Editing Human rights (section)

== Concepts in human rights ==
{{See also|Human Rights Law}}

=== Indivisibility and categorization of rights ===
The most common categorization of human rights is to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICCPR. Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICESCR. The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

{{blockquote|text=The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights|source=''International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights'', 1966}}

This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. The [[freedom from fear]] and the freedom of want is essential to this by allowing a communities population to pursue endeavors without international or state interference. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the ''full belly thesis'').

Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most of them do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. For example, in the United States there is no [[Universal health care|universal access to healthcare]] free at the point of use.{{sfnp|Light|2002}} That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). Similarly, the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.

Another categorization, offered by [[Karel Vasak]], is that there are ''[[three generations of human rights]]'': first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorization is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritization of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert [[Philip Alston]] argues:

{{blockquote|text=If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.{{sfnp|Alston|2005|p=807}}|author=Philip Alston}}

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

{{blockquote|text={{omission}} the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.{{sfnp|Alston|2005|p=807}}|author=Philip Alston}}

{{blockquote|text=Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=42}}|author=[[Olivia Ball]], Paul Gready}}

Some human rights are said to be "[[inalienable rights]]". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered".

The adherence to the principle of indivisibility by the international community was reaffirmed in 1995:

{{blockquote|text=All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.|source=''Vienna Declaration and Program of Action'', World Conference on Human Rights, 1995}}

This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).

=== Universalism vs cultural relativism ===
{{main|Cultural relativism|Moral relativism|Moral universalism|Universal ethic}}

[[File:Fgm map.svg|right|thumb|Map: Estimated prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain estimates.]]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines, by definition, rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism suggest that human rights are not all universal, and indeed conflict with some cultures and threaten their survival. Rights which are most often contested with relativistic arguments are the rights of women. For example, [[female genital mutilation]] occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries.

Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the UDHR by saying that the UDHR was "a [[Secularism|secular]] understanding of the [[Judeo-Christian]] tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.{{sfnp|Littman|1999}} The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, [[Lee Kuan Yew]], and of [[Malaysia]], [[Mahathir Mohamad]] both claimed in the 1990s that ''Asian values'' were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir's former deputy:

{{blockquote|text=To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.|author=[[Anwar Ibrahim]]|source=in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title ''Media and Society in Asia'', 2 December 1994}}

Singapore's opposition leader [[Chee Soon Juan]] also states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=25}}<ref>{{cite book|title=Human Rights: Dirty Words in Singapore |publisher=Activating Human Rights and Diversity Conference (Byron Bay, Australia)|date=3 July 2003|author=Chee, S.J.}}</ref> An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as [[John Locke]] and [[John Stuart Mill]], have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves.{{sfnp|Tunick|2006}}{{sfnp|Jahn|2005}} Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also do not account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French Zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=34}}

[[Michael Ignatieff]] has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless.{{sfnp|Ignatieff|2001|p=68}} This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture. Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The [[2005 World Summit]] reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle:

{{blockquote|text=The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.|source=2005 World Summit, paragraph 120}}Human rights that depend on an [[Individualism|individualist]] orientation have been criticised as unsuited to [[Communitarianism|communally]] orientated societies, which critics say makes individual human rights non-universal.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cruft |first=Rowan |date=2005 |title=Human Rights, Individualism and Cultural Diversity |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230500187151 |journal=Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy |language=en |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=265–287 |doi=10.1080/13698230500187151 |issn=1369-8230}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Chemhuru |first=Munamato |date=2018-12-01 |title=African Communitarianism and Human Rights: Towards a Compatibilist View |url=https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/theoria/65/157/th6515704.xml |journal=Theoria |language=en-US |volume=65 |issue=157 |pages=37–56 |doi=10.3167/th.2018.6515704 |issn=0040-5817}}</ref>

=== Universal jurisdiction vs state sovereignty ===
{{See also|Universal jurisdiction|State sovereignty}}
[[Universal jurisdiction]] is a controversial principle in international law whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are [[erga omnes]], or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of [[jus cogens]]. In 1993, [[Belgium]] passed a ''law of universal jurisdiction'' to give its court's jurisdiction over crimes against humanity in other countries, and in 1998 [[Augusto Pinochet]] was arrested in London following an indictment by Spanish judge [[Baltasar Garzón]] under the universal jurisdiction principle.{{sfnp|Ball|Gready|2007|p=70}} The principle is supported by [[Amnesty International]] and other [[List of human rights organisations|human rights organisations]] as they believe certain crimes pose a threat to the international community as a whole and the community has a moral duty to act, but others, including [[Henry Kissinger]], argue that [[state sovereignty]] is paramount, because breaches of rights committed in other countries are outside states' sovereign interest and because states could use the principle for political reasons.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Kissinger, Henry|date=July–August 2001|title=The Pitfall of Universal Jurisdiction|journal=Foreign Affairs |volume=80|issue=4|pages=86–96 |doi=10.2307/20050228|jstor=20050228|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a-kissinger/the-pitfalls-of-universal-jurisdiction.html |access-date=6 January 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114024521/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a-kissinger/the-pitfalls-of-universal-jurisdiction.html|archive-date=14 January 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== State and non-state actors ===
Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as ''non-State actors''. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not subject to human rights law other than International Humanitarian Law, which applies to individuals. [[Multinational corporation|Multinational companies]] play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/corporations.html|title=Corporations and Human Rights|publisher=Human Rights Watch|access-date=3 January 2008|archive-date=14 November 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081114135422/http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/special/corporations.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined. Multinational companies often view their primary responsibility as being to their [[shareholders]], not to those affected by their actions. Such companies are often larger than the economies of the states in which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. [[Jean Ziegler]], Special Rapporteur of the UN [[Commission on Human Rights]] on the [[right to food]] stated in a report in 2003:

{{blockquote|text=the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8536&Cr=right&Cr1=food|title=Transnational corporations should be held to human rights standards – UN expert|access-date=2008-01-03|date=13 October 2003|publisher=UN News Centre|archive-date=21 January 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080121045905/http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=8536&Cr=right&Cr1=food|url-status=live}}</ref>|author=Jean Ziegler}}

In August 2003, the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft ''Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2003.12.Rev.2.En.|title=Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights|publisher=UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights|access-date=3 January 2008|archive-date=12 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160912022723/http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28Symbol%29/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2003.12.Rev.2.En.|url-status=live}}</ref> These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.<ref>{{cite web|title=Report on the Economic and Social Council on the Sixtieth Session of the Commission (E/CN.4/2004/L.11/Add.7)|url=http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/169143c3c1009015c1256e830058c441/$FILE/G0413976.pdf|page=81|publisher=United Nations Commission on Human Rights|access-date=3 January 2008|archive-date=16 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216052312/http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/169143c3c1009015c1256e830058c441/$FILE/G0413976.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally, the United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goal 10]] aims to substantially reduce inequality by 2030 through the promotion of appropriate legislation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Goal 10 targets|url=https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities/targets.html|access-date=23 September 2020|website=UNDP|language=en|archive-date=27 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127140337/https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities/targets.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Human rights in emergency situations ===
[[File:Camp x-ray detainees.jpg|thumb|Extrajudicial detention of captives in [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guantanamo Bay]]]]

{{see also|Derogation|National security|Anti-terrorism legislation}}

With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable),<ref name=resourceII>{{cite web|title=The Resource Part II: Human Rights in Times of Emergencies|url=http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm#10.2|publisher=United Nations|access-date=31 December 2007|archive-date=21 December 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071221003911/http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/comp210.htm#10.2|url-status=live}}</ref> the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency, although it clarifies:

{{blockquote|text=the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure.|source=United Nations, ''The Resource''<ref name=resourceII/>}}

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known as [[Peremptory norm|peremptory norms or ''jus cogens'']]. Such International law obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.
<!--
removed while discussed on talk page Since the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] on the [[World Trade Centre]] in New York a number of national laws and measures have come into force limiting some domestic human rights in the name of national security. They include and detention-without-trial,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4523838.stm|date=13 December 2005|title=Lord Falconer defends new protest law|access-date=3 January 2008}}</ref> limits on the right to protest<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm|author=Winterman, Denise|date=6 October 2004|title=Belmarsh – Britain's Guantanamo Bay?|access-date=3 January 2008}}</ref> and other measures<ref>{{cite news|work=BBC News|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4144186.stm|title=Judges face human rights shake-up|date=12 August 2005|access-date=3 January 2008}}</ref> in the United Kingdom. The United States has also been accused of using [[extraordinary rendition]] in order to allow suspects to be subjected to harsh interrogation that may constitute [[torture]]<ref name=BBC_GC_2005-04-05>Gordon Corera ''[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414491.stm Does UK turn a blind eye to torture?]'', [[BBC]] 5 April 2005 "One member of the [parliamentary foreign affairs] committee described the policy as 'effectively torture by proxy'".</ref> in third party states and has employed detention without trial at its controversial facility at [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] in Cuba. This has been argued to be contrary to the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]].<ref>{{cite journal| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html| title=Judge Says Detainees' Trials Are Unlawful| first=Carol D.| last=Leonnig |author-link=Carol D. Leonnig| author2=John Mintz| month=9 November| year=2004| pages=Page A01| journal=The Washington Post}}</ref>-->