Human rights: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Nick Gardner |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
===Historical background=== | ===Historical background=== | ||
The 1948 declaration of human rights is generally held to have been inspired by revulsion at the treatment or the victims of the [[holocaust]] and by aspirations for a better post-war world. Although much of its content was | The 1948 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 a recognition of universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the abstention of the Soviet bloc countries, the necessary absence of the British and American colonies, and the exclusion of Germany, Italy and Japan. The inclusion of China and Cuba made it obvious that many of its proponents were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations. But although, its signatories may have, as Michael Ignatieff suggests, regarded the declaration as no more than "a pious set of cliches" | ||
" yet once articulated as international norms, rights language ignited both the colonial revolutions abroad and the civil rights revolution at home<ref>[[http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Ignatieff_01.pdf Ignatieff, Michael: '' Human Rights as Politics'' and '' Human Rights as Idolatry''] (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000]</ref>. | |||
===Philosophical objections=== | ===Philosophical objections=== | ||
Revision as of 23:57, 8 August 2012
This article adopts the colloquial interpretation of the term human rights as a universal body of entitlements, as distinct from its broader interpretation as the equivalent of domestic "civil rights". It is mainly concerned with the developments of the concept of human rights that have taken place since the issue in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among those developments have been its near-universal popular endorsement as a statement of the principles that should govern the way governments treat their citizens, and a far from universal realisation of those principles. Agencies of the United Nations have conferred operational significance on the declaration by the creation of an agreed body of international treaties and have implemented mechanisms for monitoring compliance with them. Regional and national authorities have taken further action, extending in some cases to legislation. A number of civil and criminal law actions concerning human rights have been taken in courts created for the purpose. Misgivings remain however, concerning the philosophical foundations of the concept, and there has been popular opposition to some of its court rulings, and to the adoption of the promotion of human rights as an objective of foreign policy.
Introduction
Historical background
The 1948 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 a recognition of universal entitlements. It was an overstated claim, however, in view of the abstention of the Soviet bloc countries, the necessary absence of the British and American colonies, and the exclusion of Germany, Italy and Japan. The inclusion of China and Cuba made it obvious that many of its proponents were themselves in breach of its proposed obligations. But although, its signatories may have, as Michael Ignatieff suggests, regarded the declaration as no more than "a pious set of cliches" " yet once articulated as international norms, rights language ignited both the colonial revolutions abroad and the civil rights revolution at home[1].
Philosophical objections
cultural relativism[2]
Implementation
Human rights instruments
Legislation and case law
Monitoring and enforcement
Outcomes
Political responses
Performance
References
- ↑ [Ignatieff, Michael: Human Rights as Politics and Human Rights as Idolatry (lectures delivered at Princeton University April 4–7, 2000]
- ↑ Hossain Shanawez: Human Security in Asia: by Universal Human Right or Cultural Relativism?,