In this unit, we review human rights and justice from a global perspective. We discuss the rights vs. needs debate, three principal pairs of categorizations for human rights, and the potential for tensions. We explore three dichotomies or conflicts inherent to the concept of global justice: universal vs. relative rights, individual vs. collective rights, and civil and political rights vs. economic, social, and cultural rights.
We begin by considering a fundamental question: are human rights universal or relative (particular), in the abstract and practice? Many believe rights and justice are universal; despite cultural and socio-political variants, rights and justice do exist. Next, we turn to individual and collective rights. Finally, we study questions surrounding balance and integrating economic, social, and cultural rights with civil and political rights.
A conceptual framework for studying global justice emerges from our general understanding of political theory and philosophy. While definitions of justice are often ethnocentric, they can be pejorative and indicate a bifurcation of political thought. As we work through the readings, keep our central question of this course in mind: how do we define, understand, and uphold justice in a global and globalizing world?
Completing this unit should take you approximately 5 hours.
While many of the ideas central to today's human rights discourse have roots in the Enlightenment Era in Europe, the legal framework primarily used to discuss human rights only dates back to 1948, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of the rights enumerated in that document and other human rights treaties have at various points in history only been enjoyed by specific groups of people, such as property-owning white men. They have gradually been expanded to include more people, and activists are still working today to ensure all can enjoy human rights.
This video gives an overview of the origins of international human rights law, including the Geneva Conventions and earlier liberal political documents, primarily in the Western world.
Read these two articles from the U.S. Department of State publication Human Rights in Brief. They review the historical development of human rights in the context of contemporary global politics.
This article provides an introduction to the conditions that gave rise to modern international human rights law in the aftermath of WWII.
The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, shortly after World War II. The world had been shocked to discover the horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi abuses against Jewish people and other minority groups in Europe. In the years following the war, world leaders, activists, and legal experts established an International Bill of Rights.
As you read, consider the following questions: How do the rights listed here relate to the events of World War II? Which rights listed in the UDHR might still be controversial in some parts of the world? Have you encountered news stories that dealt with these rights? How are they still being debated today?
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was written around the same time as the UDHR. Read this article and think about how these rights relate to the UDHR. Do they go beyond the UDHR? How do they relate to your understanding of civil and political rights where you live? Can you think of examples where these rights have been clearly upheld or violated in recent news?
Read the Optional Protocol. Why do you think these measures are considered optional and less binding than the Covenant itself? Why do you think fewer countries have signed onto this protocol?
Read the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These rights are sometimes seen as less well-established than those in the UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Consider why that might be, and the challenges States might face in implementing these rights.
The first of the human rights dichotomies, and perhaps the most contentious, encompasses two apparent competing notions of human rights: universality and relativism. Do rights apply to all humans all of the time without any conditions? Or are human rights, and by extension justice, to be understood as conditional? Should rights be understood as deriving from a particular set of circumstances such as nationality, citizenship, age, sex, gender, race, or cultural norms?
Watch this video for a basic overview of human rights and the major debates about their history and application.
Read this entire text, but focus on the introduction and the section before the question and answer portion of this talk. Steiner provides a good introduction to the idea of cultural relativism as it relates to human rights. Think about this idea in the context of who wrote and passed the International Bill of Rights and signed each document. Whose understanding of rights are most protected?
Consider this article in connection with the one on cultural relativism above. How would you explain the dichotomy between cosmopolitan or universal understandings of human rights and relativist ideas? Think about these different understandings about the concept of rights in relation to the International Bill of Rights in 1.1. Are there some rights there you would consider to be universal, and others you think might be relative? What differentiates them? Who has the right to decide which is which?
This brief article on the Bandung Conference challenges the perception that human rights are more highly valued in Western countries by discussing human rights' centrality at the conference. However, for participating countries, the achievement of human rights was intrinsically linked to the process of decolonization, and the attainment of full independence and national sovereignty for formerly colonized countries. Consider how this perspective compares to what you have previously encountered regarding human rights in non-Western contexts.
The second of the human rights dichotomies is the dichotomy between individual and collective rights, which some refer to as group rights. Many of the rights outlined in the International Bill of Rights are individual rights, but some apply specifically to certain groups, such as indigenous tribes, women, children, or other minorities or marginalized groups. Others refer to the right to belong to a group or association like a political party, or a nationality and citizenship.
Individuals and groups' rights can sometimes conflict, creating tension and raising the question of which should be considered first and foremost. Is it ever justifiable to reduce individual liberty for the common good? Alternatively, how much potential harm to others must be allowed in society to protect individual liberty? Can these tensions be reconciled? What standards should be used to decide which rights to center in different situations?
Can you think of an example of when honoring collective rights might undermine individual rights? What about a situation where collective rights can strengthen individual rights? What groups in society do you think need extra protection, if any? Think also about how this dichotomy relates to the universal versus relative dichotomy discussed above. How are these issues related?
This introduction to collective rights presents the argument that collective rights are about the future. The presenter in the video argues that collective rights are, in large part, about creating the kind of world we want future generations to live in. What implications does that idea have for the law?
Read this article for an introduction to the idea of individual versus group rights. What are the examples provided here? Do you think the group rights identified here do more to strengthen or weaken individual rights? Do you think the rights discussed here are universal or relative?
This short article gives some more examples of group versus individual rights, including some that might be familiar to you based on political debates you have heard or read in the news. What other examples can you think of that fit this dichotomy? How do you think some of the arguments identified here should be resolved?
Civil and political rights refer to issues of state sovereignty and individual and group rights of political participation. Economic, social, and cultural rights address the needs people must have fulfilled to live a free and dignified life. Civil and political rights are sometimes treated as more universal and integral to the fulfillment of human rights. At the same time, there is some debate over how governments must act to provide economic, social, and cultural rights. For example, one economic and social right is the right to an education.
In many states, this right is fulfilled through the existence of public schools that residents may attend free of cost. However, schools increasingly rely on the internet to communicate with students and families, and assignments often depend upon internet access for research purposes or to return homework to the teacher. Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 have increased this dependence on the internet for instruction. Does this mean people also have a right to internet access to enjoy their right to education meaningfully? Does that imply the government has a responsibility to provide the internet as a public utility to meet its citizens' right to education?
As you continue through this unit, consider what responsibilities these rights confer upon states. How does your society meet and support these rights, or how does it fall short? How important do you think these rights are to protecting human rights in general?
Read this introduction to economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR). It covers the concept of ESCR, states' responsibilities, and some of the challenges of implementing these rights. Consider how these rights relate to the other dichotomies we have discussed so far. For example, do you think all of these rights are universal, or are some more relative? Do the various rights identified here apply more to individuals or groups?
In recent years, large corporations have become increasingly influential in politics and development. This document discusses how this trend has impacted human rights, in particular ESCR. What obligations does the author identify for corporations versus states? How do you think governments should deal with the challenges to human rights corporations pose? What responsibilities do you think corporations have in protecting human rights?
This article addresses the issue of health and human rights and views the issue through the lens of indigenous peoples. It also addresses some potential limitations of the human rights perspective to address people's need for health adequately. How does this view fit in with what you have learned so far?
Read this article about the intersection of human rights and environmental justice for a deeper dive into the right to health and indigenous peoples' rights.
These dichotomies are one way to understand human rights. As the resource makes clear, an overlap can exist between seemingly different categories of rights, disagreements over the importance of certain rights, and debates over the most effective and meaningful ways to protect and promote these rights. As you review this section, compare your initial ideas about human rights to what you know now. How do you view these dichotomies now that you have more information?
If we accept the idea that at least some human rights are universal, what obligations do states have to protect the rights of people in other countries? The responsibility to protect and the concept of humanitarian intervention are attempts to answer that question by providing a framework for when one state may need to intervene in another's domestic affairs in the name of justice and human rights.
Remember that the founding documents of modern human rights law grew out of the global response to the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II. Looking back at those events, leaders and activists began to wonder if and when it would have been possible and ethical for other countries to intervene in Germany's affairs. Since then, the United Nations and individual states have developed new ideas and arguments about how to address human rights abuses around the world.
These ideas are balanced against the concept of state sovereignty in international law and the fact that the United Nations charter says that the only time it is acceptable for one state to use force against another is in a case of self-defense, or when the Security Council has authorized the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. Most humanitarian interventions in history do not meet these thresholds.
This article introduces the responsibility to protect and humanitarian intervention in international law and provides several case studies to illustrate the concepts. As you read this article, consider what criteria you think should be met to justify humanitarian intervention. Are there possible downsides or unintended consequences that could result from a humanitarian intervention? What are some examples?
This op-ed considers the responsibility to protect in the context of political considerations. The author argues that the responsibility to protect is a moral position, while interventions are sometimes decided on political issues. How does he try to reconcile these competing decision-making frameworks?
In this video, Michael Ignatieff, a member of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, gives an overview of several humanitarian interventions in the past several decades, discussing successes and failures. He also lays out the case for interpreting sovereignty – not as a right for states to do whatever they wish within their borders, but as a responsibility they have to protect their citizens from atrocities. How do you think this argument changes the framework we use to determine whether intervention is legitimate?
This video reviews the concepts presented in this section and the conflicts between humanitarian interventions and other political considerations.
Use this activity to practice contextualizing the information you've learned in Unit 1. Once you submit your answers, evaluate them using the provided guide to responding.