LAWS The Nature of Human Rights Prof Urfan Khalig, IPHR The Nature of Human Rights, Chapter Three. Here, our learning objectives are to appreciate that international human rights is afield of and in dispute, that distinction is important. We also seek to appreciate the distinctive features of the universalistand relativist approaches. We also seek to appreciate that rights are expressions of political and cultural identity. A starting point, and a very useful one, is the Universal Declaration of 1948. In its preamble, it notes, "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." Article 1 then notes, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another ina spirit of brotherhood." Here, it is very clear that human rights are considered universal as they extend to all humans. Note in the preamble, all members, all human beings, are born equal. If we move then onto the nature of rights, we can see that being human is the reason for rights to exist. Our being human is the source, as well as the reason, for rights. Being human is the reason for rights to exist, and being human is the source for those rights to exist as well. They extend to us all, regardless of whether we are considered, for example, a terrorist or a criminal. We cannot forfeit rights. We cannot denounce those rights. We always have those rights. Rights are alienable. We always have those rights simply because we are human. Ifhumans are entitled to rights, what are the basic needs of a human and that's what rights should exist? Can anything become a human right? That is the question. What is a human right? What should be a human right? On what basis should we have rights, religion, morality, a level of economic development, or something else? Can we even agree on what basis right should exist? These are very difficult philosophical questions, which have led too much debate. To some extent, we can avoid these difficulties because certainly as far as the law is concerned, the universality, the all encompassing nature of human rights, is founded on many legal text. Human rights treaties do not differentiate between humans, they apply to us all due toa common humanity. The debate about human rights, however, the realisation of human rights is important if we are to have a culture of human rights. For human rights to be respected, we must have a culture in which rights are well regarded. Moving on to human rights as ideology. Human rights are routinely thought of as political claims about the desirability of a certain state of affairs. In this sense, human rights relate toa moral standard and are related to claims about political legitimacy. We could see this. IPHR Mini Lecture Transcript Page 1 of 3in many different ways. Human rights have become a basis upon which to demonise other states in local politics. In the past, states would demonised one another on the basis of religion. During the Cold War, they would demonised each other on the basis of, for example, political points of view, communist, and capitalist. Now, however, human rights have become the language of political legitimacy. You can demonise other states, you don't respect the rule of law, you use the death penalty, you don't protect religious minorities. One can see, for example, human rights violations as the basis of US or EU objections to the political situation in Russia or China, for example. Human rights had become a moral yardstick, but of course all moral yardsticks are used somewhat selectively. It's important to note that human rights become demeaned when they are used in this way. States will Use human rights violations to highlight the shortcomings of their adversaries, but rarely in public to those of the key allies. We often hear in the European media, the North American media of the human rights violations being committed in, for example, Iran, but we very rarely hear of government spokespersons discussing the human rights situation in oil rich Middle Eastern rations. Moving on to the Vienna Conference of 1993. What is important is that when Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948, the global community of states was much smaller, then it quickly became, Decolonisation led to a large number of new states. A large number of states came together in 1993 in Vienna to discuss human rights issues. A number of key themes then merged. The first, it presented a challenge to civil and political rights, always seen as the preserve of the Western developed economies. They were seen as luxuries, the right to life, the right amount to be tortured, freedom of expression, and so forth. It was felt there needed to be a greater need and focus on economic, social, and cultural rights. Here, it wasn't the. universality of rights that was being contested, rather, it was the content and priorities of implementation involved in the project. Nobody said civil and political rights aren't valuable. They said, but we need to focus on economic, social, and cultural rights: Housing, work, education, food, The second thing was that human rights were not universal, but rather historically, socially, and politically contextual and contingent. What that means was that universal human rights were just Western values in disguise. That non Western values, culture, emphasis on community should be recognised and respected as well. Individual human rights, and the key term here is individual, are seen as being individualistic. That is a Western cultural, social model. It doesn’t emphasise the rights of the collective, the community. This is why some states for the human rights were a reflection of Western values, and that non Western values should also be equally recognised and respected. Vienna was in 1993, but what has happened since Vienna or after Vienna? Well, since the Vienna Conference, the phrase universalism versus cultural relativism has become a routine way of understanding the disagreement over the nature of human rights, the universalist view as opposed to the cultural relativist view. IPHR Mini Lecture Transcript Page 2 of 3The current debate takes place most vocally within what are routinely described as the West-slamic framework, and the North-South or developing countries dialogues. These labels lack nuance. They are verging on the inaccurate. There is no Westerm-Islamic dialogue. The Islamic community of states, if we can call it that, is hugely diverse as is the West. The same terms of North and South. The global South, what does that even mean? In terms of developing countries, there are many developing countries and many developed countries which share the same perspective. One must be careful of these labels. The debate is a much more nuanced one. Finally, let us draw some conclusions. The continuous extension of human rights to new groups and novel areas of activity indicates the deeply antagonistic character. What new rights should be recognised? Which ones have been recognised? The recognition of individual collective rights goes to the heart of existence. It addresses the fundamental appreciation and self-esteem of the individual beyond respect, and touches the very foundation of our identity. Human rights have become and are a basis for ideological contention with ethical dimensions. Finally, human rights, as law and ideologically, are contested. Please do look at the further reading, which | have provided, in particular, the article by Philip Alston, Conjuring Up New Human Rights. i's a fascinating insight on how new rights can be created. IPHR Mini Lecture Transcript Page 3 of 3