HUMAN RIGHTS

A Brief History of the Human Rights Movement Human Rights is a concept that has been constantly evolving throughout human history. They were intricately tied to the laws, customs and religions throughout the ages. One of the first examples of a codification of laws that contain references to individual rights is the tablet of Hammurabi. The tablet was created by the Sumerian king Hammurabi about 4000 years ago. While considered barbaric by today's standards, the system of 282 laws created a precedent for a legal system . This kind of precedent and legally binding document protects the people from arbitrary persecution and punishment. The problems with Hammurabi's code were mostly due to its cause and effect nature, it held no protection on more abstract ideas such as race, religion, beliefs, and individual freedoms. It was in ancient Greece where the concept of human rights began to take a greater meaning than the prevention of arbitrary persecution. Human rights became synonymous with natural rights, rights that spring from natural law. According to the Greek tradition of Socrates and Plato, natural law is law that reflects the natural order of the universe, essentially the will of the gods who control nature. Despite this principle, there are fundamental differences between human rights today and natural rights of the past. For example, it was see as perfectly natural to keep slaves, and such a practice goes counter to the ideas of freedom and equality that we associate with human rights today. In the middle ages and later the renaissance, the decline in power of the church led society to place more of an emphasis on the individual, which in turn caused the shift away from feudal and monarchist societies, letting individual expression flourish. The concept of human rights has existed under several names in European thought for many centuries, at least since the time of King John of England. After the king violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta (1215), or Great Charter, which enumerates a number of what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them were the right of the Church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and be free from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct. The political and religious traditions in other parts of the world also proclaimed what have come to be called human rights, calling on rulers to rule justly and compassionately, and delineating limits on their power over the lives, property, and activities of their citizens. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe several philosophers proposed the concept of "natural rights," rights belonging to a person by nature and because he was a human being, not by virtue of his citizenship in a particular country or membership in a particular religious or ethnic group. This concept was vigorously debated and rejected by some philosophers as baseless. Others saw it as a formulation of the underlying principle on which all ideas of citizens' rights and political and religious liberty were based.

In the late 1700s two revolutions occurred which drew heavily on this concept. In 1776 most of the British colonies in North America proclaimed their independence from the British Empire in a document which still stirs feelings, and debate, the U.S. Declaration of Independence. In 1789 the people of France overthrew their monarchy and established the first French Republic. Out of the revolution came the "Declaration of the Rights of Man." We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.-American Declaration of Independence, 1776.

As Washington was inaugurated as America's first president and the infant nation set about to establish a strong government, memories of civil rights violations during the colonial period were still vivid. However, in the draft constitution submitted to the states for ratification relatively few basic rights were included. A number of prominent Americans were alarmed at the omission of individual liberties in the proposed constitution. George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, refused to sign the document, as did Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts. Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Minister to France at the time, wrote James Madison that he was concerned about "the omission of a bill of rights....providing clearly....for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, and restriction against monopolies." Aware of the lack of these provisions, George Washington urged Congress in his first inaugural address to propose amendments that offered "a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen and a regard for public harmony." Motivated by these leading Americans, Congress responded by submitting Amendments to the Constitution providing for essential civil liberties. They were officially proposed on September 25, 1789. Of the original twelve, Articles 3-12 were ratified. Accordingly, in 1791 these articles became the first ten amendments to the Constitution.....known collectively as The Bill of Rights. The term natural rights eventually fell into disfavour, but the concept of universal rights took root. Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and Henry David Thoreau expanded the concept. Thoreau is the first philosopher I know of to use the term, "human rights", and does so in his treatise, Civil Disobedience. This work has been extremely influential on individuals as different as Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Gandhi and King, in particular, developed their ideas on non-violent resistance to unethical government actions from this work. Other early proponents of human rights were English philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Liberty, and American political theorist Thomas Paine in his essay, The Rights of Man. The middle and late 19th century saw a number of issues take centre stage, many of them issues we in the late 20th century would consider human rights issues. They included slavery,

serfdom, brutal working conditions, starvation wages, child labour, and, in the Americas, the "Indian Problem", as it was known at the time. In the United States, a bloody war over slavery came close to destroying a country founded only eighty years earlier on the premise that, "all men are created equal." Russia freed its serfs the year that war began. Neither the emancipated American slaves nor the freed Russian serfs saw any real degree of freedom or basic rights for many more decades, however. For the last part of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, though, human rights activism remained largely tied to political and religious groups and beliefs. Revolutionaries pointed at the atrocities of governments as proof that their ideology was necessary to bring about change and end the government's abuses. Many people, disgusted with the actions of governments in power, first got involved with revolutionary groups because of this. The governments then pointed at bombings, strike-related violence, and growth in violent crime and social disorder as reasons why a stern approach toward dissent was necessary. Neither group had any credibility with the other and most had little or no credibility with uninvolved citizens, because their concerns were generally political, not humanitarian. Politically partisan protests often just encouraged more oppression, and uninvolved citizens who got caught in the crossfire usually cursed both sides and made no effort to listen to the reasons given by either. Nonetheless many specific civil rights and human rights movements managed to affect profound social changes during this time. Labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions, forbidding or regulating child labour, establishing a forty hour work week in the United States and many European countries, etc. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the U.S. Civil Rights movement. In 1961 a group of lawyers, journalists, writers, and others, offended and frustrated by the sentencing of two Portuguese college students to twenty years in prison for having raised their glasses in a toast to "freedom" in a bar, formed Appeal for Amnesty, 1961. The appeal was announced on May 28 in the London Observer's Sunday Supplement. The appeal told the stories of six "prisoners of conscience" from different countries and of different political and religious backgrounds, all jailed for peacefully expressing their political or religious beliefs, and called on governments everywhere to free such prisoners. It set forth a simple plan of action, calling for strictly impartial, non-partisan appeals to be made on behalf of these prisoners and any who, like them, had been imprisoned for peacefully expressed beliefs. The response to this appeal was larger than anyone had expected. The one-year appeal grew, was extended beyond the year, and Amnesty International and the modern human rights movement were both born. The modern human rights movement didn't invent any new principles. It was different from what preceded it primarily in its explicit rejection of political ideology and partisanship, and its demand that governments everywhere, regardless of ideology, adhere to certain basic

principles of human rights in their treatment of their citizens. This appealed to a large group of people, many of whom were politically inactive, not interested in joining a political movement, not ideologically motivated, and didn't care about creating "the perfect society" or perfect government. They were simply outraged that any government dared abuse, imprison, torture, and often kill human beings whose only crime was in believing differently from their government and saying so in public. They (naively, according to many detractors) took to writing letters to governments and publicizing the plights of these people in hopes of persuading or embarrassing abusive governments into better behaviour. Like the early years of many movements, the early years of the modern human rights movement were rocky. "Appeal for Amnesty, 1961" had only the most rudimentary organization. The modern organization named Amnesty International gained the structure it has mostly by learning from mistakes. Early staff members operated with no oversight, and money was wasted. This led to establishing strict financial accountability. Early staff members and volunteers got involved in partisan politics while working on human rights violations in their own countries. This led to the principle that AI members were not, as a matter of practice, asked or permitted to work on cases in their country. Early campaigns failed because Amnesty was misinformed about certain prisoners. This led to the establishment of a formidable research section and the process of "adoption" of prisoners of conscience only after a thorough investigation phase. The biggest lesson Amnesty learned, and for many the distinguishing feature of the organization, however, was to stick to what it knew and not go outside its mandate. A distinguished human rights researcher I know once said to me that, "Amnesty is an organization that does only one or two things, but does them extremely well." Amnesty International does not take positions on many issues which many people view as human rights concerns (such as abortion) and does not endorse or criticize any form of government. While it will work to ensure a fair trial for all political prisoners, it does not adopt as prisoners of conscience anyone who has used or advocated violence for any reason. It rarely provides statistical data on human rights abuses, and never compares the human rights records of one country with another. It sticks to work on behalf of individual prisoners, and work to abolish specific practices, such as torture and the death penalty. A lot of people found this too restrictive. Many pro-democracy advocates were extremely upset when the organization dropped Nelson Mandela (at the time a black South African antiapartheid activist in jail on trumped-up murder charges) from its list of adopted prisoners, because of his endorsing a violent struggle against apartheid. Others were upset that Amnesty would not criticize any form of government, even one which (like Soviet-style Communism, or Franco-style fascism) appeared inherently abusive and incompatible with respect for basic human rights. Many activists simply felt that human rights could be better served by a broader field of action. Over the years combinations of these concerns and others led to formation of other human rights groups. Among them were groups which later merged to form Human Rights Watch, the first of them being Helsinki Watch in 1978. Regional human rights watchdog groups often operated under extremely difficult conditions, especially those in the Soviet Block.

Helsinki Watch, which later merged with other groups to form Human Rights Watch, started as a few Russian activists who formed to monitor the Soviet Union's compliance with the human rights provisions in the Helsinki accords. Many of its members were arrested shortly after it was formed and had little chance to be active. Other regional groups formed after military takeovers in Chile in 1973, in East Timor in 1975, in Argentina in 1976, and after the Chinese Democracy Wall Movement in 1979. Although there were differences in philosophy, focus, and tactics between the groups, for the most part they remained on speaking terms, and a number of human rights activists belonged to more than one. Recognition for the human rights movement, and Amnesty International in particular, grew during the 1970s. Amnesty gained permanent observer status as an NGO at the United Nations. Its reports became mandatory reading in legislatures, state departments and foreign ministries around the world. Its press releases received respectful attention, even when its recommendations were ignored by the governments involved. In 1977 it was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for its work. Unfortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize didn't impress the governments Amnesty most wanted to get through to. That year the Argentine military dictatorship reportedly claimed that Amnesty was a front organization for the Soviet KGB. This supposedly occurred the same week that the Soviet government claimed Amnesty was run by the U.S. CIA, to the amusement of human rights activists and, presumably, embarrassment of certain people in Argentina and the Soviet Union. Classification of Human Rights Human rights have traditionally been divided into different categories. The traditional classification is as follows:

the first generation refers to civil and political rights; the second generation comprises economic, social and cultural rights; and, the third generation refers to newer rights like collective rights.

1. First Generation Rights: Civil Rights Civil rights are primarily designed to protect the individual against state interference, and are immediately applicable. They include the protection of life and security (i.e. the right to life, prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment or punishment, etc.); the prohibition of discrimination on any ground (such as race, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status); the protection of liberty (i.e., prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention); and a set of freedoms (such as freedom of movement, of marriage, of religion, of peaceful assembly, of association, etc.). Civil rights can therefore be seen as the protections and privileges (rights and freedoms) that protect individuals from the state, thus ensuring their personal liberty.

Though distinct, civil rights and political rights are closely linked; the protection and fulfillment of one depends to a large extent on the fulfillment and protection of the other. Moreover, the distinction between civil and political rights is not always so obvious or clear; sometimes the two overlap. All human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated: the fulfillment and protection of civil and political rights depend on, and are required for, other categories of human rights. In international human rights law, civil rights are essentially protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was drafted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. Adherence to the Covenant is monitored by the Human Rights Committee. Over time, additional protocols and instruments were created which also aim to protect civil rights. All States Parties to the Covenant are required to submit regular reports to the Committee on how they are implementing civil and political rights. Such information is provided by selfreporting and, thus, can be limited. The reports provided are examined by the Committee which is composed of independent experts appointed by the United Nations. The Committee then addresses its concerns and recommendations in the form of "concluding observations." In the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant, the Committee was given jurisdiction to examine individual complaints; this is not yet the case with the Committee established to monitor economic, social and cultural rights Political Rights Political rights, along with civil rights, are primarily designed to protect the individual against state interference, and are immediately applicable. Political rights can be seen as covering the right to political participation, that is, citizens right to seek to influence and participate in the public affairs of the society to which they belong. Political participation can take many forms, the most notable of which is included in the right to vote. However, it also covers the right to join a political party; the right to stand as a candidate in an election; the right to participate in a demonstration; and freedom of association. Though political and civil rights are distinct, the difference between the two is not always obvious or clear; indeed, they sometimes overlap. The freedom to express ones opinion, and the freedom of association, for example, are clearly linked to the right to political participation, and thus are political rights, but they are often also seen as civil rights. The right to political participation merits special attention, as it is restricted, to a large though not absolute extent, to citizens. Whereas the other rights recognised by the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights inhere in human beings on the basis of their status as human beings, the right to political participation is, in part, limited to people endowed with the status of citizen. Such a status is linked to the context of a political community and, most significantly, a government. The right to political participation therefore presupposes the existence of a government. Though distinct, civil rights and political rights are closely linked; their protection and fulfillment depends to a large extent on that of the other. All human rights are indivisible,

interdependent and interrelated, such that the fulfillment and protection of civil and political rights depends on, and influences, other categories of human rights. In international human rights law, political rights are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR, drafted in 1966, entered into force in 1976, and is monitored by the Human Rights Committee. Over time, additional protocols and instruments have been created that also aim to contribute to the protection of political rights. All States Parties to the Covenant are required to submit regular reports to the Committee on how they are realising and protecting political and civil rights. Such information is provided through self-reporting and thus might be limited. The reports provided are examined by the Committee, which then disseminates its concerns and recommendations in the form of concluding observations. In the framework of the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant, the Committee was given jurisdiction to examine individual complaints; however, this is not yet the case of the Committee set up to monitor economic, social and cultural rights. 2. Second Generation Rights Economic rights include the right to work, the right to the free choice of employment and to just and favourable conditions of work; the right to form and join trade unions: the right to strike; the right to social security; and the right to own property. Contrary to civil and political rights, which are immediately applicable and essentially based on the prohibition of States from doing something (i.e., resort to torture, take actions that curtail freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right to vote, etc.), economic rights tend to be considered as requiring States to take action, usually in the form of specific legislation, policies or programmes, so those rights can be realised. The realisation of those rights is seen as progressive: full economic, social, and cultural rights can be achieved only gradually. Resources and time may be required, though international legislation clearly states that full rights should be reached over time, and that States have a legal obligation to take immediate and continued action to do so. Moreover, any action, whether legal or political, taken to diminish existing protections and levels of realisation of these rights should be prohibited. All human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and the fulfillment and protection of one right affects that of others. This is true among all rights and among or within specific categories of rights. For instance, economic rights are closely linked to social and cultural rights. The right to work, for example, is connected to that of ensuring minimum standards of living, etc. Just as the distinction between civil and political rights is sometimes blurred, the difference between economic, social, and cultural rights is not always obvious. For example, the right to education has been considered by different experts as an economic, social or cultural right. In international human rights law, the realisation of economic rights is provided for in Chapter IX of the UN Charter and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the International Labour Organisation, and various regional documents.

The CESCR is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is composed of independent experts appointed by the United Nations. The Committee is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Covenant by its States Parties. They are required to submit regular reports on how they are implementing these rights. Such information is provided through self-reporting and thus may be limited. The reports provided are examined by the Committee, which then elaborates concluding observations in which it addresses its potential concerns and recommendations. To date, the Committee is not enabled to consider individual complaints against States Parties, though a draft Optional Protocol, under consideration, could provide the Committee with the jurisdiction to do so. Social rights are primarily aimed at ensuring individuals a specified standard of living, without discrimination. Social rights include the right to social security; the right of families, of mothers before and after childbirth, and of children to special assistance and protection; the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to adequate food, clothing and housing; and the right to health. Contrary to civil and political rights, which are immediately applicable and essentially based on the prohibition of States to do something, such as resort to torture, take actions that curtail freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right to vote, social rights tend to be considered as requiring States to take active and specific measures, such as legislation, policies or programmes, in order for those rights to be realised. Social rights are regarded as progressive: full economic, social, and cultural rights can be achieved only gradually. Resources and time may be required, though it is also clearly stated that full rights should be reached over time, and that States have the legal obligation to take immediate and continued action to do so. In addition, any action, whether legal or political taken to diminish existing protections and levels of realisation of these rights should be prohibited. Human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and thus the fulfillment and protection of one right affects that of others. This is true when all human rights are considered, as well as for specific categories of rights. For instance, social rights are closely linked to economic and cultural rights in so far as the promotion of a minimum standard of living is strongly related to the right to work, the protection of property, and the right to education. Just as the distinction between civil and political rights is sometimes blurred, the difference between economic, social, and cultural rights is not always obvious. For instance, different experts regard the right to education as a social, economic or cultural right. In international human rights law, social rights are protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The CESCR, drafted in 1966, entered into force in 1976 and is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is composed of independent experts appointed by the United Nations. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Covenant by its States Parties, which are required to submit regular reports on how they are implementing these rights. Such information is provided through self-

reporting and thus might be limited. The reports provided are examined by the Committee, which then issues concluding observations in which it addresses its concerns and recommendations. To date, the Committee is not enabled to consider individual complaints against State Parties, though a draft Optional Protocol, under consideration, could provide the Committee with the jurisdiction to do so. Cultural Rights: There is no simple definition of the right to culture, though the right to express and enjoy ones culture does exist. International legislation recognises, as cultural rights, the right to take part in cultural life; the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; the right to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he/she is the author; etc. Contrary to civil and political rights, which are immediately applicable and essentially based on the prohibition of States to do something (i.e., resort to torture, take actions that curtail freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or the right to vote, etc.), cultural rights tend to be considered as requiring States to take active and specific measures, such as legislation, policies or programmes, so that those rights can be realised. Their realisation is seen as progressive: full economic, social, and cultural rights can be achieved only gradually. Resources and time may be required, though it is also clearly stated that full rights should be reached over time, and that States have a legal obligation to take immediate and continued action to do so. Moreover, any action, whether legal or political, taken to diminish existing protections and levels of realisation of these rights should be prohibited. All human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated: the fulfillment of one right affects that of others. This is true in general as well as specifically, that is among all rights, and among or within categories of rights. Cultural rights are closely linked to social and economic rights, and the difference among all three is not always obvious. For instance, the right to education has been considered by different experts as a social, economic or cultural right. In international human rights law, cultural rights are essentially protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). This Covenant is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is composed of independent experts appointed by the United Nations. The Committee is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Covenant by its States Parties. These States are required to submit regular reports on how they are implementing these rights. It should be stressed here that such information is provided through self-reporting and thus can be limited. The reports provided are examined by the Committee, which then elaborates concluding observations in which it addresses its concerns and recommendations. To date, the Committee is not enabled to consider individual complaints against States Parties, though a draft Optional Protocol, under consideration, could provide the Committee with the jurisdiction to do so. 3. Third-generation human rights Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and social, as expressed in many progressive documents of international law, including the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio

Declaration on Environment and Development, and other pieces of generally aspirational "soft law." Because of the principle of sovereignty and the preponderance of would-be offender nations, these rights have been hard to enact in legally binding documents. The term "third-generation human rights" remains largely unofficial, and thus houses an extremely broad spectrum of rights, including:

Group and collective rights Right to self-determination Right to economic and social development Right to a healthy environment Right to natural resources Right to communicate and communication rights Right to participation in cultural heritage Rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability

Group rights are the rights held by a group rather than by its members severally, or rights held only by individuals within the specified group; contrast with individual rights. Group rights are not straightforwardly human rights because they are group-differentiated rather than universal to all people just by virtue of being human. Group rights have historically been used both to infringe upon and to facilitate individual rights, and the concept remains controversial. The term group rights may also be used to describe peoples' rights, a legal concept best known in the context of indigenous rights as established in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Much of the controversy surrounding group rights stems from the fact that some commentators perceive a fundamental conflict between group rights as a social norm or legal concept, and the concept of egalitarianism or equality before the law. The principle of equality is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." and Article 2 states: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". This means that the relationship between group rights and human rights is both complex and controversial.