Human rights
Human rights are the rights possessed by all persons, by virtue of their common humanity,
to live a life of freedom and dignity. They give all people moral claims on the behaviour of
individuals and on the design of social arrangements—and are universal, inalienable and
indivisible. Human rights express our deepest commitments to ensuring that all persons are
secure in their enjoyment of the goods and freedoms that are necessary for dignified living.
Universality of human rights
Human rights belong to all people, and all people have equal status with respect to these
rights. Failure to respect an individual’s human right has the same weight as failure to
respect the right of any other—it is not better or worse depending on the person’s gender,
race, ethnicity, nationality or any other distinction.
Inalienability of human rights
Human rights are inalienable: they cannot be taken away by others, nor can one give them
up voluntarily.
Indivisibility of human rights
Human rights are indivisible in two senses. First, there is no hierarchy among different kinds
of rights. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are all equally necessary for a
life of dignity. Second, some rights cannot be suppressed in order to promote others. Civil
and political rights may not be violated to promote economic, social and cultural rights. Nor
can economic, social and cultural rights be suppressed to promote civil and political rights.
Realization of human rights
A human right is realized when individuals enjoy the freedoms covered by that right and
their enjoyment of the right is secure. A person’s human rights are realized if and only if
social arrangements are in place sufficient to protect her against standard threats to her
enjoyment of the freedoms covered by those rights.
Duties and obligations
The terms duties and obligations are used interchangeably in this Report. Duties
and obligations are norms. Norms provide people and other actors with reasons for
conducting themselves in certain ways. Some duties and obligations require only that a
person refrain from a certain course of conduct. Others require that the person undertake a
course of conduct or one of a range of permissible courses of conduct.
Human rights and the correlate duties of duty bearers
Human rights are correlated with duties. Duty bearers are the actors collectively
responsible for the realization of human rights. Those who bear duties with respect to a
human right are accountable if the right goes unrealized. When a right has been violated or
insufficiently protected, there is always someone or some institution that has failed to
perform a duty.
Perfect and imperfect duties
Perfect duties specify both how the duty is to be performed and to whom it is owed.
Imperfect duties, by contrast, leave open both how the duty can be performed and how
forceful the duty is that must be carried out.
International human rights treaties, covenants and conventions
Used interchangeably, treaty, covenant and convention refer to legally binding
agreements between states. These agreements define the duties of states parties to the
treaty, covenant or convention.
States parties
States parties to an international agreement are the countries that have ratified it and are
thereby legally bound to comply with its provisions.
Ratification of a treaty (covenant, convention)
Ratification of an international agreement represents the promise of a state to uphold it and
adhere to the legal norms that it specifies.
Signing of a treaty (covenant, convention)
Signing a treaty, covenant or convention represents a promise of the state to adhere to the
principles and norms specified in the document without creating legal duties to comply with
them. Signing is the first step that states undertake towards ratifying and thus becoming
states parties to an agreement. Presidential signature of an agreement must be ratified by
parliament for the agreement to become legally binding.
Reservation to a treaty (covenant, convention)
A reservation to a treaty indicates that a state party does not agree to comply with one or
more of its provisions. Reservations are, in principle, intended to be used only temporarily,
when states are unable to realize a treaty provision but agree in principle to do so.
Treaty bodies
Treaty bodies are the committees formally established through the principal international
human rights treaties to monitor states parties’ compliance with the treaties. Treaty bodies
have been set up for the six core UN human rights treaties to monitor states parties’ efforts
to implement their provisions.
Human rights declarations
Human rights declarations enunciate agreed upon principles and standards. These
documents are not in themselves legally binding. But some declarations, most notably the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have been understood as having the status of
common law, since their provisions have been so widely recognized as binding on all states.
International Human Rights Law: A Short History
The phrase "human rights" may be used in an abstract and philosophical sense, either as
denoting a special category of moral claim that all humans may invoke or, more pragmatically, as
the manifestation of these claims in positive law, for example, as constitutional guarantees to
hold Governments accountable under national legal processes. While the first understanding of
the phrase may be referred to as "human rights", the second is described herein as "human rights
law".
While the origin of "human rights" lies in the nature of the human being itself, as articulated in all
the world's major religions and moral philosophy, "human rights law" is a more recent
phenomenon that is closely associated with the rise of the liberal democratic State. In such
States, majoritarianism legitimizes legislation and the increasingly bureaucratized functioning
of the executive. However, majorities sometimes may have little regard for "numerical"
minorities, such as sentenced criminals, linguistic or religious groups, non-nationals, indigenous
peoples and the socially stigmatized. It therefore becomes necessary to guarantee the existence
and rights of numerical minorities, the vulnerable and the powerless. This is done by agreeing on
the rules governing society in the form of a constitutionally entrenched and justiciable bill of
rights containing basic human rights for all. Through this bill of rights, "human rights law" is
created, becoming integral to the legal system and superior to ordinary law and executive
action.
In this article, some aspects of the history of human rights law at the global, regional and
subregional levels are traced. The focus falls on the recent, rather than the more remote, past.
To start with, some observations are made about the "three generations" of human rights law.
Three generations of international human rights law
Human rights activism can be described as a struggle to ensure that the gap between human
rights and human rights law is narrowed down in order to ensure the full legal recognition and
actual realization of human rights. History shows that governments do not generally grant rights
willingly but that rights gains are only secured through a successful challenge to absolutist
authority. Following on the Magna Carta, which set limits on the powers of royal Government in
thirteenth century England, the 1776 American Declaration of Independence and the 1789
French Declaration des droits de l'Homme et de du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen) were landmarks of how revolutionary visions could be transformed into national law and
made into justiciable guarantees against future abuse.
The traditional categorization of three generations of human rights, used in both national and
international human rights discourse, traces the chronological evolution of human rights as an
echo to the cry of the French revolution: Liberté (freedoms, "civil and political" or "first
generation" rights), Egalité (equality, "socio-economic" or "second generation" rights), and
Fraternité (solidarity, "collective" or "third generation" rights). In the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the struggle for rights focused on the liberation from authoritarian oppression and
the corresponding rights of free speech, association and religion and the right to vote. With the
changed view of the State role in an industrializing world, and against the background of growing
inequalities, the importance of socio-economic rights became more clearly articulated. With
growing globalization and a heightened awareness of overlapping global concerns, especially
due to extreme poverty in some parts of the world, "third generation" rights, such as the rights to
a healthy environment, to self-determination and to development, have been adopted.
During the period of the cold war, "first generation" rights were prioritized in Western
democracies, while second generation rights were resisted as socialist notions. In the
developing world, economic growth and development were often regarded as goals able to
trump "civil and political" rights. The discrepancy between the two sets of rights was also
emphasized: "civil and political" rights were said to be of immediate application, while "second
generation" rights were understood to be implemented only in the long term or progressively.
Another axis of division was the supposed notion that "first generation" rights place negative
obligations on States while "second generation" rights place positive obligations on States. After
the fall of the Berlin Wall, it became generally accepted that such a dichotomy does not do
justice to the extent to which these rights are interrelated and interdependent. The dichotomy
of positive/negative obligations no longer holds water. It seems much more useful to regard all
rights as interdependent and indivisible, and as potentially entailing a variety of obligations on
the State. These obligations may be categorized as the duty to respect, protect, promote and
fulfil.
Global level
For many centuries, there was no international human rights law regime in place. In fact,
international law supported and colluded in many of the worst human rights atrocities, including
the Atlantic Slave Trade and colonialism. It was only in the nineteenth century that the
international community adopted a treaty abolishing slavery. The first international legal
standards were adopted under the auspices of the International Labour Organization (ILO),
which was founded in 1919 as part of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. ILO is meant to protect the
rights of workers in an ever-industrializing world.
After the First World War, tentative attempts were made to establish a human rights system
under the League of Nations. For example, a Minority Committee was established to hear
complaints from minorities, and a Mandates Commission was put in place to deal with individual
petitions of persons living in mandate territories. However, these attempts had not been very
successful and came to an abrupt end when the Second World War erupted. It took the trauma of
that war, and in particular Hitler's crude racially-motivated atrocities in the name of national
socialism, to cement international consensus in the form of the United Nations as a bulwark
against war and for the preservation of peace.
The core system of human rights promotion and protection under the United Nations has a dual
basis: the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, and a network of treaties subsequently adopted by UN
members. The Charter-based system applies to all 192 UN Member States, while only those
States that have ratified or acceded to particular treaties are bound to observe that part of the
treaty-based (or conventional) system to which they have explicitly agreed.
Charter-based system
This system evolved under the UN Economic and Social Council, which set up the Commission
on Human Rights, as mandated by article 68 of the UN Charter. The Commission did not consist
of independent experts, but was made up of 54 governmental representatives elected by the
Council, irrespective of the human rights record of the States concerned. As a consequence,
States earmarked as some of the worst human rights violators served as members of the
Commission. The main accomplishment of the Commission was the elaboration and near-
universal acceptance of the three major international human rights instruments: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR), the latter two adopted in 1966. As the adoption of those two separate documents
indicates, the initial idea of transforming the Universal Declaration into a single binding
instrument was not accomplished, mainly due to a lack of agreement about the justiciability of
socio-economic rights. As a result, individual complaints could be lodged, alleging violations by
certain States of ICCPR, but not so with ICESCR.
The normative basis of the UN Charter system is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
adopted on 10 December 1948, which has given authoritative content to the vague reference to
human rights in the UN Charter. Although it was adopted as a mere declaration, without a binding
force, it has subsequently come to be recognized as a universal yardstick of State conduct. Many
of its provisions have acquired the status of customary international law.
Faced with allegations of human rights violations, particularly in apartheid South Africa, the
Commission had to devise a system for the consideration of complaints. Two mechanisms
emerged, the "1235" and "1503" procedures, adopted in 1959 and 1970, respectively, each named
after the Economic and Social Council resolution establishing them. Both mechanisms dealt
only with situations of gross human rights violations. The difference was that the "1235"
procedure entailed a public discussion while "1503" remained confidential. In order to fill the gap
in effective implementation of human rights, a number of special procedures were established
by the Commission. Unique procedures take the form of special rapporteurs, independent
experts or working groups looking at a particular country (country-specific mandate) or focusing
on a thematic issue (thematic mandate).
Leapfrogging a few decades to 2005, in his report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development,
Security and Human Rights for All, the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, called for the
replacement of the Commission by a smaller, permanent and human rights-compliant Council,
able to fill the credibility gap left by States that used their Commission membership "to protect
themselves against criticism and to criticize others".1 The major reason for replacing the
Commission was the very selective way in which it exercised its country-specific mandate, due
mainly to the political bias of representatives and the ability of more powerful countries to
deflect the attention away from themselves and those enjoying their support. In 2006, the
General Assembly decided to follow the Secretary-General's recommendation, creating the
Human Rights Council as a replacement to the Commission on Human Rights.2
There are some important differences between the former Commission on Human Rights and
the current Human Rights Council. As a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the Council
enjoys an elevated status compared to the Commission, which was a functional body of the
Economic and Social Council. It has a slightly smaller membership (47 States) and its members
are elected by an absolute majority of the Assembly (97 States). To avoid prolonged dominance
by a few States, members may be elected only for two consecutive three-year terms. The
Council serves as a standing or permanent body, which meets regularly, not only for annual
"politically charged six-week sessions" as the Commission did. Following the more human rights-
sensitive selection criteria, the list of States elected by the Assembly contrasts with countries
which, in 2006, served on the Commission. The Assembly may, by a two-thirds majority vote,
suspend a member that engages in gross and systematic human rights violations.
The Human Rights Council retained most of the special procedures, including the confidential
"1503" (now called the "compliant procedure"), and introduced the Universal Peer Review (UPR).
Starting in April 2008, one third of UN Member States has undergone this process. The UPR sUPR
hows similarities with the African Peer Review Mechanism which has been set up under the New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). Apart from the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, the General Assembly adopted numerous other declarations. When sufficient consensus
emerges between States, declarations may be transformed into binding agreements. It is
revealing that the required level of agreement is lacking on crucial issues, such as the protection
of non-hegemonic citizenship. The two relevant declarations -- the Declaration on the Rights of
Persons belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted in 1992, and the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, have not been translated into
binding instruments. The same is true of the Declaration on the Right to Development, which
was adopted in 1986.
Treaty-based system
The treaty-based system developed even more rapidly than the Charter-based system. The first
treaty, adopted in 1948, was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which addressed the most immediate past experience of the Nazi Holocaust. Since
then, a huge number of treaties have been adopted, covering a wide array of subjects, eight of
them on human rights -- each comprising a treaty monitoring body -- under the auspices of the
United Nations.
The first, adopted in 1965, is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (CERD), followed by ICCPR and ICESCR in 1966. The international human
rights regime then started to move away from a generic focus, shifting its attention instead to
particularly marginalized and oppressed groups or themes: the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted in 1979; the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984); the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989); the International Convention on the Protection of
the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990); and the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). The latest treaty is the International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (ICED), also adopted in 2006 but yet
to enter into force. With the adoption of an Optional Protocol to ICESCR in 2008, allowing for
individual complaints regarding alleged violations of socio-economic rights, the UN treaty
system now also embodies the principle that all rights are justiciable. Office of the UN High
Commissioner
Twenty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration, the first International Conference
on Human Rights was held in 1968 in Teheran. As the world was at that stage caught in the grip of
the cold war, little consensus emerged and not much was achieved. The scene was very different
when the second world conference took place in Vienna in 1993. The cold war had come to an
end, but the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina was unfolding. Against this background, 171
Heads of State and Government met and adopted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action. It reaffirmed that all rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. Several
resolutions adopted there were subsequently implemented, including the adoption of an
Optional Protocol to CEDAW and the establishment of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, with the first High Commissioner (José Ayala Lasso) elected in
1994. The High Commissioner has the major responsibility for human rights in the United
Nations. The increasingly important human rights field presence in ratcheted countries also falls
under this Office.
Other conferences have also highlighted important issues, such as racism and xenophobia,
which were discussed at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South
Africa. This culminated in the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. A
review conference to assess progress in the implementation of the Declaration took place in
April 2009.
Regional level
Since the Second World War, three regional human rights regimes -- norms and institutions that
are accepted as binding by States -- have been established. Each of these systems operates under
the auspices of an intergovernmental organization or an international political body. In the case
of the European system -- the best of the three -- it is the Council of Europe, which was founded in
1949 by 10 Western European States to promote human rights and the rule of law in post-Second
World War Europe, avoided a regression into totalitarianism and served as a bulwark against
Communism. The Organization of American States (OAS) was founded in 1948 to promote
regional peace, security and development. In Africa, a human rights system was adopted under
the auspices of the Organization for African Unity (OAU), which was formed in 1963 and
transformed in 2002 into the African Union (AU).
In each of the three systems, the substantive norms are set out in one principal treaty. The
Council of Europe adopted its primary human rights treaty in 1950: the European Convention of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Incorporating the protocols adopted thereto, it
includes mainly "civil and political" rights, but also provides for the right to property. All 47
Council of Europe members have become party to the European Convention. OAS adopted the
American Convention on Human Rights in 1969, which has been ratified by 24 States. The
American Convention contains rights similar to those in the European Convention but goes
further by providing for a minimum of "socio-economic" rights. In contrast to these two treaties,
the African Charter, adopted by OAU in 1981, contains justiciable "socio-economic" rights and
elaborates on the duties of individuals and the rights of peoples. All AU members are parties to
the African Charter.
The way in which the principal treaty is implemented or enforced differs in each region. In an
evolution spanning many decades, the European system of implementation, operating out of
Strasbourg, France, developed from a system where a Commission and a Court co-existed to
form a single judicial institution. The European Court of Human Rights deals with individual
cases. A dual model is in place in the Americas, consisting of the Inter-American Commission,
based in Washington, D.C., and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San José,
Costa Rica. Individual complainants have to submit their grievances to the Inter-American
Commission first; thereafter, the case may proceed to the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights. The Commission also has the function of conducting on-site visits. After some recent
institutional reforms, the African system now resembles the Inter-American system.
Fledgling Arab and Muslim regional systems have also emerged under the League of Arab States
and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to the Islamic world view, the
Koran and other religious sources play a dominant role in the regulation of social life.
The League of Arab States was founded in terms of the Pact of the League of Arab States of 1945.
Its overriding aim is to strengthen unity among Arab States by developing closer links between
its members. The Pact emphasizes the independence and sovereignty of its members, but no
mention is made in its founding document of either the contents or principles of human rights.
At the Teheran World Conference in 1968, some Arab States managed to have the position of
Arabs in the territories occupied by Israel included in the agenda and successfully articulated it
as a human rights issue. This created awareness of human rights among the Arab States in the
aftermath of a number of defeats at the hands of Israel in 1967. However, at the Teheran
Conference and thereafter, the commitment of the Arab League to human rights was primarily
on directing criticism against Israel over its treatment of the inhabitants in Palestine and other
occupied areas. In 1968, a regional conference on human rights was held in Beirut, where the
Permanent Arab Commission on Human Rights (ACHR) was established. Since inception, the
ACHR has been a highly politicized body, with its political nature accentuated by the method of
appointment. The Commission does not consist of independent experts, as in many other
international human rights bodies, but of government representatives. On 15 September 1994,
the Council of the League of Arab States adopted the Arab Charter on Human Rights, whose
entry into force, which required seven ratifications, was reached in 2008.
OIC, established in 1969, aims at the promotion of Islamic solidarity among the 56 Member
States and works towards cooperation in the economic, cultural and political spheres. The major
human rights document, adopted in Cairo in 1990 under this framework, is the Cairo Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam, which is of a declamatory nature only. As its title indicates, and given
the aims of OIC, the declaration is closely based on the principles of the Shari'ah. In 2004, OIC
adopted a binding instrument with a specific focus: the Covenant on the Rights of the Child in
Islam. This Convention is open for ratification and will enter into force after 20 OIC member
States have ratified it. Although the Convention provides for a monitoring mechanism -- the
Islamic Committee on the Rights of the Child -- its mandate is only vaguely drafted.
Overlapping to some extent with the Muslim world, the heterogeneous Asian region stretches
from Indonesia to Japan, comprising a diverse group of nations. Despite some efforts by the
United Nations, no supranational human rights convention or body has been established in the
Asia-Pacific region. In the absence of an intergovernmental organization serving as a regional
umbrella that unites all the diverse States in this region, a regional human rights system remains
unlikely.
Subregional level
In more recent times, the subregional level has emerged as another site for human rights
struggle, particularly in Africa. As a result of a weak regional system under the African Union, a
number of African sub-Regional Economic Communities (RECs) emerged from the 1970s: most
prominently, the Economic Community of West African States, the Common Market for Eastern
and Southern Africa, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East
African Community (EAC). Although these RECs are primarily aimed at subregional economic
integration, and not at the realization of human rights, there is an inevitable overlap in that their
aims of economic integration and poverty eradication are linked to the realization of socio-
economic rights. In a number of the founding treaties of RECs, human rights are given explicit
recognition as being integral to the organizations' aims. By creating subregional courts with an
implicit, or sometimes explicit, mandate to deal with human rights cases, it is apparent that
these economic communities have become key role-players in the African regional human
rights system.
Two decisions of subregional courts illustrate the growing significance of RECs to human rights
protection. In a case brought against Uganda, it was contended that Uganda violated the EAC
Treaty when it re-arrested 14 accused persons after they had been granted bail.3 The Court, in
2007, held that Uganda had violated the rule of law doctrine, as enshrined among the
fundamental principles governing EAC.
In its first decision on the merits of a case, delivered in November 2008,4 the SADC Tribunal held
that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of the SADC Treaty, to deal with the acquisition of
agricultural land by the Zimbabwean Government, carried out under an amendment to the
Constitution (Amendment 17). The Tribunal further found that, as it targeted white farmers, the
Zimbabwean land reform programme violated article 6(2) of the SADC Treaty, which outlaws
discrimination on the grounds of race, among other factors. As to the remedial order, the
Tribunal directed Zimbabwe to protect the possession, occupation and ownership of lands
belonging to applicants and pay fair compensation to those whose land had already been
expropriated.
Promising developments towards subregional human rights protection have also recently
occurred in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), bringing together the founding
States of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. Although ASEAN was
established in 1967, a formal founding treaty (the ASEAN Charter) was adopted only in 2007. The
Charter envisages the establishment of an ASEAN human rights body -- a process that is still
underway.
Not by states alone
Advances in human rights are not dependent only on States. Non-governmental organizations
have been very influential in advancing awareness on important issues and have prepared the
ground for declarations and treaties subsequently adopted by the United Nations.
The role of civil society is of particular importance when the contentiousness of an issue inhibits
State action. The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in
relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a case in point. Although it was adopted in
November 2006 by 29 experts from only 25 countries, the 29 principles contained in the
document -- related to State obligations in respect of sexual orientation and gender identity -- are
becoming an internationally accepted point of reference and are likely to steer future
discussions.
The international human rights law landscape today looks radically different from 60 years ago
when the Universal Declaration was adopted. Significant advances have been made since the
Second World War in expanding the normative reach of international human rights law, leading
to the proliferation of human rights law at the international level. Over the last few decades,
however, attention has shifted to the implementation and enforcement of human rights norms,
to the development of more secure safety nets and to a critical appraisal of the impact of the
norms. Greater concern for human rights has also been accompanied with greater emphasis on
the individual liability of those responsible for gross human rights violations in the form of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The creation of international criminal
tribunals, including the International Criminal Court in 1998, constitutes a trend towards the
humanization of international law. The further juridification of international human rights law is
exemplified by the establishment of more courts, the extension of judicial mandates to include
human rights, and the unequivocal acceptance that all rights are justiciable. With the adoption of
the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
there is much clearer acceptance of the principle of indivisibility under international human
rights law. However, the constant evolution of the international human rights regime depends
greatly on non-State actors, as is exemplified by their role in advocating for and preparing the
normative ground for the recognition of the rights of "sexual minorities". There is no doubt that
the landscape is to undergo dramatic changes in the next 60 years.
Page
of 4
ZOOM
1
Philosophical Viewpoints on the Nature of Human Beings
By Ramel C. Muria, LL.M
Introduction
One of the earliest and the most challenging endeavours that humans undertook
is the
construction of theories of his existence. It is not only the universe that appear mysterious
to the humankind. The human race, its origin and destiny, has been a puzzling mystery
for humans. Ancient philosophers started from scratch in defining and understanding the
nature of man. Now, their theories are continually revisited for their validity. New
discoveries have shed light to their work and affirmed the geniuses behind the postulates
about human existence.
Survey of the existing theories give us a glimpse of exiting interplay and
contradictions of the basic ideas about the nature of human beings. Putting these ideas into
a spectrum will help us understand better the theories that they advance. In the main,
the theories concerning the nature of human beings maybe categories into two camps
occupying the two ends of this spectrum: the materialist perspective and the psycho-
corporeal perspective.
Materialist perspective of human nature
The materialist viewpoint of human nature draws its life from dialectical materialism.
In general, dialectical materialism posits that the foundation of reality is matter and all other
forms of reality are derived from the latter. It claims that reality is constantly
undergoing change and develops. It holds that nature or the material universe is primary
and original while consciousness as secondary and merely derived from matter only
(Intengan, 2009)
History has it that Democritus was the earliest materialist. He professed that
everything, including human beings, are made only of the basic building block of
matter. Democritus had been credited as the first atomist who propagated the idea
that human beings are nothing but a material entity. The materialist viewpoint believes
that human beings are only matter and their consciousness are only derived from the
latter. The appeal of materialist perspective is on the manner by which it constructs the
theory of human existence. It simplified reality as only that has concrete manifestation
in real world, and thus, nothing exists apart from material reality. Dialectical materialism
begins with the fact that human being precedes thinking and can exist independently
with it, while human thinking has to be founded on being. Be equating being with nature
and human thinking with spirit, dialectical materialism makes it appear that nature, that is
to say, the material universe, is prior to any existence and activity of the spirit (Intengan,
2009).
The materialist conception of human nature became politically significant with
Karl Marx’s exposition of the theory in his writings. His thought was strongly influenced by
the dialectical method and historical orientation of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel
advocated a dialectical view of human consciousness as a process of evolution from
simple to more categories of thought. According to him, human thought has evolved
from the very basic attempts to grasp the nature of objects to higher forms of
abstract thought and self-awareness. Marx developed his view of history similar to Hegel’s
view of progression of human thought, but unlike the later, he based his theory on
materialist perspective—that is, the fundamental truth about a particular society or period
in history is how that society is organized to satisfy material needs (Goel, 2010).
Psycho-corporeal perspective of human nature
History books listed the Greeks as the earliest intellectuals to venture on the
idea of human nature and the origin of men. Among the earlier philosophers that attempted
to construct a holistic view of human nature are Aristotle and Plato. According to
Plato, two component parts make up a human being. A human being has a body and
soul. For him, the human soul exists even before the birth of man and continues in its
existence after his death. He postulated that man is a soul using a body (Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Aristotle differed with Plato’s notion of a pre-existing soul
trapped in human body. His premised is that the essence of man cannot be separated from
the physical body that determines the processes of human mind and other faculties. Man
is an embodied essence and the human essence is intertwined with the physical matter
that provides the human form and processes. Aristotle believed that the soul is nothing
than a man’s nature as a human being as it is the form of the body (Ibid.).
Many philosophers adopted the Aristotelian view of human nature. Among the
most important figures of these philosophers is Thomas Aquinas whose writings became the
foundation of many Christian treatises on religious and civil ethics. Aquinas viewed
human beings as a union of body and soul. He refined Aristotle’s view of human nature by
postulating that a human being has a psycho-corporeal nature, that is, he has both bodily and
psychic parts. A human being is neither pure spirit nor pure matter, but a compound of
both. Aquinas postulated that human beings are “a unity of body and soul.” (Stumpf and
Fieser, 2008; Torre,1980). He explained that man is a composite being, but only one being,
formed by the union of matter with a substantial principle. The human substance is the
human body and the human soul which vivifies the body, feels and thinks with it. Man is
not an intellectual soul using an organized body; but is a body existing, feeling, by a soul
endowed with reason and will. (More, 1942).
As psycho-corporeal being, a human person has needs which are more bodily and
more psychic. These more bodily and more psychic needs are the essentials of human
existence. Among the bodily needs of human beings are adequate and proper food,
clothing, shelter and medical care. Meanwhile the more psychic needs of human beings
include adequate and proper education and the freedom to search for and advocate
truth. The psycho-corporeal perspective advocates that all these needs, both the more
bodily and the more psychic, should be properly and adequately responded to for human
beings to be truly fulfilled (Intengan, 2005).
Categories of Rights
Categories of human rights. Human rights may be categorized as (a) immediately
demandable or progressively demandable (b) negative or positive (c) derogable or non-
derogable.
• Immediately demandable rights are those which are self-executory and may be
availed of at any time. Examples are the rights enumerated under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Progressively demandable rights are those which are non-self-executory and
whose availability is dependent upon the economic and social conditions of the
society. Rights recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights are progressively demandable rights.
• Negative rights are self-executory rights and demands that the State refrain from
interfering in their free exercise. Examples of negative rights are the liberties
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution.
• Positive rights are non-self-executory rights and requires the affirmative action of
the State to secure their availability to the citizens. Examples of positive rights are
the economic and social rights mentioned in the Social Justice and Human Rights
Article of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
• Derogable rights refer to those which may be subject to the derogation by States
during emergencies which threatens the existence of the nation.
• Non-derograble rights refer to those which could not be subject to any derogation
even in times of emergency that threatens the existence of the State or the nation.
Human rights may be categorized on the basis of their historical recognition.
• First Generation Rights – Civil and Political Rights
• Second Generation Rights – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Third Generation Rights – Right to Development and Environmental Rights