Human rights

162 languages
 Article
 Talk

 Read

 View source

 View history

Tools



 

Appearance
hide
Text


Small

Standard

Large
Width


Standard

Wide
Color (beta)


Automatic

Light

Dark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Human rights (disambiguation).

Magna Carta or "Great Charter"

was one of the world's first documents containing
commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect
certain legal rights.
Rights
 Theoretical distinctions
 Claim rights and liberty rights
 Individual and group rights
 Natural rights and legal rights
 Negative and positive rights

Human rights
 Civil and political
 Economic, social and cultural
 Three generations

Rights by beneficiary
 Accused
 Animals
 Children
 Consumers
 Creditors
 Deaf
 Disabled
 Elders
 Family
 Farmers
 Fetuses
 Humans
 Indigenous
 Intersex
 Kings
 LGBT
 Transgender
 Men
  Minorities
 Parents
 Fathers
 Mothers
 Patients
 Peasants
 Plants
 Prisoners
 Robots
 States
 Students
 Victims
 Women
 Workers
 Youth

Other groups of rights

 Assembly
 Association
 Asylum
 Civil liberties
 Digital
 Education
 Fair trial
 Food
 Free migration
 Health
 Housing
 Linguistic
 Movement
 Development
 Property
 Repair
 Reproductive
 Rest and leisure
  Self defense
 Self-determination of people
 Sexuality
 Speech
 Water and sanitation

 v
 t
 e

Part of a series on

Discrimination

show
Forms

show
Attributes

show
Social

show
Religious
 show
Ethnic/national

show
Manifestations

show
Policies

hide
Countermeasures
 Affirmative action
 Anti-discrimination law
 Anti-racism
 Constitutional colorblindness
 Cultural assimilation
 Cultural pluralism
 Diversity training
 Empowerment
 Fat acceptance movement
 Feminism
 Fighting Discrimination
 Hate speech laws by country
 Human rights
 Intersex human rights
 LGBT rights
 Masculism
 Multiculturalism
 Nonviolence
 Racial integration
  Reappropriation
 Self-determination
 Social integration
 Toleration

show
Related topics
 v
 t
 e
Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that
establish standards of human behaviour and are
regularly protected as substantive
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 he or she is a human
being"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings",
[5]
regardless of age, ethnic origin, location, language,
religion, ethnicity, or any other status.[3] They are
applicable everywhere and at all times in the sense of
being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of
being the same for everyone.[3] They are regarded as
requiring empathy and the rule of law,[6] and imposing an
obligation on individuals to respect the human rights of
others;[1][3] it is generally considered that they should not
be taken away except as a result of due process based
on specific circumstances.[3]
The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential
within international law and global and regional
institutions.[3] The precise meaning of the term right is
controversial and remains the subject of ongoing
philosophical debate.[7] While there is consensus that
human rights encompass a wide variety of rights,[5] such
as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement,
prohibition of genocide, free speech,[8] and the 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 serve as a minimum requirement to
avoid the worst-case abuses, while others see it as a
higher standard.[1][9]
Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights
movement developed in the aftermath of the Second
World War and the events 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.[10] Ancient peoples did not share the
modern-day conception of universal human rights.[11] The
true forerunner of human rights discourse was the
concept of natural rights, which first appeared as part of
the medieval natural law tradition and developed in new
directions during the European Enlightenment with
philosophers such as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson,
and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui. This concept featured
prominently in the political discourse of the American
Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this
foundation, modern human rights arguments emerged
over the latter half of the 20th century,[12] possibly as a
reaction to slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes.[6]
History
Main article: History of human rights
This section needs
expansion with: More
information about human
rights prior to the
Enlightenment. You can help
by adding to it. (May 2022)

U.S. Declaration of
Independence ratified by the Continental Congress on 4
July 1776
Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights
movement developed in the aftermath of the Second
World War and the events 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.[13]
Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day
conception of universal human rights.[11] However, the
concept has in some sense existed for centuries,
although not in the same way as today.[11][14][15][16]
The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the
concept of natural rights, which first appeared as part of
the medieval natural law tradition. It developed in new
directions during the European Enlightenment with such
philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson,
and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and 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 20th century,[12] possibly as a reaction to
slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes.[6]
The medieval natural law tradition was heavily influenced
by the writings of St Paul's early Christian thinkers such
as St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine.
[17]
Augustine was among the earliest to examine the
legitimacy of the laws of man, and attempt to define the
boundaries of what laws and rights occur naturally based
on wisdom and conscience, instead of being arbitrarily
imposed by mortals, and if people are obligated to obey
laws that are unjust.[18]
Spanish scholasticism insisted on a subjective vision of
law during the 16th and 17th centuries: Luis de Molina,
Domingo de Soto and Francisco Vitoria, members of the
School of Salamanca, defined law as a moral power over
one's own.50 Although they maintained at the same
time, the idea of law as an objective order, they stated
that there are certain natural rights, mentioning both
rights related to the body (right to life, to property) and to
the spirit (right to freedom of thought, dignity). The jurist
Vázquez de Menchaca, starting from an individualist
philosophy, was decisive in the dissemination of the
term iura naturalia. This natural law thinking was
supported by contact with American civilizations and the
debate that took place in Castile about the just titles of
the conquest and, in particular, the nature of the
indigenous people. In the Castilian colonization of
America, it is often stated, measures were applied in
which the germs of the idea of Human Rights are
present, debated in the well-known Valladolid
Debate that took place in 1550 and 1551. The thought of
the School of Salamanca, especially through Francisco
Vitoria, also contributed to the promotion of European
natural law.
From this foundation, the modern human rights
arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th
century.[12] Magna Carta is an English charter originally
issued in 1215 which influenced the development of
the common law and many later constitutional
documents related to human rights, such as the
1689 English Bill of Rights, the 1789 United States
Constitution, and the 1791 United States Bill of Rights.[19]
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 a
range of oppressive governmental actions, illegal.[20] 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.
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
1800 to World War I
 Declaration of the Rights of Man and
of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of
France, 26 August 1789
Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill,
and Hegel expanded on the theme of universality during
the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1831, William Lloyd
Garrison wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator that
he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of
human rights",[21] so the term human rights probably
came into use sometime between Paine's The Rights of
Man and Garrison's publication. In 1849 a
contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about human
rights in his treatise On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience which was later influential on human rights
and civil rights thinkers. United States Supreme Court
Justice David Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte
Milligan, wrote "By the protection of the law, human
rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are
at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited
people."[22]
Many groups and movements have managed to achieve
profound social changes over the course of the 20th
century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe
and North America, labour unions brought about laws
granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum
work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour.
The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for
many women the right to vote. National
liberation movements in many countries succeeded in
driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential
was Mahatma Gandhi's leadership of the Indian
independence movement. Movements by long-
oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in
many parts of the world, among them the civil rights
movement, and more recent diverse identity
politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities
in the United States.[23]
The foundation of the International Committee of the Red
Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva
Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International
humanitarian law, to be further developed following the
two World Wars.
Between World War I and World War II
The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the
negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the
end of World War I. The League's goals included
disarmament, preventing war through collective security,
settling disputes between countries through negotiation,
diplomacy and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its
Charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights
which were later included in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The League of Nations had mandates to
support many of the former colonies of the Western
European colonial powers during their transition from
colony to independent state. Established as an agency
of the League of Nations, and now part of United
Nations, the International Labour Organization also had
a mandate to promote and safeguard certain of the rights
later included in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR):
the primary goal of the ILO today is to promote
opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and
productive work, in conditions of freedom, equity,
security and human dignity.
— Report by the Director General for the International
Labour Conference 87th Session
After World War II
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 international Magna
Carta."[24] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1949.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a
non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1948,[25] partly in response to the
events of World War II. The UDHR urges member states
to promote a number of human, civil, economic and
social rights, asserting these rights are part of the
"foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
The declaration was the first international legal effort to
limit the behavior of states and make sure they did their
duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-
duty duality.
... 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 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.[26] Canadian law professor John Humprey and
French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much
of the cross-national research and the structure of the
document respectively, where the articles of the
declaration were interpretative of the general principle of
the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin
to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality
and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed
successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of
individuals in relation to each other and to groups;
spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social
and cultural rights. The final three articles place,
according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties
and the social and political order in which they are to be
realized.[26] 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:[26]
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.[27] The inclusion of both civil
and political rights and economic, social, and cultural
rights was predicated on the assumption that basic
human rights are indivisible and that the different types
of rights listed are inextricably linked.[26][28] Although this
principle was not opposed by any member states at the
time of adoption (the declaration was adopted
unanimously, with the abstention of the Soviet
bloc, apartheid South Africa, and Saudi Arabia), this
principle was later subject to significant challenges.[28] On
the issue of the term universal, the declarations did not
apply to domestic discrimination or racism.[29] Henry J.
Richardson III argued:[30]
All major governments at the time of drafting the
U.N. charter and the Universal declaration did their
best to ensure, by all means known to domestic and
international law, that these principles had only
international application and carried no legal
obligation on those governments to be implemented
domestically. All tacitly realized that for their own
discriminated-against minorities to acquire leverage
on the basis of legally being able to claim
enforcement of these wide-reaching rights would
create pressures that would be political dynamite.
The onset of the Cold War soon after the UDHR was
conceived brought to the fore divisions over the
inclusion of both economic and social rights and civil
and political rights in the declaration. Capitalist states
tended to place strong emphasis on civil and political
rights (such as freedom of association and
expression), and were reluctant to include economic
and social rights (such as the right to work and the
right to join a union). Socialist states placed much
greater importance on economic and social rights and
argued strongly for their inclusion.[31] Because of the
divisions over which rights to include and because
some states declined to ratify any treaties including
certain specific interpretations of human rights, and
despite the Soviet bloc and a number of developing
countries arguing strongly for the inclusion of all rights
in a Unity Resolution, the rights enshrined in the
UDHR were split into two separate covenants,
allowing states to adopt some rights and derogate
others. Although this allowed the covenants to be
created, it denied the proposed principle that all rights
are linked, which was central to some interpretations
of the UDHR.[31][32] Although the UDHR is a non-binding
resolution, it is now considered to be a central
component of international customary law which may
be invoked under appropriate circumstances by state
judiciaries and other judiciaries.[33]
Human Rights 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.[a] They came into force
only in 1976, when they were ratified by a sufficient
number of countries (despite achieving the ICCPR, a
covenant including no economic or social rights, the
US only ratified the ICCPR in 1992).[34] The ICESCR
commits 155 state parties to work toward the granting
of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to
individuals.
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 are:
 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide (adopted 1948, entry into
force: 1951) [Link]
 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into
force: 1969) [Link]
 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (entry into
force: 1981) Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women
 United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT)
(adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)[35]
 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
(adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) Convention
on the Rights of the Child | UNICEF Archived 26
April 2019 at the Wayback Machine
 International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their
Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)
 Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) (entry into force: 2002)
Including environmental rights

In 2021 the United Nations Human Rights

Council officially recognized "having a clean, healthy
and sustainable environment" as a human right.[36] In
April 2024, the European Court of Human
Rights ruled, for the first time in history, that the Swiss
government had violated human rights by not acting
strongly enough to stop climate change.[37]
Promotion strategies
Military force
See also: R2p and Peacekeeping
Responsibility to protect refers to a doctrine for United
Nations member states to intervene to protect
populations from atrocities. It has been cited as
justification in the use of recent military interventions.
An example of an intervention that is often criticized is
the 2011 military intervention in the First Libyan Civil
War by NATO and Qatar where the goal of preventing
atrocities is alleged to have taken upon itself the
broader mandate of removing the target government.[38]
[39]

Economic actions
See also: Economic sanctions
Economic sanctions are often levied upon individuals
or states who commit human rights violations.
Sanctions are often criticized for its feature of
collective punishment in hurting a country's population
economically in order dampen that population's view
of its government.[40][41] It is also argued that,
counterproductively, sanctions on offending
authoritarian governments strengthen that
government's position domestically as governments
would still have more mechanisms to find funding than
their critics and opposition, who become further
weakened.[42]
The risk of human rights violations increases with the
increase in financially vulnerable populations. Girls
from poor families in non-industrialized economies are
often viewed as a financial burden on the family and
marriage of young girls is often driven in the hope that
daughters will be fed and protected by wealthier
families.[43] Female genital mutilation and force-
feeding of daughters is argued to be similarly driven in
large part to increase their marriage prospects and
thus their financial security by achieving certain
idealized standards of beauty.[44] In certain areas, girls
requiring the experience of sexual initiation rites with
men and passing sex training tests on girls are
designed to make them more appealing as marriage
prospects.[45] Measures to help the economic status of
vulnerable groups in order to reduce human rights
violations include girls' education and guaranteed
minimum incomes and conditional cash transfers,
such as Bolsa familia which subsidize parents who
keep children in school rather than contributing to
family income, has successfully reduced child labor.[46]
Informational strategies
See also: Human rights education and Activism
Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations
committees, national institutions and governments and
by many independent non-governmental
organizations, such as Amnesty International, 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 human rights abuses and apply
pressure to promote human rights. Educating people
on the concept of human rights has been argued as a
strategy to prevent human rights abuses.[47]
Legal instruments
Many examples of legal instruments at the
international, regional and national level described
below are designed to enforce laws securing human
rights.
Protection at the international level
Main article: International human rights instruments
United Nations
Main article: United Nations
 The UN General Assembly
The United Nations (UN) is the only multilateral
governmental agency with universally accepted
international jurisdiction for universal human rights
legislation.[48] All UN organs have advisory roles to
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 with regard
to 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, sex, language, or religion.
— Article 1–3 of the Charter of the United Nations
Human Rights Council
Main article: United Nations Human Rights Council
The UN Human Rights Council, created in 2005, has a
mandate to investigate alleged human rights
violations.[49] 47 of the 193 UN 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.[50] Independent experts
(rapporteurs) are retained by the council to investigate
alleged human rights abuses and to report to the
council. The Human Rights Council may request that
the Security Council refer cases to the International
Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is
outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[b]
United Nations treaty bodies
Main article: Treaty body
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 practice
they are closely intertwined with the United Nations
system and are supported by the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the
UN Centre for Human Rights.[51]
 The Human Rights Committee promotes
participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The
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 member of the committee meets around three
times a year to hold sessions[52]
 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. 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.[53] 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.[53][54]
 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.
 The Committee on Enforced Disappearances

monitors the ICPPED. All States parties are obliged

to submit reports to the committee on how the rights
are being implemented. The Committee examines
each report and addresses its concerns and
recommendations to the State party in the form of
"concluding observations".
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. The human rights enshrined in the
UDHR, the Geneva Conventions and the various
enforced treaties of the United Nations are
enforceable in law. In practice, many rights are very
difficult to legally enforce due to the absence of
consensus on the application of certain rights, the lack
of relevant national legislation or of bodies empowered
to take legal action to enforce them.
International courts

The official logo of the ICC

There exist a number of internationally recognized
organisations with worldwide mandate
or jurisdiction over certain aspects of human rights:
 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the United
Nations' primary judiciary body.[55] It has
worldwide jurisdiction. It is directed by the Security
Council. The ICJ settles disputes between nations.
The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over individuals.
 The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the body
responsible for investigating and punishing war
crimes, and crimes against humanity when such
occur within its jurisdiction, with a mandate to bring
to justice perpetrators of such crimes that occurred
 after its creation in 2002. A number of UN members
have not joined the court and the ICC does not have
jurisdiction over their citizens, and others have
signed but not yet ratified the Rome Statute, which
established the court.[56]
The ICC and other international courts (see Regional
human rights below) exist to take action where the
national legal system of a state is unable to try the
case itself. If national law is able to safeguard human
rights and punish those who breach human rights
legislation, it has primary jurisdiction by
complementarity. Only when all local remedies have
been exhausted does international law take effect.[57]
Regional human rights regimes
See also: List of human rights articles by
country, National human rights institutions,
and Human rights commission
In over 110 countries, national human rights
institutions (NHRIs) have been set up to protect,
promote or monitor human rights with jurisdiction in a
given country.[58] Although not all NHRIs are compliant
with the Paris Principles,[59] the number and effect of
these institutions is increasing.[60] The Paris
Principles were defined at the first International
Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights in Paris on 7–9
October 1991, and adopted by United Nations Human
Rights Commission Resolution 1992/54 of 1992 and
the General Assembly Resolution 48/134 of 1993. The
Paris Principles list a number of responsibilities for
national institutions.[61]
Africa

Flag of the African Union

Main article: Human rights in Africa
The African Union (AU) is a continental
union consisting of fifty-five African states.
[62]
Established in 2001, the AU's purpose is to help
secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a
sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to
intra-African conflict and creating an effective common
market.[63] The African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of
the African Union tasked with promoting and
protecting human rights and collective (peoples') rights
throughout the African continent as well as interpreting
the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
and considering individual complaints of violations of
the Charter. The commission has three broad areas of
responsibility:[64]
 Promoting human and peoples' rights
 Protecting human and peoples' rights
 Interpreting the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights
In pursuit of these goals, the commission is mandated
to "collect documents, undertake studies and
researches on African problems in the field of human
and peoples, rights, organise seminars, symposia and
conferences, disseminate information, encourage
national and local institutions concerned with human
and peoples' rights and, should the case arise, give its
views or make recommendations to governments"
(Charter, Art. 45).[64]
With the creation of the African Court on Human and
Peoples' Rights (under a protocol to the Charter which
was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January
2004), the commission will have the additional task of
preparing cases for submission to the Court's
jurisdiction.[65] In a July 2004 decision, the AU
Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human
and Peoples' Rights would be integrated with the
African Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the
African Union is intended to be the "principal judicial
organ of the Union" (Protocol of the Court of Justice of
the African Union, Article 2.2).[66] Although it has not yet
been established, it is intended to take over the duties
of the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the
African Union, interpreting all necessary laws and
treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on
Human and Peoples' Rights entered into force in
January 2004,[67] but its merging with the Court of
Justice has delayed its establishment. The Protocol
establishing the Court of Justice will come into force
when ratified by 15 countries.[68]
There are many countries in Africa accused of human
rights violations by the international community and
NGOs.[69]
Americas
The Organization of American States (OAS) is an
international organization, headquartered in
Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the
thirty-five independent states of the Americas. Over
the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War,
the return to democracy in Latin America, and the
thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major
efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated
priorities now include the following:[70]
 Strengthening democracy
 Working for peace

 Protecting human rights

 Combating corruption

 The rights of Indigenous Peoples

 Promoting sustainable development

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

(the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the
Organization of American States, also based in
Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is
one of the bodies that comprise the inter-American
system for the promotion and protection of human
rights.[71] The IACHR is a permanent body which meets
in regular and special sessions several times a year to
examine allegations of human rights violations in the
hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three
documents:[72]
 the American Convention on Human Rights
 the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of

Man
 the Charter of the Organization of American States

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was

established in 1979 with the purpose of enforcing and
interpreting the provisions of the American Convention
on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus
adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears
and rules on the specific cases of human rights
violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues
opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to
its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.[73]
Asia
Main articles: Human rights in Asia, Human rights in
East Asia, Human rights in Central Asia, and Human
Rights in the Middle East
There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions
to promote or protect human rights. Countries vary
widely in their approach to human rights and their
record of human rights protection.[74][75] The Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)[76] is a geo-
political and economic organization of 10 countries
located in Southeast Asia, which was formed in 1967
by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore
and Thailand.[77] The organisation now also
includes Brunei
Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.
[76]
In October 2009, the ASEAN Intergovernmental
Commission on Human Rights was inaugurated,[78] and
subsequently, the ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration was adopted unanimously by ASEAN
members on 18 November 2012.[79]
The Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR) was
adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States
on 22 May 2004.[80]
Europe

European Court of Human Rights

in Strasbourg
Main article: Human rights in Europe
See also: Human rights in the Soviet Union
The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest
organisation working for European integration. It is an
international organisation with legal personality
recognised under public international law and has
observer status with the United Nations. The seat of
the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg in France. The
Council of Europe is responsible for both
the European Convention on Human Rights and
the European Court of Human Rights.[81] These
institutions bind the council's members to a code of
human rights which, though strict, are more lenient
than those of the United Nations charter on human
rights. The council also promotes the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and
the European Social Charter.[82] Membership is open to
all European states which seek European integration,
accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and
willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human
rights and freedoms.[83]
The Council of Europe is an organisation that is not
part of the European Union, but the latter is expected
to accede to the European Convention and potentially
the Council itself. The EU has its own human rights
document; the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.[84] The European Convention on
Human Rights defines and guarantees since 1950
human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.
[85]
All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have
signed this convention and are therefore under the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg.[85] In order to prevent torture and inhuman
or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the convention),
the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture was established.[86]
Philosophies of human rights
 Rights

Theoretical distinctions
 Claim rights and liberty rights
 Individual and group rights
 Natural rights and legal rights
 Negative and positive rights

Human rights
 Civil and political
 Economic, social and cultural
 Three generations

Rights by beneficiary
 Accused
 Animals
 Children
 Consumers
 Creditors
 Deaf
 Disabled
 Elders
 Family
 Farmers
 Fetuses
 Humans
 Indigenous
 Intersex
 Kings
  LGBT
 Transgender
 Men
 Minorities
 Parents
 Fathers
 Mothers
 Patients
 Peasants
 Plants
 Prisoners
 Robots
 States
 Students
 Victims
 Women
 Workers
 Youth

Other groups of rights

 Assembly
 Association
 Asylum
 Civil liberties
 Digital
 Education
 Fair trial
 Food
 Free migration
 Health
 Housing
 Linguistic
 Movement
 Development
 Property
  Repair
 Reproductive
 Rest and leisure
 Self defense
 Self-determination of people
 Sexuality
 Speech
 Water and sanitation

 v
 t
 e
Several theoretical approaches have been advanced
to explain how and why human rights become part of
social expectations. One of the oldest Western
philosophies on 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 with David
Hume). Human rights are also described as a
sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the
sociological theory of law and the work of Max 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 John Rawls) – a social contract.
Natural rights
Main articles: Natural law and Natural rights
Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural"
moral, religious or even biological order which is
independent of transitory human laws or
traditions. Socrates and his philosophic
heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence
of natural justice or natural right (dikaion
physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of
these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural
law,[87] although evidence for this is due largely to the
interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas.[88] The
development of this tradition of natural justice into one
of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics.[89]
Some of the early Church fathers sought to
incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law
into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured
greatly in the philosophies of Thomas
Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas
Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf,
and John Locke. In the 17th century, Thomas
Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal
positivism on what all men could agree upon: what
they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but
a broad consensus could form around what they
feared (violent death at the hands of another). The
natural law was how a rational human being, seeking
to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered
by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas
previously it could be said that natural rights were
discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes'
opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for
men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In
this lay the foundations of the theory of a social
contract between the governed and the governor.
Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law
on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of
an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate"
natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity
even if we should assume the impossible, that there is
no God or that he does not care for human affairs."
(De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the
famous argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse Deum),
that made natural law no longer dependent on
theology. John Locke incorporated natural law into
many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two
Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes'
prescription around, saying that if the ruler went
against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty,
and property," people could justifiably overthrow the
existing state and create a new one.
The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one
among those who are elaborating a secular
conception of natural law in the liberal tradition.
[90]
There are also emerging and secular forms of
natural law theory that define human rights as
derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.
[91]
The term "human rights" has replaced the term
"natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are
less and less frequently seen as requiring natural
law for their existence.[92]
Other theories of human rights
The philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights
are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental
value in creating the necessary conditions for human
well-being.[93][94] Interest theories highlight the duty to
respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of
self-interest:
Human rights law, applied to a State's own citizens
serves the interest of states, by, for example,
minimizing the risk of violent resistance and protest
and by keeping the level of dissatisfaction with the
government manageable
— Niraj Nathwani, Rethinking Refugee Law[95]
The biological theory considers the comparative
reproductive advantage of human social behavior
based on empathy and altruism in the context
of natural selection.[96][97][98] The philosopher Zhao
Tingyang argues that the traditional human rights
framework fails to be universal, because it arose from
contingent aspects of Western culture, and that the
concept of inalienable and unconditional human rights
is in tension with the principle of justice. He proposes
an alternative framework called "credit human rights",
in which rights are tied to responsibilities.[99][100]
Concepts in human rights
See also: Human Rights Law
Indivisibility and categorization of rights
The most common categorization of human rights is 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 and in the ICCPR.
Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in
articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and in the ICESCR. 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).
Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR,
most of them do not in practice give equal weight to
the different types of rights. 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. For example, in the United States there
is no universal access to healthcare free at the point of
use.[101] That is not to say that Western cultures have
overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that
exist in Western Europe are evidence of this).
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.
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), second-generation 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.[102]
— Philip Alston
He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of
rights:
... the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any
obvious violations of rights can be ignored.[102]
— Philip Alston
Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core
concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive
realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination,
equality and participation.[103]
— Olivia Ball, Paul Gready
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".
The adherence to the principle of indivisibility by the
international community was reaffirmed in 1995:
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 Program of Action, World
Conference on Human Rights, 1995
This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World
Summit in New York (paragraph 121).
Universalism vs cultural relativism
Main articles: Cultural relativism, Moral
relativism, Moral universalism, and Universal ethic

Map: Estimated prevalence of

Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on
uncertain estimates.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines,
by definition, rights that apply to all humans equally,
whichever geographical location, state, race or culture
they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism
suggest that human rights are not all universal, and
indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their
survival. Rights which are most often contested with
relativistic arguments are the rights of women. For
example, female genital mutilation occurs in different
cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. 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.
Universalism has been described by some as cultural,
economic or political imperialism. 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. For example, in 1981, the Iranian
representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-
Khorassani, articulated the position of his country
regarding the UDHR 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.[104] The
former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew,
and of Malaysia, Mahathir 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. This view is countered 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.
— Anwar Ibrahim, in his keynote speech to the Asian
Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, 2
December 1994
Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan also
states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want
human rights.[105][106] An appeal is often made to the fact
that influential human rights thinkers, such as John
Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and
indeed that some were involved in the running of
Empires themselves.[107][108] Relativistic arguments tend
to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new
to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in
1948. They also do not account for the fact 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 Gandhi.[28]
Michael 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.[109] 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 120
Universal jurisdiction vs state sovereignty
See also: Universal jurisdiction and State sovereignty
Universal jurisdiction is a controversial principle in
international law whereby states claim criminal
jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were
committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting
state, regardless of nationality, country of residence,
or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The
state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime
committed is considered a crime against all, which any
state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal
jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that
certain international norms are erga omnes, or owed
to the entire world community, as well as the concept
of jus cogens. In 1993, Belgium passed a law of
universal jurisdiction to give its court's jurisdiction over
crimes against humanity in other countries, and in
1998 Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London
following an indictment by Spanish judge Baltasar
Garzón under the universal jurisdiction principle.
[110]
The principle is supported by Amnesty
International and other human rights organisations as
they believe certain crimes pose a threat to the
international community as a whole and the
community has a moral duty to act, but others,
including Henry Kissinger, argue that state
sovereignty is paramount, because breaches of rights
committed in other countries are outside states'
sovereign interest and because states could use the
principle for political reasons.[111]
State and non-state actors
Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups,
and individuals are known as non-State actors. Non-
State actors can also commit human rights abuses,
but are not subject to human rights law other than
International Humanitarian Law, which applies to
individuals. Multinational companies play an
increasingly large role in the world, and are
responsible for a large number of human rights
abuses.[112] 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.
Multinational companies often view their primary
responsibility as being to their shareholders, not to
those affected by their actions. Such companies are
often larger than the economies of the states in 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:
the 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.[113]
— Jean Ziegler
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.
[114]
These were considered by the Human Rights
Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on
corporations and are not monitored.[115] Additionally, the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goal
10 aims to substantially reduce inequality by 2030
through the promotion of appropriate legislation.[116]
Human rights in emergency situations
 Extrajudicial detention of captives
in Guantanamo Bay
See also: Derogation, 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),[117] the UN
recognises that human rights can be limited or even
pushed aside during times of national emergency,
although it clarifies:
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[117]
Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of
national security in any circumstances are known
as peremptory norms or jus cogens.