Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] which describe certain standards of human

behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are
commonly understood as inalienable[3]fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled
simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human
beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.
[3]

They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they

are egalitarianin the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They require empathy and the rule
of law[6] and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others. [1][3] They
should not be taken away except as a result of due processbased on specific circumstances;[3] for
example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment,torture, and execution.[7]
The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and
regional institutions.[3]Actions by states and non-governmental organizations form a basis
of public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights[8] suggests that "if the public discourse of
peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human
rights." The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke
considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights
to this day. The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of continued
philosophical debate;[9] while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety
of rights[5] such as the right to a fair trial, protection againstenslavement, prohibition
of genocide, free speech,[10] or a right to education, there is disagreement about which of these
particular rights should be included within the general framework of human rights; [1] some
thinkers suggest that human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid the worst-case
abuses, while others see it as a higher standard. [1]
Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of
the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust,[6]culminating in the adoption of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in
1948. Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights.
[11]

The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which

appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the
European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, andJeanJacques Burlamaqui, and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American
Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights
arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century,[12] possibly as a reaction to
slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes,[6]as a realization of inherent human vulnerability and
as being a precondition for the possibility of a just society.[5]
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...
1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[13]

Contents
[hide]

1History of the concept

o

1.116th18th century

1.219th century

1.320th century

2Philosophy
2.1Criticism

3Classification
o

3.1Indivisibility

3.2Categorization

3.3Three generations

4International protection and promotion

o

4.1United Nations Charter

4.2Universal Declaration of Human Rights

4.3International treaties

4.4Customary international law

4.5International humanitarian law

4.6United Nations system

4.6.1Political bodies

4.6.1.1Security Council

4.6.1.2General Assembly

4.6.1.3Human Rights Council

4.6.2Treaty bodies

4.7Regional human rights regimes

4.8Human rights promotion

5Non-governmental actors
o

5.1Non-governmental organizations

5.2Human rights defenders

5.3Corporations

6Violations

7Substantive rights
o

7.1Right to life

7.2Freedom from torture

7.3Freedom from slavery

7.4Right to a fair trial

7.5Freedom of speech

7.6Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

7.7Freedom of movement

7.8Rights debates

7.8.1Right to keep and bear arms

7.8.2Future generations

7.8.3Sexual orientation and gender identity

7.8.4Trade

7.8.5Water

7.8.6Sexual and reproductive rights

7.8.7World Health Organization

7.8.8Information and communication technologies

7.8.9Right to Non-refoulement vs. Right to Asylum

8Relationship with other topics

8.1The environment

8.2National security

8.3Relativism and universalism

9See also

10References

11Bibliography
o

11.1Books

11.2Articles

11.3Online

11.4Miscellaneous

12Further reading

13External links

History of the concept

The Cyrus Cylinder, created by kingCyrus the Great, is sometimes argued to be the world's first charter of
human rights.

Main article: History of human rights

The Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights 1689

Ratified

December 16, 1689

Location

Parliamentary Archives

Author(s)

Parliament of England

Purpose

Assert certain rights

Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed in some form for much of human history, there is
agreement that the earlier conceptions do not closely resemble the modern conceptions of
human rights. According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, "traditional societies typically
have had elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human
flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of
human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different
formulations of, human rights".[14] The history of human rights can be traced to past documents,
particularly Constitution of Medina (622), Al-Risalah al-Huquq (659-713), Magna Carta (1215),
the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen (1789), and the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution (1791).[1]

The modern sense of human rights can be traced to Renaissance Europe and the Protestant
Reformation, alongside the disappearance of the feudal authoritarianism and religious
conservativism that dominated the Middle Ages. One theory is that human rights were developed
during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.
[15]

The most commonly held view is that the concept of human rights evolved in the West, and

that while earlier cultures had important ethical concepts, they generally lacked a concept of
human rights. For example, McIntyre argues there is no word for "right" in any language before
1400.[11] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human
rights, rather they were the foundation[16] and constituted a form of limited political and legal
agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being
recognised in the course of early modern debates about rights.[17] One of the oldest records of
human rights is thestatute of Kalisz (1264), giving privileges to the Jewish minority in
the Kingdom of Poland such as protection from discrimination and hate speech. [18] Samuel
Moyn suggests that the concept of human rights is intertwined with the modern sense
of citizenship, which did not emerge until the past few hundred years.[19]

16th18th century
The earliest conceptualization of human rights is credited to ideas about natural rights emanating
from natural law. In particular, the issue of universal rights was introduced by the examination of
extending rights to indigenous peoples by Spanish clerics, such as Francisco de
Vitoria and Bartolom de Las Casas. In the Valladolid debate, Juan Gins de Seplveda, who
maintained an Aristotelian view of humanity as divided into classes of different worth, argued with
Las Casas, who argued in favor of equal rights to freedom from slavery for all humans regardless
of race or religion.[20]
17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying
them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could
not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the
Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions.[21] Two
major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France
(1789), leading to the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which articulated certain human rights.
Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of
fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, August
26, 1789.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.
United States Declaration of Independence, 1776
These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such
as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and G.W.F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The
term human rights probably came into use some time between Paine's The Rights of
Man and William Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in The Liberator, in which he stated that he was
trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights". Although the term had been used
by at least one author as early as 1742.[22]

19th century
In the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery.[6] A number
of reformers, notably British Member of Parliament William Wilberforce, worked towards the
abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and abolition of slavery. This was achieved across the British
Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807, which was enforced internationally by the Royal Navy under
treaties Britain negotiated with other nations,[23] and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In the United
States, all the northern states had abolished the institution of slavery between 1777 and 1804,
although southern states clung tightly to the "peculiar institution". Conflict and debates over the
expansion of slavery to new territories constituted one of the reasons for the southern
states' secession and the American Civil War. During the reconstruction period immediately
following the war, several amendments to the United States Constitution were made. These
included the 13th amendment, banning slavery, the 14th amendment, assuring full citizenship
and civil rights to all people born in the United States, and the 15th amendment,
guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote. In Russia, the reformer Tsar Alexander II ended

serfdom in 1861,[6] although the freed serfs often faced restrictions of their mobility within the
nation.
Many groups and movements have achieved profound social changes over the course of the
20th century in the name of human rights. In 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. Thewomen's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many
women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving
outcolonial 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 African American Civil Rights Movement,
and more recent diverse identity politicsmovements, on behalf of women and minorities in the
United States.
The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and
the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations ofInternational humanitarian law,
to be further developed following the two World Wars.

20th century
The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place
during them, were a driving force behind the development of modernhuman rights instruments.
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 and diplomacy, and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its charter was a mandate
to promote many of the rights later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the
League's role; this was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an important
role in international human-rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars, the United
Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law that now make
up international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Analyst Belinda Cooper
argued that human rights organizations flourished in the 1990s, possibly as a result of the
dissolution of the western and eastern Cold War blocs.[24] Ludwig Hoffmann argues that human
rights became more widely emphasized in the latter half of the twentieth century because it
"provided a language for political claim making and counter-claims, liberal-democratic, but also
socialist and post colonialist.[25]

Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam

Main article: Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam

The CDHR was signed by member states of the OIC in 1990 at the 19th Conference of Foreign
Ministers held in Cairo, Egypt. It was seen as the answer to the UDHR. In fact, the CDHR was
"patterned after the UN-sponsored UDHR of 1948". [26] The object of the CDHR was to "serve as a

guide for member states on human rights issues. CDHR translated the Qur'anic teachings as
follows: "All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and
responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex,
religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True religion is the guarantee for
enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity.[26] On top of references to the Qur'an,
the CDHR also referenced prophetic teachings and Islamic legal tradition. [citation needed]

Philosophy
Main article: Philosophy of human rights
The philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of
human rights and critically looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical approaches
have been advanced to explain how and why human rights have become a part of social
expectations.
One of the oldest Western philosophies of human rights is that they are a product of a natural
law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human
rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of
biological and social evolution (associated withHume). Human rights are also described as a
sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber).
These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate
authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls) a social contract. The
two theories that dominate contemporary human rights discussion are the interest theory and the
will theory. Interest theory argues that the principal function of human rights is to protect and
promote certain essential human interests, while will theory attempts to establish the validity of
human rights based on the unique human capacity for freedom.[27]

Criticism
The claims made by human rights to universality have led to criticism. Philosophers who have
criticized the concept of human rights include Jeremy Bentham,Edmund Burke, Friedrich
Nietzsche and Karl Marx.[citation needed] Political philosophy professor Charles Blattberg argues that
discussion of human rights, being abstract, demotivates people from upholding the values that
rights are meant to affirm.[28] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives particular attention to
two types of criticisms: the one questioning universality of human rights and the one denying
them objective ground.[29] Alain Pellet, an international law scholar, criticizes "human rightism"
approach as denying the principle of sovereignty and claiming a special place for human rights
among the branches of international law;[30] Alain de Benoist questions human rights premises of
human equality.[31] David Kennedy had listed pragmatic worries and polemical charges
concerning human rights in 2002 in Harvard Human Rights Journal.[32]

Classification

Human rights can be classified and organized in a number of different ways. At an international
level the most common categorization of human rights has been to split them into civil and
political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.
Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Indivisibility
The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights
because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in
combination:
The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and
want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and
political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their
economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the
public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis).
The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the
1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international
community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and
with the same emphasis.
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993
This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).
Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to
the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political
rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work,
to education, health and housing. Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have
tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil
and political rights.

Categorization

Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are
fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches.
[citation needed]

Economic, social and cultural rights are argued[by whom?] to be:

aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights

ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and

shouldn't be provided as a right

non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a
court of law

positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as
opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)

progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement

resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide

socialist, as opposed to capitalist

vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are
adequately provided or not is difficult to judge

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

capitalist

cost-free

immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to

justiciable

negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action

non-ideological/non-political

precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure

real 'legal' rights

Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and
cultural rights, it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Among
several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental

requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial
process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing
is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.[33]

Three generations
Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human
rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), secondgeneration economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation
solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third
generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation
is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without
others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity.
Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:
If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will
be treated as though it is truly important.[34]
He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:
[T]he call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.
Philip Alston[34]
Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at
progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation.
Olivia Ball, Paul Gready[35]
Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable
rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power,
and cannot be surrendered."

International protection and promotion

Main article: International human rights law
In the aftermath of the atrocities of World War II, there was increased concern for the social and
legal protection of human rights as fundamental freedoms. The foundation of the United
Nations and the provisions of the United Nations Charter provided a basis for a comprehensive
system of international law and practise for the protection of human rights. Since then,
international human rights law has been characterized by a linked system of conventions,
treaties, organisations, and political bodies, rather than any single entity or set of laws.
[36]

However, analyst Pierre Leval suggested that respect for fundamental human rights in the

world today is "dismal" within some nations:[37]

Despotic regimes murder, mutilate, and rape civilian populations and arbitrarily imprison and
torture political opponents. Human traffickers, almost invariably operating with the protection of

corrupt local officials and police, enslave children and young women in the sex trade. So long as
the regimes that sponsor and protect these criminals remain in power, their crimes go
unrecognized.
Pierre N. Leval in Foreign Affairs, 2013[37]

United Nations Charter

Main article: United Nations Charter
The provisions of the United Nations Charter provided a basis for the development of
international human rights protection in the opinion of Brownlie.[36] The preamble of the charter
provides that the members "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the equal rights of men
and women" and Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter states that one of the purposes of the
UN is: "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion".[38] Article 55 provides that:
The United Nations shall promote: a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions
of economic and social progress and development; b) solutions of international economic, social,
health, and related problems; c) international cultural and educational cooperation; d) universal
respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction
as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Of particular importance is Article 56 of the charter: "All Members pledge themselves to take joint
and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes
set forth in Article 55." This is a binding treaty provision applicable to both the Organisation and
its members and has been taken to constitute a legal obligation for the members of the United
Nations.[36] Overall, the references to human rights in the Charter are general and vague. The
Charter does not contain specific legal rights, nor does it mandate any enforcement procedures
to protect these rights.[39] Despite this, the significance of the espousal of human rights within the
UN charter must not be understated. The importance of human rights on the global stage can be
traced to the importance of human rights within the United Nations framework and the UN
Charter can be seen as the starting point for the development of a broad array of declarations,
treaties, implementation and enforcement mechanisms, UN organs, committees and reports on
the protection of human rights.[39] The rights espoused in the UN charter would be codified and
defined in an non-binding context within the International Bill of Human Rights, composing
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the internationalMagna Carta."[40] Eleanor
Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly[13] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. It is generally
viewed as the preeminent statement of international rights and has been identified as being a
culmination of centuries of thinking along both secular and religious lines. [41] Although the UDHR
is a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of
international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and
other tribunals.[citation needed] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil,
economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation
of freedom, justice andpeace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort
to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens.
...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First
Lady 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.[42] Canadian law
professor John Humphrey and French lawyer Ren 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. According to Cassin, the final three articles place rights in the context of limits,
duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized. [42] 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:[42]

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law.
Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
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.[43][44] The inclusion of civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights[42][45] was predicated on the assumption that all human rights
are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle
was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted
unanimously, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union
of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.); however, this principle was later subject to significant
challenges.[45]
The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into treaties, a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and another on social, economic, and cultural rights, due to questions about the relevance and
propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on human rights. Both covenants begin
with the right of people to self-determination and to sovereignty over their natural resources.
[46]

This debate over whether human rights are more fundamental than economic rights has

continued to the present day. The United States declared after the World Food Summit that a
right to be free from hunger does not give rise to any international obligations which has been
interpreted as a negative duty.[47]
The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included
only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were also proposed. The
disagreement over which rights were basic human rights resulted in there being two covenants.
The debate was whether economic and social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic
human rights which all people possess purely by being human, because economic and social
rights depend on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and economic
rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories, in contrast to basic
human rights, which are defined purely by the nature (mental and physical abilities) of human
beings. It was debated whether economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations
and whether the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of political-civil
rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or
induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for
civil-political rights.[48]
This debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human-rights law led to the
two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries had argued for the
inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution. Both covenants allowed states to derogate
some rights.[citation needed] Those in favor of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.[49][50]

International treaties

In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United
Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have
signed this treaty, creating human-rights law.
Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international
level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant,
referred to (with ICCPR and ICESCR) as "the seven core treaties", are:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

(adopted 1979, entry into force: 1981)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted

1966, entry into force: 1969)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into
force: 2008)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989)

United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1987)

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into force:
2003)

Customary international law

Main article: Customary international law
In addition to protection by international treaties, customary international law may protect some
human rights, such as the prohibition of torture, genocide and slavery and the principle of nondiscrimination.[51]

International humanitarian law

Main articles: Geneva Conventions and International humanitarian law
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 armed conflict, and build on the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws
of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions were
revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.

United Nations system

Main article: United Nations

Under the mandate of the UN charter, and the multilateral UN human rights treaties, the United
Nations (UN) as an intergovernmental body seeks to apply international jurisdiction for universal
human-rights legislation.[52] Within the UN machinery, human-rights issues are primarily the
concern of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council,
and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different
human-rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN in the sphere of human rights is the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate
to:
achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights
and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, language, or religion.
Article 13 of the United Nations Charter
Political bodies
Security Council
Main article: United Nations Security Council
The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of
force. It has been criticized for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including
the Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.[53] For example, critics
blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security Council for its failure regarding. [54]
On April 28, 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1674 that reaffirmed the responsibility
to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansingand crimes against humanity"
and committed the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict. [55]
General Assembly

The UN General Assembly.

Main article: United Nations General Assembly

The United Nations General Assembly, under Article 13 of the UN Charter, has the power to
initiate studies and make recommendations on human rights issues.[56] Under this provision, the
general assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and since then a
wide variety of other human rights instruments.[56] The assembly has several subsidiary organs
that deal with specific human rights issues, such as the Special Committee on Decolonisation

and the Special Commission against Apartheid (no longer operational). In addition the general
assembly has set up a number of subsidiary organs that consider human rights issues in a
number of high-profile contexts: such as the UN Council on Namibia, the Special Committee to
Investigate Israeli Practises in the Occupied territories and the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable rights of the Palestine People.[57]
Human Rights Council
Main article: United Nations Human Rights Council
The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit to replace
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of
human rights.[58] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[59] and
reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the
interpretation of the United Nations Charter.[60] Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one
member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United
Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their
membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and
meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations. [61]
Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human
rights abuses and to provide the Council with reports.
The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council take action when human rights
violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involvesanctions, and the Security
Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being
referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[62]
Treaty bodies
In addition to the political bodies whose mandate flows from the UN charter, the UN has set up a
number of treaty-based bodies, comprising committees of independent experts who monitor
compliance with human rights standards and norms flowing from the core international human
rights treaties. They are supported by and are created by the treaty that they monitor, With the
exception of the CESCR, which was established under a resolution of the Economic and Social
Council to carry out the monitoring functions originally assigned to that body under the Covenant,
they are technically autonomous bodies, established by the treaties that they monitor and
accountable to the state parties of those treaties - rather than subsidiary to the United Nations.
Though in practise they are closely intertwined with the United Nations system and are supported
by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the UN Center for Human
Rights.[63]

The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR.
The eighteen members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make
judgments on individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional
Protocol to the treaty. The judgments, termed "views", are not legally binding.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and
makes general comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to
receive complaints against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has
come into force. It is important to note that unlike the other treaty bodies, the economic
committee is not an autonomous body responsible to the treaty parties, but directly
responsible to the Economic and Social Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. This
means that the Economic Committee faces particular difficulties at its disposal only relatively
"weak" means of implementation in comparison to other treaty bodies.[64] Particular difficulties
noted by commentators include: perceived vagueness of the principles of the treaty, relative
lack of legal texts and decisions, ambivalence of many states in addressing economic, social
and cultural rights, comparatively few non-governmental organisations focused on the area
and problems with obtaining relevant and precise information.[64][65]

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and
conducts regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgments on complaints
against member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to
attempt to prevent serious contraventions of the convention.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors

the CEDAW. It receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and
can make judgments on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999
Optional Protocol.

The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their
performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and
inspect countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on
reports submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive
complaints.

The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors

the ICRMW and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will
have the power to receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states
allow it.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008 to
monitor the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive
complaints against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties
Division of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except

CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW
formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently
meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The
Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City.

Regional human rights regimes

Main article: Regional human rights regimes
International human rights regimes are in several cases "nested" within more comprehensive and
overlapping regional agreements. These regional regimes can be seen as relatively
independently coherent human rights sub-regimes.[66] Three principal regional human rights
instruments can be identified; the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American
Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The European Convention on Human Rights has since 1950 defined and guaranteed human
rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.[67] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe
have signed the Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg.[67]
See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights institutions

Human rights promotion

Human rights continue to be promoted around the world through governmental organizations and
museums including the Canadian Museum for Human Rights inWinnipeg, Manitoba.

Non-governmental actors
Main article: Human rights group

Non-governmental organizations

Visitors to an LGBT Pride event in Greece interact with members of a non-governmental human rights
organization.

Main article: Non-governmental organization

International non-governmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch,International Service for Human Rights and FIDH monitor
what they see as human rights issues around the world and promote their views on the subject.
Human rights organizations have been said to ""translate complex international issues into
activities to be undertaken by concerned citizens in their own community". [68] Human rights

organizations frequently engage in lobbying and advocacy in an effort to convince the United
Nations, supranational bodies and national governments to adopt their policies on human rights.
Many human-rights organizations have observer status at the various UN bodies tasked with
protecting human rights. A new (in 2009) non-governmental human-rights conference is the Oslo
Freedom Forum, a gathering described by The Economist as "on its way to becoming a humanrights equivalent of the Davos economic forum." The same article noted that human-rights
advocates are more and more divided amongst themselves over how violations of human rights
are to be defined, notably as regards the Middle East.[69]
There is criticism of human-rights organizations who use their status but allegedly move away
from their stated goals. For example, Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israel-based academic, maintains
that NGOs take advantage of a "halo effect" and are "given the status of impartial moral
watchdogs" by governments and the media.[70]Such critics claim that this may be seen at various
governmental levels, including when human-rights groups testify before investigation
committees.[71]

Human rights defenders

Main article: Human rights defender
A human rights defender is someone who, individually or with others, acts to promote or protect
human rights. Human rights defenders are those men and women who act peacefully for the
promotion and protection of those rights, and most of this activity happens within a nation as
opposed to internationally.[6]

Corporations
Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible
for numerous human rights abuses.[72] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the
actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies
is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to
their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the
economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic
and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies
with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special
Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in
2003:
[T]he growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through
privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to
develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe
potential abuses of their position of power.
Jean Ziegler[73]
In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational

corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[74] These were
considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on
corporations and are not monitored.[75]

Violations
See also: War, Genocides in history, Human rights defender, and Corporate accountability for
human rights violations
See also: Category:Human rights abuses.
Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or
deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights).
Furthermore, violations of human rights can occur when any state or non-state actor breaches
any part of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law.[76] In regard
to human rights violations of United Nations laws, Article 39 of the United Nations
Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that
may determine UN human rights violations.
Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and
governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty
International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World
Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression
Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and
documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.
Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches
of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations.
In efforts to eliminate violations of human rights, building awareness and protesting inhumane
treatment has often led to calls for action and sometimes improved conditions. The UN Security
Council has interceded with peace keeping forces, and other states and treaties (NATO) have
intervened in situations to protect human rights.

Substantive rights
Right to life
Main article: Right to life
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The right to life is the essential right that a human being has the right not to be killed by another
human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of abortion, capital
punishment, euthanasia, self defense and war. According to many human rights activists,
the death penalty violates this right.[77] TheUnited Nations has called on states retaining the death

penalty to establish a moratorium on capital punishment with a view to its abolition. [78] States
which do not do so face considerable moral and political pressure.

Freedom from torture

Main article: Torture
Throughout history, torture has been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation,
punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be
motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive
for torture can also be for the sadisticgratification of the torturer, as in the Moors murders.
Since the mid-20th century, torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of
most countries. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be
unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of
the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols I and II of June 8, 1977 officially
agree not to torture captured persons in armed conflicts, whether international or internal. Torture
is also prohibited by theUnited Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by
157 countries.[79]
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and
similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical.[80] Despite these international
conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g., Amnesty International,
the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by
states in many regions of the world.[81] Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world
governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.[82]

Freedom from slavery

Main article: Slavery
Freedom from slavery is internationally recognized as a human right. Article 4 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.[83]
Despite this, the number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history,[84] remaining as
high as 12 million[85] to 27 million,[86][87][88] Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are
under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations.[89] Human trafficking is
primarily for prostituting womenand children into sex industries.[90]
Groups such as the American Anti-Slavery Group, Anti-Slavery International, Free the Slaves,
the Anti-Slavery Society, and the Norwegian Anti-Slavery Society continue to campaign to rid the
world of slavery.

Right to a fair trial

Main article: Right to a fair trial

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
[91]

The right to a fair trial has been defined in numerous regional and international human rights
instruments. It is one of the most extensive human rights and all international human rights
instruments enshrine it in more than one article. [92] The right to a fair trial is one of the most
litigated human rights and substantial case law has been established on the interpretation of this
human right.[93] Despite variations in wording and placement of the various fair trial rights,
international human rights instrument define the right to a fair trial in broadly the same terms.
[94]

The aim of the right is to ensure the proper administration of justice. As a minimum the right to

fair trial includes the following fair trial rights in civil and criminal proceedings:[95]

the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal

the right to a public hearing

the right to be heard within a reasonable time

the right to counsel

the right to interpretation[95]

Freedom of speech
Main article: Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of
expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and
imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of
speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on
libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc. The right to freedom of expression is
recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold
opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this
right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other
media of his choice".

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Main articles: Freedom of thought, Conscience, and Freedom of religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others

and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion are closely related rights that protect the freedom of
an individual or community, in public or private, to think and freely hold conscientious beliefs and
to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is
generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.
[96]

The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious groupin religious

terms called "apostasy"is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[97]
Human rights groups such as Amnesty International organises campaigns to protect those
arrested and or incarcerated as a prisoner of conscience because of their conscientious beliefs,
particularly concerning intellectual, political and artistic freedom of expression and association.
[98]

In legislation, a conscience clause is a provision in a statute that excuses a health professional

from complying with the law (for example legalising surgical or pharmaceutical abortion) if it is
incompatible with religious or conscientious beliefs.[99]

Freedom of movement
Main article: Freedom of movement
Freedom of movement asserts that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the
liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits
of respect for the liberty and rights of others,[1] and to leave that state and return at any time.

Rights debates
Events and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances of
technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo of human rights
thinking.
Right to keep and bear arms
Main article: Right to keep and bear arms
The right to keep and bear arms for defense is described in the philosophical and political
writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigsand others.[100] In
countries with an English common law tradition, a long-standing common law right to keep and
bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence
of national constitutions.[101]
Future generations
In 1997, UNESCO adopted the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation
Towards the Future Generation. The Declaration opens with the words:

Mindful of the will of the peoples, set out solemnly in the Charter of the United Nations, to 'save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and to safeguard the values and principles
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all other relevant instruments of
international law.
Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation
Article 1 of the declaration states "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring
that the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded." The
preamble to the declaration states that "at this point in history, the very existence of humankind
and its environment are threatened" and the declaration covers a variety of issues including
protection of the environment, the human genome, biodiversity, cultural heritage, peace,
development, andeducation. The preamble recalls that the responsibilities of the present
generations towards future generations has been referred to in various international instruments,
including the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO
1972), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on
Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development (UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), the Vienna Declaration
and Programme of Action (World Conference on Human Rights, 1993) and a number of UN
General Assembly resolutions relating to the protection of the global climate for present and
future generations adopted since 1990.[102]
Sexual orientation and gender identity
See also: LGBT rights by country or territory

Asia's first Genderqueer Pride Parade at Madurai with Anjali Gopalan. On December 11, 2013,
homosexuality was criminalized in India by a Supreme Court ruling.[103]

Sexual orientation and gender identity rights relate to the expression of sexual
orientation and gender identity based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be
discriminated against on the ground of "other status" as defined in various human rights
conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights.

As of 2011, homosexual behavior is illegal in 76 countries and punishable by execution in seven

countries.[104] The criminalization of private, consensual, adult sexual relations, especially in
countries where corporal or capital punishment is involved, is one of the primary concerns of
LGBT human rights advocates.[105]
Other issues include: government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual
orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws
regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and equal age of
consent for same-sex activity.[106][107][108][109][110][111]
A global charter for sexual orientation and gender identity rights has been proposed in the form
of the 'Yogyakarta Principles', a set of 29 principles whose authors say they apply International
Human Rights Law statutes and precedent to situations relevant to LGBT people's experience.
[112]

The principles were presented at a United Nations event in New York on November 7, 2007,

co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

The principles have been acknowledged with influencing the French proposed UN declaration on
sexual orientation and gender identity, which focuses on ending violence, criminalization and
capital punishment and does not include dialogue about same-sex marriage or right to start a
family.[113][114] The proposal was supported by 67 of the then 192 member countries of the United
Nations, including all EU member states and the United States. An alternative statement
opposing the proposal was initiated by Syria and signed by 57 member nations, including all 27
nations of the Arab League as well as Iran and North Korea.[115][116]
Trade
Although both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasize the importance of a right to work, neither of
these documents explicitly mention free trade as a mechanism for ensuring this fundamental
right. And yet trade plays a key role in providing jobs.[117]
Some experts argue that trade is inherent to human nature and that when governments inhibit
international trade they directly inhibit the right to work and the other indirect benefits, like the
right to education, that increased work and investment help accrue. [118] Others have argued that
the ability to trade does not affect everyone equallyoften groups like the rural poor, indigenous
groups and women are less likely to access the benefits of increased trade. [119]
On the other hand, others think that it is no longer primarily individuals but companies that trade,
and therefore it cannot be guaranteed as a human right. [citation needed] Additionally, trying to fit too
many concepts under the umbrella of what qualifies as a human right has the potential to dilute
their importance. Finally, it is difficult to define a right to trade as either "fair"[120] or "just" in that the
current trade regime produces winners and losers but its reform is likely to produce (different)
winners and losers.[121]
See also: The Recognition of Labour Standards within the World Trade
Organisation and Investor state dispute settlement

Water
Main article: Right to water
See also: Water politics
The right to water has been recognized in a wide range of international documents, including
treaties, declarations and other standards. For instance, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) requires State parties to ensure to
women the right to enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to [] water supply.
The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires States parties to combat disease
and malnutrition through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water.
The most clear definition of the Human right to water has been issued by the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This treaty body interpreting legal obligations of State
parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) issued
in 2002 a non-binding interpretation affirming that access to water was a condition for the
enjoyment of the right to an adequate standard of living and inextricably related to the right to the
highest attainable standard of health (see ICESCR Art.11 & 12) and therefore a human right:
The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible
and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
On July 28, 2010, the United Nations General Assembly declared water and sanitation as human
rights. Today all States have at least ratified one human rights convention which explicitly or
implicitly recognizes the right, and they all have signed at least one political declaration
recognizing this right.
Sexual and reproductive rights
Main article: reproductive rights
Human rights include womens rights and sexual and reproductive rights. Sexual and
reproductive rights are part of a continuum of human rights, which includes the rights to life,
health and education, the rights to equality and non-discrimination, and the right to decide the
timing, number and spacing of ones children.[122][123]
Reproductive and sexual rights as part of human rights was affirmed internationally at the
Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in
Cairo in 1994.[122] It was the first among international development frameworks to address issues
related to sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights. [124]
The ICPD Program of Action in paragraph 7.2 defines an individuals sexual and reproductive
health as complete well-being related to sexual activity and reproduction. Sexual and
reproductive health and rights (SRHR) encompass both entitlements and freedoms. This
includes the definition of reproductive rights in paragraph 7.3 of the ICPD PoA, which clarifies
that these are not a new set of rights but human rights in existing human rights instruments

related to sexual and reproductive autonomy and the attainment of sexual and reproductive
health.[125] Additionally, the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action (PfA) expands this definition to cover
both sexuality and reproduction by affirming in paragraph 96 the right to exercise control over
and make decisions about ones sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of
coercion, discrimination and violence.

[124]

World Health Organization

Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nations 1968
International Conference on Human Rights.[126] The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation
of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the
number and the spacing of their children."[126][127]
Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or
safe abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to quality reproductive
healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free
from coercion, discrimination, and violence.[128]
Reproductive rights may also be understood to
include education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom
from coerced sterilizationand contraception, protection from gender-based practices such
as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation (MGM).[123][126][128][129]
Information and communication technologies
Main articles: Right to Internet access and Digital rights
In October 2009, Finland's Ministry of Transport and Communications announced that every
person in Finland would have the legal right to Internet access. [130]Since July 2010, the
government has legally obligated telecommunications companies to offer broadband Internet
access to every permanent residence and office. The connection must be "reasonably priced"
and have a downstream rate of at least 1 Mbit/s.[131]
In March 2010, the BBC, having commissioned an opinion poll, reported that "almost four in five
people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right." [132] The poll,
conducted by the polling company GlobeScan for the BBC World Service, collated the answers
of 27,973 adult citizens across 26 countries to find that 79% of adults either strongly agreed or
somewhat agreed with the statement: "access to the internet should be a fundamental right of all
people".[133]
Right to Non-refoulement vs. Right to Asylum
Non-refoulement is the right not to be returned to a place of persecution and is the foundation for
international refugee law, as outlined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
[134]

Both the right to non-refoulement and the right to asylum have taken center stage in recent

debates over the treatment of refugees. A central worry about the right to asylum is that it can
limit a states power to handle a mass influx of refugees.[135] Processing asylum applications can
take a considerable amount of time, and this amount rises with the amount of refugees applying.

This creates an incentive for more refugees to apply, since they are allowed to stay in the country
during the application process. One potential solution to the problem of mass influx is proposed
by political philosopher Andy Lamey. Lamey proposes a portable procedural model that focuses
on the right to non-refoulement.[136] Crucially, the procedural rights defended by this model can be
applied outside national borders, within any rights respecting country; this allows the burden of
mass influx to be shared by a plurality of countries without violating the procedural rights of the
refugee.

Relationship with other topics

The environment
There are two basic conceptions of environmental human rights in the current human rights
system. The first is that the right to a healthy or adequate environment is itself a human right (as
seen in both Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 11 of
the San Salvador Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights).[137][138] The second
conception is the idea that environmental human rights can be derived from other human rights,
usually the right to life, the right to health, the right to private family life and the right to property
(among many others). This second theory enjoys much more widespread use in human rights
courts around the world, as those rights are contained in many human rights documents.
The onset of various environmental issues, especially climate change, has created potential
conflicts between different human rights. Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem
and healthy environment, but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these.
Such as the conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a
healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons.[139] In the area of environmental
rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human
rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.[citation needed]
Environmental rights revolve largely around the idea of a right to a livable environment both for
the present and the future generations.

National security
See also: National security and Anti-terrorism legislation
With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to
life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from
retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable),[140] the UN recognises that human rights
can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency although
the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very
existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary
measure.
United Nations. The Resource[140]

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known
as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such United Nations Charterobligations are binding on all
states and cannot be modified by treaty.
Examples of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese
American internment during World War II,[141] Stalin's Great Purge,[142] and the modern-day abuses
of terror suspects rights by some countries, often in the name of the War on Terror.[143][144]

Relativism and universalism

Main articles: Cultural relativism, Moral relativism, and Moral universalism

Relativists argue that human rights must avoid pushing the values of a single culture at the expense of
others. "The White Man's Burden" is seen as an example of the West using the spread of Western culture
as a justification for colonization.

Universalists argue that some practices violate the norms of all human cultures. They point out that
although Female genital mutilationis prevalent in Africa, no religion supports the practice, and the tradition
is in violation of women's rights.

The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical
location, state, race or culture they belong to. However, in academia there is a dispute between
scholars that advocate moral relativism and scholars that advocate moral universalism.
Relativists do not argue against human rights, but concede that human rights are social
constructed and are shaped by cultural and environmental contexts. Universalists argue that
human rights have always existed, and apply to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, or
religion.
More specifically, proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures,
which may have practices conflicting with human rights. Relativists caution that universalism
could be used as a form of cultural, economic or political imperialism. The White Man's Burden is

used as an example of imperialism and the destruction of local cultures justified by the desire to
spread Eurocentric values.[145] In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be
fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in
Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.[citation needed]
Opponents of relativism argue that some practices exist that violate the norms of all human
cultures. A common example isfemale genital mutilation, which occurs in different cultures in
Africa, Asia and South America[citation needed]. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a
tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the
international community, and is outlawed in some countries.
The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin
Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from Western
values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social
stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than
democracy. Lee Kuan Yew argued that:
What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners
value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background,
my values are for a government which is honest, effective, and efficient.
Lee Kuan Yew, 'Democracy, Human Rights and the Realities', Tokyo, Nov 10, 1992 [146]
In response, critics have pointed out that cultural relativism could be used as a justification for
authoritarianism. An example is in 1981, when the Iranian representative to the United Nations,
Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of
the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing
the Islamic law.[147] The Asian Values argument was criticized by Mahathir's former deputy:
To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers,
who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.
A. Ibrahim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia,
December 2, 1994
and by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who states that it is racist to assert that
Asians do not want human rights[14]
Defenders of moral universalism argue that relativistic arguments neglect the fact that modern
human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They argue
that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US
Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from
the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma
[Link] Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument
used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those

whose human rights are compromised are the powerless.[149] This reflects the fact that the
difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular
culture.
Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an
academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that
human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international
community's adherence to this principle:
The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.
2005 World Summit, paragraph 121