why is human rights important essay

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

Updated on
Dec 9, 2023

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf.

What are Human Rights

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Did you know that the 10th of December is celebrated as Human Rights Day ?

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Human Rights

Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to education.

The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of human rights. The strong claims often made on behalf of human rights (for example, that they are universal, inalienable, or exist independently of legal enactment as justified moral norms) have frequently provoked skeptical doubts and countering philosophical defenses (on these critiques see Lacrois and Pranchere 2016, Mutua 2008, and Waldron 1988). Reflection on these doubts and the responses that can be made to them has become a sub-field of political and legal philosophy with a very substantial literature (see the Bibliography below).

This entry addresses the concept of human rights, the existence and grounds of human rights, the question of which rights are human rights, and relativism about human rights.

1. The General Idea of Human Rights

2.1 how can human rights exist, 2.2 normative justifications for human rights, 2.3 political conceptions of human rights, 3.1 civil and political rights, 3.2 social rights, 3.3 rights of women, minorities, and groups, 3.4 environmental rights, 4. universal human rights in a world of diverse beliefs and practices, bibliography: books and articles in the philosophy of human rights, recent collections, guides to international human rights law, other resources, related entries.

This section attempts to explain the general idea of human rights by identifying four defining features. The goal is to answer the question of what human rights are with a description of the core concept rather than a list of specific rights. Two people can have the same general idea of human rights even though they disagree about which rights belong on a list of such rights and even about whether universal moral rights exist. The four-part explanation below attempts to cover all kinds of human rights including both moral and legal human rights and both old and new human rights (e.g., both Lockean natural rights and contemporary human rights). The explanation anticipates, however, that particular kinds of human rights will have additional features. Starting with this general concept does not commit us to treating all kinds of human rights in a single unified theory (see Buchanan 2013 for an argument that we should not attempt to theorize together universal moral rights and international legal human rights).

(1) Human rights are rights . Lest we miss the obvious, human rights are rights (see Cruft 2012 and the entry on rights ). Most if not all human rights are claim rights that impose duties or responsibilities on their addressees or dutybearers. Rights focus on a freedom, protection, status, or benefit for the rightholders (Beitz 2009). The duties associated with human rights often require actions involving respect, protection, facilitation, and provision. Rights are usually mandatory in the sense of imposing duties on their addressees, but some legal human rights seem to do little more than declare high-priority goals and assign responsibility for their progressive realization. One can argue, of course, that goal-like rights are not real rights, but it may be better to recognize that they comprise a weak but useful notion of a right (See Beitz 2009 for a defense of the view that not all human rights are rights in a strong sense. And see Feinberg 1973 for the idea of “manifesto rights”). A human rights norm might exist as (a) a shared norm of actual human moralities, (b) a justified moral norm supported by strong reasons, (c) a legal right at the national level (where it might be referred to as a “civil” or “constitutional” right), or (d) a legal right within international law. A human rights advocate might wish to see human rights exist in all four ways (See Section 2.1 How Can Human Rights Exist?).

(2) Human rights are plural . If someone accepted that there are human rights but held that there is only one of them, this might make sense if she meant that there is one abstract underlying right that generates a list of specific rights (See Dworkin 2011 for a view of this sort). But if this person meant that there is just one specific right such as the right to peaceful assembly this would be a highly revisionary view. Human rights address a variety of specific problems such as guaranteeing fair trials, ending slavery, ensuring the availability of education, and preventing genocide. Some philosophers advocate very short lists of human rights but nevertheless accept plurality (see Cohen 2004, Ignatieff 2004).

(3) Human rights are universal . All living humans—or perhaps all living persons —have human rights. One does not have to be a particular kind of person or a member of some specific nation or religion to have human rights. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existence . People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture. This idea of universality needs several qualifications, however. First, some rights, such as the right to vote, are held only by adult citizens or residents and apply only to voting in one’s own country. Second, the human right to freedom of movement may be taken away temporarily from a person who is convicted of committing a serious crime. And third, some human rights treaties focus on the rights of vulnerable groups such as minorities, women, indigenous peoples, and children.

(4) Human rights have high-priority . Maurice Cranston held that human rights are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation “a grave affront to justice” (Cranston 1967). If human rights did not have high priority they would not have the ability to compete with other powerful considerations such as national stability and security, individual and national self-determination, and national and global prosperity. High priority does not mean, however, that human rights are absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as “resistant to trade-offs, but not too resistant” (Griffin 2008). Further, there seems to be priority variation within human rights. For example, when the right to life conflicts with the right to privacy, the latter will generally be outweighed.

Let’s now consider five other features or functions that might be added.

Should human rights be defined as inalienable? Inalienability does not mean that rights are absolute or can never be overridden by other considerations. Rather it means that its holder cannot lose it temporarily or permanently by bad conduct or by voluntarily giving it up. It is doubtful that all human rights are inalienable in this sense. One who endorses both human rights and imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that people’s rights to freedom of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious crimes. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that human rights are very hard to lose. (For a stronger view of inalienability, see Donnelly 2003, Meyers 1985).

Should human rights be defined as minimal rights? A number of philosophers have proposed the view that human rights are minimal in the sense of not being too numerous (a few dozen rights rather than hundreds or thousands), and not being too demanding (See Joshua Cohen 2004, Ignatieff 2005, and Rawls 1999). Their views suggest that human rights are—or should be—more concerned with avoiding the worst than with achieving the best. Henry Shue suggests that human rights concern the “lower limits on tolerable human conduct” rather than “great aspirations and exalted ideals” (Shue 1996). When human rights are modest standards they leave most legal and policy matters open to democratic decision-making at the national and local levels. This allows human rights to have high priority, to accommodate a great deal of cultural and institutional variation among countries, and to leave open a large space for democratic decision-making at the national level. Still, there is no contradiction in the idea of an extremely expansive list of human rights and hence minimalism is not a defining feature of human rights (for criticism of the view that human rights are minimal standards see Brems 2009 and Raz 2010). Minimalism is best seen as a normative prescription for what international human rights should be. Moderate forms of minimalism have considerable appeal, but not as part of the definition of human rights.

Should human rights be defined as always being or “mirroring” moral rights? Philosophers coming to human rights theory from moral philosophy sometimes assume that human rights must be, at bottom, moral rather than legal rights. There is no contradiction, however, in people saying that they believe in human rights, but only when they are legal rights at the national or international levels. As Louis Henkin observed, “Political forces have mooted the principal philosophical objections, bridging the chasm between natural and positive law by converting natural human rights into positive legal rights” (Henkin 1978). Theorists who insist that the only human rights are legal rights may find, however, that the interpretations they can give of universality, independent existence, and high priority are weak.

Should human rights be defined in terms of serving some sort of political function? Instead of seeing human rights as grounded in some sort of independently existing moral reality, a theorist might see them as the norms of a highly useful political practice that humans have constructed or evolved. Such a view would see the idea of human rights as playing various political roles at the national and international levels and as serving thereby to protect urgent human and national interests. These political roles might include providing standards for international evaluations of how governments treat their people and specifying when use of economic sanctions or military intervention is permissible (see Section 2.3 Political Conceptions of Human Rights below).

Political theorists would add to the four defining elements suggested above some set of political roles or functions. This kind of view may be plausible for the very salient international human rights that have emerged in international law and politics in the last fifty years. But human rights can exist and function in contexts not involving international scrutiny and intervention such as a world with only one state. Imagine, for example, that an asteroid strike had killed everyone in all countries except New Zealand, leaving it the only state in existence. Surely the idea of human rights as well as many dimensions of human rights practice could continue in New Zealand, even though there would be no international relations, law, or politics (for an argument of this sort see Tasioulas 2012). And if in the same scenario a few people were discovered to have survived in Iceland and were living without a government or state, New Zealanders would know that human rights governed how these people should be treated even though they were stateless. How deeply the idea of human rights must be rooted in international law and practice should not be settled by definitional fiat. We can allow, however, that the sorts of political functions that Rawls and Beitz describe are typically served by international human rights today.

2. The Existence and Grounds of Human Rights

A philosophical question about human rights that occurs to many people is how it is possible for such rights to exist. Several possible ways are explored in this section.

The most obvious way in which human rights come into existence is as norms of national and international law that are created by enactment, custom, and judicial decisions. At the international level, human rights norms exist because of treaties that have turned them into international law. For example, the human right not to be held in slavery or servitude in Article 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe, 1950) and in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN 1966) exists because these treaties establish it. At the national level, human rights norms exist because they have through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom become part of a country’s law. For example, the right against slavery exists in the United States because the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and servitude. When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights.

Enactment in national and international law is clearly one of the ways in which human rights exist. But many have suggested that this cannot be the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many people have looked for a way to support the idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings (see Morsink 2009). One way that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being God-given. The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) claims that people are “endowed by their Creator” with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On this view, God, the supreme lawmaker, enacted some basic human rights.

Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human rights are specific and many of them presuppose contemporary institutions (e.g., the right to a fair trial and the right to education). Even if people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to explain how to get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.

Attributing human rights to God’s commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people do not believe in the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, and if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes.

Human rights could also exist independently of legal enactment by being part of actual human moralities. All human groups seem to have moralities in the sense of imperative norms of interpersonal behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (for example, a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (for example, valuing human life.) If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could partially constitute the human right to life.

The view that human rights are norms found in all human moralities is attractive but has serious difficulties. Although worldwide acceptance of human rights has been increasing rapidly in recent decades (see 4. Universal Human Rights in a World of Diverse Beliefs and Practices ), worldwide moral unanimity about human rights does not exist. Human rights declarations and treaties are intended to change existing norms, not just describe the existing moral consensus.

Yet another way of explaining the existence of human rights is to say that they exist most basically in true or justified ethical outlooks. On this account, to say that there is a human right against torture is mainly to assert that there are strong reasons for believing that it is always morally wrong to engage in torture and that protections should be provided against it. This approach would view the Universal Declaration as attempting to formulate a justified political morality for the whole planet. It was not merely trying to identify a preexisting moral consensus; it was rather trying to create a consensus that could be supported by very plausible moral and practical reasons. This approach requires commitment to the objectivity of such reasons. It holds that just as there are reliable ways of finding out how the physical world works, or what makes buildings sturdy and durable, there are ways of finding out what individuals may justifiably demand of each other and of governments. Even if unanimity about human rights is currently lacking, rational agreement is available to humans if they will commit themselves to open-minded and serious moral and political inquiry. If moral reasons exist independently of human construction, they can—when combined with true premises about current institutions, problems, and resources—generate moral norms different from those currently accepted or enacted. The Universal Declaration seems to proceed on exactly this assumption (see Morsink 2009). One problem with this view is that existence as good reasons seems a rather thin form of existence for human rights. But perhaps we can view this thinness as a practical rather than a theoretical problem, as something to be remedied by the formulation and enactment of legal norms. The best form of existence for human rights would combine robust legal existence with the sort of moral existence that comes from widespread acceptance based on strong moral and practical reasons.

Justifications for human rights should defend their main features including their character as rights, their universality, and their high priority. Such justifications should also be capable of providing starting points for justifying a plausible list of specific rights (on starting points and making the transition to specific rights see Nickel 2007; see also Section 3 Which Rights are Human Rights? below). Further, justifying international human rights is likely to require additional steps (Buchanan 2012). These requirements make the construction of a good justification for human rights a daunting task.

Approaches to justification include grounding human rights in prudential reasons, practical reasons, moral rights (Thomson 1990), human well-being (Sumner 1987, Talbott 2010), fundamental interests (Beitz 2015), human needs (Miller 2012), agency and autonomy (Gewirth 1996, Griffin 2008) dignity (Gilabert 2018, Kateb 2011, Tasioulas 2015), fairness (Nickel 2007), equality, and positive freedom (Gould 2004, Nussbaum 2000, Sen 2004). Justifications can be based on just one of these types of reasons or they can be eclectic and appeal to several (Tasioulas. 2015).

Grounding human rights in human agency and autonomy has had strong advocates in recent decades. For example, in Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Application (1982) Alan Gewirth offered an agency-based justification for human rights. He argued that denying the value of successful agency and action is not an option for a human being; having a life requires regarding the indispensable conditions of agency and action as necessary goods. Abstractly described, these conditions of successful agency are freedom and well-being. A prudent rational agent who must have freedom and well-being will assert a “prudential right claim” to them. Having demanded that others respect her freedom and well-being, consistency requires her to recognize and respect the freedom and well-being of other persons. Since all other agents are in exactly the same position as she is of needing freedom and well-being, consistency requires her to recognize and respect their claims to freedom and well-being. She “logically must accept” that other people as agents have equal rights to freedom and well-being. These two abstract rights work alone and together to generate equal specific human rights of familiar sorts (Gewirth 1978, 1982, 1996). Gewirth’s aspiration was to provide an argument for human rights that applies to all human agents and that is inescapable. From a few hard-to-dispute facts and a principle of consistency he thinks we can derive two generic human rights—and from them, a list of more determinate rights. Gewirth’s views have generated a large critical literature (see Beyleveld 1991, Boylan 1999).

A more recent attempt to base human rights on agency and autonomy is found in James Griffin’s book, On Human Rights (2008). Griffin does not share Gewirth’s goal of providing a logically inescapable argument for human rights, but his overall view shares key structural features with Gewirth’s. These include starting the justification with the unique value of human agency and autonomy (which Griffin calls “normative agency”), postulating some abstract rights (autonomy, freedom, and well-being), and making a place for a right to well-being within an agency-based approach.

In the current dispute between “moral” (or “orthodox”) and “political” conceptions of human rights, Griffin strongly sides with those who see human rights as fundamentally moral rights. Their defining role, in Griffin’s view, is protecting people’s ability to form and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life—a capacity that Griffin variously refers to as “autonomy,” “normative agency,” and “personhood.” This ability to form, revise, and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life is taken to be of paramount value, the exclusive source of human dignity, and thereby the basis of human rights (Griffin 2008). Griffin holds that people value this capacity “especially highly, often more highly than even their happiness.”

“Practicalities” also shape human rights in Griffin’s view. He describes practicalities as “a second ground” of human rights. They prescribe making the boundaries of rights clear by avoiding “too many complicated bends,” enlarging rights a little to give them safety margins, and consulting facts about human nature and the nature of society. Accordingly, the justifying generic function that Griffin assigns to human rights is protecting normative agency while taking account of practicalities.

Griffin claims that human rights suffer even more than other normative concepts from an “indeterminacy of sense” that makes them vulnerable to proliferation (Griffin 2008). He thinks that tying all human rights to the single value of normative agency while taking account of practicalities is the best way to remedy this malady. He criticizes the frequent invention of new human rights and the “ballooning of the content” of established rights. Still, Griffin is friendly towards most of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Beyond this, Griffin takes human rights to include many rights in interpersonal morality. For example, Griffin thinks that a child’s human right to education applies not just against governments but also against the child’s parents.

Griffin’s thesis that all human rights are grounded in normative agency is put forward not so much as a description but as a proposal, as the best way of giving human rights unity, coherence, and limits. Unfortunately, accepting and following this proposal is unlikely to yield effective barriers to proliferation or a sharp line between human rights and other moral norms. The main reason is one that Griffin himself recognizes: the “generative capacities” of normative agency are “quite great.” Providing adequate protections of the three components of normative agency (autonomy, freedom, and minimal well-being) will encounter a lot of threats to these values and hence will require lots of rights.

Views that explain human rights in terms of the practical political roles that they play have had prominent advocates in recent decades. These “political” conceptions of human rights explain what human rights are by describing the things that they do . Two philosophers who have developed political conceptions are discussed in this section, namely, John Rawls and Charles Beitz (for helpful discussions of political conceptions and their alternatives see the collections of essays in Etinson 2018 and Maliks and Schaffer 2017).

Advocates of political conceptions of human rights are often agnostic or skeptical about universal moral rights while rejecting wholesale moral skepticism and thinking possible the provision of sound normative justifications for the content, normativity, and roles of human rights (for challenges to purely political views see Gilabert 2011, Liao and Etinson 2012, Sangiovanni 2017, and Waldron 2018).

John Rawls introduced the idea of a political conception of human rights in his book, The Law of Peoples (Rawls 1999). The basic idea is that we can understand what human rights are and what their justification requires by identifying the main roles they play in some political sphere. In The Law of Peoples this sphere is international relations (and, secondarily, national politics). Rawls was attempting a normative reconstruction of international law and politics within today’s international system, and this helps explain Rawls’s focus on how human rights function within this system.

Rawls says that human rights are a special class of urgent rights . He seems to accept the definition of human rights given in Section 1 above. Besides saying that human rights are rights that are high priority or “urgent,” Rawls also accepts that they are plural and universal. But Rawls was working on a narrower project than Gewirth and Griffin. The international human rights he was concerned with are also defined by their roles in helping define in various ways the normative structure of the global system. They provide content to other normative concepts such as legitimacy, sovereignty, permissible intervention, and membership in good standing in the international community.

According to Rawls the justificatory process for human rights is analogous to the one for principles of justice at the national level that he described in A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971). Instead of asking about the terms of cooperation that free and equal citizens would agree to under fair conditions, we ask about the terms of cooperation that free and equal peoples or countries would agree to under fair conditions. We imagine representatives of the world’s countries meeting to choose the normative principles that constitute the basic international structure. These representatives are imagined to see the countries they represent as free (rightfully independent) and equal (equally worthy of respect and fair treatment). These representatives are also imagined to be choosing rationally in light of the fundamental interests of their country, to be reasonable in seeking to find and respect fair terms of cooperation, and impartial because they are behind a “veil of ignorance”—they lack information about the country they represent such as its size, wealth, and power. Rawls holds that under these conditions these representatives will unanimously choose principles for the global order that include some basic human rights (for further explanation of the global original position see the entries on John Rawls and original position ).

Rawls advocated a limited list of human rights, one that leaves out many fundamental freedoms, rights of political participation, and equality rights. He did this for two reasons. One is that he wanted a list that is plausible for all reasonable countries, not just liberal democracies. The second reason is that he viewed serious violations of human rights as triggering permissible intervention by other countries, and only the most important rights can play this role.

Leaving out protections for equality and democracy is a high price to pay for assigning human rights the role of making international intervention permissible when they are seriously violated. We can accommodate Rawls’underlying idea without paying that price. To accept the idea that countries engaging in massive violations of the most important human rights are not to be tolerated we do not need to follow Rawls in equating international human rights with a heavily-pruned list. Instead we can work up a view—which is needed for other purposes anyway—of which human rights are the weightiest and then assign the intervention-permitting role to this subset.

Charles Beitz’s account of human rights in The Idea of Human Rights (Beitz 2009) shares many similarities with Rawls’s but is much more fully developed. Like Rawls, Beitz deals with human rights only as they have developed in contemporary international human rights practice. Beitz suggests that we can develop an understanding of human rights by attending to “the practical inferences that would be drawn by competent participants in the practice from what they regard as valid claims of human rights.” Observations of what competent participants say and do inform the account of what human rights are. The focus is not on what human rights are at some deep philosophical level; it is rather on how they work by guiding actions within a recently emerged and still evolving discursive practice. The norms of the practice guide the interpretation and application of human rights, the appropriateness of criticism in terms of human rights, adjudication in human rights courts, and—perhaps most importantly—responding to serious violations of human rights. Beitz says that human rights are “matters of international concern” and that they are “potential triggers of transnational protective and remedial action.”

Beitz does not agree with Rawls’s view that these roles require an abbreviated list of human rights. He accepts that the requirements of human rights are weaker than the requirements of social justice at the national level, but denies that human rights are minimal or highly modest in other respects.

Beitz rightly suggests that a reasonable person can accept and use the idea of human rights without accepting any particular view about their foundations. It is less clear that he is right in suggesting that good justifications of human rights should avoid as far as possible controversial assumptions about religion, metaphysics, ideology, and intrinsic value (see the entry public reason ). Beitz emphasizes the practical good that human rights do, not their grounds in some underlying moral reality. This helps make human rights attractive to people from around the world with their diverse religious and philosophical traditions. The broad justification for human rights and their normativity that Beitz offers is that they protect “urgent individual interests against predictable dangers (”standard threats“) to which they are vulnerable under typical circumstances of life in a modern world order composed of independent states.”

3. Which Rights are Human Rights?

This section discusses the question of which rights belong on lists of human rights. The Universal Declaration’s list, which has had great influence, consists of six families: (1) Security rights that protect people against murder, torture, and genocide; (2) Due process rights that protect people against arbitrary and excessively harsh punishments and require fair and public trials for those accused of crimes; (3) Liberty rights that protect people’s fundamental freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, and movement; (4) Political rights that protect people’s liberty to participate in politics by assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office; (5) Equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and freedom from discrimination; and (6) Social rights that require that governments ensure to all the availability of work, education, health services, and an adequate standard of living. A seventh category, minority and group rights, has been created by subsequent treaties. These rights protect women, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, children, migrant workers, and the disabled.

Not every question of social justice or wise governance is a human rights issue. For example, a country could have too many lawyers or inadequate provision for graduate-level education without violating any human rights. Deciding which norms should be counted as human rights is a matter of considerable difficulty. And there is continuing pressure to expand lists of human rights to include new areas. Many political movements would like to see their main concerns categorized as matters of human rights, since this would publicize, promote, and legitimize their concerns at the international level. A possible result of this is “human rights inflation,” the devaluation of human rights caused by producing too much bad human rights currency (See Cranston 1973, Orend 2002, Wellman 1999, Griffin 2008).

One way to avoid rights inflation is to follow Cranston in insisting that human rights only deal with extremely important goods, protections, and freedoms. A supplementary approach is to impose several justificatory tests for specific human rights. For example, it could be required that a proposed human right not only protect some very important good but also respond to one or more common and serious threats to that good (Dershowitz 2004, Donnelly 2003, Shue 1996, Talbott 2005), impose burdens on the addressees that are justifiable and no larger than necessary, and be feasible in most of the world’s countries (on feasibility see Gilabert 2009 and Nickel 2007). This approach restrains rights inflation with several tests, not just one master test.

In deciding which specific rights are human rights it is possible to make either too little or too much of international documents such as the Universal Declaration and the European Convention. One makes too little of them by proceeding as if drawing up a list of important rights were a new question, never before addressed, and as if there were no practical wisdom to be found in the choices of rights that went into the historic documents. And one makes too much of them by presuming that those documents tell us everything we need to know about human rights. This approach involves a kind of fundamentalism: it holds that when a right is on the official lists of human rights that settles its status as a human right (“If it’s in the book that’s all I need to know.”) But the process of identifying human rights in the United Nations and elsewhere was a political process with plenty of imperfections. There is little reason to take international diplomats as the most authoritative guides to which human rights there are. Further, even if a treaty’s ratification by most countries can settle the question of whether a certain right is a human right within international law, such a treaty cannot settle its weight. The treaty may suggest that the right is supported by weighty considerations, but it cannot make this so. If an international treaty enacted a right to visit national parks without charge as a human right, the ratification of that treaty would make free access to national parks a human right within international law. But it would not be able to make us believe that the right to visit national parks without charge was sufficiently important to be a real human right (see Luban 2015).

The least controversial family of human rights is civil and political rights. These rights are familiar from historic bills of rights such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791, with subsequent amendments). Contemporary sources include the first 21 Articles of the Universal Declaration , and treaties such as the European Convention , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights . Some representative formulations follow:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 13.1)

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests (European Convention, Article 11).

Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law. 2. Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country. 3. Every individual shall have the right of access to public property and services in strict equality of all persons before the law (African Charter, Article 13).

Most civil and political rights are not absolute—they can in some cases be overridden by other considerations. For example, the right to freedom of movement can be restricted by public and private property rights, by restraining orders related to domestic violence, and by legal punishments. Further, after a disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake free movement is often appropriately suspended to keep out the curious, permit access of emergency vehicles and equipment, and prevent looting. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits rights to be suspended during times “of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” (Article 4). But it excludes some rights from suspension including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of ex post facto criminal laws, and freedom of thought and religion.

The Universal Declaration included social (or “welfare”) rights that address matters such as education, food, health services, and employment. Their inclusion has been the source of much controversy (see Beetham 1995). The European Convention did not include them (although it was later amended to include the right to education). Instead they were put into a separate treaty, the European Social Charter . When the United Nations began the process of putting the rights of the Universal Declaration into international law, it followed the same pattern by treating economic and social standards in a treaty separate from the one dealing with civil and political rights. This treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (the “Social Covenant,” 1966), treated these standards as rights—albeit rights to be progressively realized.

The Social Covenant’s list of rights includes nondiscrimination and equality for women in economic and social life (Articles 2 and 3), freedom to work and opportunities to work (Article 4), fair pay and decent conditions of work (Article 7), the right to form trade unions and to strike (Article 8), social security (Article 9), special protections for mothers and children (Article 10), the right to adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11), the right to basic health services (Article 12), the right to education (Article 13), and the right to participate in cultural life and scientific progress (Article 15).

Article 2.1 of the Social Covenant sets out what each of the parties commits itself to do about this list, namely to “take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation…to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” In contrast, the Civil and Political Covenant commits its signatories to immediate compliance, to “respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory the rights recognized in the present Covenant” (Article 2.1). The contrast between these two levels of commitment has led some people to suspect that economic and social rights are really just valuable goals. Why did the Social Covenant opt for progressive implementation and thereby treat its rights as being somewhat like goals? The main reason is that many of the world’s countries lacked the economic, institutional, and human resources to realize these standards fully or even largely. For many countries, noncompliance due to inability would have been certain if these standards had been treated as immediately binding.

Social rights have often been defended with linkage arguments that show the support they provide to adequate realization of civil and political rights. This approach was first developed philosophically by Henry Shue (Shue 1996; see also Nickel 2007 and 2016). Linkage arguments defend controversial rights by showing the indispensable or highly useful support they provide to uncontroversial rights. For example, if a government succeeds in eliminating hunger and providing education to everyone this promotes people’s abilities to know, use, and enjoy their liberties, due process rights, and rights of political participation. Lack of education is frequently a barrier to the realization of civil and political rights because uneducated people often do not know what rights they have and what they can do to use and defend them. Lack of education is also a common barrier to democratic participation. Education and a minimum income make it easier for people near the bottom economically to follow politics, participate in political campaigns, and to spend the time and money needed to go to the polls and vote.

Do social rights yield a sufficient commitment to equality? Objections to social rights as human rights have come from both the political right and the political left. A common objection from the left, including liberal egalitarians and socialists, is that social rights as enumerated in human rights documents and treaties provide too weak of a commitment to material equality (Moyn 2018; Gilabert 2015). Realizing social rights requires a state that ensures to everyone an adequate minimum of resources in some key areas but that does not necessarily have strong commitments to equality of opportunity, to strong redistributive taxation, and to ceilings on wealth (see the entries equality , equality of opportunity , distributive justice , and liberal feminism ).

The egalitarian objection cannot be that human rights documents and treaties showed no concern for people living in poverty and misery. That would be wildly false. One of the main purposes of including social rights in human rights documents and treaties was to promote serious efforts to combat poverty, lack of education, and unhealthy living conditions in countries all around the world (see also Langford 2013 on the UN Millennium Development Goals). The objection also cannot be that human rights facilitated the hollowing out of systems of welfare rights in many developed countries that occurred after 1980. Those cuts in welfare programs were often in violation of the requirements of adequately realizing social rights.

Perhaps it should be conceded that human rights documents and treaties have not said enough about positive measures to promote equal opportunity in education and work. A positive right to equal opportunity, like the one Rawls proposed, would require countries to take serious measures to reduce disparities between the opportunities effectively available to children of high-income and low-income parents (Rawls 1971).

A strongly egalitarian political program is best pursued partially within but mostly beyond the human rights framework. One reason for this is that the human rights movement will have better future prospects for acceptance and realization if it has widespread political support. That requires that the rights it endorses appeal to people with a variety of political views ranging from center-left to center-right. Support from the broad political center will not emerge and survive if the human rights platform is perceived as mostly a leftist program.

Do social rights protect sufficiently important human interests? Maurice Cranston opposed social rights by suggesting that social rights are mainly concerned with matters such as holidays with pay that are not matters of deep and universal human interests (Cranston 1967, 1973. Treatments of objections to social rights include Beetham 1995; Howard 1987; and Nickel 2007). It is far from the case, however, that most social rights pertain only to superficial interests. Consider two examples: the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to free public education. These rights require governments to try to remedy widespread and serious evils such as severe poverty, starvation and malnutrition, and ignorance. The importance of food and other basic material conditions of life is easy to show. These goods are essential to people’s ability to live, function, and flourish. Without adequate access to these goods, interests in life, health, and liberty are endangered and serious illness and death are probable. Lack of access to educational opportunities typically limits (both absolutely and comparatively) people’s abilities to participate fully and effectively in the political and economic life of their country.

Are social rights too burdensome? Another objection to social rights is that they are too burdensome on their dutybearers. It is very expensive to guarantee to everyone basic education and minimal material conditions of life. Frequently the claim that social rights are too burdensome uses other, less controversial human rights as a standard of comparison, and suggests that social rights are substantially more burdensome or expensive than liberty rights. Suppose that we use as a basis of comparison liberty rights such as freedom of communication, association, and movement. These rights require both respect and protection from governments. And people cannot be adequately protected in their enjoyment of liberties such as these unless they also have security and due process rights. The costs of liberty, as it were, include the costs of law and criminal justice. Once we see this, liberty rights start to look a lot more costly.

Further, we should not generally think of social rights as simply giving everyone a free supply of the goods they protect. Guarantees of things like food and housing will be intolerably expensive and will undermine productivity if everyone simply receives a free supply. A viable system of social rights will require most people to provide these goods for themselves and their families through work as long as they are given the necessary opportunities, education, and infrastructure. Government-implemented social rights provide guarantees of availability (or “secure access”), but governments should have to supply the requisite goods in only a small fraction of cases. Note that education is often an exception to this since many countries provide free public education irrespective of ability to pay.

Countries that do not accept and implement social rights still have to bear somehow the costs of providing for the needy since these countries—particularly if they recognize democratic rights of political participation—are unlikely to find it tolerable to allow sizeable parts of the population to starve and be homeless. If government does not supply food, clothing, and shelter to those unable to provide for themselves, then families, friends, and communities will have to shoulder this burden. It is only in the last hundred or so years that government-sponsored social rights have taken over a substantial part of the burden of providing for the needy. The taxes associated with social rights are partial replacements for other burdensome duties, namely the duties of families and communities to provide adequate care for the unemployed, sick, disabled, and aged. Deciding whether to implement social rights is not a matter of deciding whether to bear such burdens, but rather of deciding whether to continue with total reliance on a system of informal provision that distributes assistance in a very spotty way and whose costs fall very unevenly on families, friends, and communities.

Are social rights feasible worldwide? Another objection to social rights alleges that they are not feasible in many countries (on how to understand feasibility see Gilabert 2009). It is very expensive to provide guarantees of subsistence, measures to protect and restore people’s health, and education. Many governments will be unable to provide these guarantees while meeting other important responsibilities. Rights are not magical sources of supply (Holmes and Sunstein 1999).

As we saw earlier, the Social Covenant dealt with the issue of feasibility by calling for progressive implementation, that is, implementation as financial and other resources permit. Does this view of implementation turn social rights into high-priority goals? And if so, is that a bad thing?

Standards that outrun the abilities of many of their addressees are good candidates for treatment as goals. Viewing them as largely aspirational rather than as imposing immediate duties avoids problems of inability-based noncompliance. One may worry, however, that this is too much of a demotion for social rights because goals seem much weaker than rights. But goals can be formulated in ways that make them more like rights. They can be assigned addressees (the parties who are to pursue the goal), beneficiaries, scopes that define the objective to be pursued, and a high level of priority (see Langford 2013 and Nickel 2013; see also UN Human Rights and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals ). Strong reasons for the importance of these goals can be provided. And supervisory bodies can monitor levels of progress and pressure low-performing addressees to attend to and work on their goals.

Treating very demanding rights as goals has several advantages. One is that proposed goals that greatly exceed our abilities are not so farcical as proposed duties that do so. Creating grand lists of social rights that many countries cannot presently realize seems farcical to many people. Perhaps this perceived lack of realism is reduced if we understand that these “rights” are really goals that countries should seriously promote. Goals coexist easily with low levels of ability to achieve them. Another advantage is that goals are flexible: addressees with different levels of ability can choose ways of pursuing the goals that suit their circumstances and means. Because of these attractions it may be worth exploring sophisticated ways to transform very demanding human rights into goals. The transformation may be full or partial. It is possible to create right-goal mixtures that contain some mandatory elements and that therefore seem more like real rights (see Brems 2009). A right-goal mixture might include some rights-like goals, some mandatory steps to be taken immediately, and duties to realize the rights-like goals as quickly as possible.

Equality of rights for historically disadvantaged or subordinated groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents repeatedly emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have equal human rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties. The Civil and Political Covenant, for example, commits participating states to respect and protect their people’s rights “without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or social status” (on minority and group rights see Kymlicka 1995, Nickel 2007).

A number of standard individual rights are especially important to ethnic and religious minorities, including rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination. Human rights documents also include rights that refer to minorities explicitly and give them special protections. For example, the Civil and Political Covenant in Article 27 says that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities “shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”

Feminists have often protested that standard lists of human rights do not sufficiently take into account the different risks faced by women and men. For example, issues like domestic violence, reproductive choice, and trafficking of women and girls for sex work did not have a prominent place in early human rights documents and treaties. Lists of human rights have had to be expanded “to include the degradation and violation of women” (Bunch 2006, 58; see also Lockwood 2006 and Okin 1998). Violations of women’s human rights often occur in the home at the hands of other family members, not in the street at the hands of the police. Most violence against women occurs in the “private” sphere. This has meant that governments cannot be seen as the only addressees of human rights and that the right to privacy of home and family needs qualifications to allow police to protect women within the home.

The issue of how formulations of human rights should respond to variations in the sorts of risks and dangers that different people face is difficult and arises not just in relation to gender but also in relation to age, profession, political affiliation, religion, and personal interests. Due process rights, for example, are much more useful to young people (and particularly young men) than they are to older people since the latter are far less likely to run afoul of the criminal law.

Since 1964 the United Nations has mainly dealt with the rights of women and minorities through specialized treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007). See also the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Specialized treaties allow international norms to address unique problems of particular groups such as assistance and care during pregnancy and childbearing in the case of women, custody issues in the case of children, and the loss of historic territories by indigenous peoples.

Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects some groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II. The right against genocide is clearly a group right. It is held by both individuals and groups and provides protection to groups as groups. It is largely negative in the sense that it requires governments and other agencies to refrain from destroying groups; but it also requires that legal and other protections against genocide be created at the national level.

Can the right against genocide be a human right? More generally, can a group right fit the general idea of human rights proposed earlier? On that conception, human rights are rights of all persons . Perhaps it can, however, if we broaden our conception of who can hold human rights to include important groups that people form and cherish (see the entry on group rights ). This can be made more palatable, perhaps, by recognizing that the beneficiaries of the right against genocide are individual humans who enjoy greater security against attempts to destroy the group to which they belong (Kymlicka 1989).

In spite of the danger of rights inflation, there are doubtless norms that should be counted as human rights but are not generally recognized as such. After all, there are lots of areas in which people’s dignity and fundamental interests are threatened by the actions and omissions of individuals and governments. Consider environmental rights, which are often defined to include rights of animals or even of nature itself (see the entry on environmental ethics ). Conceived in this broad way environmental rights don’t have a good fit with the general idea of human rights because the rightholders are not humans or human groups.

Alternative formulations are possible, however. A basic environmental human right can be understood as requiring maintenance and restoration of an environment that is safe for human life and health. Many countries have environmental rights of this sort in their constitutional bills of rights (Hayward 2005). And the European Union’s Bill of Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , includes in Article 37 an environmental protection norm: “A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.”

A human right to a safe environment or to environmental protection does not directly address issues such as the claims of animals or biodiversity, although it might do so indirectly using the idea of ecosystem services to humans (see Biodiversity and Human Rights . A justification for a human right to a safe environment should show that environmental problems pose serious threats to fundamental human interests, values, or norms; that governments may appropriately be burdened with the responsibility of protecting people against these threats; and that most governments actually have the ability to do this.

Climate change is currently a major environmental threat to many people’s lives and health, and hence it is unsurprising that human rights approaches to climate change have been developed and advocated in recent decades (see Bodansky 2011, Gardiner 2013, and UN Human Rights and Climate Change ). One approach, advocated by Steve Vanderheiden accepts the idea of a human right to an environment that is adequate for human life and health and derives from this broad right a more specific right to a stable climate (Vanderheiden 2008). Another approach, advocated by Simon Caney, does not require introducing a new environmental right. It suggests instead that serious action to reduce and mitigate climate change is required by already well-established human rights because severe climate change will violate many people’s rights to life, food, and health (Caney 2010). One could expand this approach by arguing that severe climate change should be reduced and mitigated because it will cause massive human migrations and other crises that will undermine the abilities of many governments to uphold human rights (for evaluation of these arguments see Bell 2013).

Two familiar philosophical worries about human rights are that they are based on moral beliefs that are culturally relative and that their creation and advocacy involves ethnocentrism. Human rights prescribe universal standards in areas such as security, law enforcement, equality, political participation, and education. The peoples and countries of planet Earth are, however, enormously varied in their practices, traditions, religions, and levels of economic and political development. Putting these two propositions together may be enough to justify the worry that universal human rights do not sufficiently accommodate the diversity of Earth’s peoples. A theoretical expression of this worry is “relativism,” the idea that ethical, political, and legal standards for a particular country or region are mostly shaped by the traditions, beliefs, and conditions of that country or region (see the entry on moral relativism ). The anthropologist William G. Sumner, writing in 1906, asserted that “the mores can make anything right and prevent condemnation of anything” (Sumner 1906).

Relativists sometimes accuse human rights advocates of ethnocentrism, arrogance, and cultural imperialism (Talbott 2005). Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that “one’s own group is the center of everything” and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are “scaled and rated” (Sumner 1906; see also Etinson 2018 who argues that ethnocentrism is best understood as a kind of cultural bias rather than as a belief in cultural superiority). Ethnocentrism can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions. Finally, cultural imperialism occurs when the economically, technologically, and militarily strongest countries impose their beliefs, values, and institutions on the rest of the world. Relativists often combine these charges with a prescription, namely that tolerance of varied practices and traditions ought to be instilled and practiced through measures that include extended learning about other cultures.

The conflict between relativists and human rights advocates may be partially based on differences in their underlying philosophical beliefs, particularly in metaethics. Relativists are often subjectivists or noncognitivists and think of morality as entirely socially constructed and transmitted. In contrast, philosophically-inclined human rights advocates are more likely to adhere to or presuppose cognitivism, moral realism , and intuitionism .

During the drafting in 1947 of the Universal Declaration, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association warned of the danger that the Declaration would be “a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in Western Europe and America.” Perhaps the main concern of the AAA Board in the period right after World War II was to condemn the intolerant colonialist attitudes of the day and to advocate cultural and political self-determination. But the Board also made the stronger assertion that “standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive” and thus “what is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another people” ( American Anthropological Association Statement on Human Rights 1947 ).

This is not, of course, the stance of most anthropologists today. Currently the American Anthropological Association has a Committee on Human Rights whose objectives include promoting and protecting human rights and developing an anthropological perspective on human rights. While still emphasizing the importance of cultural differences, anthropologists now often support cultural survival and the protection of vulnerable cultures, non-discrimination, and the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples.

The idea that relativism and exposure to other cultures promote tolerance may be correct from a psychological perspective. People who are sensitive to differences in beliefs, practices, and traditions, and who are suspicious of the grounds for extending norms across borders, may be more inclined to be tolerant of other countries and peoples than those who believe in an objective universal morality. Still, philosophers have been generally critical of attempts to argue from relativism to a prescription of tolerance (Talbott 2005). If the culture and religion of one country has long fostered intolerant attitudes and practices, and if its citizens and officials act intolerantly towards people from other countries, they are simply following their own traditions and cultural norms. They are just doing what relativists think people mostly do. Accordingly, a relativist from a tolerant country will be hard-pressed to find a basis for criticizing the citizens and officials of the intolerant country. To do so the relativist will have to endorse a transcultural principle of tolerance and to advocate as an outsider cultural change in the direction of greater tolerance. Because of this, relativists who are deeply committed to tolerance may find themselves attracted to a qualified commitment to human rights.

East Asia is the region of the world that participates least in the international human rights system—even though some important East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea do participate. In the 1990s Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and others argued that international human rights as found in United Nations declarations and treaties were insensitive to distinctive “Asian values” such as prizing families and community (in contrast to strong individualism); putting social harmony over personal freedom; respect for political leaders and institutions; and emphasizing responsibility, hard work, and thriftiness as means of social progress (on the Asian Values debate see Bauer and Bell 1999; Bell 2000; Sen 1997; and Twining 2009). Proponents of the Asian values idea did not wish to abolish all human rights; they rather wanted to deemphasize some families of human rights, particularly the fundamental freedoms and rights of democratic participation (and in some cases the rights of women). They also wanted Western governments and NGOs to stop criticizing them for human rights violations in these areas.

At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, countries including Singapore, Malaysia, China, and Iran advocated accommodations within human rights practice for cultural and economic differences. Western representatives tended to view the position of these countries as excuses for repression and authoritarianism. The Conference responded by approving the Vienna Declaration . It included in Article 5 the assertion that countries should not pick and choose among human rights: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Perhaps the debate about relativism and human rights has become obsolete. In recent decades widespread acceptance of human rights has occurred in most parts of the world. Three quarters of the world’s countries have ratified the major human rights treaties, and many countries in Africa, the Americas, and Europe participate in regional human rights regimes that have international courts (see Georgetown University Human Rights Law Research Guide in the Other Internet Resources below). Further, all of the world’s countries now use similar political institutions (law, courts, legislatures, executives, militaries, bureaucracies, police, prisons, taxation, and public schools) and these institutions carry with them characteristic problems and abuses (Donnelly 2003). Finally, globalization has diminished the differences among peoples. Today’s world is not the one that early anthropologists and missionaries found. National and cultural boundaries are breached not just by international trade but also by millions of travelers and migrants, electronic communications, international law covering many areas, and the efforts of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. International influences and organizations are everywhere and countries borrow freely and regularly from each other’s inventions and practices.

Worldwide polls on attitudes towards human rights are now available and they show broad support for human rights and international efforts to promote them. Empirical research can now replace or supplement theoretical speculations about how much disagreement on human rights exists worldwide. A December 2011 report by the Council on Foreign Relations surveyed recent international opinion polls on human rights that probe agreement and disagreement with propositions such as “People have the right to express any opinion,” “People of all faiths can practice their religion freely,” “Women should have the same rights as men,” “People of different races [should be] treated equally,” and governments “should be responsible for ensuring that [their] citizens can meet their basic need for food.” Big majorities of those polled in countries such as Argentina, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, China, India, and Indonesia gave affirmative answers. Further, large majorities (on average 70%) in all the countries polled supported UN efforts to promote the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration. Unfortunately, popular acceptance of human rights ideas has not, however, prevented a recent slide in many of these same countries towards authoritarianism.

Ashford, E., 2015, “A Moral Inconsistency Argument for a Basic Human Right to Subsistence,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beetham, D., 1995, “What Future for Economic and Social Rights?”, Political Studies , 43: 41–60.
Beitz, C., 2015, “The Force of Subsistence Rights,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
––– 2009, The Idea of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, D., 2013, “Climate Change and Human Rights.” WIREs Climate Change , 4: 159–170.
Besson, S., “Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Patterns of Mutual Validation and Legitimation,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beyleveld, D., 1991, Dialectical Necessity of Morality: An Analysis and Defense of Alan Gewirth’s Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bodansky, D., 2010, “Introduction: Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues,” Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law , 38: 511–524.
Boylan, M. (ed.), 1999, Gewirth: Critical Essays on Action, Rationality, and Community , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brandt, R. B., 1983, “The Concept of a Moral Right,” Journal of Philosophy , 80: 29–45.
Brems, E., 2009, “Human Rights: Minimum and Maximum Perspectives,” Human Rights Law Review , 9: 343–372.
Brownlee, K., 2013, “A Human Right Against Social Deprivation,” Philosophical Quarterly , 63: 251, 199–222.
––– 2015, “Do We Have a Human Right to the Political Determinants of Health,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, A., 2010, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and the Use of Force , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunch, C., 2006, “Women’s Rights as Human Rights,” in B. Lockwood (ed.), Women’s Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Caney S., 2010, “Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds,” in Humphreys, S. (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., 2012, Globalization and Sovereignty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., 2004, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12: 90–213.
Claude, R. and Weston, B. (eds.), 2006, Human Rights in the World Community , 3rd edition, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Corradetti, C., 2009, Relativism and Human Rights , New York: Springer.
––– (ed.), 2012, Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights , New York: Springer.
Cranston, M., 1967, “Human Rights, Real and Supposed,” in D. D. Raphael (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man , London: Macmillan.
–––, 1973, What Are Human Rights? , London: Bodley Head.
Cruft, R., 2012, “Human Rights as Rights,” in Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
–––, 2019, Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dershowitz, A., 2004, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights , New York: Basic Books.
Donnelly, J., 2012, International Human Rights , 4th edition, Philadelphia: Westview Press.
–––, 2013, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice , 3rd edition, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Dworkin, R., 2011, Justice for Hedgehogs , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
––– 1978, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: De Gruyter.
Etinson, A. (ed.), 2018, Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, “Some Myths about Ethnocentrism,” Australian Journal of Philosophy , 96: 209–224.
Feinberg, J., 1973, Social Philosophy , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fellmeth, A., 2016, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law , New York: Oxford University Press
Finnis, J., 2015, “Grounding Human Rights in Natural Law,” American Journal of Jurisprudence , 60(2): 199–225.
––– 2011, Natural Law and Natural Rights , 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Follesdal, A. 2018, “Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, S., 2013, “Human Rights in a Hostile Climate,” in Holder, C., and Reidy, D. (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gewirth, A., 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1982, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1996, The Community of Rights , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilabert, P., 2018, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––2009, “The Feasibility of Basic Socioeconomic Rights: A Conceptual Exploration,” The Philosophical Quarterly , 59: 559–581.
–––2011, “Humanist and Political Perspectives on Human Rights,” Political Theory , 39: 439–467.
––– 2018, “Reflections on Human Rights and Power,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glendon, M., 2001, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , New York: Random House.
Gould, C., 2004, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, J., 2008, On Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, H., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?” Philosophical Review , 64: 175–191.
Hayden, P. (ed.), 2001, The Philosophy of Human Rights , St. Paul, MN: Paragon Press.
Hayward, T., 2005, Constitutional Environmental Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henkin, L., 1978, The Rights of Man Today , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Holder C., and Reidy, D. (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, S. and Sunstein, C., 1999, The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes , New York: Norton.
Howard, R., 1987, “The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority Over Civil and Political Rights?” Human Rights Quarterly , 5: 467–90.
Ignatieff, M., 2004, The Lesser Evil, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kateb, G., 2011, Human Dignity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, D., 2004, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
King, J., 2012, Judging Social Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kymlicka, W., 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
––– (ed.), 1995, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lacrois, J. and Pranchere, J., 2016, Human Rights on Trial: A Genealogy of the Critique of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lafont, C., 2013, Global Governance and Human Rights , Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Langford, M. et al. (eds.), 2013, The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lauren, P., 2003, The Evolution of International Human Rights , 2nd edition, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Liao, M. and Etinson, A., 2012, “Political and Naturalistic Conceptions of Human Rights: A False Polemic?”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 9: 327–352.
Locke, J., 1689, The Second Treatise on Civil Government , New York: Prometheus Books, 1986.
Lockwood, B. (ed.), 2006, Women’s Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Luban, D., 2015, “Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maliks, R. and Schaffer, J. (eds.), 2017, Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, D., 1985, Inalienable Rights: A Defense , New York: Columbia University Press.
–––, 2016, Victims’ Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights , New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D., 2012, “Grounding Human Rights,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 15: 207–227.
Miller, R., 2010, Global Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morsink, J., 1999, Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
–––, 2009, Inherent Human Rights: Philosophical Roots of the Universal Declaration , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Moyn, S., 2010, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
––– 2018, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mutua, M., 2008, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique , Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Nickel, J., 2018, “Assigning Functions to Human Rights: Methodological Issues in Human Rights Theory,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2016, “Can a Right to Health Care be Justified by Linkage Arguments?”, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics , 37 (4): 293–306.
–––, 2007, Making Sense of Human Rights , 2nd edition., Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
–––, 2008, “Rethinking Indivisibility: Towards a Theory of Supporting Relations Between Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly , 30: 984–1001.
–––, 2013, “Goals and Rights—Working Together?”, in M. Langford, et al., The MDGs and Human Rights: Past, Present, and Future , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
Nussbaum, M., 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2007, Frontiers of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Okin, S., 1998, “Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences,” Hypatia , 13: 32–52.
O’Neill, O., 1986, Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty, Development and Justice , London: Allen and Unwin.
–––, 2005, “The Dark Side of Human Rights,” International Affairs , 81: 427–439.
Orend, B., 2002, Human Rights: Concept and Context , Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.
Pogge, T., 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1999, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J., 2010, “Human Rights Without Foundations,” in Besson, S., and Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinbold, J., 2017, Seeing the Myth in Human Rights , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rorty, R., 2012, “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality,” in Cistelecan, A., and Rathore, A. (eds.), Wronging Rights? Philosophical Challenges for Human Rights , London: Taylor and Francis.
Sangiovanni, A., 2017, Humanity Without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A., 2004, “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 32: 315–356.
–– 1997, Human Rights and Asian Values, New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.
Shue, H., 1996, Basic Rights , 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Simmons, B., 2009, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law and Domestic Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sumner, L., 1987, The Moral Foundation of Rights , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sumner, W., 1906, Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals , Boston: Ginn and Co.
Talbott, W., 2010, Human Rights and Human Well-Being , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
––Talbott, W., 2005, Which Rights Should be Universal? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tasioulas, J., 2015, “On the Foundations of Human Rights,” in R. Cruft, S. Liao, and M. Renzo (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–– 2012, “On the Nature of Human Rights,” in Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Tomalty, J., 2016, “Justifying International Legal Human Rights,” Ethics and International Affairs, 30: 483–490.
Tomasi, J., 2012, Free Market Fairness , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tierney, B., 1997, The Idea of Natural Rights , Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Tuck, W., 1979, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teson, F., 2005, Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality , Ardsley, NY: Transnational.
Thomson, J., 1990, The Realm of Rights , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vanderheiden, S., 2008, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, New York: Oxford University Press.
Waldron, J., 2018, “Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/Rawls Approach,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1993, Liberal Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
––– (ed.), 1987, Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man , London: Methuen.
Wellman, C., 1995, Real Rights , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1998, The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
–––, 2010, The Moral Dimensions of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wenar, L., 2015, Blood Oil , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolff, J., 2015, “The Content of the Human Right to Health,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolterstorff, N., 2008, Justice: Rights and Wrongs , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Corradetti, C. (ed.), 2012, Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights , New York: Springer.
Crisp, R. (ed.), 2014, Griffin on Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holder, C. and Reidy, D., (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maliks, R. and Schaffer, J., (eds.) 2017, Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

Georgetown Law Library Human Rights Law Research Guide
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library .
Francisco Suarez (1548–1617), entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
Human Rights entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

Acknowledgments

The assistance of Adam Etinson, Pablo Gilabert, and Erin Sperry is acknowledged with gratitude.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Human Rights Essay: 10 Reasons why human rights are important

Human rights are important in a number of ways. First and foremost, they protect the basic dignity of each and every human being. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person, as well as freedom from torture, slavery, and arbitrary arrest or detention. These rights are essential in order for people to live with dignity and respect.

Secondly, human rights promote peace and stability. When everyone is guaranteed their basic rights, it helps to prevent conflict and violence. Additionally, human rights help to build trust and cooperation between different groups of people.

Thirdly, human rights promote economic development. When people have the same opportunities and access to education, health care, and other resources, they are more likely to participate in the economy and contribute to society.

Fourthly, human rights help protect the environment. When people have the right to a clean and healthy environment, they are more likely to take care of it. Additionally, human rights can help hold governments and corporations accountable for environmental pollution and destruction.

Finally, human rights are important because they are universal. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter where they live or what their circumstances may be. By fighting for human rights, we can make the world a better place for everyone.

In the Western World, it is easy to think that what happens in a country located thousands of miles away from us has little to no impact on us. As a global village, however, human rights violations in one corner of the globe have a direct impact on every human on the planet, whether we realize it or not. While it may be easier to turn a blind eye to what is happening in a far-flung corner of the earth, it’s actually not in anyone’s best interest to do so. Here are 10 reasons why human rights are important to us all.

1. Keeps population density under control

When individuals live in war-torn countries or areas where severe human rights violations occur, they naturally want to escape. This often leads to a mass exodus to countries and nations that extend basic human rights to their citizens. This in turn can lead to overcrowding and place a severe strain on the public resources offered in free societies. When we work hard to ensure that basic human rights are being honored in an individual’s own country, they have no reason to mass emigrate to other countries.

2. Reduces war

When individuals are having their basic human rights denied or violated, it is natural to want to fight back. In fact, it is almost impossible to not do so. Human rights violations almost always benefit one group of people at the expense of another. Most human beings are only capable of tolerating the violation of their personhood up to a point before needing to fight back. This often results in war, which eventually brings about intense poverty, which in turn again places a strain on the resources of more democratic nations. When we address the underlying issue – human rights violations – before they erupt into outright conflict or civil war, we vastly reduce the amount of resources cleaning up the aftermath entails.

3. Reduces poverty

Again, it is important to understand that in most cases, human rights violations occur as a result of one group of people preying upon another. This generally results in severe economic imbalances among other things. In essence, the rich simply get richer and richer while the poor get poorer and poorer. Eventually, it becomes incumbent upon wealthier nations to step in and address the severe poverty issues . Ultimately, it is again more economically viable for wealthier nations to address the initial human rights violations before they result in rampant poverty that must be addressed.

4. What you are not against, you are for

Ultimately, when we refuse to stand up for basic human rights, we are condoning the violation of them. That alone is reason enough to get involved in protecting human rights.

5. What we stand against in other nations affects policy in our own

When we don’t care about policies or practices affecting women, the poor or the LGBTQ community in other nations, we are communicating that we don’t care about the importance of human rights in our own. When we demonstrate we don’t care about the importance of human rights in our own countries, we essentially set our own law and policy makers free to discriminate against these individuals. This will eventually will lead to human rights violations in our own countries, which will eventually have a direct impact on our own human rights.

6. You are a human and your rights matter

It is actually an impossibility to say that the rights of some humans matter, while the rights of others do not. If human rights matter, they matter to us all. If other humans are not entitled to basic human rights, then essentially neither are you.

7. What we stand for or against sends a message to our own children and young people

Children in particularly are highly affected by the issues and causes we do and do not stand for or against. In addition, thanks to a global media and the internet, children are becoming more and more exposed to global politics and geopolitical climates. When we turn a blind eye to gross human rights violations against women, we are sending a message to our girls that the rights of women do not matter. When we turn a blind eye to gross violations against the LBGTQ community in other nations, we are sending a message to our young LGBTQ community members that their rights also do not matter to us. When we actively fight to protect the basic human rights of all people we communicate to our own young people that they matter just as their own human rights matter.

8. Protecting the human rights of others has a direct impact on members of our military

In times of war, opposing militaries both occupy the same space and regularly capture members of the opposing military. How one countries’ soldiers are treated is often largely dependent by how their own military members are treated by the other country. When we fail to recognize the importance of human rights for even members of an opposing military, we open the door for them to violate the human rights of our own military members they capture. Honoring the human rights of military members our own country captures does not guarantee that our own military member’s rights will be honored, but it does go a long way towards ensuring that it does. In addition, it sends a message that the importance of human rights is such an important issue that it even applies to militaries in times of war – as it should.

9. Our stance on human rights affects our relationships with even our allies

Simple geography alone is always going to be a significant factor in what does and does not affect us globally. The United States occupies a continent which it shares with only two other countries. This means the US essentially only needs to maintain good relationships with two other nations to keep its borders largely protected. Most of the rest of this world does not enjoy this luxury. Most European countries share a much closer proximity to war-torn countries where massive human rights violations regularly occur. This gives them much less ability to simply turn a blind eye to these issues because they don’t affect them. While the Unites States may have a greater ability to turn a blind eye to these issues, it can seriously damage the good relationships it enjoys with most of the nations in Europe.

10. Protecting human rights affects our individual relationships with our own neighbors

While becoming involved in protecting human rights on a global scale is important, it’s just as important to work hard in our own communities to protect the human rights of our own individual neighbors. No society is perfect and most people have friends or family members that are experiencing human rights violations of some kind even in the most developed of nations. Whether it’s the inability to access basic medical care, homelessness, poverty or issues relating to incarceration, there are a number of inequalities that exist in every country including our own. When we show that we actually care about these issues and the importance of human rights for all, we build and strengthen our relationships with even our own individual neighbors.

News and views for the UB community

Stories >

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?

Published December 17, 2015 This content is archived.

Claude Welch, SUNY Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, talks about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by the United Nations General Assembly nearly 70 years ago. An internationally renowned expert in human rights, Welch wrote an essay on the topic for the U.S. State Department that was published in French, Russian, Farsi and other languages, and distributed internationally.

Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) matter?

CW: The UDHR is among the most important documents of the 20th century. It has been translated into 337 different languages. It has become a touchstone for actions by governments, individuals, and nongovernmental groups. It has been ratified by every country in the world. Practically no other international instrument can claim this honor. In short, the UDHR has acquired a moral and political significance matched by few documents.

It provides both a guide to present action and an evolving set of ideas for future implementation at the national level. Increasingly, the UDHR’s principles have been embodied in what states do and it serves as the foundation for the International Bill of Rights and several other crucial human rights agreements. And, not least, the UDHR has proven a remarkably flexible foundation for a continued broadening and deepening of the very concept of human rights. How many treaties can claim such honors?

How did the UDHR come into being?

CW: Every country in the world had been touched directly or indirectly by World War II. Seventy million people perished. Planning for a future international organization to succeed the League of Nations started during the war. In the spring of 1945, 50 governments and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations met in San Francisco. The states hammered out the “constitution” of a new United Nations.

The preamble to the U.N. Charter includes these famous words: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights , in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small …”

The U.N. Charter called for a commission on human rights, which was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. With the help of the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the new Commission on Human Rights studied how different cultures, nations and philosophers viewed human rights.

In September 1948, the commission sent its draft to the U.N. General Assembly. Lengthy debates clarified the draft language and built increasing consensus. Discussion and approval took two full years, including 81 meetings, 168 amendments to the draft text and nearly 1,400 votes. The climax came on Dec. 10, 1948, when the General Assembly adopted the UDHR without a single dissenting vote, although eight states abstained.

What does the UDHR say?

CW: The UDHR sets forth a number of objectives — some to be achieved immediately, others as rapidly as feasible. The UDHR also provided the foundation for a series of other international agreements, both global and regional. Finally, the UDHR inspired people around the world to claim their rights, not simply accept the diktat of others.

The UDHR provides “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Every “individual and every organ of society” shall promote “respect for these rights and freedoms … by progressive measures ...” The goal was “to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.”

Underlying the entire declaration is a basic value, as stated in Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” This assertion ran in the face of centuries of practice and widespread beliefs. The UDHR could not, by itself, reverse or transform popular attitudes. Nonetheless, it pointed in a crucial direction.

Perhaps most important, the clarity and directness of its language inspired millions. An increasing number of translations and conscious efforts to spread the UDHR’s message popularized its principles. Men and women everywhere recognized that they enjoyed rights that no government should take away.

Drafters of the UDHR consciously drew upon several legal and philosophical traditions. Many of its 30 articles deal with civil and political rights, which protect individuals from government and from state-condoned private abuses. Others discuss freedoms common to each individual, such as the right to free expression. Still others set forth economic, social and cultural rights, such as access to education and the right to work.

What are some of the results of the UDHR?

CW: Several major treaties, ratified by more than 100 countries, trace their origins to the UDHR. They include, in chronological order:

The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965).
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979).
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).

When a country ratifies an international agreement, it assumes a legal obligation. Citizens of states signing on to the UDHR and its progeny thus possess rights they may not have fully enjoyed earlier because their government has acknowledged and pledged to respect those rights. Signatories to many human rights treaties must prepare and submit regular reports on their citizens’ freedoms. All these reports go to U.N. specialists who study them carefully and recommend where changes are needed.

Citizens groups increasingly provide their own reports, with additional details. Thus, one of the hopes of the drafters of the UDHR has been increasingly met: People have a voice in their own destiny.

Still other international agreements have stemmed from the UDHR:

Prosecution of indicted war criminals by the International Criminal Court, functioning as of 2002.
The “responsibility to protect,” as approved by the General Assembly in 2005, which places a moral obligation on countries to help states wracked by widespread disturbances or civil wars.
An August 2006 agreement on a draft convention on the rights of the disabled.
Adoption of a Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights by the U.N. in September 2007.
Reducing or eliminating the death penalty in much of Europe and elsewhere.
Giving more attention to how transnational corporations affect human rights where they operate.

These developments required significant discussion. Nearly 20 years passed between adoption of the UDHR and the “entry into force” — full acceptance into international law — of the two international covenants described above. Twenty-five years of discussion preceded general assembly acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights. On the other hand, agreement about establishing the International Criminal Court came within four years and the convention on children’s rights in less than a year. The picture is thus mixed.

What steps lie ahead?

CW: For six decades, the UDHR has proven its durability. Yet debates remain.

Cultural distinctiveness continues to arouse discussion about universality — the “u” in UDHR. Although the declaration’s principles have been reaffirmed time after time, some assert that cultures or regions differ so much that no real global standards can exist.

A second area of controversy swirls around the rights of persons belonging to ethnic groups and national minorities. As individuals, they cannot be discriminated against because of their backgrounds. However, long-term economic or political disadvantages, deeply engrained social attitudes, and the like against the groups to which they belong raise profound questions. Do groups per se have rights?

Additional uncertainty exists with respect to internally displaced persons. They are individuals who cannot live in their usual homes because of conflict, but have not crossed an international border. Internally displaced persons (known as IDPs) confront horrendous, dangerous living conditions. They also exist in a legal no-man’s-land. Had they left their own countries, they would have enjoyed international legal protection. Having remained at home or near home, they continue to be liable to many problems.

A fourth area of controversy centers on how best to settle large-scale civil conflicts. Should the international community intervene for humanitarian reasons? Should peace and reconciliation committees or similar groups be set up to establish the “truth”? Should negotiations be encouraged between opposing groups by promising amnesty to those accused of war crimes? Or would justice be served better by trying to arrest and try them in the International Criminal Court? How far do the obligations of the “right to protect” extend? Who should take responsibility for any coercive intervention?

Still another area of concern involves apologies and reparations for previous human rights injustices. Earlier violence against large numbers of people of other nationalities can — and does — sour relations between and among governments and their populations. Hence, this whole area is fraught with political difficulties, irrespective of its importance for human rights generally.

Truth commissions and truth and reconciliation groups provide an additional dimension, showing the evolution and growth of human rights. They investigate previous abuses. Their establishment suggests that previous “human wrongs” cannot be hidden forever.

Serious economic issues undercut how much — and indeed whether — individuals can enjoy full human rights. If human rights “begin with breakfast,” persons must have reasonable chances for employment and schooling. They must be able to break out of the trap of poverty and avoid the debilitating impact of malnutrition and endemic disease. The UDHR speaks about these concerns in general terms. However, serious problems remain in light of economic inequalities within and between nations. Wasteful or corrupt practices by government officials reduce what is available for other needs.

Finally, and in many ways most significant, the UDHR cannot be enforced by “traditional” means of coercion. The U.N. has no armed forces of its own, but must obtain parts of other states’ militaries for help. The U.N. agencies directly concerned with human rights, such as the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, receive little funding.

Looking back to 1948, however, progress has been remarkable. A visionary document has become a living reality. The UDHR should be celebrated for its firm foundation and flexible structure.

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

This post is the first installment from UChicago Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic in a series titled — The Matter of Human Rights. In this 16-part series, law students examine, question and reflect on the historical, ideological, and normative roots of the human rights system, how the system has evolved, its present challenges and future possibilities. Eleni Christou is a third year in the Law School at the University of Chicago.

Why Human Rights?

By: Eleni Christou University of Chicago Law School Class of 2019

When the term “human rights” is used, it conjures up, for some, powerful images of the righteous fight for the inalienable rights that people have just by virtue of being human. It is Martin Luther King Jr. before the Washington monument as hundreds of thousands gather and look on; it is Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom; or a 16-year-old Malala telling her story, so others like her may be heard. But what is beyond these archetypes? Does the system work? Can we make it work better? Is it even the right system for our times? In other words, why human rights?

Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability. Human rights offer us a principled framework, rooted in normative values meant for all nations and legal orders. In a world order in which states/governments set the rules, the human rights regime is the counterweight, one concerned with and focused on the individual. In other words, we need human rights because it provides us a way of evaluating and challenging national laws and practices as to the treatment of individuals.

The foundational human right text for our modern-day system is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948, this document lays out 30 articles which define the rights each human is entitled to. These rights are designed to protect core human values and prohibit institutions and practices that are contrary to the enjoyment of the rights. Rights often complement each other, and at times, can be combined to form new rights. For example, humans have a right to liberty, and also a right to be free from slavery, two rights which complement and reinforce each other. Other times, rights can be in tension, like when a person’s right to freedom of expression infringes upon another’s right to freedom from discrimination.

In this post, I’ll provide an example of how the human rights system has been used to do important work. The international communities’ work to develop the law and organize around human rights principles to challenge and sanction the apartheid regime in South Africa provides a valuable illustration of how the human rights system can be used successfully to alleviate state human rights violations that previously would have been written off as a domestic matter.

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa had a system of racial segregation called ‘ apartheid ,’ literally meaning ‘separateness.’ The minority white population was committing blatant human rights violations to maintain their control over the majority black population, and smaller multiethnic and South Asian communities. This system of apartheid was codified in laws at every level of the country, restricting where non-whites could live, work, and simply be. Non-whites were stripped of voting rights , evicted from their homes and forced into segregated neighborhoods, and not allowed to travel out of these neighborhoods without passes . Interracial marriage was forbidden, and transport and civil facilities were all segregated, leading to extremely inferior services for the majority of South Africans. The horrific conditions imposed on non-whites led to internal resistance movements , which the white ruling class responded to with extreme violence , leaving thousands dead or imprisoned by the government.

While certain global leaders expressed concern about the Apartheid regime in South Africa, at first, most (including the newly-formed UN) considered it a domestic affair. However, that view changed in 1960 following the Sharpeville Massacre , where 69 protesters of the travel pass requirement were murdered by South African police. In 1963, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 181 , which called for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, which was later made mandatory. The Security Council condemned South Africa’s apartheid regime and encouraged states not to “indirectly [provide] encouragement . . . [of] South Africa to perpetuate, by force, its policy of apartheid,” by participating in the embargo. During this time, many countries, including the United States, ended their arms trade with South Africa. Additionally, the UN urged an oil embargo, and eventually suspended South Africa from the General Assembly in 1974.

In 1973, the UN General Assembly passed the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , and it came into force in 1976. This convention made apartheid a crime against humanity. It expanded the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies outside of the South African context, and laid the groundwork for international actions to be taken against any state that engaged in these policies. This also served to further legitimize the international response to South Africa’s apartheid regime.

As the state-sanctioned violence in South Africa intensified, and the global community came to understand the human rights violation being carried out on a massive scale, countries worked domestically to place trade sanctions on South Africa, and many divestment movements gained popular support. International sports teams refused to play in South Africa and cut ties with their sports federations, and many actors engaged in cultural boycotts. These domestic actions worked in tandem with the actions taken by the United Nations, mirroring the increasingly widespread ideology that human rights violations are a global issue that transcend national boundaries, but are an international concern of all peoples.

After years of domestic and international pressure, South African leadership released the resistance leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 and began negotiations for the dismantling of apartheid. In 1994, South Africa’s apartheid officially ended with the first general elections. With universal suffrage, Nelson Mandela was elected president.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly , newly elected Nelson Mandela recognized the role that the UN and individual countries played in the ending of apartheid, noting these interventions were a success story of the human rights system. The human rights values embodied in the UDHR, the ICSPCA, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, provided an external normative and legal framework by which the global community could identify unlawful state action and hold South Africa accountable for its system of apartheid. The international pressure applied via the human rights system has been considered a major contributing factor to the end of apartheid. While the country has not fully recovered from the trauma that decades of the apartheid regime had left on its people, the end of the apartheid formal legal system has allowed the country to begin to heal and move towards a government that works for all people, one that has openly embraced international human rights law and principles in its constitutional and legislative framework.

This is what a human rights system can do. When state governments and legal orders fail to protect people within their control, the international system can challenge the national order and demand it uphold a basic standard of good governance. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights system has grown, tackled new challenges, developed institutions for review and enforcement, and built a significant body of law. Numerous tools have been established to help states, groups, and individuals defend and protect human rights.

So why human rights? Because the human rights system has been a powerful force for good in this world, often the only recourse for marginalized and minority populations. We, as the global community, should work to identify shortcomings in the system, and work together to improve and fix them. We should not — as the US has been doing under the current administration — selectively withdraw, defund, and disparage one of the only tools available to the world’s most vulnerable peoples. The human rights system is an arena, a language, and a source of power to many around the world fighting for a worthwhile future built on our shared human values.

Pozen center 2022-23 director's report, interracial marriage under attack: thinking the unthinkable, read: "the politics of torture" by kathleen cavanaugh, read "democracies and international law" by tom ginsburg, read "agents of change: political philosophy in practice" by ben laurence.

Join our mailing list to receive a weekly digest of Pozen-related news, opportunities, and events.

Why do equal rights matter?

People are not equal, but they are of equal value. They have equal rights and are equal before the law. These human rights are an important principle of any democratic society.

Human rights are also called fundamental rights. These are rights stipulate, for instance, that everyone has freedom of expression. That everyone may freely profess their religion or belief. That everyone has the right to privacy, the right to keep personal information private.

Why do these rights matter? Imagine that these rights did not apply to everyone. That in your country, a certain group of people would not be allowed to express themselves freely or to practise their religion freely. That a group of people, not suspected of any crime, would still be monitored by the government.

All this would make for a very unpleasant society. One in which one or more groups of people would repeatedly be slighted and discriminated against. An unliveable society. Would you want to live there?

Human rights are worth defending. And everyone can make a contribution!

Is unequal treatment always discrimination?

Where do we draw the line between freedom of expression and discrimination, is antisemitism a form of racism.

Human Rights Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on human rights.

Human rights are a set of rights which every human is entitled to. Every human being is inherited with these rights no matter what caste, creed, gender, the economic status they belong to. Human rights are very important for making sure that all humans get treated equally. They are in fact essential for a good standard of living in the world.

Moreover, human rights safeguard the interests of the citizens of a country. You are liable to have human rights if you’re a human being. They will help in giving you a good life full of happiness and prosperity.

Human Rights Categories

Human rights are essentially divided into two categories of civil and political rights, and social rights. This classification is important because it clears the concept of human rights further. Plus, they also make humans realize their role in different spheres.

When we talk about civil and political rights , we refer to the classic rights of humans. These rights are responsible for limiting the government’s authority that may affect any individual’s independence. Furthermore, these rights allow humans to contribute to the involvement of the government. In addition to the determination of laws as well.

Next up, the social rights of people guide the government to encourage ways to plan various ways which will help in improving the life quality of citizens. All the governments of countries are responsible for ensuring the well-being of their citizens. Human rights help countries in doing so efficiently.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Human Rights

Human rights are extremely important for the overall development of a country and individuals on a personal level. If we take a look at the basic human rights, we see how there are right to life, the right to practice any religion, freedom of movement , freedom from movement and more. Each right plays a major role in the well-being of any human.

Right to life protects the lives of human beings. It ensures no one can kill you and thus safeguards your peace of mind. Subsequently, the freedom of thought and religion allows citizens to follow any religion they wish to. Moreover, it also means anyone can think freely.

Further, freedom of movement is helpful in people’s mobilization. It ensures no one is restricted from traveling and residing in any state of their choice. It allows you to grab opportunities wherever you wish to.

Next up, human rights also give you the right to a fair trial. Every human being has the right to move to the court where there will be impartial decision making . They can trust the court to give them justice when everything else fails.

Most importantly, humans are now free from any form of slavery. No other human being can indulge in slavery and make them their slaves. Further, humans are also free to speak and express their opinion.

In short, human rights are very essential for a happy living of human beings. However, these days they are violated endlessly and we need to come together to tackle this issue. The governments and citizens must take efforts to protect each other and progress for the better. In other words, this will ensure happiness and prosperity all over the world.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

SCAM ALERT: We will never contact you requesting money. Learn more.

An introduction to human rights.

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness.

They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected.

Explore the sections below to find information about the important human rights questions:

What are human rights?

Where do human rights come from?

Why are human rights important, what are human rights.

Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights.

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our lives and to develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.

Human rights can broadly be defined as a number of basic rights that people from around the world have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the rights to health, education and an adequate standard of living.

These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or what we believe. This is what makes human rights ‘universal’.

Who has a responsibility to protect human rights?

Human rights connect us to each other through a shared set of rights and responsibilities.

A person’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community. Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.

Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people are able to enjoy their rights. They are required to establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in which their rights are respected and protected.

For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. This means that governments have an obligation to provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. Whether or not governments actually do this, it is generally accepted that this is the government's responsibility and people can call them to account if they fail to respect or protect their basic human rights.

What do human rights cover?

Human rights cover virtually every area of human activity.

They include civil and political rights , which refer to a person’s rights to take part in the civil and political life of their community without discrimination or oppression. These include rights and freedoms such as the right to vote, the right to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom from torture.

The right to vote and take part in choosing a government is a civil and political right.

They also include economic, social and cultural rights , which relate to a person’s rights to prosper and grow and to take part in social and cultural activities. This group includes rights such as the right to health, the right to education and the right to work.

The right to education is an example of an economic, social and cultural right.

One of the main differences between these two groups of rights is that, in the case of civil and political rights, governments must make sure that they, or any other group, are not denying people access to their rights, whereas in relation to economic, social and cultural rights, governments must take active steps to ensure rights are being fulfilled.

As well as belonging to every individual, there are some rights that also belong to groups of people. This is often in recognition of the fact that these groups have been disadvantaged and marginalised throughout history and consequently need greater protection of their rights. These rights are called collective rights . For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples possess collective rights to their ancestral lands, which are known as native title rights.

Rights that can only apply to individuals, for example the right to a fair trial, are called individual rights .

Back to the top

The origins of human rights

Click here for a brief timeline of the evolution of human rights

Human rights are not a recent invention.

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in the development of human societies. These ideas can be traced back to the ancient civilisations of Babylon, China and India. They contributed to the laws of Greek and Roman society and are central to Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish teachings. Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have not left written records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and other indigenous societies elsewhere.

Ideas about justice were prominent in the thinking of philosophers in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. An important strand in this thinking was that there was a 'natural law' that stood above the law of rulers. This meant that individuals had certain rights simply because they were human beings.

In 1215, the English barons forced the King of England to sign Magna Carta (which is Latin for ‘the Great Charter’). Magna Carta was the first document to place limits on the absolute power of the king and make him accountable to his subjects. It also laid out some basic rights for the protection of citizens, such as the right to a trial.

Significant development in thinking about human rights took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during a time of revolution and emerging national identities.

The American Declaration of Independence (1776) was based on the understanding that certain rights, such as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', were fundamental to all people. Similarly, t he French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) challenged the authority of the aristocracy and recognised the ‘liberty, equality and fraternity' of individuals. These values were also echoed in the United States’ Bill of Rights (1791), which recognised freedom of speech, religion and the press, as well as the right to ‘peaceable' assembly, private property and a fair trial.

The English barons forcing the tyrannical King John to sign Magna Carta in 1215

Find out more about Magna Carta and its human rights legacy by watching this short video or exploring this interactive timeline .

The development of modern human rights

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw continuing advances in social progress, for example, in the abolition of slavery, the widespread provision of education and the extension of political rights. Despite these advances, international activity on human rights remained weak. The general attitude was that nations could do what they liked within their borders and that other countries and the broader international community had no basis for intervening or even raising concerns when rights were violated.

This is expressed in the term ‘state sovereignty’, which refers to the idea that whoever has the political authority within a country has the power to rule and pass laws over that territory. Importantly, countries agree to mutually recognise this sovereignty. In doing so, they agree to refrain from interfering in the internal or external affairs of other sovereign states.

However, the atrocities and human rights violations that occurred during World War II galvanised worldwide opinion and made human rights a universal concern.

Word War II onwards

During World War II millions of soldiers and civilians were killed or maimed. The Nazi regime in Germany created concentration camps for certain groups - including Jews, communists, homosexuals and political opponents. Some of these people were used as slave labour, others were exterminated in mass executions. The Japanese occupation of China and other Asian countries was marked by frequent and large-scale brutality toward local populations. Japanese forces took thousands of prisoners of war who were used as slave labour, with no medical treatment and inadequate food.

A group of prisoners at a concentration camp during WWII in Ebensee, Austria

The promotion and protection of human rights became a fundamental objective of the Allied powers. In 1941, U.S. President Roosevelt proclaimed the 'Four Freedoms' that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy - freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from want and fear.

The war ended in 1945, but only after the destruction of millions of lives, including through the first and only use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many countries were devastated by the war, and millions of people died or became homeless refugees.

This new organisation was the United Nations, known as the UN, which came into existence in 1945. A s the war drew to a close, the victorious powers decided to establish a world organisation that would prevent further conflict and help build a better world.

The UN was created to fulfil four key aims:

to ensure peace and security
to promote economic development
t o promote the development of international law
to ensure the observance of human rights.

In the UN Charter – the UN’s founding document – the countries of the United Nations stated that they were determined:

The UN's strong emphasis on human rights made it different from previous international organisations. UN member countries believed that the protection of human rights would help ensure freedom, justice and peace for all in the future.

Read more about the work of United Nations on The International Human Rights System page .

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can helps us create the kind of society we want to live in.

In recent decades, there has been a tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas. This has had many positive results - knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.

Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels in society - in the family, the community, schools, the workplace, in politics and in international relations. It is vital therefore that people everywhere should strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society.

Can my human rights be taken away from me?

A person's human rights cannot be taken away. In its final Article, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no State, group or person '[has] any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein'.

This doesn't mean that abuses and violations of human rights don't occur. On television and in newspapers every day we hear tragic stories of murder, violence, racism, hunger, unemployment, poverty, abuse, homelessness and discrimination.

However, the Universal Declaration and other human rights treaties are more than just noble aspirations. They are essential legal principles. To meet their international human rights obligations, many nations have incorporated these principles into their own laws. This provides an opportunity for individuals to have a complaint settled by a court in their own country.

Individuals from some countries may also be able to take a complaint of human rights violations to a United Nations committee of experts, which would then give its opinion.

In addition, education about human rights is just as important as having laws to protect people. Long term progress can really only be made when people are aware of what human rights are and what standards exist.

5 Essays to Learn More About Equality

“Equality” is one of those words that seems simple, but is more complicated upon closer inspection. At its core, equality can be defined as “the state of being equal.” When societies value equality, their goals include racial, economic, and gender equality . Do we really know what equality looks like in practice? Does it mean equal opportunities, equal outcomes, or both? To learn more about this concept, here are five essays focusing on equality:

“The Equality Effect” (2017) – Danny Dorling

In this essay, professor Danny Dorling lays out why equality is so beneficial to the world. What is equality? It’s living in a society where everyone gets the same freedoms, dignity, and rights. When equality is realized, a flood of benefits follows. Dorling describes the effect of equality as “magical.” Benefits include happier and healthier citizens, less crime, more productivity, and so on. Dorling believes the benefits of “economically equitable” living are so clear, change around the world is inevitable. Despite the obvious conclusion that equality creates a better world, progress has been slow. We’ve become numb to inequality. Raising awareness of equality’s benefits is essential.

Danny Dorling is the Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at the University of Oxford. He has co-authored and authored a handful of books, including Slowdown: The End of the Great Acceleration—and Why It’s Good for the Planet, the Economy, and Our Lives . “The Equality Effect” is excerpted from this book. Dorling’s work focuses on issues like health, education, wealth, poverty, and employment.

“The Equality Conundrum” (2020) – Joshua Rothman

Originally published as “Same Difference” in the New Yorker’s print edition, this essay opens with a story. A couple plans on dividing their money equally among their children. However, they realize that to ensure equal success for their children, they might need to start with unequal amounts. This essay digs into the complexity of “equality.” While inequality is a major concern for people, most struggle to truly define it. Citing lectures, studies, philosophy, religion, and more, Rothman sheds light on the fact that equality is not a simple – or easy – concept.

Joshua Rothman has worked as a writer and editor of The New Yorker since 2012. He is the ideas editor of newyorker.com.

“Why Understanding Equity vs Equality in Schools Can Help You Create an Inclusive Classroom” (2019) – Waterford.org

Equality in education is critical to society. Students that receive excellent education are more likely to succeed than students who don’t. This essay focuses on the importance of equity, which means giving support to students dealing with issues like poverty, discrimination and economic injustice. What is the difference between equality and equity? What are some strategies that can address barriers? This essay is a great introduction to the equity issues teachers face and why equity is so important.

Waterford.org is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving equity and education in the United States. It believes that the educational experiences children receive are crucial for their future. Waterford.org was founded by Dr. Dustin Heuston.

“What does equality mean to me?” (2020) – Gabriela Vivacqua and Saddal Diab

While it seems simple, the concept of equality is complex. In this piece posted by WFP_Africa on the WFP’s Insight page, the authors ask women from South Sudan what equality means to them. Half of South Sudan’s population consists of women and girls. Unequal access to essentials like healthcare, education, and work opportunities hold them back. Complete with photographs, this short text gives readers a glimpse into interpretations of equality and what organizations like the World Food Programme are doing to tackle gender inequality.

As part of the UN, the World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization focusing on hunger and food security . It provides food assistance to over 80 countries each year.

“Here’s How Gender Equality is Measured” (2020) – Catherine Caruso

Gender inequality is one of the most discussed areas of inequality. Sobering stats reveal that while progress has been made, the world is still far from realizing true gender equality. How is gender equality measured? This essay refers to the Global Gender Gap report ’s factors. This report is released each year by the World Economic Forum. The four factors are political empowerment, health and survival, economic participation and opportunity, and education. The author provides a brief explanation of each factor.

Catherine Caruso is the Editorial Intern at Global Citizen, a movement committed to ending extreme poverty by 2030. Previously, Caruso worked as a writer for Inquisitr. Her English degree is from Syracuse University. She writes stories on health, the environment, and citizenship.

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Human Rights Education

Violation of human rights essay.

The concept of human rights is relatively recent and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only adopted as recently as 1948. The basic premise described in the declaration, which is the standard measure for human rights, is that all individuals have the right to equal freedom, opportunity and justice as well as education… Continue reading Violation of Human Rights Essay

Human Rights Essay Topics

Human rights are now often talked about on TV, social media, and literature. Basically, human rights are freedoms and a set of rights that every human in the world is entitled to, no matter what their race or gender is. It is a broad topic and human rights violations cover a wide variety of areas… Continue reading Human Rights Essay Topics

Why Are Human Rights Important Essay

The concept of human rights is actually relatively recent and our current standard for human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was only published in 1948. But why are human rights important in the first place? Human rights are important because they ensure that each person has their basic rights of freedom, dignity, education,… Continue reading Why Are Human Rights Important Essay

Find your local Age UK

Site search Search term
Back Information and advice
Back Money & legal
Back Benefits and Entitlements
Attendance Allowance
Benefit rates 2024-25
Benefits Calculator – what are you entitled to?
Bereavement Support Payment
Carer's Allowance
Benefits for mixed age couples
Changes to the benefits system
Cold Weather Payment
Council Tax Reduction
Disability Living Allowance
Employment and Support Allowance
Free bus pass and transport concessions
Free prescriptions for over 60s
Housing Benefit
How to apply for a Blue Badge
How to challenge a benefits decision through mandatory reconsideration
How to get help with urgent or one-off expenses
How your benefits are means tested
Income Support
Jobseeker's Allowance
Pension Credit
Personal Independence Payment
Returning to the UK after living abroad
Support for Mortgage Interest
TV licence concessions
Universal Credit
Warm Home Discount
Winter Fuel Payment
More money in your pocket information guide
Back Debt and savings
Debt help and advice
Energy advice for the home
Financial jargon checker
How to reduce your water bills
How to trace lost money
Using credit wisely
Back Income and tax
What is equity release?
Ways to reduce Council Tax
Inheritance tax
How to boost your income in retirement
Equity release information guide
Back End of life planning
Back Legal issues
Finding legal advice
How to be an executor information guide
Making a will
Power of attorney
Power of attorney information guide
Thinking about end of life information guide
What is a living will (advance decision)?
What to do when someone dies
Wills and estate planning information guide
Back Pensions advice
Annuities explained
Finding old pensions
Pension calculator
Pensions scams and fraud
State Pension
What are workplace pensions?
What pension options do I have?
Back Scams and fraud
How to spot a catfish
Spotting TV Licence scams
Doorstep scams
Postal scams
Phone scams
What to do if you're the victim of a scam
Investment scams and fraud
Avoiding scams information guide
Help with the cost of living
Back Consumer advice
Changes to landline telephones
Back Health & wellbeing
Back Conditions and illnesses
Bladder and bowel problems information guide
Bowel problems
Coronavirus
Depression and anxiety
Hearing loss
High blood pressure
Influenza (flu) prevention
Malnutrition
Osteoporosis
Seasonal affective disorder (SAD)
Urinary incontinence
Urinary tract infections (UTIs)
Back Health services
Dental services for older people
9 health tests that could save your life
Getting the most from your medicines
Getting help when feeling unwell
NHS continuing healthcare
Your hospital stay
GP services for older people
Leaving hospital
Complaining about NHS services and hospitals
What standards you should expect from NHS services
Your hospital stay information guide
Back Being active
Getting active when you find exercise difficult
Getting active but not sure where to start
Helping someone to get active
Preventing falls
How to look after your feet
Walking tips
Physical activity videos to use at home
Staying steady information guide
Back Mind and body
10 tips for ageing better
5 tips to boost your mood
Getting a good night's sleep
Your mind matters
Mindfulness
Staying cool in a heatwave
Staying sharp
Preventing and treating burns
Back Loneliness
A Life Less Lonely
Caring for someone who's lonely
Feeling lonely
Back Keep well this winter
Keeping warm and well in winter
Keep your spirits up
Look after each other
Cold weather advice and tips
Managing money in winter
Winter wrapped up information guide
Winter illnesses
Back Relationships and family
Financial and legal tips before remarrying
Planning for end of life
Protection from abuse and neglect
Dating in later life
Sex in later life
How to deal with grief after a bereavement
How to adjust to living alone
Top tips for grandparents
Worried about someone?
Back Care & support
Back Finding and arranging social care
Care needs assessment
Home care: how to find the care you need at home
Back Paying for care
Financial assessment explained
Paying for residential care
Paying for homecare
How much does care cost?
Back Help for carers looking after a loved one
Carer's assessment
Financial support for carers
Balancing working and caring responsibilities
Caring for someone with dementia
Looking after yourself as a carer
Respite care: having a break from caring
What to do when your caring role changes or ends
Carer's checklist
Back Housing options in later life
Assisted living and extra-care housing
Safety in the home
Home adaptations to simplify home tasks
Specialist housing options
Renting and social housing
Homelessness
Moving in with family
Residential park homes
Sheltered housing
Back Problems with care
How to complain about care to your local council
Problems with homecare
Back Work & learning
Back Making the most of the internet
Computer training courses
Glossary of online terms
Getting started on the internet
Staying safe online
Keeping in touch using a video call
Making your device easier to use
How to download apps
Email essentials
What's WhatsApp?
Using social media
Is online banking safe?
How to transfer money and make payments
Shopping safely online
Online password security
Age UK's digital instruction guides
Back Discrimination and rights
EU citizens and settled status after Brexit
Help for Ukrainian nationals in the UK

Human rights

The Equality Act
Windrush Scheme
Your rights at work
Back Education and training
Build up your skills
Classes and courses
Higher education and university
u3a – Later life learning
Back Looking for work
Be your own boss
CVs and job applications
Job interview tips
Back Retirement
Preparing emotionally for retirement
Paul Lewis: Retirement planning advice
Living abroad after retirement
Retirement age
Back For professionals
Benefits hub for professionals
Mental health hub for professionals
Winter hub for professionals
Information guides and factsheets

Age UK Advice Line 0800 678 1602

Free to call 8am – 7pm 365 days a year Find out more

Telephone friendship

Get a free weekly friendship call. We'll match you with one of our volunteers. Our service is flexible to suit the different needs of everyone who takes part.

Sign up for telephone befriending
Find services near you
Find charity shops near you

Popular services

Age UK Advice Line
Befriending services
The Silver Line Helpline
Day Centres
Exercise and physical activity
Handyperson services
IT Training
Social activities
Back Services
Back Get involved
Back Donate
Make a donation
Back Leave a gift in your will
How to leave a gift in your will
Making and amending your will to include a gift to Age UK
Information for executors
The difference a gift in your will could make
Ways to write your will
Free Wills Month 2024
Will Aid 2024
Back Donate to our shops
Age UK and The Wombles join forces
Age UK's eBay store
Sustainability
Back Donate in memory
Make a donation in memory
Fundraise for Age UK in memory of your loved one
Make a one-off donation
Funeral donations and collections
Set up a Tribute Fund
Meaningful ways to remember your loved one
Make a major gift
The difference your money makes
Our professional fundraisers
Back Fundraise
Back The innocent Big Knit – get knitting for charity
innocent Big Knit updates
Back Sporting events
Run for charity
Skydive for charity
Cycle for charity
Charity walks and treks
Charity triathlon events and obstacle courses
Do your challenge for Age UK
Back Fundraising ideas
Most popular ideas
Sporty ideas
Fundraise at work
Fundraise at school
Fundraise while you celebrate
Fundraise as a community
Let's get fundraising
Pay in your fundraising
Fundraising resources
Leeds Abbey Dash
TCS London Marathon
Back Stream for Ages
Your free downloads
Back Lottery and raffle
Play the Age UK lottery
Tuesday Treat Draw
Play the Age UK raffle
Gift the Lottery
Player Zone
How every entry helps
Are you a winner?
Lottery and Raffle rules
Back Volunteering
Telephone Friendship Service volunteering
The Silver Line Helpline volunteering
Connect and Support Service volunteering
Age UK shops volunteering
Local Age UK volunteering
Support our campaigns
Back Corporate partnerships
Why partner with Age UK
Back Ways we could work together
Can your company support the Age UK Telephone Friendship Service?
Latest jobs with Age UK

Age UK. Know what to do.

Last year, over 10 million people trusted us to help them with some of the biggest issues in their lives. Learn more about how we help.

How your support helps

Here's how, with your support, Age UK is supporting older people through the cost of living crisis.

See the difference your donations make

Making older people's voices heard

Age UK know what to do
Campaigning with older people
Discover - news, stories and features
Media Centre
Policy and research
Wellbeing programmes
Politics and government
Back Our impact
Back Buy products
Back Over-50s Insurance
Car insurance
Home insurance
Motor breakdown cover
Travel insurance
Travel insurance with medical conditions
Back Independent living
Bathing Solutions
Stairlifts and Homelifts
Personal Alarms
Back Financial services
Funeral Plans
Legal services
Back Healthcare
Incontinence products

Discrimination and rights

Human rights are basic rights that belong to all of us simply because we are human. They embody key values in our society such as fairness, dignity, equality and respect.

They are an important means of protection for us all, especially those who may face abuse, neglect and isolation. Most importantly, these rights give us power and enable us to speak up and to challenge poor treatment from a public authority.

Which rights are most relevant to me?

Article 2: the right to life, article 3: prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, article 5: right to liberty, article 8: the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, article 14: the right not to be discriminated against.

All human rights are potentially relevant to you; however, it is likely that you will find some more significant to you than others.

I have the right to have my life protected and not to have it taken away by others.

What does this right mean?

Public authorities must:

take appropriate steps to protect a person’s life e.g. ensure adequate laws to protect you from others who might want to take away your life
not take away a person’s life, except in a few very specific and limited circumstances.

It does not mean there is a right to medical treatment in all circumstances.

If someone dies as a result of the state’s use of force, or the state’s failure to protect life, there should be an effective official investigation into what happened.

How could this be relevant to me or other older people?

I should not be refused lifesaving medical treatment because of my age.
I need to be given enough to eat and drink whilst I am in the care of an institution.
I should not have a ‘do not resuscitate’ order placed on my file without my or, if I cannot express my own view, my family’s consent.
I should not be discharged from hospital if I am unable to look after myself, if there is no care in place to support me and if my life would be at risk as a result.
In the event that my death is suspicious or unexplained, an effective inquest must be carried out

This right put into action

Families of those who died at Mid Staffordshire hospital were able to use human rights arguments to secure compensation for horrific treatment suffered by their relatives, such as not being given support to eat or drink or being left in soiled sheeting for hours.

In many cases they were able to argue that poor treatment and neglect caused the death of their loved ones and that this was a breach of their right to life. They were also able to use the investigative duty included within the right to life, to secure a public inquiry into their relatives’ deaths.

This inquiry also made recommendations for preventing this kind of treatment in the future.

Source: UK Human rights blog

I have the right not to be treated inhumanely, abused, degraded or humiliated.

It must be very severe treatment to reach the threshold of Article 3, however whether treatment meets this threshold will depend on the facts of the individual case.
Torture is severe physical or mental harm inflicted by the state.
Inhuman treatment means treatment causing severe mental or physical suffering.
Degrading treatment means treatment that is grossly humiliating and undignified.
Public authorities also have a positive duty to try and prevent others from treating you in an inhuman or degrading way.
Inhuman or degrading treatment does not have to be inflicted deliberately.
I should not be abused in any way.
I should be protected from physical or mental abuse e.g. when in hospital or a care home.
I should be supported to eat or drink if I am not able to do this myself.
Excessive force should not be used to restrain me.
I should not be neglected e.g. left in soiled, unchanged sheets for long periods.
I should not experience poor conditions such as lack of access to healthcare in institutional settings such as prisons or care homes.
Severely discriminating against me because of racism could amount to degrading treatment.
Where I raise a real concern about inhuman or degrading treatment, a public authority must investigate it.

77-year-old Simon had a heart attack while he was in prison awaiting sentence for breaching health and safety regulations.

Simon was rushed to hospital and for the next 14 days he was kept in handcuffs. Even while he was using the toilet and shower, Simon was chained to a prison officer.

He took action against this treatment and a judge ruled that it violated his human right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The judge said that being handcuffed while in his own room in a hospital ward with only one door was humiliating and an affront to Simon’s dignity.

Source: Equally Ours

I have the right not to lose my liberty, except for a very good reason.

not deprive anyone of their liberty except in certain, predefined circumstances such as following a conviction by a criminal court or if someone lacks mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and it is in their best interests to deprive them of their liberty
have an appropriate, legally based procedure in place to protect an individual’s rights.

Any deprivation of liberty must be lawful, proportionate and continue for no longer than is necessary.

For a person to be classed as being deprived of their liberty, they must be subject both to continuous supervision and control and not be free to leave.

Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there are procedures in place to make sure that people’s rights to liberty are protected if a public authority decides that someone does not have capacity to consent to necessary care or treatment.

These safeguards, which have been developed by the courts, are called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).

DOLS set out a procedure for care homes and hospitals to obtain authorisation to deprive someone of their liberty. Without that authorisation the deprivation of liberty will be unlawful. These safeguards are intended to stop individuals from being deprived of their liberty unless it is in their best interests to protect them from harm and there is no other less restrictive alternative.

I should not be locked in a room, cell or have any extreme form of restriction placed on my movement except in certain strict circumstances.
I should not be detained unlawfully.
If I lack capacity to give consent I should not be sent to a care home or hospital unless the DOLS procedure has been followed.
If I have been detained following DOLS there should be a periodic independent check to ensure that this continues to be in my best interests.
If I am arrested, I should be informed promptly, in a language which I understand, of the reasons for my arrest and the charge against me.

A 91-year-old man was removed from his home in his pyjamas by the local authority and placed in a locked dementia unit. It was not clear that he lacked capacity at the time. He was detained unlawfully in the care home for 17 months without any DOLS application being made to safeguard his rights or hear his views.

Following legal action from a concerned friend, the man eventually returned home with a care package and £60,000 damages. The case was settled on the basis that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty.

The Judge noted that no consideration had been given to the least restrictive option of the man being supported to live at home in accordance with his wishes.

It is my right to live without harassment and with respect for my private, personal and family life.

This right has a very wide scope, protecting four interests:

Private life – in addition to personal privacy this covers issues such as personal choices, relationships, physical and mental wellbeing, access to personal information and participation in community life.
Family life – interpreted broadly, depends on circumstances and existence of close personal ties. It does not just cover blood or formalised relationships.
Home – this is not a right to housing, but a right to respect for a home someone already has. It also includes the right to enjoy your home without interference from others.
Correspondence – this covers all forms of communication including phone calls, letters, text messages, emails etc.

This is a qualified right and may be restricted if the restriction has a basis in law, pursues a legitimate aim as set out in the Human Rights Act and is necessary and proportionate. This means that, in some circumstances, a public authority may be able to interfere with your right to a private and family life in order to protect public safety or the freedoms of others.

I should be supported to stay in my home, or with my family or partner, if I choose to.
I should be able to access my local GP.
I should be able to make choices about my daily life.
I should be able to participate in social and recreational activities.
I should be able to have a fulfilling and active life and be able to make choices even if I am in a care home or hospital.
My personal information should be confidential.
I should be able to have access to my personal records.
My personal and sexual relationships should be respected.

A 79-year-old man with dementia, who was unable to make decisions about his care, lived at home with his partner and her son. He was admitted to hospital for a mental health assessment and when he was ready for discharge, a dispute emerged between his partner who wanted him to return home, and health authorities who believed he should be admitted permanently to a care home.

A judge ruled that forcing the man to be sent to an institution would be depriving him of his human right to family life with his partner. Though he recognised the man’s physical and medical needs might be better served in a care home, the judge emphasised that there is more to human life than just physical needs.

The judge said the man’s emotional needs had to be taken into account in order to serve his best interests, and that meant going home to his family.

I have the right not to be discriminated against because of who I am – this might include because of my gender, sexuality, age, nationality or religion.

not discriminate against you in relation to any of the rights contained in the European Convention.

It is not a free standing right and must be linked to another convention right.

This means that you can use this article if you can show that, within the scope of the other articles such as Article 2,

3, 5 and 8, you have been discriminated against on a non-exhaustive list of grounds such as age, disability, sexual orientation and race.

I should not be refused medical treatment simply because of my age.
If I do not speak English I should be provided with an interpreter, so that I can make choices about my health or social care.
I should not be bullied and treated badly in my care home by the residents or staff just because I am gay.
I should not be discriminated against at work just because of my age.

When 72-year-old Mr S heard that the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) was moving to online only VAT returns he applied for an exemption even before they’d sent the letter.

In the years of running a small but successful business selling electronic equipment over the phone, he has always been amongst the first to present his tax returns. Mr S knows how to use a computer, but his arthritis makes it very tricky for him – the impact on his hands means he can’t use even his adapted large keyboard easily and his poor eyesight makes seeing the screen very difficult.

When the VAT office refused to exempt Mr S and two other taxpayers in a similar position from online filing they felt that their rights were being undermined and decided to challenge the decision. It was the inflexibility of the new rules which led to them winning the challenge – in a tax court, the judge found that the HMRC should have made provision for people who would find it difficult to comply with the new rules and their failure to do so was a breach of human rights.

Our Rights Our Voices toolkit

As part the Our Rights Our Voices project, we produced this toolkit. It breaks down and explains human rights legislation and uses up-to-date case studies to show how people have used these rights in reality.

Download (PDF, 2 MB)

Share this page

Share on Facebook

Last updated: Aug 31 2017

Become part of our story

Please enter a valid email address

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Michelle Maiese

June 2004

What are Human Rights?

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent entitlements of the individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities.

Such rights are ascribed "naturally," which means that they are not earned and cannot be denied on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity or gender.[1] These rights are often advanced as legal rights and protected by the rule of law. However, they are distinct from and prior to law, and can be used as standards for formulating or criticizing both local and international law . It is typically thought that the conduct of governments and military forces must comply with these standards.

Various "basic" rights that cannot be violated under any circumstances are set forth in international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . The rights established by these documents include economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights.[2]

While human rights are not always interpreted similarly across societies, these norms nonetheless form a common human rights vocabulary in which the claims of various cultures can be articulated. The widespread ratification of international human rights agreements such as those listed above is taken as evidence that these are widely shared values.[3] Having human rights norms in place imposes certain requirements on governments and legitimizes the complaints of individuals in those cases where fundamental rights and freedoms are not respected.[4] Such norms constitute a standard for the conduct of government and the administration of force. They can be used as "universal, non-discriminatory standards" for formulating or criticizing law and act as guidelines for proper conduct.[5]

Many conflicts are sparked by a failure to protect human rights, and the trauma that results from severe human rights violations often leads to new human rights violations. As conflict intensifies, hatred accumulates and makes restoration of peace more difficult. In order to stop this cycle of violence, states must institute policies aimed at human rights protection. Many believe that the protection of human rights "is essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace , development and democracy ."[6] Respect for human rights has therefore become an integral part of international law and foreign policy. The specific goal of expanding such rights is to "increase safeguards for the dignity of the person."[7]

Despite what resembles a widespread consensus on the importance of human rights and the expansion of international treaties on such matters, the protection of human rights still often leaves much to be desired. Although international organizations have been created or utilized to embody these values, there is little to enforce the commitments states have made to human rights. Military intervention is a rare occurrence. Sanctions have a spotty track record of effectiveness. Although not to be dismissed as insignificant, often the only consequence for failing to protect human rights is "naming and shaming."

Interventions to Protect Human Rights

To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. Because political systems that protect human rights are thought to reduce the threat of world conflict, all nations have a stake in promoting worldwide respect for human rights.[8] International human rights law, humanitarian intervention law and refugee law all protect the right to life and physical integrity and attempt to limit the unrestrained power of the state. These laws aim to preserve humanity and protect against anything that challenges people's health, economic well-being, social stability and political peace. Underlying such laws is the principle of nondiscrimination, the notion that rights apply universally.[9]

Responsibility to protect human rights resides first and foremost with the states themselves. However, in many cases public authorities and government officials institute policies that violate basic human rights. Such abuses of power by political leaders and state authorities have devastating effects, including genocide , war crimes and crimes against humanity. What can be done to safeguard human rights when those in power are responsible for human rights violations ? Can outside forces intervene in order to protect human rights?

Humanitarian Intervention

In some cases, the perceived need to protect human rights and maintain peace has led to humanitarian intervention. There is evidence that internationally we are moving towards the notion that governments have not only a negative duty to respect human rights, but also a positive duty to safeguard these rights, preserve life and protect people from having their rights violated by others.[10] Many believe that states' duties to intervene should not be determined by proximity, but rather by the severity of the crisis.

There are two kinds of humanitarian intervention involving the military: unilateral interventions by a single state, and collective interventions by a group of states.[11] Because relatively few states have sufficient force and capacity to intervene on their own, most modern interventions are collective. Some also argue that there is a normative consensus that multilateral intervention is the only acceptable form at present.[12]

There is much disagreement about when and to what extent outside countries can engage in such interventions. More specifically, there is debate about the efficacy of using military force to protect the human rights of individuals in other nations. This sort of debate stems largely from a tension between state sovereignty and the rights of individuals.

Some defend the principles of state sovereignty and nonintervention, and argue that other states must be permitted to determine their own course. They point out that the principles of state sovereignty and the non-use of force are enshrined in the charter of the United Nations , which is regarded as an authoritative source on international legal order.[13]

This argument suggests that different states have different conceptions of justice, and international coexistence depends on a pluralist ethic whereby each state can uphold its own conception of the good.[14] Among this group, there is "a profound skepticism about the possibilities of realizing notions of universal justice."[15] States that presume to judge what counts as a violation of human rights in another nation interfere with that nation's right to self-determination. Suspicions are further raised by the inconsistent respect for sovereignty (or human rights for that matter); namely, the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council have tremendous say over application of international principles. In addition, requiring some country to respect human rights is liable to cause friction and can lead to far-reaching disagreements.[16] Thus, acts of intervention may disrupt interstate order and lead to further conflict.[17] Even greater human suffering might thereby result if states set aside the norm of nonintervention.

Others point out that humanitarian intervention does not, in principle, threaten the territorial integrity and political independence of states. Rather than aiming to destabilize a target state and meddle in its affairs, humanitarian intervention aims to restore rule of law and promote humane treatment of individuals.[18]

Furthermore, people who advocate this approach maintain that "only the vigilant eye of the international community can ensure the proper observance of international standards, in the interest not of one state or another but of the individuals themselves."[19] They maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant intervention, even if it causes some tension or disagreement. Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and "taking basic rights seriously means taking responsibility for their protection everywhere."[20]

If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty.[21] Outside governments then have a positive duty to take steps to protect human rights and preserve lives. In addition, it is thought that political systems that protect human rights reduce the threat of world conflict.[22] Thus, intervention might also be justified on the ground of preserving international security, promoting justice and maintaining international order.

Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant to commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states.[23] In addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent lives.[24] Therefore, it is imperative that the least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian objectives be used, and that intervention not do more harm than good. Lastly, there is a need to ensure that intervention is legitimate, and motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns. The purposes of intervention must be apolitical and disinterested. However, if risks and costs of intervention are high, it is unlikely that states will intervene unless their own interests are involved.[25] For this reason, some doubt whether interventions are ever driven by humanitarian concerns rather than self-interest.

Many note that in order to truly address human rights violations, we must strive to understand the underlying causes of these breaches. These causes have to do with underdevelopment, economic pressures, social problems and international conditions.[26] Indeed, the roots of repression, discrimination and other denials of human rights stem from deeper and more complex political, social and economic problems. It is only by understanding and ameliorating these root causes and strengthening both democracy and civil society that we can truly protect human rights.

Restoring Human Rights in the Peacebuilding Phase

In the aftermath of conflict, violence and suspicion often persist. Government institutions and the judiciary, which bear the main responsibility for the observation of human rights, are often severely weakened by the conflict or complicit in it. Yet, a general improvement in the human rights situation is essential for rehabilitation of war-torn societies. Many argue that healing the psychological scars caused by atrocities and reconciliation at the community level cannot take place if the truth about past crimes is not revealed and if human rights are not protected. To preserve political stability, human rights implementation must be managed effectively. Issues of mistrust and betrayal must be addressed, and the rule of law must be restored. In such an environment, the international community can often play an important supporting role in providing at least implicit guarantees that former opponents will not abandon the peace.[27] Because all international norms are subject to cultural interpretation, external agents that assist in the restoration of human rights in post-conflict societies must be careful to find local terms with which to express human rights norms. While human rights are in theory universal, ideas about which basic needs should be guaranteed vary according to cultural, political, economic and religious circumstances. Consequently, policies to promote and protect human rights must be culturally adapted to avoid distrust and perceptions of intrusion into internal affairs.

To promote human rights standards in post-conflict societies, many psychological issues must be addressed. Societies must either introduce new social norms or reestablish old moral standards. They must design programs that will both address past injustice and prevent future human rights violations . Human rights must not become just another compartmentalized aspect of recovery, but must be infused throughout all peacebuilding and reconstruction activities. Democratization implies the restoration of political and social rights. Government officials and members of security and police forces have to be trained to observe basic rights in the execution of their duties. Finally, being able to forgive past violations is central to society's reconciliation .

Rights Protection Methods

Various methods to advance and protect human rights are available:

During violent conflict, safe havens to protect refugees and war victims from any surrounding violence in their communities can sometimes help to safeguard human lives.
As violent conflict begins to subside, peacekeeping strategies to physically separate disputants and prevent further violence are crucial. These measures, together with violence prevention mechanisms, can help to safeguard human lives. Limiting the use of violence is crucial to ensuring groups' survival and creating the necessary conditions for a return to peace.
Education about human rights must become part of general public education. Technical and financial assistance should be provided to increase knowledge about human rights. Members of the police and security forces have to be trained to ensure the observation of human rights standards for law enforcement. Research institutes and universities should be strengthened to train lawyers and judges. To uphold human rights standards in the long-term, their values must permeate all levels of society.
Dialogue groups that assemble people from various ethnicities should be organized to overcome mistrust, fear and grief in society. Getting to know the feelings of ordinary people of each side might help to change the demonic image of the enemy group. Dialogue also helps parties at the grassroots level to discover the truth about what has happened, and may provide opportunities for apology and forgiveness.
External specialists can offer legislative assistance and provide guidance in drafting press freedom laws, minority legislation and laws securing gender equality. They can also assist in drafting a constitution, which guarantees fundamental political and economic rights.
Those who perpetrate human rights violations find it much easier to do so in cases where their activities can remain secret. International witnesses , observers and reporters can exert modest pressure to bring violations of human rights to public notice and discourage further violence. Monitors should not only expose violations, but also make the public aware of any progress made in the realization of human rights. In order to ensure that proper action is taken after the results of investigations have been made public, effective mechanisms to address injustice must be in place.
Truth commissions are sometimes established after a political transition. To distinguish them from other institutions established to deal with a legacy of human rights abuses, truth commissions can be understood as "bodies set up to investigate a past history of violations of human rights in a particular country -- which can include violations by the military or other government forces or armed opposition forces."[28] They are officially sanctioned temporary bodies that investigate a pattern of abuse in the past. Their goal is to uncover details of past abuses as a symbol of acknowledgment of past wrongs. They typically do not have the powers of courts, nor should they, since they do not have the same standards of evidence and protections for defendants. As such, they usually do not "name names" of those responsible for human rights abuses, but rather point to institutional failings that facilitated the crimes. Finally, they conclude with a report that contains recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the crimes and to provide reparations to victims.
International war crimes tribunals are established to hold individuals criminally responsible for violations of international human rights law in special courts. The international community rarely has the will to create them. As the experiences with the war tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia indicate, even where they are created, they are imperfect. They cannot hold all perpetrators accountable and typically aim for the top leadership. However, it remains difficult to sentence the top-level decision-makers, who bear the ultimate responsibility for atrocities. They often enjoy political immunity as members of the post-conflict government. Incriminating a popular leader might lead to violent protests and sometimes even to relapse into conflict. Leaders may be necessary to negotiate and implement a peace agreement.
Various democratization measures can help to restore political and social rights. For sustainability and long-term viability of human rights standards, strong local enforcement mechanisms have to be established. An independent judiciary that provides impartial means and protects individuals against politically influenced persecution must be restored. Election monitors who help to guarantee fair voting procedures can help to ensure stable and peaceful elections. And various social structural changes , including reallocations of resources, increased political participation , and the strengthening of civil society can help to ensure that people's basic needs are met.
Humanitarian aid and development assistance seeks to ease the impact that violent conflict has on civilians. During conflict, the primary aim is to prevent human casualties and ensure access to basic survival needs. These basics include water, sanitation, food, shelter and health care. Aid can also assist those who have been displaced and support rehabilitation work. Once conflict has ended, development assistance helps to advance reconstruction programs that rebuild infrastructure, institutions and the economy. This assistance helps countries to undergo peaceful development rather than sliding back into conflict.

The expansion of international human rights law has often not been matched by practice. Yet, there is growing consensus that the protection of human rights is important for the resolution of conflict and to the rebuilding process afterward. To achieve these goals, the international community has identified a number of mechanisms both to bring an end to human rights abuses and to establish an environment in which they will be respected in the future. They are not alternatives, but each provides important benefits in dealing with the past and envisioning a brighter future.

[1] Little, David. "Universality of Human Rights," [available at: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/universality.html ] (no longer available as of March 5th 2013)

[2] endnote goes here**

[3] At the same time, some would argue that the hegemonic power of the West, whether through normative pressure or economic, is responsible for widespread ratification.

[4] Antonio Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing World . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 2.

[5] Little, "The Nature and Basis of Human Rights," United States Institute of Peace.

[available at: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/natbasis.html ] (no longer available as of March 5th 2013)

[6] "Human Rights Today: A United Nations Priority," The United Nations, 2000. [available at: http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/ ]

[7] Cassese, 3.

[8] Cassese, 58.

[9] Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001), 144.

[10] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 147.

[11] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights in Internal Armed Conflicts in Africa: Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?" in Conflict Trends , no. 3, 2001. ACCORD.

[12] Martha Finnemore, The purpose of intervention: changing beliefs about the use of force . (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2003), chapter 3.

[13] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights"

[14] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 132.

[15] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.

[16] Cassese, 58.

z[17] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.

[18] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights"

[19] Cassese, 55-6.

[20] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 135.

[21] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.

[22] Cassese, 58.

[23] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.

[24] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 137.

[25] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 141.

[26] Cassese, 59.

[27] See for example, Barbara F. Walter, Committing to peace: the successful settlement of civil wars . (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press: 2002).

[28] Priscilla B. Hayner, (1994). "Fifteen Truth Commissions - 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study." Human Rights Quarterly. 16(4): 604.

Use the following to cite this article: Maiese, Michelle. "Human Rights Protection." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2004 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-rights-protect >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of May 19, 2024 -- Another in our weekly set of links from readers, our colleagues, and others with important ideas for our field.
Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

production_1

IMAGES

Human Rights Essay
Unlocking Human Rights: A Powerful 300-Word Essay
Essay on Human Rights/Essay on human rights in english/Human rights essay/essay on Human rights Day
Essay Example Of Human Rights
Human Rights Essay
Essay on Human Rights- Sample Essays & Importance

VIDEO

The Importance of Human Rights in a Changing World
Why human rights workers often aren't financially stable
Why are Human Rights important? by Nilmini Roelens 30th April 2023
Empowering Female Survivors: Minibus to Support Survivors
Law Of Human Rights || Manav Adhikar Ayog || Part 2 Infinity Classes By Ankit Sharma Sir
Foundations of Freedom with Attiya Waris

COMMENTS

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500
Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights. Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour.
What are human rights and why are they important?
Human rights are: Interdependent and indivisible. This means that all of our human rights have equal standing, and no single right is more important than another. Guaranteeing one human right is not the same as guaranteeing all, and the violation of one human right often violates others too. Inalienable.
10 Reasons Why Human Rights Are Important
The marriage between human rights and environmentalism is becoming stronger due to climate change and the effects it has on people. We live in the world, we need the land, so it makes sense that what happens to the environment impacts humanity. The right to clean air, clean soil, and clean water are all as important as the other rights included ...
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
The ethical basis of human rights has been defined using concepts such as human flourishing, dignity, duties to family and society, natural rights, individual freedom, and social justice against exploitation based on sex, class or caste. All of these moral arguments for human rights are part of ethical discourse.
Human rights
human rights, rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance ...
Human Rights
Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to education. The philosophy of human rights addresses questions ...
Human Rights Essay: 10 Reasons why human rights are important
First and foremost, they protect the basic dignity of each and every human being. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person, as well as freedom from torture, slavery, and arbitrary arrest or detention. These rights are essential in order for people to live with dignity and respect. Secondly, human rights promote peace and ...
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
the concept of human rights, this essay will examine the tensions between human rights and state sovereignty, the challenges to the universality of human rights, the enumeration of rights recognized by the international community, and the means available to translate the high aspirations of human rights into practice. II.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
All human rights are equally important, and all governments must treat human rights in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. All states have a duty, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights for everyone without discrimination. ...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?
An internationally renowned expert in human rights, Welch wrote an essay on the topic for the U.S. State Department that was published in French, Russian, Farsi and other languages, and distributed internationally. Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) matter? CW: The UDHR is among the most important documents of the 20th ...
"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou
Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability.
What are human rights?
Equal and non-discriminatory. Article 1 of the UDHR states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.". Freedom from discrimination, set out in Article 2, is what ensures this equality. Non-discrimination cuts across all international human rights law. This principle is present in all major human rights treaties.
Why do equal rights matter?
People are not equal, but they are of equal value. They have equal rights and are equal before the law. These human rights are an important principle of any democratic society. Human rights are also called fundamental rights. These are rights stipulate, for instance, that everyone has freedom of expression.
Why Are Human Rights Important Essay
Human rights are important because they ensure that each person has their basic rights of freedom, dignity, education, equal opportunity, health and justice protected. They protect people from bias and provide a support for fighting corruption and injustice. Even though most nations have adopted the Universal Declaration as a guide, there are ...
The global politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity
Human dignity, in this essay, embraces all types of human rights claims, ranging from political rights to socio-economic rights, among many others. ... 2015), meanwhile, deals with the important puzzle as to how and why large arms-exporting democratic states adopt multilateral restrictions of arms export to human rights-abusive states, as ...
Human Rights Essay for Students and Children
Human rights are a set of rights which every human is entitled to. Every human being is inherited with these rights no matter what caste, creed, gender, the economic status they belong to. Human rights are very important for making sure that all humans get treated equally. They are in fact essential for a good standard of living in the world.
An Introduction to Human Rights
Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness.They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected ...
5 Essays to Learn More About Equality
It's living in a society where everyone gets the same freedoms, dignity, and rights. When equality is realized, a flood of benefits follows. Dorling describes the effect of equality as "magical.". Benefits include happier and healthier citizens, less crime, more productivity, and so on. Dorling believes the benefits of "economically ...
Human Rights Education
The concept of human rights is actually relatively recent and our current standard for human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was only published in 1948. But why are human rights important in the first place? Human rights are important because they ensure that each person has their basic rights of freedom, dignity, education,….
Rights
A right is an entitlement to certain kinds of treatment. While positive rights grant people the ability to demand the performance of some action, negative rights entitle people to demand that others refrain from certain kinds of action. [1] For example, the ability to vote is a positive right, while not being tortured counts as a negative right.
Human rights
Human rights are basic rights that belong to all of us simply because we are human. They embody key values in our society such as fairness, dignity, equality and respect. They are an important means of protection for us all, especially those who may face abuse, neglect and isolation. Most importantly, these rights give us power and enable us to ...
PDF Human Rights Essay
Human Rights Essay Alyssa Nauska [8th grade Winner] Human Rights plays a role in everyone's life, but not everyone realizes it. It's involved in ... Compare and think of how it changed our nation. Human Rights plays an important role in . my life because it allows me to live free, and unworried. Having the right itself just makes me feel ...
Human Rights Protection
Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent entitlements of the individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as responsibilities of the individual and ...

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

This Blog Includes:

What are Human Rights

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Bibliography

Human Rights

1. The General Idea of Human Rights

2. The Existence and Grounds of Human Rights

3. Which Rights are Human Rights?

Other Internet Resources

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

Human Rights Essay: 10 Reasons why human rights are important

1. Keeps population density under control

2. Reduces war

3. Reduces poverty

4. What you are not against, you are for

5. What we stand against in other nations affects policy in our own

6. You are a human and your rights matter

7. What we stand for or against sends a message to our own children and young people

8. Protecting the human rights of others has a direct impact on members of our military

9. Our stance on human rights affects our relationships with even our allies

10. Protecting human rights affects our individual relationships with our own neighbors

Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Why does it matter?

Why does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) matter?

How did the UDHR come into being?

What does the UDHR say?

What are some of the results of the UDHR?

What steps lie ahead?

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

Related Articles

Why do equal rights matter?

Is unequal treatment always discrimination?

Human Rights Essay for Students and Children

Human Rights Categories

Importance of Human Rights

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

SCAM ALERT: We will never contact you requesting money. Learn more.

Where do human rights come from?

Who has a responsibility to protect human rights?

What do human rights cover?

The origins of human rights

The development of modern human rights

Can my human rights be taken away from me?

5 Essays to Learn More About Equality

“The Equality Effect” (2017) – Danny Dorling

“The Equality Conundrum” (2020) – Joshua Rothman

“Why Understanding Equity vs Equality in Schools Can Help You Create an Inclusive Classroom” (2019) – Waterford.org

“What does equality mean to me?” (2020) – Gabriela Vivacqua and Saddal Diab

“Here’s How Gender Equality is Measured” (2020) – Catherine Caruso

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Human Rights Education

Human Rights Essay Topics

Why Are Human Rights Important Essay

Human rights

Age UK Advice Line 0800 678 1602

Telephone friendship

Popular services