Human rights

The concept of human rights as the innate entitlement of all human beings found early expression during the American and French revolutionary movements of the late 18th century,  but received  little further development until the conclusion of World War II. It then acquired the current connotation of a body of entitlements whose realisation  is considered to be a universal obligation. This article is about the implementation of that concept of human rights. Doubts have been expressed about its ethical foundations, and about its philosophical consistency, but its emotional impact upon worldwide consciousness is beyond doubt. As a result, it has acquired considerable political importance, and has been embodied in a wide range of generally-accepted international  treaty obligations. There have been numerous breaches of those undertakings, and there is widespread disagreement concerning the appropriate international response to such breaches.

Historical background
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the holocaust and by  wartime aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its content was  new, there were precedents for its concept of  universally innate human entitlements in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Its unprecedented feature was its claim to be doubly universal - to invoke the universal acceptance of agreed obligations, as well as the recognition of what were agreed to be universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the absence among it signatories of many of the countries that are now members of the United Nations, and the fact that many of its signatories  were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations. The actual content of the declaration was, as Justice Michael Kirby recalls a political compromise, and rights were included that apparently stood little chance of unqualified implementation.

Respect for human rights was the unifying principle that brought together the countries of the Council of Europe in the 1950s. It was given expression in the European Convention on Human Rights, which encompassed the rights of the Universal Declaration, except for its economic and social rights (which became the subject of the separate European Social Charter). Its unprecedented feature was the creation of a court at which an individual could obtain a remedy against his own government. Europe's example was followed by two further regional conventions. The American Convention on Human Rights was adopted in 1969 with similar provisions. It has been ratified by 24 countries in Central and South America. The African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was adopted in 1981 and has been ratified by most African countries.

Philosophical objections
The concept of individual "inalienable" rights met immediate opposition when it was put forward in the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Jeremy Bentham rejected the concept as "nonsense upon stilts", arguing that: Karl Marx rejected the concept of rights that "do not go beyond those of "an individual withdrawn into himself ... and separated from the community", in favour of  "species-being rights"  that "deal with the individual who is part of his community rather than estranged from it".

There have also been objections on the grounds of cultural relativism to the listing of rights in the Universal Declaration. Among the innate, human rights, it is argued, is the right to adopt a particular culture, and communities with different cultures may be expected to adopt different concepts of human rights.

It has been claimed, for example, that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West. In that case, cultural differences in the relationship between individual and collective human  rights may be expected to affect the degree to which the Declaration's rights are deemed to be offset by the needs of the community. The Bangkok declaration, for example, argues that "while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds".

It has also been claimed that the Declaration is incompatible with Sharia law , and  member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference agreed in 1990  upon an amended version, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,  which stipulated that " all the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia".

Popular opinion
Digests of international public opinion on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights developed by the Council on Foreign Relations indicate majority support for it in more than twenty countries. There was support by majorities averaging 70 percent in all of the countries polled for the proposition that the United Nations should promote the rights that were advocated in the Declaration. In particular, there was majority support in all countries for the principles of non-discrimination, universal suffrage, social security, and for freedom to demonstrate and express opinion. Majorities in most, but not all, nations agree that followers of any religion should be allowed to assemble and practice in their country. There was support, even in China, for the proposition that the United Nations should actively promote human rights in member states.

Overview
The paradoxical outcome has been that, although a substantial proportion of governments have undertaken detailed legal obligations to implement the human rights declarations, the incidence of failure to honour those obligations has also been high.

International
Implementation by the United Nations has been by the negotiation of the nine United Nations human rights treaties. The treaties that have so far been adopted cover political, social and cultural rights, the rights of children and migrant workers, the avoidance of racial discrimination and discrimination against women, and the outlawing of torture. The treaties impose legal obligations upon countries that ratify them to implement the rights that they set  out. Each treaty also creates an international "treaty body" of independent experts to monitor the implementation of its provisions. . Of the 201 member countries, upwards of 150 have ratified all but the three most recent of the treaties. Signatories have included countries with poor human rights records (excluding the three most recent,  Belarus and Syria  have ratified all of the treaties;  China has ratified all but the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;  and  Cuba and Saudi Arabia have ratified all but  the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

Signatory countries are required by tne treaties to submit periodic reports to the treaty bodies in accordance with a stipulated timetable. In fact only 16 percent of the reports due in 2010 and 2011 were submitted on time and only one-third of reports were submitted within a year of the due date - and a significant proportion of ratifications has never resulted in a report. Some of the treaty bodies can also take decisions (termed "Views") in response to individual complaints of human rights violations. The governments concerned are expected to respond to Views with explanations of how they intend to implement their proposed remedies. However, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, compliance is low. Of 546 violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for example, there were satisfactory responses to only 67 of the decisions of the Human Rights Council. ,and it has been suggested that 75 percent of the Views of the treaty bodies are not implemented .

Regional
The response of the European Court of Human Rights  to a successful petition typically includes, in addition to monetary compensation,  an individual remedy designed to restore the applicant to the position that he or she enjoyed prior to the violation, and a general remedy designed to prevent the violation from happening again. Compliance with individual remedies is reported to have been high, but there have been numerous failures to implement the general remedies, and there has been widespread failure to implement the Court's orders to investigate and prosecute gross human rights violations. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights is reported to have experienced a 29 percent rate of total implementation of its remedies, a 12 percent rate of partial implementation, and a 59 percent rate of non-implementation. Like the European court, it has experienced a good response to its individual remedies and a poor response to its general remedies. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has also experienced low levels of implementation of its recommendations. .

National
A few countries have  enabled their courts to give effect to decisions of  treaty bodies, but a review of the follow-up procedure has suggested  that there is a general perception of states that their "Views"   are not legally binding