You are on page 1of 8

What are the Basic Principles of the Human Rights Framework?

The human rights framework protects civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. But no matter
what kind of right is at issue, there are basic principles that are always part of human rights standards and
implementation. These principles include:
Universality: Human rights must be afforded to everyone, without exception. The entire premise of the
framework is that people are entitled to these rights simply by virtue of being human.
Indivisibility: Human rights are indivisible and interdependent, which means that in order to guarantee
civil and political rights, a government must also ensure economic, social and cultural rights (and visa
versa). The indivisibility principle recognizes that if a government violates rights such as health, it
necessarily affects peoples ability to exercise other rights such as the right to life.
Participation: People have a right to participate in how decisions are made regarding protection of their
rights. This includes but is not limited to having input on government decisions about rights. To ensure
human rights, governments must engage and support the participation of civil society on these issues.
Accountability: Governments must create mechanisms of accountability for the enforcement of rights. It
is not enough that rights are recognized in domestic law or in policy rhetoric, there must actually be
effective measures put in place so that the government can be held accountable if those rights standards
are not met.
Transparency: Transparency means that governments must be open about all information and decision-
making processes related to rights. People must be able to know and understand how major decisions
affecting rights are made and how public institutions, such as hospitals and schools, which are needed to
protect rights, are managed and run.
Non-Discrimination: Human rights must be guaranteed without discrimination of any kind. This includes
not only purposeful discrimination, but also protection from policies and practices which may have a
discriminatory effect.

Human Rights Principles

31

179

19

12
2005

Author: UNFPA
Publisher: UNFPA
Human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. They are

universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights, regardless of where they live,

their gender or race, or their religious, cultural or ethnic background. Inalienable because peoples rights

can never be taken away. Indivisible and interdependent because all rights political, civil, social, cultural

and economic are equal in importance and none can be fully enjoyed without the others. They apply to

all equally, and all have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. They are upheld by the

rule of law and strengthened through legitimate claims for duty-bearers to be accountable to international

standards.

Universality and Inalienability: Human rights are universal and inalienable. All people everywhere in the

world are entitled to them. The universality of human rights is encompassed in the words of Article 1 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and

rights.

Indivisibility: Human rights are indivisible. Whether they relate to civil, cultural, economic, political or

social issues, human rights are inherent to the dignity of every human person. Consequently, all human

rights have equal status, and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of one right invariably

impedes enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living cannot

be compromised at the expense of other rights, such as the right to health or the right to education.

Interdependence and Interrelatedness: Human rights are interdependent and interrelated. Each one

contributes to the realization of a persons human dignity through the satisfaction of his or her

developmental, physical, psychological and spiritual needs. The fulfilment of one right often depends,

wholly or in part, upon the fulfilment of others. For instance, fulfilment of the right to health may depend, in

certain circumstances, on fulfilment of the right to development, to education or to information.

Equality and Non-discrimination: All individuals are equal as human beings and by virtue of the

inherent dignity of each human person. No one, therefore, should suffer discrimination on the basis of

race, colour, ethnicity, gender, age, language, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion,

national, social or geographical origin, disability, property, birth or other status as established by human

rights standards.
Participation and Inclusion: All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to

the decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being. Rights-based approaches require a

high degree of participation by communities, civil society, minorities, women, young people, indigenous

peoples and other identified groups.

Accountability and Rule of Law: States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of

human rights. In this regard, they have to comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in

international human rights instruments. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to

institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance

with the rules and procedures provided by law. Individuals, the media, civil society and the international

community play important roles in holding governments accountable for their obligation to uphold human

rights.

UNFPA supports the integration of human rights standards into all stages of its programming framework,

including:

Analyzing the immediate, underlying and structural causes of human rights violations
Setting strategies and goals to address the main causes of human rights violations and to
empower the most vulnerable people as well as to reinforce the capacity of duty bearers.
Supporting initiatives for the establishment or improvement of an enabling legal and social
framework on population and development, reproductive health and gender equality
Following the recommendations of UN treaty bodies such as the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
Evaluating and monitoring programmes with participatory processes and using human rights
indicators

UNFPA also recognizes that a rights-based approach should be founded on an analysis of gender and

social exclusion to ensure that programmes reach marginal and vulnerable segments of the population,

especially poor women and young people.

What is Magna Carta?

Magna Carta, meaning The Great Charter, is one of the most famous documents in the world. Originally
issued by King John of England (r.1199-1216) as a practical solution to the political crisis he faced in
1215, Magna Carta established for the first time the principle that everybody, including the king, was
subject to the law. Although nearly a third of the text was deleted or substantially rewritten within ten
years, and almost all the clauses have been repealed in modern times, Magna Carta remains a
cornerstone of the British constitution.
Most of the 63 clauses granted by King John dealt with specific grievances relating to his rule. However,
buried within them were a number of fundamental values that both challenged the autocracy of the king
and proved highly adaptable in future centuries. Most famously, the 39th clause gave all free men the
right to justice and a fair trial. Some of Magna Cartas core principles are echoed in the United States Bill
of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

Why does Magna Carta matter today?

In 1215 Magna Carta was a peace treaty between the King and the rebel barons. In that respect it was a
failure, but it provided a new framework for the relationship between the King and his subjects. The 1225
version of Magna Carta, freely issued by Henry III (r.1216-72) in return for a tax granted to him by the
whole kingdom, took this idea further and became the definitive version of the text. Three clauses of the
1225 Magna Carta remain on the statute book today. Although most of the clauses of Magna Carta have
now been repealed, the many divergent uses that have been made of it since the Middle Ages have
shaped its meaning in the modern era, and it has become a potent, international rallying cry against the
arbitrary use of power.

What does Magna Carta say?

Although Magna Carta contained 63 clauses when it was first granted, only three of those clauses remain
part of English law. One defends the liberties and rights of the English Church, another confirms the
liberties and customs of London and other towns, but the third is the most famous:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled,
or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to
do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

This clause gave all free men the right to justice and a fair trial. However, free men comprised only a
small proportion of the population in medieval England. The majority of the people were unfree peasants
known as villeins, who could seek justice only through the courts of their own lords.

Buried deep in Magna Carta, this clause was given no particular prominence in 1215, but its intrinsic
adaptability has allowed succeeding generations to reinterpret it for their own purposes. In the 14th
century Parliament saw it as guaranteeing trial by jury; in the 17th century Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634)
interpreted it as a declaration of individual liberty in his conflict with the early Stuart kings; and it has
echoes in the American Bill of Rights (1791) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Much of the remainder of Magna Carta dealt with specific grievances regarding the ownership of land, the
regulation of the justice system, and medieval taxes with no modern equivalent (such as scutage and
socage). It demanded the removal of fish weirs from the Thames, the Medway and throughout England;
the dismissal of several royal servants; the standardisation of various weights and measures; and so on.

Magna Carta stated that no taxes could be demanded without the general consent of the realm, meaning
the leading barons and churchmen. It re-established privileges which had been lost, and it linked fines to
the severity of the offence so as not to threaten an individuals livelihood. It also confirmed that a widow
could not be forced to remarry against her wishes.
Why was Magna Carta created?

In 1214, a mercenary army raised by King John was defeated by the French at the Battle of Bouvines in
northern France. This army had been paid largely by the tax known as scutage, a payment made to the
Crown in place of providing knights for military service, and the focus of much baronial discontent.

King Johns reign was also marked by his strained relationship with the Church. John had rejected the
election of Stephen Langton (1150-1228) as Archbishop of Canterbury, and in 1208 the Pope issued a
decree (known as an Interdict), prohibiting people in England from receiving the sacraments or being
buried in consecrated ground. King John was excommunicated by Pope Innocent III (1161-1216) in 1209,
and the Interdict remained in place until John surrendered his kingdom to the overlordship of the Pope in
1213.

In 1213, a party of rebel barons met with Archbishop Stephen Langton and the papal legate(a
representative of the Pope) to air their grievances against the King. They also urged that John should
agree to confirm the coronation charter issued by his ancestor, King Henry I, in 1100, which had promised
to abolish all the evil customs by which the kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed. In early
1215, the dispute escalated when King John refused to meet the barons demands. In May many barons
renounced their oaths of allegiance to him, choosing Robert fitz Walter (1162-1235) as their leader. Their
capture of the city of London that same month was a turning point in their campaign.

Once London was in the barons hands, John had no option but to negotiate with them. The two sides met
at Runnymede, on the River Thames near Windsor in the south of England, in June 1215. The demands
of the barons were recorded in the document known as the Articles of the Barons. Following further
discussions with the barons and clerics led by Archbishop Langton, King John granted the Charter of
Liberties, subsequently known as Magna Carta, at Runnymede on 15 June 1215. On 19 June the rebel
barons made their formal peace with King John and renewed their oaths of allegiance to him.

The Kings clerks set about drawing up copies of the agreement for distribution throughout the kingdom. It
is not certain how many copies of the 1215 Magna Carta were originally issued, but four copies still
survive: one in Lincoln Cathedral; one in Salisbury Cathedral; and two at the British Library. Like other
medieval royal charters, Magna Carta was authenticated with the Great Seal, not by the signature of the
king.

Was Magna Carta effective in the short term?

Although King John agreed the terms of Magna Carta and the barons renewed their oaths of allegiance,
the settlement did not last long. Aggrieved by the manner in which Magna Carta was to be enforced, John
sent messengers to the Pope (the overlord of the kingdoms of England and Ireland) in the summer of
1215, requesting that the charter be annulled. In turn, the barons refused to surrender the city of London
to the King until Magna Carta had been implemented. Pope Innocent III was alarmed by the charters
terms, and on 24 August 1215 he issued a document known as a papal bull, describing Magna Carta as
illegal, unjust, harmful to royal rights and shameful to the English people, and declaring the charter null
and void of all validity for ever.

In September 1215, civil war broke out between King John and his barons. The King raised an army of
mercenaries to fight his cause, while the barons renounced their allegiance to him, and invited Prince
Louis (1187-1226), son of the King of France, to accept the English crown. Louis invaded England in
1216, and England was still at war when John died of dysentery on the night of 18 October 1216.

Magna Carta was effectively dead, but it gained new life in the early years of the reign of the next king,
Henry III. Henry was just nine years old when he succeeded to the throne, and in November 1216 a
revised version of Magna Carta was issued in his name, in order to regain the support of the barons.
Another version of Magna Carta was granted in the following year, after the French army had been
expelled from England. In 1225, on reaching the age of 18, Henry reissued a much revised version of
Magna Carta which was later enrolled on the statute book by King Edward I (r.1272-1307) in 1297.

What was the long-term impact of Magna Carta?

Magna Carta is sometimes regarded as the foundation of democracy in England. In fact, most of its terms
applied only to a small proportion of the population in 1215, and the implementation of the charter in
subsequent centuries remained open to the interpretation of the courts.

Revised versions of Magna Carta were issued by King Henry III (in 1216, 1217 and 1225), and the text of
the 1225 version was entered onto the statute roll in 1297. Magna Carta had limited the circumstances
under which the King could raise money without the consent of the people. The 1225 version of Magna
Carta had been granted explicitly in return for a payment of tax by the whole kingdom, and this paved the
way for the first summons of Parliament in 1265, to approve the granting of taxation.

In the 17th century, opponents of King Charles I (1625-49) used Magna Carta to regulate the arbitrary use
of royal authority. Sir Edward Coke, declared that Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no
sovereign, and in 1628 he helped to draft the Petition of Right, which limited royal power and made
explicit reference to Magna Carta. When King Charles was himself put on trial in 1649, it was argued that
his attempts to halt the proceedings contravened the clause of Magna Carta which prohibited the delay of
justice.

Magna Carta has consequently acquired a special status as the cornerstone of English liberties. This is
despite the fact that the vast majority of its clauses have now been repealed, or in some cases
superseded by other legislation such as the Human Rights Act (1998). Magna Carta nonetheless retains
enormous symbolic power as an ancient defence against arbitrary and tyrannical rulers, and as a
guarantor of individual liberties.

Bill of Rights

A declaration of individual rights and freedoms, usually issued by a national government.

A list of fundamental rights included in each state constitution.

The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, which set forth and guarantee certain f
undamental rightsand privileges of individuals, including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembl
y; guarantee of a speedy jury trial incriminal cases; and protection against excessive bail and Cruel and
Unusual
Punishment. As a fundamental guarantee ofindividual liberty, the U.S. Bill of Rights (see appendix volum
e for primary document) forms a vital aspect of American lawand government. It establishes many legal p
rinciples that have had a decisive effect upon law and society, including thefunctioning of the criminal justi
ce system, the separation of church and state, and the exercise of Freedom of Speech.

The concept of a bill of rights as a statement of basic individual freedoms derives in part from the English
Bill of Rights,passed in 1689 (see appendix volume for primary document). This document, which was cre
ated after the GloriousRevolution of 1688, established the terms by which William and Mary were accepte
d as king and queen of England. Itforbade the monarchy to suspend laws, raise taxes, or maintain an arm
y without consent of Parliament. It also declared thatfreedom of speech in Parliament could not be challen
ged, protected those accused of crimes from "excessive bail" and"cruel and unusual punishments," and p
rovided a number of other privileges and freedoms (1 Will. & Mar., Sess. 2, C. 2).

Nearly a century later, seven of the 13 states of the newly independent United States of America adopted
a bill of rights aspart of their state constitutions, and the remaining six included elements of the English Bil
l of Rights in the bodies of theirconstitutions. Virginia, the first state to adopt a bill of rights, passed the Vir
ginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. Draftedlargely by George
Mason, Virginia's declaration became a model for later state bills of rights and ultimately for the federalBill
of Rights, and it remains a part of that state's constitution.At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Fr
amers of theU.S. Constitution used the English Bill of Rights and state bills of rights as resources as they
sought to define thefundamental principles and institutions of U.S. government. However, they declined to
add a bill of rights to the Constitution,on the grounds that the Constitution itself provided adequate protecti
on from intrusive government. Indeed, the Constitutioncontained some elements of the English Bill of Rig
hts, including Congress's exclusive power to maintain armed forces and,on the federal level, to pass laws
and impose taxes. The Constitution also incorporated other specific rights traditional inEnglish
Law, including that of Habeas
Corpus, which protects against unlawful imprisonment. However, the Constitutionmade no mention of oth
er basic rights of constitutional government such as freedom of speech, press, and religion, and therights
of those accused of crimes.

During the Constitution's ratification process, from 1787 to 1789, state ratifying conventions pointed out th
e lack of suchfundamental guarantees in the Constitution and submitted lists of proposed constitutional a
mendments. The Federalists,who supported ratification of the Constitution, eventually conceded and pro
mised to attach a bill of rights to the document.The leading contributors to the creation of these amendme
ntswhich came collectively to be called the Bill of RightswereGeorge Mason, Thomas
Jefferson, and James
Madison, with Madison serving as their principal author and sponsor on thefloor of the U.S. House during
the First Congress.

On September 25, 1789, 12 amendments to the Constitution were submitted to the states by the required
two-thirds majorityof Congress. Two of the amendmentswhich dealt with congressional pay and the Ap
portionment, or assignment, ofcongressional seats to the stateswere voted down by the states. The ot
her ten amendments were ratified by December15, 1791.

Scholars have described the Bill of Rights as protecting three different types of Human
Rights: (1) rights of conscience,including the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion; (2) right
s of those accused of crimes, such as the EighthAmendment's protection against excessive bail and fines
; and (3) rights of property, such as the Fifth Amendment'sprovision that no one may be deprived of prope
rty without Due Process of Law.

One vital issue in the history of the interpretation of the Bill of Rights has concerned its application to the s
tates. In the caseof Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)
, the Supreme Court ruled that theBill of Rights applied only to the federal government. However, by the 1
920s, the Court, using a principle known as theIncorporation
Doctrine, had begun to apply selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states. According to t
hisdoctrine, elements of the Bill of Rights may be applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth
Amendment, which holds that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due p
rocess of law."Thus in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled that the First
Amendment protections of freedom of speech applied to the states aswell as the federal government (Gi
tlow v. New
York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138). Incorporation gave theSupreme Court wide power to s
trike down state laws that it deemed to be in violation of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

By the end of the twentieth century, nearly all provisions of the Bill of Rights had been declared binding on
the states. Onlyfive provisions of the Bill of Rights had not been applied to the states: (1) the Second Ame
ndment's right to bear arms; (2)the Third Amendment's prohibition against involuntary quartering of troops
; (3) the Fifth Amendment's requirement of Grand
Jury indictment in capital cases; (4) the Seventh Amendment's provision for trial by jury in civil cases; and
(5) the EighthAmendment's prohibition of excessive bail and fines.

States are free to provide additional protections beyond those offered in the federal Bill of Rights, but they
may not reduceCivil Rights or liberties to standards lower than those of the federal Constitution.

You might also like