On the basis of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 there are following classification;
[Link] rights & Political rights; Known as Fundamental rights, Guaranteed by Article (27-
44) part (III) of Bangladesh Constitution.
B. Economic rights & Social and Cultural rights; Bangladesh constitution, part (II) Article
(8-25) not guaranteed. Non Justiciable in lib demo countries
C. Solidarity rights, that is I) right to development II) right to self determination. – Forest
Rights.
The total numbers of Human Rights are 27; from which 25 is described by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and rest two are described by the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (DGICCP) and Declaration on
the Right to Development (DRD) [3].
CHART -3
SALIENT FEATURES OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
The evident characteristics of Human Rights make them different from other rights. The
unique features are as follows
I. Inherent: The most outstanding characteristics of Human Rights are that it is
inherent and natural. None acquires it by any special quality of reputation. It is not
the charity of any person or any social system. Every man is by born entitled to
these rights.
II. Not Exchangeable: Human Rights cannot be handed over, exchanged or
transferred. It is excessive to all. It could neither be given away, nor could be stolen
or taken away by snatching.
III. Universality: Universality stands out as the basic value of human rights. Everyone
is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.
IV. Equality: Human Rights refer to equal enjoyment of opportunities and resources to
all. Justice, rule of law and indiscrimination are the philosophy of Human Rights.
V. Feasibility: The important characteristics of Human Rights are its feasibility or
effectiveness. That is Human Rights should never be viewed as a hypothetical or
abstract concept. It is shaped by the social values, norms, culture and institutions.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:
1.4.1. Definitional Issues
Human Rights: Human Rights are those basic standards without which people cannot live
in dignity. Human Rights are inherent to each individual. Fundamental Rights:
Fundamental Rights are those rights or Human Rights which are guaranteed by the
constitution. All Fundamental Rights are Human Rights but all Human Rights are not
fundamental rights. Human Rights are concerned with the all human being of the world
but fundamental rights are related between one state and their citizens.
1.4.2. Number of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights
According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 the number of Human
Rights are 25 (Civil and Political Rights-19 and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights-
06). There are also another two kinds of Human Rights Known as Solidarity rights.
According to DGICCP, one right is to Self-determination and according to DRD another
right is to Self-development. So the total numbers of Human Rights are 27.
On the other hand, there are no constant numbers of fundamental rights. It varies from
country to country. It depends on Political and economic condition of any state. The
numbers of Fundamental rights in Bangladesh are 18.
1.4.3. Historical Perspective
The concept of Human Rights is as old as the ancient doctrine of natural right. It is
ultimately created after the creation of human being. Thus Human Rights are developed
day by day by the various declaration and treaty. On the other side, the fundamental rights
are derived from the Human Rights and recognized by the states own constitution. State
organization is precondition for ensuring the fundamental rigts but not essential human
rights.
1.4.4. Universality
Human Rights are the same for all human beings regardless of race, sex, and religion or
political or national origin. Human Rights are Universal. But fundamental rights are
applicable only for the own population of any state. In Bangladesh, 12 rights are
applicable only for Bangladeshi citizens and rest six are applicable or all either citizens or
foreigner stay in Bangladesh.
1.4.5. Protection and Promotion
Human Rights are protected and Promoted by International Law but fundamental rights
are protected promoted by the States Constitution.
1.4.6. Enforcement
Though Human Rights are internationally recognized, it is enforced by the United
Nations, International laws and other specialized organization. But fundamental rights are
enforced by the local Judiciary. There are no remedies against the violation of Human
Rights but the violation of fundamental rights will be punished by the local judiciary.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES:
Although belief in the sanctity of human life has ancient precedents in many religions of
the world the idea of human rights, that is the notion that a human being has a set of
inviolable rights simply on grounds of being human began during the era of renaissance
humanism in the Early Modern period. Prior to this habeas corpus had been enshrined in
the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. The European wars of religion and the civil wars of
seventeenth century England gave rise to the philosophy of liberalism and belief in
human rights became a central concern of European intellectual culture during the 18th
century Age of Enlightenment. The idea of human rights lay at the core of the American
and French revolutions which inaugurated an era of democratic revolution throughout the
nineteenth century paving the way for the advent of universal suffrage. The world wars of
the twentieth century led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The post-war era
saw human rights movements for special interest groups such as feminism and the civil
rights of African-Americans. The human rights of members of the Soviet bloc emerged in
the 1970s along with workers' rights in the West.
The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put
it high on the world agenda [5]. By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights
movement expanded beyond its original antitotalitarianism to include numerous cases
involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Developing
World.
Human Rights apparently seem to be a concept of modern age. But the origin of the
concept takes us to the remote past. So it can be stated that Human Rights have acquired
the sophisticated legal and well arranged present from by wandering a long way. The
chronological history of Human Rights can be looked at from three phases according to
the development and recognition. These are
I). The Ancient Age II). The Medieval Age III). The Modern Age
2.1. The Ancient Age
The ancient age expanded approximately from 500 years before A.D. to in 4th Century.
Slavery was viewed as a legal custom in the social system during that time. During this
period a slave was considered as ‘animal tool’s or ‘living possession’ and was deprived of
minimum basic needs. The slave had no political or economical freedom; they were
absolutely used as an instrument of production without enjoyment of any kinds of rights.
In this context, the philosophy devoted to humanism and equality came to the surface of
human thought in Greece and got momentum. The ancient age can be stigmatized as the
‘blooming stage; of concern and thought related to Human Rights [3].
The earliest legal code known as (c. 2350 BC) Urukagina of Lagash, have addressed the
concept of rights. The oldest legal codex extant today is the Neo-Sumerian Code of Ur-
Nammu (2050 BC). Several other sets of laws were also issued in Mesopotamia,
including the Code of Hammurabi (1780 BC), one of the most famous examples of this
type of document.
It shows rules, and punishments if those rules are broken, on a variety of matters,
including women's rights, men's rights, children's rights and slave rights.
Some historians suggest that the Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran established
unprecedented principles of human rights in the 6th century BC under Cyrus the Great.
After his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus cylinder, discovered
in 1879 and seen by some today as the first human rights document. The cylinder has
been linked by some commentators to the decrees of Cyrus recorded in the Books of
Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezra, which state that Cyrus allowed (at least some of) the
Jews to return to their homeland from their "Babylonian Captivity. The German historian
Josef Wiesehöfer argues that the image of "Cyrus as a champion of the UN human rights
policy ... is just as much a phantom as the humane and enlightened Shah of Persia.",
while historian Elton L. Daniel has described such an interpretation as "rather
anachronistic" and tendentious. The cylinder now lies in the British Museum, and a
replica is kept at the United Nations Headquarters.
2.2. The Medieval Age
Moderately the period from 5th to the 15th century is estimated as medieval age. Middle
age is the dark, barren period of Human Rights. Christianity extended great influence
both positively and negatively on the new socioeconomic and political structure of that
time. The concept of “All men are equal to God”, “Everyone should be obedient towards
the legal Government” etc. were founded by Christianity which successfully brought
equality. Barkey Says, “Christianity was the only agent of unity and community”.
2.2.1. Magna Carta
The most important step of middle age to promote Human Rights was taken by adopting
‘Magna Carta’. It was the most famous written document of Human Rights in the middle
age. It was a constitutional charter adopted by the King John in1215 A.D. and was
reaffirmed by King Edward III. Magna Carta required the King to renounce certain rights,
respect certain legal procedures and accept that the will of the King could be bound by
the law [8]. There are 63 Articles including Preamble, out of which Article 39 and 40 is
very important. Article 39: No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or
exiled or in any way harmed. Nor will we proceed against him, or send others to do so,
expect according to the lawful sentence of his peers or according to the Common Law.
Article 40: To none will we sell, to none will we refuse of delay right or justice.
2.2.2. Influence on Magna Carta
Magna Carta was the first written document by which liberty of people were guaranteed.
It influenced many common law and other documents, such as the United States
Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal
documents in the history of democracy. Almost every fundamental principles of the
English Constitution could be test to Magna Carta. According to Coke, “It was
declaratory of the principal ground of the fundamental laws of England.” and Hallam
characterized it as the ‘key stone of English liberty’.
2.3. The Modern Age
At the beginning stage of modern age, the practice of Human Rights had been developed
in England. After ‘Magna Carta’ an important step was taken by the parliament through
adopting ‘Petition of Right’ [3].
2.3.1. Petition of Right
 The Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document that sets out specific
liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. Passed on 7 June 1628,
the Petition contains restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of
soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and restricts the use of martial law. Following
disputes between Parliament and King Charles I over the execution of the Thirty Years'
War, Parliament refused to grant subsidies to support the war effort, leading to Charles
gathering "forced loans" without Parliamentary approval and arbitrarily imprisoning those
who refused to pay. Moreover, the war footing of the nation led to the forced billeting of
soldiers within the homes of private citizens, and the declaration of martial law over large
swathes of the country. There are as many as 4 Articles in Petition of Right as follows:
Article 1: No Person should be required to pay a tax or benevolent without parliament
approval.
Article 2: No Person should be imprisoned without cause being shown with the Royal
command not to be sufficient cause.
Article 3: No troops should be quarter in private home without consent of and
compensation to their owner.
Article 4: The Crown should issue no commission Proceeding Martial Law.
2.3.2. Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689. It was a restatement
in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to
William and Mary in March 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It
lays down limits on the powers of sovereign and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules
for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament
and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty
of Protestants to have arms for their defense within the rule of law, and condemned James
II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the
same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they
quickly became popular in England. It also sets out—or, in the view of its drafters, restates
—certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as
represented in Parliament.
The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic rights for all Englishmen. These rights continue to
apply today, not only in England and Wales, but in each of the jurisdictions of the
Commonwealth realms as well. The Act set out that there should be:
 No royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of
justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
 No taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary
for the implementation of any new taxes.
 Only civil courts, not Church courts, are legal.
 Freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
  No standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of
parliament.
 No royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own
defense as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
 No royal interference in the election of members of parliament.
 The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be
impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
 "Grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void.
 No excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed.
Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of
Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was
also declared to be an abdication of the throne. Two major revolutions occurred during
the 18th century in the United States (1776) and in France (1789). The Virginia
Declaration of Rights of 1776 sets up a number of fundamental rights and freedoms.
The later United States Declaration of Independence includes concepts of natural rights
and famously states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness." Similarly, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen
defines a set of individual and collective rights of the people. These are, in the
document, held to be universal - not only to French citizens but to all men without
exception.
2.3.3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the
barbarism of World War II. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of
human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation
of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor
Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The
members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of
rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame
the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.
Canadian law professor John Humphrey and French lawyer Rene Cassin were responsible
for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively,
where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the
preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of
dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by
rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to
groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The
final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the
social and political order in which they are to be realized. Humphrey and Cassin intended
the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in
the third clause of the preamble [9].
Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on
human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and
drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. The inclusion of both civil
and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights was predicated on the
assumption that basic human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights
listed are inextricably linked.
Though this principle was not opposed by any member states at the time of adoption (the
declaration was adopted unanimously, with the abstention of the Soviet bloc, Apartheid
South Africa and Saudi Arabia), this principle was later subject to significant challenges
[10].
Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of a preamble and 30 Articles setting
forth the basic human rights without any discrimination. The Declaration contained
general definitions of two types of rights mentioned below:
1. Civil and Political Rights stated in Article 3 to 21 such as right to life, right to freedom,
right to nationality, right to own property, right to freedom of opinion and expression,
freedom of thought ,conscience and religion, bright to take part in the government etc.
2. Economic Social and Cultural rights are recognized in article 22 to 28. Some of those
are right to social security, right to education, right to participate, in the cultural life of the
community, right to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits
etc.
It is remarkable that UDHR is neither a convention, nor a treaty and is merely a
declaration without any binding force. In spite of this after 1948, this declaration
extended strong influence in adopting various international or regional conventions,
covenants, promulgating constitution and laws. Thus the International Bill of human
rights represents a milestone in the history of human rights, a veritable Magna Carta
marking mankind’s arrival at a vitally important phase, the conscious acquisition of
Human dignity.
2.3.4. Philosophical Thought in the Development of Human Rights
The conquest of the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries by Spain, during the Age of
Discovery, resulted in vigorous debate about human rights in Colonial Spanish America
[11]. This led to the issuance of the Laws of Burgos by Ferdinand the Catholic on behalf
of his daughter, Joanna of Castile. Fray Antonio de Montesinos, a Friar of the Dominican
Order at the Island of Hispaniola delivered a sermon on December 21, 1511, which was
attended by Bartolomé de las Casas. It is believed that reports from the Dominicans in
Hispaniola motivated the Spanish Crown to act. The sermon, known as the Christmas
Sermon, gave way to further debates from 1550-51 between Las Casas and Juan Ginés de
Sepúlveda at Valladolid. Among the provisions of the Laws of Burgos were child labor;
women's rights; wages; suitable accommodations; and rest/vacation, among others.
Several 17th- and 18th-century European philosophers, most notably John Locke,
developed the concept of natural rights, the notion that people are naturally free and equal.
Though Locke believed natural rights were derived from divinity since humans were
creations of God, his ideas were important in the development of the modern notion of
rights. Lockean natural rights did not rely on citizenship or any law of the state, nor were
they necessarily limited to one particular ethnic, cultural or religious group. Around the
same time, in 1689 the English Bill of Rights was created.
Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century in the United States (1776) and in
France (1789). The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 sets up a number of
fundamental rights and freedoms. The later United States Declaration of Independence
includes concepts of natural rights and famously states "that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Similarly, the French Declaration of the Rights of
Man and Citizen defines a set of individual and collective rights of the people. These are,
in the document, held to be universal - not only to French citizens but to all men without
exception.
2.3.5 19th Century to World War I
Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and G.W.F. Hegel expanded on the
theme of universality during the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1831 William Lloyd Garrison
wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the
great cause of human rights" so the term human rights probably came into use sometime
between Paine's The Rights of Man and Garrison's publication (Mayer 2000). In 1849 a
contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about human rights in his treatise On the
Duty of Civil Disobedience which was later influential on human rights and civil rights
thinkers. United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex
Parte Milligan, wrote "By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw
that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited
people" [13].
Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the
course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North
America, labor unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike,
establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labor. The
women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote.
National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial
powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native
India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities
succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more
recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the
United States.
2.3.5. Between World War I and World War II
 The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of
Versailles following the end of World War I. The League's goals included disarmament,
preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through
negotiation, diplomacy and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its Charter was a
mandate to promote many of the rights which were later included in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
The League of Nations had mandates to support many of the former colonies of the
Western European colonial powers during their transition from colony to independent
state. Established as an agency of the League of Nations, and now part of United Nations,
the International Labor Organization also had a mandate to promote and safeguard certain
of the rights later included in the UDHR.
2.3.7. After World War II
Rights in War and the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by
Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The
conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in conflict, and follow on
from the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the international community's first attempt to
define laws of war. Despite first being framed before World War II, the conventions were
revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.
The Geneva Conventions are:
 First Geneva Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded
and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field”(first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
 Second Geneva Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded,
Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea”(first adopted in 1949,
successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
 Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first
adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)
 Fourth Geneva Convention “relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War”(first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)
In addition, there are three additional amendment protocols to the Geneva Convention:
 Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 12
January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries.
 Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 163 countries.
 Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of May
20, 2008, it had been ratified by 28 countries and signed but not yet ratified by an
additional 59 countries.
All four conventions were last revised and ratified in 1949, based on previous revisions
and partly on some of the 1907 Hague Conventions. Later conferences have added
provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars.
Nearly all 200 countries of the world are "signatory" nations, in that they have ratified
these conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross is the controlling body
of the Geneva conventions.
Some of the remarkable features of the NHRC are its identification of the thematic
areas and vulnerable groups, formation of theme-wise committees to address issues.

CONCLUSION:
The preceding discussion gives an impression that natural Human Rights had to pass a
long way to obtain the legal and international recognition. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights created the stream of worldwide efforts and international co-operations for
assuring human rights. Though Human Rights have a universal figure, it’s scope and
periphery differ because of different socio-economic and political structure of various
countries. In a well developed social system of Europe or America, right to freedom or of
thought or freedom of opinion can be regarded as the most important human rights
whereas relief from poverty or ignorance is the standard of rights in a poor, developing
country of the Third world. However, Bangladesh has recognized UDHR and the
components of basic human rights have been enshrined in the constitution. But the
widespread poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, want of social security and abuse of rights
simply point out the fact that issues on human rights are confined still in the holy pages of
the Constitution. The scenario in the arena of Human rights in other developing or
underdeveloped countries is more or less identical to that of Bangladesh. It is therefore
implied that the political leaders, thinkers, economists, scientists, social workers and
philanthropist must do something meaningful to ensure human rights around the globe
and in case of failure in this regard the world will never be a happy abode for human
beings.
___________________