Human rights are generally referred to as inherent, inalienable, interdependent and indivisible rights of mankind. What does that mean?
Human Rights are
- Inherent – All human beings are born with these rights and they are natural rights not granted from any person or government.
- Inalienable – Cannot be taken away or cannot be transferred to anyone else.
- Interdependent – All human rights are mutually connected and working together.
- Indivisible – All human rights are equally important and cannot be separated from one another.
Scholarly Opinions
“Human rights are the rights one has simply because one is a human being.” – Jack Donnelly
“Human rights are rights possessed by all human beings, by virtue of their common humanity, to live a life of freedom and dignity.” – Henry J. Steiner
“Human rights are a kind of moral right. They are rights that all people have in virtue of their humanity. They are universal, natural rights that set a standard for how people should be treated.” – James Nickel
Then what are fundamental rights?
There is a distinct difference between human rights and fundamental rights.
Human rights are not granted, they are natural rights that every individual possesses and they are universally applicable to every human being despite their nationality, birth place, country, religion, race, culture or any other factors. Human rights are recognized in international laws such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
On the other hand, fundamental rights are granted to citizens of a country. They are enshrined in their constitution or the legal system. Fundamental rights are not universally applicable, their application is changing from country to county.
For example, the Sri Lankan constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to life as a fundamental right, but Article 26 of the Kenyan constitution recognizes the right to life as a fundamental right in their constitution.
Let’s now see what are the well recognized human rights in the world?
- Right to life
- Right to liberty
- Right to equality
- Right to be free from torture
- Right to freedom of movement
- Right to health
- Right to education
- Right to work
- Right to religion
- Right to speech
- Right to freedom expression
- Right to fair trial
- Right to privacy
I would like to grab your attention towards the newly recognized human rights as well. Here are some of them.
- Right to healthy environment
- Right to clean air
- Right to legal abortion
- Right to gender identity
- Right to digital privacy
- Right to internet access
- Right to data protection
- Right to disconnect
Do all the countries recognize and respect all these human rights?
Not really. It is practically impossible to universalize human rights as recognition of human rights varies from country to country depending on their culture, language, political structure, legal system etc.
Then how can we say human rights are universal?
Even though we say that human rights are universal, in the practical sense they are not. Also we should understand the fact that human rights cannot be universalized as well.
If you want to argue that they are universal, I would like to ask you, then how did thousands of civilians in Gaza die due to the Hamas-Israel war? And how did thousands of civilians in Ukraine remain imprisoned in Russia?
Why can’t we universalize human rights?
There are several political, social, cultural and economic issues. Let’s discuss a few of them.
Cultural and religious norms – Most of the non secular states do not recognize legal abortion as a human right as it contradicts their religious and cultural practices.
Economy of the country – Most of the poorest countries cannot even provide the basic human rights to their people due to lack of resources and related matters.
Rigidity of the legal system – Most of the countries have rigid legal systems and cannot bring amendments timely. Thus new emerging rights cannot be recognised in their written laws.
However there are significant cases in the legal history which established the universality principle of human rights.
- Tyrer v. United Kingdom (1978) – This UK judgment highlighted that laws must be changed with the time accordingly in order to satisfy moral and societal needs.
- Soerung v. United Kingdom (1989) – This UK judgment emphasized that human rights are applicable universally meaning beyond the territory and recognized the rights of non-citizens.
- R v. Secretary of the State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (UKHL, 2001) – Recognized human rights as inherent rights of all persons including the prisoners.
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.(1954) – This U.S. judgment was delivered against racial discrimination and ensured equality.
- Minister of Home Affairs v. Fourie (South Africa, 2005) – This South African judgment demonstrated that human rights should be applied universally and equally to all persons regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.
- Attorney General v. Dow (Botswana, 1992) – This Botswana judgment recognised human rights as universal and indivisible rights.
- Weerawansa v. Attorney General (2000) 1 Sri L.R. 387 – Emphasizes the universal applicability of fundamental rights. And most importantly stated that Sri Lanka should adhere to international covenants like ICCPR
- Channa Peiris and others v. Attorney General (1994) 1 Sri L.R. 1 (aka Ratawesi Peramuna Case) – This Sri Lankan judgment reinforced that human rights are applied universally for all citizens.
Conclusion
Human rights are the basic and natural rights which we are gaining from birth. It’s practically impossible to universalize human rights due to social, political and economic reasons.
Even though all persons cannot equally enjoy these rights, the international bodies work tirelessly to declare treaties to universalize human rights.
As an individual understanding your own rights, respecting others rights and most importantly not doing something to others that you don’t like to be done to yourself is a key aspect of human rights.
Written by – M.W.F. Nuzha Kidur