International Human Rights Seminar 1
What are human rights?
Source of human rights largely comes from natural law – the concept that there is a higher order
which has set these rights which we attempt to comply with. For example they may be religiously
based, such as the 10 commandments.
Could be argued that the idea of a higher order could contradict the common idea that human rights
are universal – if they have their origins from multiple religions how then can they apply to other
religions or to non-religious people.
Are these rights absolute? Or should there be exceptions to certain rules such as everybody has the
right to life… but you can be killed with good reason.
Why does a leader not have a right to do as they please? Kantian idea that each human has value
because they are unique and human and therefore a leader cannot undermine that value.
Governors are empowered by those that they govern. Therefore to be sure that they maintain peace
and security basic rights of the people should be protected
How do we decided what human rights actually are? – What are we aiming to achieve?
If we had a right to all the things we want it would weaken the notion of what a human right is and
they would become less important and less influential.
It can be argued that human rights exist to protect the individual’s autonomy.
It also protects and individual’s basic needs and ensures that they are met. This explains socio-
economic rights because we don’t actually need them.
Human rights ensure equality and the equal worth of individuals. Gives opportunity to support those
who are considered less equal in society, for example women.
If we can decide what rights are for, we can decide when to limit them and what to do to if rights
conflict with each other by deciding what will produced the desired outcome.
Human rights serve to both recognise and maximise an individual’s dignity. All rights lead to having a
dignified life and so it can be argued that this is their intent. But what is dignity? Would it help us to
decide whether something is a human right or not?
Dignity is a vague concept, and so if this is the intent of human rights they too must be vague. But
this does help us marginally because if they are vague then there is room for change.
We could decide that human rights are what the law says they are. We then have to look at what the
law actually says.
Modern human rights
1948 UDHR – first effort to introduce international legislation on human rights and recognition of the
significance of their importance.
International law was previously about relations between countries but following the First/Second
World War attention turned as to what was happening within those countries.
Before this an individual was seen almost as the property of their state, and so for example if there
was a false imprisonment of a citizen abroad, only that country could intervene
Following the two great wars it was seen that peace and security would be more likely achieved by
protecting minorities, and so there was a gradual softening in the approach of how individuals were
protected under individual law
A perfect example is the abolition of slavery. At first it was brought about by treaties between
countries but it later came to be more widely recognised by the League of Nations’ actions.
UDHR is not legally binding. This form of protection was not brought about until 1966 with the two
conventions which entered into force in 1976. This was followed by things such as the ECHR.
Acceptance at international level that we can and should worry about the way in which individuals are
treated across the world.
What are human rights?
Source of human rights largely comes from natural law – the concept that there is a higher order
which has set these rights which we attempt to comply with. For example they may be religiously
based, such as the 10 commandments.
Could be argued that the idea of a higher order could contradict the common idea that human rights
are universal – if they have their origins from multiple religions how then can they apply to other
religions or to non-religious people.
Are these rights absolute? Or should there be exceptions to certain rules such as everybody has the
right to life… but you can be killed with good reason.
Why does a leader not have a right to do as they please? Kantian idea that each human has value
because they are unique and human and therefore a leader cannot undermine that value.
Governors are empowered by those that they govern. Therefore to be sure that they maintain peace
and security basic rights of the people should be protected
How do we decided what human rights actually are? – What are we aiming to achieve?
If we had a right to all the things we want it would weaken the notion of what a human right is and
they would become less important and less influential.
It can be argued that human rights exist to protect the individual’s autonomy.
It also protects and individual’s basic needs and ensures that they are met. This explains socio-
economic rights because we don’t actually need them.
Human rights ensure equality and the equal worth of individuals. Gives opportunity to support those
who are considered less equal in society, for example women.
If we can decide what rights are for, we can decide when to limit them and what to do to if rights
conflict with each other by deciding what will produced the desired outcome.
Human rights serve to both recognise and maximise an individual’s dignity. All rights lead to having a
dignified life and so it can be argued that this is their intent. But what is dignity? Would it help us to
decide whether something is a human right or not?
Dignity is a vague concept, and so if this is the intent of human rights they too must be vague. But
this does help us marginally because if they are vague then there is room for change.
We could decide that human rights are what the law says they are. We then have to look at what the
law actually says.
Modern human rights
1948 UDHR – first effort to introduce international legislation on human rights and recognition of the
significance of their importance.
International law was previously about relations between countries but following the First/Second
World War attention turned as to what was happening within those countries.
Before this an individual was seen almost as the property of their state, and so for example if there
was a false imprisonment of a citizen abroad, only that country could intervene
Following the two great wars it was seen that peace and security would be more likely achieved by
protecting minorities, and so there was a gradual softening in the approach of how individuals were
protected under individual law
A perfect example is the abolition of slavery. At first it was brought about by treaties between
countries but it later came to be more widely recognised by the League of Nations’ actions.
UDHR is not legally binding. This form of protection was not brought about until 1966 with the two
conventions which entered into force in 1976. This was followed by things such as the ECHR.
Acceptance at international level that we can and should worry about the way in which individuals are
treated across the world.
