Part two: Human Rights Human rights The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights provides a concise, yet conclusive definition of what are human rights, as being: rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. Everyone is equally entitled to their human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. It then adds that Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act
Some of the corresponding rights have entered into the body of general international law...; other conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal character. In the diverse international law, institutions and scholars give much of international human rights a customary legal character and some of it the status of jus cogens. This international obligation to esteem human rights it is mandatory on every State in relation to the international community and every State has a legal attention in the protection of human rights. This duty more involves a duty of unity among all States to safeguard as rapidly as possible the actual protection of human rights all over the world. International law is increasingly treating fundamental basic human rights as a part of customary international law.
Human rights are universal Human rights are based on the principle of respect of the individual. It also is a rights are inherent to all human being that whatever the nationality, place of residence, national or ethic origin, sex, religion, color, language,etc. Those right are indivisible and interdependent. People are all equally in human right and without any discrimination.Universal human rights are expressed by law. In this case, human rights law is responsibility by governments to act in certain ways.
Since 1945 and the Human Rights Declaration (Foot, 2005), human rights have been increasingly at the centre of the international stage. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated what was considered as unalienable rights in one central document, voted by 48 countries. Governments that endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are supposed to implement institutions to protect them. In the 1990s, the Asian state have acquired an increasing influence and provided an alternative model to the American one (Wade, 2000). This corresponded with the emergence of Asian values (Foot, 2005), introduced by Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohammad, respectively head of state in Singapore and Malaysia (Avonius and Kingsbury, 2008).
CHAPTER TWO CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF HUMAN RIGHT 2.0.0 INTRODUCTION Human right as it is understood today has evolved over the centuries. Though the word "Human Rights" seems to have a modern face, human rights are old as human civilization. It is the universal believe, that every person by virtue of humanity is entitled to certain natural rights, this is well established throughout the history of mankind and it formed the underlying principle of Human rights. The concept of human rights can be traced to specific landmark documents, such as the code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, the French Déclaration des Droits de l 'Homme et du Citoyen (the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and the citizen), and The American Bill of Rights. Although all of
The first difficulty comes from the order in which this relationship is built. The preamble of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration clearly starts with "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This provides the understanding, as Jack Donnelly argues, that "these rights are inalienable to all human" and no one individual should be deprived of it under any circumstances. By using the language of "born", it is implied that these rights are "pre-given" and no conditions should be attached to the entitlement of these rights. However, this theory will contradict its practice when we observe the actual international political scene.
Otherwise, universal human rights cannot gain cultural legitimacy. Along with this tune, there is dangerous that human rights violations may be justified by cultural values. The other is that Cultural differences can enrich the universality of human rights. The commitment of the universal nature of human rights has been recognized. However, for the need of localizing the international human rights norms, there still need some sources that can justify the universal human rights from the bottom-up perspective.
Introduction Human rights are understood as rights which belong to an individual as a consequence of being human and for no other reason. Hence human rights are the rights people are entitled to simply because they are human beings, irrespective of their citizenship, nationality, race, ethnicity, language, gender, sexuality, or abilities; human rights become enforceable when they are codified as Conventions, Covenants, or Treaties, or as they become recognized as Customary International Law. No one needs to possess a qualification in order to enjoy their human rights. It is important that one exercise their human rights otherwise they would feel like their “rights” are being infringed upon. Human rights are mandated to protect citizens and to ensure that all citizens are catered for.
ASIAN VALUES AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A CASE FOR UNIVERSALITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA MIDTERM PAPER: HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENDER STUDIES ZIVYA SYIFA HUSNAYAIN 016201200114 IR DEFENSE-2 2012 The origin of modern human rights can be traced back as far as John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in 1688, which stated that rulers are bound by their citizen’s natural rights to life, liberty, and estates (Donnelly, 1999). Despite a major flaw in its universality (Locke’s natural rights theory is not applicable to women, servants, and wage labourers), Second Treatise of Government, along with the Magna Carta (1215) have established a basis for several other early human rights documents, including the American Declaration of Independence (1776)
Since we live in a time where power in the state level is the current paradigm such that the highest form of independent governance is in the nation- state (Jacobs, 2013), nation- based human rights laws have a stronger claim since they have a well- defined and accepted source. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be identified as an international legal foundation of human rights, with the United Nations being the body or committee in charge of its implementation (Mutua, 2001). The difference however is that it is subject to the signing of states, meaning that its institution as law is not automatically binding to signatories of the UN unless affirmed by its national leaders (Mutua, 2011). The key to