Ihr

Project on
International Human Rights

TOPIC: Meaning and evolution of Human
rights and UDHR
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:
MRS. JASNEET WALIA GROUP 7

B.A. Llb (hons.)
9TH SEMESTER
A
Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and

gratitude to my mentor, philosopher and guide MRS. JASNEET
WALIA, University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University,
Chandigarh. Her dedication and keen interest above all her
overwhelming attitude to help her students had been solely and
mainly responsible for completing my project. Her timely guidance,
meticulous scrutiny, scholarly advice and scientific approach helped
me to a very great extent to accomplish this task.
GROUP 7
B.A. Llb (hons.)
9TH SEMESTER
-A
Page | 2
SCHEME OF THE PROJECT
SUB TOPIC DEALT BY ROLL NO.
Concept of Human Bahaar Ghuman 15/13
Rights
Historical Ishwar Toor 28/13
evolution of
Human Rights
Kinds of Human Manbani Ohri 182/13
Rights
Characteristics of Manisha 45/13
Human Rights
Concept of UDHR Gurtirath Kaur 24/13
Critical analysis of Aniruddh Bhatia 184/13
provisions of
UDHR &
relevance in India
Page | 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
Acknowledgement 2
Scheme of the project 3
Table of Cases 5
Abbreviations 6
Concept of Human Rights 7
Historical Evolution of Human Rights 16
Kinds of Human Rights 23
Characteristics of Human Rights 32
Concept of UDHR 40
Critical Analysis of UDHR & Relevance 53
in India
Bibliography 64
Page | 4
TABLE OF CASES
S.NO. LIST OF CASES CITATION
1. Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das AIR 2000 SC
988
2. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P (1996) 2 SCC
549
3. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC
1480)
4. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC
416
5. Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Association & Anr. W.P.(Crl.)
v. Union of India & Ors No.129 of 2012
decided on July
14, 2017
6. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union (AIR 1981 SC

Territory of Delhi 746)
7. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC
1643) Para
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC
597
9. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 SC
1858)
10. Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu 1995 Supp (2)
Barde SCC 549
11. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of AIR 1982 SC
India 1473)
12. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC
1535)
13. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC
149)
14. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Asst. Passport Officer, (AIR 1967 SC
Government of India 1836)
15. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khidiram Chakma AIR 1994 SC
1461)
Page | 5
ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION WORD
p. page
Chap. chapter
Ed. edition
SC Supreme Court
HC High Court
AIR All India Reporter
Punj. Punjab
Cal. Calcutta
Mad. Madras
Raj. Rajasthan
Guj. Gujarat
Gau Gauhati
P& H Punjab and Haryana
Art. Art.
Section
v. Versus
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
CrPC Code of Crimininal
Procedure
UDHR Universal Declaration
of Human Rights
Page | 6
CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?
Human rights have been defined as basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and
cultures allegedly have simply because they are people. Calling these guarantees "rights"
suggests that they attach to particular individuals who can invoke them, that they are of high
priority, and that compliance with them is mandatory rather than discretionary. Human rights
are frequently held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them,
and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of
justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented by the legal
system or officials of a country.1
The moral doctrine of human rights aims at identifying the fundamental prerequisites for each
human being leading a minimally good life. Human rights aim to identify both the necessary
negative and positive prerequisites for leading a minimally good life, such as rights against
torture and rights to health care.
Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human
behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.
They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights" to which a person is
inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being," and which are "inherent in all
human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any
other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of
being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are
regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to
respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken
away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances. These rights exist in
morality and in law at the national and international levels. 2
However, the doctrine of human rights does not aim to be a fully comprehensive moral
doctrine. An appeal to human rights does not provide us with a fully comprehensive account
of morality per se. Human rights do not, for example, provide us with criteria for answering
such questions as whether telling lies is inherently immoral, or what the extent of one's moral
1
Nickel, 1992:561-2
2
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Human Rights, First published Feb 7, 2003; substantive revision Nov 8,
2014, accessed on https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/ retrieved 10/9/17.
Page | 7
obligations to friends and lovers ought to be? What human rights do primarily aim to identify
is the basis for determining the shape, content, and scope of fundamental, public moral
norms.
Human rights are universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions
which interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity. As James Nickel states, these
aim to secure for individuals the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life.
Public authorities, both national and international, are identified as typically best placed to
secure these conditions and so, the doctrine of human rights has become, for many, a first
port of moral call for determining the basic moral guarantees all of us have a right to expect,
both of one another but also, primarily, of those national and international institutions capable
of directly affecting our most important interests.
Human rights are the minimal rights of men and are as old as natural rights. They are
founded on natural law. The use of expression human rights and its relevance has been well
defined during the recent years. Human rights are those minimal rights which every
individual must have against the state or other public authority by virtue of his being a
member of the human family, irrespective of any other consideration. Mostly they have been
codified.3
It has gathered more importance in the post-second-world war period. The first attempt to
formulate the human rights was taken by U.N. General Assembly in December, 1948 by
adopting the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) in 1948.
Human rights are the birth rights of people the world over. Hence, their fulfilment does not
lie in the reproduction of institutions of the advanced world, but on the consciousness in the
developing world, to ensure the respect and protection of human rights. This will forestall the
ease in their denial as an incident of valid structural change.
3
Prof. S.R. Bhansali, Law relating to human rights in international and national laws and constitutions, 2013,
Universal Law Publishing, p-6
Page | 8
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORDING TO UNCHR?
According to the UNCHR, human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our
nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or
any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.
These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
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 in certain ways
or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental
freedoms of individuals or groups.4
SOME DEFINITIONS
Louis Henkin, a Professor and Western Scholar, defined Human Rights as Claims asserted
and recognised as of rights....against society as represented by governments and its
officials.5
In another definition, a Soviet International Legal Scholar, Vladimir Kudryguste, stated that
human rights are an opportunity guaranteed by the State to its citizens to enjoy the societal
benefits and values existing in the given society. 6
4
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, What are Human Rights?
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx retrieved 10/9/2017.
5
Justice Palok Basu, Law relating to Protection of Human Rights under Indian Constitution and allied laws, 2 nd
Ed, 2007, Modern Law Publications, p-6.
6
Id.
Page | 9
FEATURES OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Universality:
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights
law. Human rights must be afforded to everyone, without exception which are "inherent in all
human beings" regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any
other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of
being universal. The entire premise of the framework is that people are entitled to these rights
simply by virtue of being human.7
Inalienable:
Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations
and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is
found guilty of a crime by a court of law.
Interdependent and indivisible:

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right
to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural
rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education, or collective rights, such as
the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and
interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others.
Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others. It means that means that
in order to guarantee civil and political rights, a government must also ensure economic,
social and cultural rights (and vice 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.8
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.
7
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, What are Human Rights?
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx retrieved 10/9/2017.
8
Supra note 5.
Page | 10
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.
Justiciable:
Human rights are justiciable. They cover legal rights protected by the law of the state. They
also cover fundamental rights as incorporated in the constitution of the land and they enjoy
judicial enforcement.9
Equal and non-discriminatory:

Non-discrimination is a cross-cutting principle in international human rights law. 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.
The principle is present in all the major human rights treaties and provides the central theme
of some of international human rights conventions such as the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.10 The principle applies to everyone in
relation to all human rights and freedoms and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of a list
of non-exhaustive categories such as sex, race, colour and so on. The principle of non-
9
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/human-rights-in-india-characteristics-and-types-2/47118/ Retrieved
10/09/13.
10
Supra note 5.
Page | 11
discrimination is complemented by the principle of equality, as stated in Article 1 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.
Both Rights and Obligations:

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under
international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect
means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human
rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against
human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to
facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled
our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.11
11
Supra note 5.
Page | 12
CLASSIFICATION
Social or
Civil
Human
Rights
Cultural CLASSIFICATION Political

Human OF HUMAN Human
Rights RIGHTS
Rights
Economic
Human
Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has guaranteed a number of rights which can be
classified as follows:
(a) Social or Civil Human Rights:
All human beings are entitled to:
1. The right to life, liberty and security of persons
2. Right to freedom from slavery and servitude
3. Right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment
4. Right to freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or
correspondence
5. Right to marry and have family and right to property.
(b) Political Human Rights:
To take part in the political process, all human beings are provided with some rights such as:
1. Right to nationality
2. Right to equality before law and equal protection of law
Page | 13
3. Right to judicial remedies, fair trial and freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or
exile
4. Right to freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, conscience and religion
5. Right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association
6. Right to take part in government affairs and equal access to public service
7. Right to equal suffrage
8. Right to freedom of movement and right of asylum etc.
(c) Economic Human Rights:
To ensure the economic interest of the human being, UNO also provides certain economic
rights, such as:
1. Right to social security
2. Right to work and the right to equal pay for equal work
3. Right to form trade unions
4. Right to rest and leisure
5. Right to food, health and adequate standard of living.
(d) Cultural Human Rights:
For the protection of the various types of cultures, traditions and customs of the human being,
the Declaration of Human Rights also provides certain rights, such as:
1. Right to participate in the cultural life of the community,
2. Right to enjoy the art and to share in the scientific advancement and its benefits
3. Right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary and artistic production of which the individual is the author
4. Right to a social and international order in which the human rights as provided in the
Universal Declaration can be fully realized.
Page | 14
THE HYPOCRISY OF GOVERNMENTS
The ambivalence of governments in the developing world especially has been a glaring
source of violations and abuse of rights in as much as covert tortures, interrogations and
detentions prevail in some States with penal prohibitions of human rights violations. In
countries of this nature, international and foreign intervention or positive action has never
been always and readily possible because of the inability to establish most of such cases. 12
HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENT AS HUMAN CREATIONS

Let us always be aware that human rights documents are human creations themselves.
Independent experts are appointed by governments to comment on human rights reports, may
have privileged situations in the system and lead lives divorced from struggle. However a
privileged life certainly does not always translate into lack of concern for the underdogs. The
challenge therefore is always to include public participation in actual formulation and
implementation of human rights documents. These documents are by no means perfect, and
the voices of the marginalised are needed to construct and implement human rights
principles.13
The UDHR, for example, didnt mention the rights of the people with disabilities or gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals or the intersexed. Interpretation of Human rights evolves, as
do human rights documents.
12
Justice Palok Basu, Law relating to Protection of Human Rights under Indian Constitution and allied laws, 2 nd
Ed, 2007, Modern Law Publications, p-7.
13
Joseph Wronka, Human rights and social justice, 2008, Sage publications, Inc. P-32.
Page | 15
THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.14
From the early philosophical thoughts of Aristotle, Plato, Mo-zi and St. Thomas Aquinas,
amongst others regarding natural law which in time became natural rights and later human
rights,15 the collective has grown and evolved since early history, but most significantly since
the end of World War II. The first recorded promotion of human rights was made by the
Syrian King Hammurabi, about 4000 years ago, having laws etched into stone, an act of
intuitive guardianship, avowing to protect his citizens from arbitrary persecution.16 Later
in 539BC, Cyrus the great, commissioned a clay cylinder, to record, amongst other laws,
freedom for the Jews from slavery and granting his citizens religious freedom.17 With many
milestones in-between, and right up to the present day, the picture now is of an encompassing
framework surrounding international human rights which has become a complex and
dynamic norm within the tenets of state, regional and international customs, treaties and laws,
designed for the primary protection of the individual above the state,18 but with the caveat
that its implementation and conformity to it globally is variable. In this essay, paragraph 1
will trace the historical development of international human rights laws up to the end of
WW2. Paragraph 2 will deal with the formation of the UN in 1945 and allied with that the
adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. Paragraph 3 will
discuss, as an example, one specific problem area of IHRL, cultural relativism, and how it
impacts on the implementation of IHRL in certain countries or cultures. Paragraph 4 will
discuss the growth of regional IHRL systems, taking Europe as an example, and finally into a
discursive conclusion.
14
TheUniversal Declaration of Human Rights,Article1. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1
15
The expression" human rights is relatively new, having come into everyday parlance only since World War
II and the founding of the United Nations in 1945. It replaces the phrase" natural rights" which fell into
disfavour in part because the concept of natural law (to which it was ultimately linked) had become a matter of
great controversy and the later phrase "the rights of Man" which was not universally understood to include the
rights of women. Source: W. Burns http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/762002.pdf?acceptTC=true
16
Brian Penduka. 2006. The Zimbabwean Situation from a Human Rights Perspective p.1.
http://www.kubatana.net/docs/hr/hrf_zim_hr_perspective_060707.pdf
17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh3BbLk5UIQ
18
Cassese p.376 adds, After the Second World War, international protection of human beings as such increased
at a staggering pace. Individuals were no longer to be taken care of, on the international level, qua members of
a group, a minority, or another category. They began to be protected qua single human beings.
Page | 16
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS UP TO THE SECOND
WORLD WAR
Part of the debate about the origins of human rights is the intertwining of natural law and
various religious laws or doctrines, which in the latter has been greatly evidenced in the many
writings, archival documentation and customs espousing code of conducts for monarchs and
subjects.19 Within this mix and picking up on the further evolution of human rights from
the introduction, the next significant step, around 27 BC, was taken by the Roman Jurist
Ulpian believed that natural rights belonged to all.20 Natural law21 or jus genitum, the law of
nations, established certain universal values beyond citizenship. In 1215 the English Magna
Carta stated that the Barons, subjects of King John, could extract certain rights, ...the
principle of equality before the law, a right to property and an element of religious
freedom...22 The document also placed, for the first time, reciprocal restraints on his powers
as a monarch. Also in England in 1688, the Bill of Rights was introduced,23 titled, An Act
Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.24
Also in the 17th century, philosophers such as John Lockes (1632-1704) further works on
natural rights, i.e. all humans should have basic rights such as liberty, freedom from slavery,
freedom of speech, etc., in his book, Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government,25 and
Rousseaus (1712-1778) social contract theory; individuals enter into a contract to abide by
civil society as an exchange for the government giving them equality, 26 added gravitas to the
debate with Montisques (1689-1755) thoughts on balancing forces within government, such
that, government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another. 27 These ideas
were later threaded through the constitution of the newly independent USA, and not long
after, in the US Bill of Rights in 1789, the first ten amendments to the constitution.28 The
newly formed French Republic, which was created from the overthrow of the monarchy, also
19
Micheline R. Ishay. 2008. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era.
London: University of California. P.19-22
20
Subrahman, P. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4054820/History-of-Human-Rights
21
Nickel, James. 2010. Aquinas's natural law theory...is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of
practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-
law-ethics/
22
Smith, R. 2007. Textbook on International Human Rights.New York: Oxford University Press. P. 5.
23
As a caveat, Rhona K. Smith adds Some minimal rights were mentioned in the 1688 Bill of Rights of
England and Wales though with little substance. Textbook of human rights. p.5.
24
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp Yale law school. The Avalon Project
25
Locke, J. 1986. Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government. New York: Prometheus books.
26
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/hrpeople.htm
27
Michael A. Genovese. 2004. Encyclopaedia of the American Presidency. USA: InfoBase Publishing. P.348
28
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Page | 17
adopted, with a similar vein to the USA, the Declaration of the rights of man and citizen in
1789.29 Another though related aspect of human rights, the laws of wars30 were dealt with
under the Geneva Convention of 1864, (and other dates and conventions) which agreed on,
for example, the conditions under which combatants could be medically treated in battle,
removed from battle, etc. and how, theoretically, medical personnel, ambulances and field
hospitals, should be afforded immunity from attack. When WW I ended in 1918, a concerted
effort was made, particularly by the US President Woodrow Wilson,31 to form the League of
Nations and part of this process also created the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Although the League was set up for the promotion of peace it would, for various reasons,
eventually falter, whereas the ILO, whose ambit, to pursue a vision based on the premise
that universal, lasting peace can be established only if it is based on social justice,32
continued and eventually became part of the UN process in 1945. The ILO is important as
part of its remit included article 23 of the League of Nations, to secure just treatment of the
native inhabitants of territories under their control, a remit that comes close to a provision on
international human rights.33
29
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp Yale law school. The Avalon Project
30
Although technically coming under the banner of International humanitarian law, the law of wars is
considered as an inclusive part of International human rights law.
31
Wilson, speaking about the formation of the League of Nations and his attempts to get the US to ratify the
treaty, (unsuccessfully), America has said to mankind at her birth: we have come to redeem the world by
giving it liberty and justice. Now we are called upon before the Tribunal of Mankind to redeem that immortal
pledge. Wilson, W. 1927. Speech at the Coliseum, St. Louis, Missouri.
32
International Labour organisation: http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang--en/index.htm
33
Rhona K. Smith. Textbook on human rights p. 20
Page | 18
THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
In January1941, around the time ideas were being floated about the post war political
landscape and the formation of the UN, the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an address
to Congress said, In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a
world founded upon four essential human freedoms:34 Freedom of speech and expression;
freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want. 35 With the backing of the
US, a roadmap was beginning to develop for an international human rights caucus. With the
end of WW11 in 1945, and attempting to catch the mood of the time; that pervading universal
sense of abhorrence, the French philosopher Pierre Teilhard (1881-1955) summed it so,
whether we like it or not, humanity...was collectivising, totalising itself under the
influence of physical and spiritual forces of a worldwide nature.36 The historian Arnold
Toynbee citing the historical law of progress through crisis, commented how the fallout
from WW II had helped create the conditions necessary for the UN and by this IHRL had
become a beneficiary of this law.37 In October 1945 the UN became a reality and within it
the human rights framework was structured into 2 separate parts, the Charter based system
and the Treaty based system.38 39 This springboard event coupled with the adoption of the
34
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36b.htm Franklin D Roosevelt
35
ibid
36
Micheline R. Ishay. 2008. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era.
London: University of California. P.25.
37
Omar Grech. 80:20. Development in an unequal World. p73.
38
The complexity and depth of the whole arena of the UNs international human rights organisations and
structures, laws, etc. is too large to comprehensively explore for this word count. However, dealing with the
basics, the UN system is split into two sections, the Charter based system; which is further split into 3 sections,
the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly
of the UN. The second, the treaty based system is split into treaties and optional protocols, (see also footnote
26) and the Treaty monitoring bodies such as, for example, the Human Rights Committee which, is the body
of independent experts that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights by its State parties. All States parties are obliged to submit regular reports to the Committee on how the
rights are being implemented. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/index.htm. James Nickel, (2010)
further comments, International human rights treaties transform lists of human rights into legally binding state
obligations. The first such United Nations treaty was the Genocide Convention, approved in 1948 just one
day before the Universal Declaration. The Convention defines genocide and makes it a crime under
international law.
39
Samples of the major international human rights documents, which are overseen by their respective
monitoring bodies, are available here: http://www.developmenteducation.ie/issues-and-topics/human-
rights/human-rights-docs.html Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (1984) Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975)
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
(1981) Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (1990) Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging
Page | 19
UDHR in 1948 really began the acceleration of the whole process of IHRL. The UDHR
formed part of the International Bill of Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESR),40 which are overseen by various monitoring committees. Although the latter
two covenants werent adopted until 1966, the whole concept of the UDHR and the UN
created a more stable and consultative environment for the acceleration and expansion of the
human rights process. However the UN system in general was far from perfect, being
accused, in time, of being overly bureaucratic, misrepresentative, and ideologically
unbalanced, but it was an enormous step forward considering the recent history of two major
global conflicts, the discordant geo-political landscape and the dichotomous dictats of the two
Cold War belligerents. This leads into the other seminal event, post WW2, the prosecution
of war criminals. The Nuremburg war crimes Tribunal, acting under the authority of the
London Charter, and the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was formed to prosecute German and
Japanese war leaders respectively for crimes against peace and crimes against humanity
establishing that individuals have responsibilities and obligations under international law.41
This was the first time that military and political leaders were held legally accountable for
there actions during war. Further Tribunals arising from different conflicts such as the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia in 1993 and the International
criminal Court for Rwanda in 1994 followed, with a similar agenda. Eventually the
permanent International Criminal Court was established in The Hague in 1998.
to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
Against Women (1993) Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of
Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1998)
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) Slavery Convention (1926)
Amended by Protocol (1953) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1966) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
40
The Other main Conventions include; International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial
discrimination, 1966; International Convention on the elimination of all forms discrimination against women,
1966; Convention against torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, 1984;
Convention on the rights of the child, 1989.
41
Omar grech. 2012. 80:20. Development in an unequal World p. 73
Page | 20
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
With human rights firmly on the international relations agenda, post 1945-1948, Cassese
comments regarding IHRL that its ... a subversive theory destined to foster tension and
conflict among states.42 It invades the laws and sovereignty of the member states and
obviously not all resolutions would be to any particular states liking, for a variety of reasons.
An example of this leads into one area of contention, cultural relativism; member states
obviously have different cultures values and traditions, and they interpret or defer from UN
resolutions or laws at times for specifically cultural values. In more recent times the UN has
attempted to describe human rights into a distillation of three words and hopefully allow a
better understanding for a broader audience. (1). Universal, (all humans, equally); citing
article 1 of the UDHR, All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 43 (2).
Indivisible, (all rights, equally); all humans have equal status and cannot be placed in
meritorious order. (3). Inalienable, (that which may not be given away); human rights may
not be traded or compromised in any way.44 Despite this Ruggerio comments on why
cultural relativism continues to be a major issue, because it has been subject to divergent
interpretation.45 Stephane Hessel, one of the original drafters of the UDHR, even in 2008,
cautioned, Human rights are inalienable and indivisible. We must absolutely resist [cultural]
relativism. We cannot plead cultural differences to deny them.46 Hessel makes a convincing
argument despite Ruggerio conditional comments over local interpretations, and to divert
from the core distillation would indeed be dangerous. Arguing cultural relativism as a
defence against enacting certain laws chips away at the core value of IHRL.47
42 Antonio Cassese. 2005. International Law. 2nd Ed. USA: Oxford University Press. p.375.
43
Ibid. p71
44
Ibid. p.71
45 http://www.rosado.net/pdf/Cultural_Relativism.pdf Caleb rosado. p3. from Ruggerio p.17
46 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001833/183304e.pdf#183347 Stphane Hessel, French-German
diplomat and writer, participated in the drafting of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
47 To give an example of cultural relativism vs. human rights in action, and to highlight a flagrant abuse of the
universality of human rights which Stephane Hessel alluded to above, female genital mutilation is still carried
out in many African, Middle East and Asian countries, with Somalia in particular, at 97%, of the female
population, despite widespread international opposition. This highly dangerous act is performed on girls
ranging in age from practically new born to puberty. They are forcibly circumcised by either a senior female
family member or a female circumciser in unhygienic conditions, without anaesthetic, using unsterilised
razors, whilst other women physically restrain the girl. Serious pain during and after the operation along with
lifelong physical and mental health complications can arise; apart from the initial risk of severe blood loss,
infection and the possibility of death. Despite being a clear violation of Resolution 48/104, Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women. Article 2. December 1993, amongst others, it is carried under the
banner of a cultural, (and in some cases religious), practise which has been going on for many hundreds of
years. As Karen Musalo wrote in defence of Fauziya Kasinga, a teenager from Togo, West Africa whose case in
Page | 21
THE REGIONAL SYSTEMS
At regional level there are 3 main bodies; In the Americas authority is drawn from the
American Convention on Human Rights, 1948; in Africa, The African Charter of Human and
Peoples Rights, 1986 and in Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
The European framework which is the oldest and more encompassing, has two main
institutions, the Council of Europe (CE), founded in 1949 with 50 member states and the
European Union, 27 members. The CE structure is further broken down into the European
Court of Human Rights and The European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention
sets out human rights norms whilst legally binding member states to comply through to its
adjudication and enforcement.48 The Councils statute, Article 3, requires members to
accept the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms within their jurisdiction.49
In some areas the Convention goes further than the UDHR, an example being the right to life,
whereby a mens reaas is required, i.e. a necessary condition for violation with specific
exceptions to this right.50 The European Court of Human Rights is designed as the court of
final appeal regarding individuals who have exhausted their national courts system in the
matter of an alleged breach of human rights law. The decision of the court is binding upon its
members as signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.51 The EU structure is
formulated around six core principles, as part of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, under the headings; Dignity; Freedom; Equality; Solidarity; Citizens Rights
and Justice.52 The other arm is the European Court of Justice which was set up in 1952 and
forms the judicial authority of the European Union.53 It is the highest court in the EU for
interpreting EU treaties but its authority does not exceed that of national laws.
the US changed the law regarding the treatment of asylum seekers on gender based issues, In the context of
representing Fauziya in her request for asylum, I felt there was a relatively easy response to these accusations of
cultural imperialism: namely, that it was Fauziya herself who had disagreed with and resisted the practices of
her own culture. Once she had made this decision, my role was simply to support her in her profound desire not
to be subjected to FGM or forced into a polygamous marriage. Karen Musalo :
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/rightsandcultures.html : other sources:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/eliminationvaw.htm : http://www.unfpa.org/gender/rights.htm
48
James Nickel, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
49
Ibid.
50
ibid
51
ibid
52
They[the six principles] are based, in particular, on the fundamental rights and freedoms recognised by the
European Convention on Human Rights, the constitutional traditions of the EU Member States, the Council of
Europe's Social Charter, the Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights of Workers and other
international conventions to which the European Union or its Member States are parties. Source:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm
53
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_6999/
Page | 22
KINDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Civil
Political
Economic
Social and cultural
Natural rights
Positive rights
Modern human rights
CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process,
equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. No nation may rightfully
deprive a person of a human right, but different nations can grant or deny different civil
rights and liberties.
Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from
unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the
civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.. A right is something
that cannot be given or taken away.
CIVIL RIGHTS LISTED

Right to Life
Everyone has the right to life, and - according to the international human rights mechanisms -
this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including: deaths in custody as a result of
torture, neglect, the use of force, or life-threatening conditions of detention; killings by state
agents, or persons acting in direct or indirect compliance with the State, when the force used
is not absolutely necessary and proportionate to the circumstances; expulsion or
"refoulement" (illegal return) of persons to a country where their lives are in danger; failure
by the state to investigate alleged violations of the right to life and to bring those responsible
to justice.International human rights mechanisms also place limits on the use of the death
penalty.
Page | 23
The right to freedom from torture
Everyone has the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. According to the international human rights mechanisms, this right can be
violated in a variety of ways, including: the deliberate infliction of severe physical or
psychological pain by state agents with the intention of causing suffering; expelling or
returning a person to a country in which they face a real risk of being tortured or subjected to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; keeping persons in very poor conditions of
detention, even if there is no intention to inflict suffering; corporal (physical) punishment of
children in schools.
The right to a fair trial

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and - according to the international human rights
mechanisms - this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including by: hearing criminal
charges before administrative bodies which are not independent and impartial courts; trials in
which, from the beginning, one party has a significant advantage over the other (this is said to
breach the principle of "equality of arms"); excessive delays in bringing a case to trial and/or
in completing court proceedings; secret trials; failing to respect the presumption of innocence
by denying procedural protection to accused persons (e.g. information about the nature of the
charge, time to prepare a defense, access to a lawyer, the possibility to confront witnesses and
(if necessary) access to interpretation).
The right to freedom of assembly and association

Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and association. According to the international
human rights mechanisms, this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including:
preventing peaceful public demonstrations (unless it can be shown that there would be a
serious danger to public safety and order if the demonstration took place); restricting
possibilities to join voluntary associations; denying persons the right to form and/or join
organized unions.
The Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. Coercing people to adopt
Page | 24
certain religion and imposing unreasonable restrictions, including criminal penalty, for
exercising ones own religion are the most typical violations of this right. Freedom to
manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by
law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others.
The right to freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and - according to the international human
rights mechanisms - this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including by: restricting
access to political, artistic or commercial information and ideas (e.g. denying pregnant
women information about abortion facilities); limiting the freedom of the press; placing
undue restrictions (excluding reasonable licensing restrictions) on broadcasting.
The right to an effective remedy

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy if his/her human rights are violated. According
to the international human rights mechanisms, this right can be violated in a variety of ways,
including by: failing to provide adequate procedures to complain about, or obtain
compensation for, killings by security forces; not carrying out thorough enquiries into alleged
ill-treatment by security forces; not establishing complaints procedures regarding the
interception of telephone calls; failing to provide means of redress for persons suspended
from school on the grounds of their religious affiliation.
The right to privacy

Everyone has the right to privacy, and - according to the international human rights
mechanisms - this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including by: intervening in a
person's private life (which includes their right to form relationships and to enjoy sexual
autonomy); disrupting family life (which includes the right to marry and to found a family);
destroying a person's home or preventing a person from living in his/her home; interfering
with private correspondence.
The right to liberty and security

Everyone has the right to liberty and security and - according to the international human
rights mechanisms - this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including: unlawful or
Page | 25
arbitrary detention (where there is no legal basis for the deprivation of liberty), for example
when a person is kept in detention after the completion of their prison sentence or despite an
amnesty law which applies to them; detention of persons because they have exercised the
rights and freedoms guaranteed by international instruments, including the ones described in
this manual; detention after a trial which did not comply with international standards for a
fair trial (see the right to a fair trial).
The right to asylum

Everyone who has a well-founded fear of persecution has the right to asylum in a country
where they will be safe. According to the international human rights mechanisms, this right
can be violated in a variety of ways, including by: not providing the facilities necessary to
enable people to claim asylum (including interpreters and properly-trained immigration
staff); failing to give adequate consideration to a request for asylum; expelling a person to a
country in which he/she would be at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
The right to freedom from discrimination

Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination, and - according to the international
human rights mechanisms - this right can be violated in a variety of ways, including by
discriminating against someone because of: sex, race, color, language, religion, political
allegiance, opinions, nationality, social background, association with a national minority.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a

multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with resolution 2200A
(XXI) on 16 December 1966, and in force from 23 March 1976 in accordance with Article 49
of the covenant. Article 49 allowed that the covenant will enter into force three months after
the date of the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession. The covenant
commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to
life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights
to due process and a fair trial. As of February 2017, the Covenant has 169 parties and six
more signatories without ratification. The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human
Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Page | 26
The ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (a separate body to
the United Nations Human Rights Council), which reviews regular reports of States parties
on how the rights are being implemented. States must report initially one year after acceding
to the Covenant and then whenever the Committee requests (usually every four years). The
Committee normally meets in Geneva and normally holds three sessions per year.
ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic human rights, such as the right to
education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and
the right to science and culture.
The promotion of human rights is guided by what is referred to as the Inter national Bill of
Rights. It includes the UDHR and two treaties ,the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
These treaties elaborate on rights identified in the UDHR and, when adopted by individual
states, have the force of law. Each treaty provides for independent experts who monitor
governments and requires periodic reporting by governments to ensure that they are
following treaty provisions.
Economic, social, and cultural rights, are specified in Articles 16 and 22-29 of the UDHR.
They identify an impressive list of human rights concerns and refer to:
marriage and family;

work and leisure (free choice of employment, just conditions of work, equal pay for
equal work, just remuneration, freedom to form and join trade unions, and rest);
a standard of living adequate for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and social
services;
security in case of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, and old age;
special care and assistance in motherhood and childhood;
education (free and compulsory elementary education, equal access based on merit,
parental choice, and full development of the human personality);
participation in the cultural life of ones community;
protection of one s own literary, scientific, and artistic productions;
social and international order that enables these human rights to be realized; and
ones duties to ones community.
Page | 27
The cultural rights movement has provoked attention to protect the rights of groups of people,
or their culture, in similar fashion to the manner in which the human rights movement has
brought attention to the needs of individuals throughout the world.
Protecting a culture
Cultural Rights are rights related to art and culture, both understood in a large sense. The
objective of these rights is to guarantee that people and communities have an access to
culture and can participate in the culture of their election. Cultural rights are human rights
that aim at assuring the enjoyment of culture and its components in conditions of equality,
human dignity and non-discrimination. They are rights related to themes such as language;
cultural and artistic production; participation in cultural life; cultural heritage; intellectual
property rights; authors rights; minorities and access to culture, among others. Focusing less
on the preservation of cultures as an end in itself and more on the realization of "ecological"
relations between cultural groups as a condition for equitable interactions and the potential
for organic cultural change, Gregory Paul Meyjes proposes the interchangeable terms cultural
justice and ethno-cultural justice[3] and intercultural justice which he defines as societal
and institutional policies that seek to accommodate the culturally-specific rights and attitudes
of minority groups and their members, within the legal, regulatory, or policy limits of the
institution, community, or society concerned
Ethnic Groups Cultural preservation

Cultural rights of groups focus on such things as religious and ethnic minorities and
indigenous societies that are in danger of disappearing. Cultural rights include a groups
ability to preserve its way of life, such as child rearing, continuation of language, and security
of its economic base in the nation, which it is located. The related notion of
indigenous intellectual property rights (IPR) has arisen in attempt to conserve each societys
culture base and essentially prevent ethnocide.
The cultural rights movement has been popularized because much traditional cultural
knowledge has commercial value, like ethno-medicine, cosmetics, cultivated plants,
foods, folklore, arts, crafts, songs, dances, costumes, and rituals. Studying ancient cultures
may reveal evidence about the history of the human race and shed more light on our origin
and successive cultural development. However, the study, sharing and commercialization of
Page | 28
such cultural aspects can be hard to achieve without infringing upon the cultural rights of
those who are a part of that culture.
Cultural rights should be taken into consideration also by local policies. In that sense,
the Agenda 21 for culture, the first document with worldwide mission that advocates
establishing the groundwork of an undertaking by cities and local governments for cultural
development, includes as cultural rights as one of the principles and states: Local
governments recognize that cultural rights are an integral part of human rights, taking as
their reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
Cultural anthropology
"Cultural rights are vested not in individuals but in groups, such as religious and
ethnic minorities and indigenous societies." All cultures are brought up differently, therefore
cultural rights include a group's ability to preserve its culture, to raise its children in the ways
it forebears, to continue its language, and to not be deprived of its economic base by the
nation in which it is located." Anthropologists sometimes choose not to study some cultures
beliefs and rights, because they believe that it may cause misbehavior, and they choose not to
turn against different diversities of cultures. Although anthropologists sometimes do turn
away from studying different cultures they still depend a lot on what they study at different
archaeological sites.54
POSITIVE RIGHT
A negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group;
negative rights permit or oblige inaction. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an
action or another person or group; positive rights permit or oblige action.
Prof. Aeon Skoble describes the key differences between positive and negative rights.
Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A
negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your
actions. This is a fine distinction in some cases- for example, in the US we often speak of the
"right to free speech," which might lead one to believe that speech is a positive right. In fact,
it is not- it is a negative right, a right to be free from something; in this case, it is the right to
54
http://www.iupui.edu/~anthkb/a104/humanrights/cultrights.htm
Page | 29
be free from government interference with your speech. A positive right implies that a
person must be given something, so a positive right to food would imply that society must
give everyone food, while a negative right to food would imply that society cannot stop
people from getting themselves food.
NATURAL RIGHT
Natural rights are defined as those Rights that people supposedly have under natural law. The
Declaration of Independence of the United States lists life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness as natural rights Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are
born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never
be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life,
liberty, and property."
All though there is no unanimity as to which right is natural and which is not, the widely held
view is that nature endows every human (without any distinction of time or space, and
without any regard to age, gender, nationality, or race) with certain inalienable rights (such as
the right to 'life, liberty, and pursuit. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the
laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal
and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).
Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be
modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).
The concept of natural law is related to the concept of natural rights. Natural law first
appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It
was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and was then developed in the Middle
Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas.
During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge
the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of
a social contract, positive law, and government and thus legal rights in the form
of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to
challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge
no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep
the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with
natural rights.] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any
Page | 30
government or international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights
into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative
rights,[3] whereas human rights also comprise positive rights. Even on a natural rights
conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
The first generation or civil and political rights originate from 18th and 19th century thinking.
They are about life, liberty and property, non-discrimination and various freedoms including
freedom of thought. They essentially focus around liberty. They are often seen as negative
rights meaning that they are enjoyed by virtue of the inactivity of others, particularly
government. Good examples of these are the Articles 3 to 21 of the UN Declaration of
Human Rights and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However,
they do include some positive rights as some such as the right to a fair trial involve a level of
government intervention. They were primarily shaped by the liberalism movement.
Economic, social and cultural rights or so-called second generation rights from the
20th century primarily. They focus on the theme of equality and are far more controversial
given their lack of clarity and the requirement of high levels of government intervention.
They are primarily positive rights and focus on the right to work, access to healthcare and
education and even social security and paid holidays. The UN Declaration Articles 22 to 27
focus on this but also International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They
were primarily shaped by socialism.
Finally, the third generation from around post-1945 called solidarity rights. They focus
around the theme of fraternity and rights such as self-determination, peace, development and
environmental protection. They are perhaps even more controversial than second generation
rights and came about due to concerns for the global South. They also involve special rights
for instance for women and minorities. This aspect has been particularly questionable as this
seems to go against the universalism of traditional rights.
Page | 31
CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL OR NOT?
Following centuries of ongoing revision, repetition and reconceptualisation, international

human rights theory and practice continues to grapple with three integral concepts:
universality, inalienability, and indivisibility. These concepts are perceived as being essential
to its continued validity, yet themselves also embody human rights most pressing critiques.
Universal human rights theory holds that human rights apply to everyone simply by virtue of
their being human. 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.55 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.
The most obvious challenge to the universality factor comes from cultural relativism, which
maintains that universal human rights are neo-imperialistic and culturally hegemonic. While
this perspective may be tempting, the relativist argument encompasses a debilitating self-
contradiction; by postulating that the only sources of moral validity are individual cultures
themselves, one is precluded from making any consistent moral judgments. Further, the
cultural relativist in fact makes a universalist judgment in arguing that tolerance is the
ultimate good to be respected above all. Hence, it is a naturally self-refuting theory that
engages universalism in its own rejection of the concept. In a practical sense, the cultural
relativist position is foundationally incompatible with human rights, as human rights
themselves could not exist if they were stripped of common moral judgment. However, this
notion is faulty. In Shashi Tharoors opinion, it is not the inability to safeguard rights of
citizens in as much as the perception of the rights as universal that is problematic.56
And yet, the question remains: even if human rights must be universal in order to remain
coherent, what should we do when faced with practices or cultures with which our version
of human rights clashes? Should we stand idly by when atrocities are committed? Surely not.
While universal human rights should not be geographically or culturally flexible (so as not
to undercut their entire purpose), we must see the continuum of rights and culture as
relational, not exclusive.
55
http://www.unfpa.org/resources/human-rights-principles
56
http://www.worldpolicy.org/tharoor.html
Page | 32
Along this vein, some have argued that we actually need to see human rights as a culture in
and of itself a collective learning about what is in the best interests of humans around the
world. This is because, as cultures are non-homogenous and inherently malleable, so too must
be their conceptualisations of human rights. Essentially, human rights must be able to absorb
cultural difference.
A controversial but pertinent example of an approach that seeks to strengthen both cultural
integrity and individual freedom is India's Muslim Women (Protection of Rights upon
Divorce) Act. This piece of legislation was enacted following the famous Shah Banu case, in
which the Supreme Court upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to alimony,
prompting howls of outrage from Muslim traditionalists who claimed this violated their
religious beliefs that divorced women were only entitled to the return of the bride price paid
upon marriage. The Indian parliament then passed a law to override the court's judgment,
under which Muslim women married under Muslim law would be obliged to accept the return
of the bride price as the only payment of alimony, but that the official Muslim charity, the
Waqf Board, would assist them.
Many Muslim women and feminists were outraged by this. But the interesting point is that if
a Muslim woman does not want to be subject to the provisions of the act, she can marry
under the civil code; if she marries under Muslim personal law, she will be subject to its
provisions. That may be the kind of balance that can be struck between the rights of Muslims
as a group to protect their traditional practices and the right of a particular Muslim woman,
who may not choose to be subject to that particular law, to exempt herself from it.
Further still, other commentators have taken issue with the question itself, noting that
dichotomised and uncompromising questions over whether human rights should be universal
or not actually tend to arbitrate the correct form of human existence. In this way, the ability
of human agency to integrate, move between and even override cultures is often overlooked.
Instead, he argues that the best way forward is for people remain aware of alternative value
systems to be able to freely move in and out of them as per their preference. While this may
be seen as too liberal or individualistic (as is a common critique of western human rights), it
best gets to the core of what the purpose of human rights ought to return to: the human.57
57
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2016/09/14/are-human-rights-really-universal-inalienable-and-indivisible/
Page | 33
WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE OR NOT?
By definition, inalienability involves the inability of something to be taken from or given

away by the possessor. Human Rights are inalienable because peoples rights can never be
taken away. While the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Declaration
of the Rights of Man, and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights repeatedly
affirmed that rights were inalienable, it remains today that very few can agree on the meaning
of this.
Early philosophers and scholars such as Locke, Mason and Lilburne spoke of natural rights in
terms of inherentness, natality and inability to be surrendered, helping later thinkers better
conceptualise the core of inalienability by asking who the human is in human rights.
Constant debate on this topic has brought out the best and worst in more recent philosophers.
For example, one scholar notes that one must contribute to both self and society in an
autonomous capacity in order to be a rights-bearing person. He thus doubts whether rights
could possibly apply to infants, the severely mentally retarded, or people in irreversible
comas. Thankfully, others have stepped away from crude biological distinctions to
conceptually consider the multiplicity of ways in which one might be considered unhuman
such as through heavily gendered and animal-human power dichotomies . In such cases,
victims are often stripped of their personhood and basic rights, revealing the alienability of
rights in practice.
Along this vein, Hannah Arendt articulated one of the most timeless perspectives on
inalienability on the backdrop of the Holocaust. Noting the lack of tangible access to rights
experiences by refugees by virtue of their statelessness, Arendt concluded that the only true
right was the right to have rights in the sense that modern rights had become linked
inextricably to the emancipated national state. Of course, important critiques have been
lodged against Arendt, such as that of Jacques Rancire, who finds that humans can never be
entirely depoliticised and devoid of rights (even when stateless) as they are inherently
political beings by the mere fact of birth. However, while somewhat convincing, Rancires
critique should easily be dismissed as far too abstract to be of great use in the face of the
severe and ultimately tangible human rights violations occurring today.
Given todays challenges of displacement and statelessness, it therefore seems more helpful
to eschew abstract reasoning surrounding inalienability and acknowledge that rights are
Page | 34
inseparable from statehood and citizenship in the international human rights system. As
Arendt reasoned, inalienability has turned out to be unenforceable.58
58
Page | 35
WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INDIVISIBLE OR NOT?
Turning to indivisibility, this principle maintains that the implementation of all rights
simultaneously is necessary for the full functioning of the human rights system. 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.59
Beyond discussions of violations, indivisibility is equally the idea that no human right can be
fully implemented or realised without fully realising all other rights. Those who fall within
the indivisibility camp reason that the enforcement of human rights is arbitrary and
incomplete without a commitment to indivisibility, and that anything less than simultaneous
implementation of all human rights may fuel dangerous rights prioritisations by governments
(i.e. emphasising first or second generation rights while neglecting third generation ones will
mean that all rights values suffer).
Issues surrounding the prioritisation and partial fulfilment of human rights are at the core of
the indivisibility question. Here, Nickel makes a number of strong arguments against
indivisibility by distinguishing the concept from interdependence. For example, an arm and
leg are not mutually indispensable (indivisible) because one can function without the other.
While they may be interdependent to some extent, they are not indivisible. Conversely, a
heart and brain cannot function irrespective of each other, thus making them indivisible by
definition. Such is the distinction we must make with human rights, too.
It isnt necessary for every single right to be fully realised in order for the others to mean
anything at all. If this were not the case, it may be terrible news for developing countries;
rather, such countries do not automatically enter into conflict with the principle of
indivisibility if they prioritise some rights over others along a given timeline in light of
available resources. This line of thought is an important critique of others, such as Donnelly,
who insists on the centrality of system-wide indivisibility, and whose argument fails to
appreciate this indivisibility-interdependency distinction.60
59
60
Page | 36
WHETHER HUMAN RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL OR
NOT?
There are many ways to understand what human rights are and there is no one agreement on
how we are supposed to identify these rights. Some prefer to see human rights as certain
natural rights that were given to us by God and is therefore the states duty to protect, while
other people see them as natural rights coming from general rational human interest of gain,
safety and reputation. Whichever the view, human rights, as the name suggests, are rights that
all human beings have regardless of nationality, place of staying, gender, religion, language
or anything else.
We are all protected by human rights no matter what and so these rights should not be
disturbed either at all or only in extreme situations. Here are some examples of general
human rights and how they work; a persons right to liberty (i.e. freedom) may be
restricted(e.g. sent to jail), if he or she commits a crime or one persons right to peaceful
enjoyment of property can be taken away if he or she does something on their land (e.g.
home) that causes nuisance (e.g. too much noise) to their neighbour.
Indeed, the above can be seen as punishments when people go over the limits of their human
rights, disturbing the rights of others who also equally share these rights. However, as the
word punishment suggests, nobody can be charged for having done something or have their
rights disturbed if the offence was not a crime when it was committed. This means that to be
punished by the law, there must be laws already existing that do not allow that offence and
these laws must be written very clearly so that people know what actions are criminal in
nature. This in itself is a human right, being no punishment without law and is found in
Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Among the human rights, the right to education is one that is very well accepted
internationally. This is one of the most important human rights because of its supporting
nature. It means education is not only good in itself as it increases knowledge, it also gives
people the ability to access and use other core rights. It gives people the confidence to make
informed decisions, either to protect themselves from having their rights disturbed or to hold
those who abuse power responsible. It helps people to join more actively in their social and
economic rights too, such as obtaining land rights and investments. So, these economic trends
Page | 37
increase the importance of education because of the modernisation and easier access to
information in the economy, particularly in Africa.
It is so important for every person to know that they are entitled to the rights listed above and
more, depending on the jurisdiction (state) the person is in. This is because human rights
affect the relationships between governments and the citizens that these governments have
power over. Having human rights in this way is like having a legal shield or even a
sword because these rights limit the governments power and control. Therefore, countries
must understand and accept the fundamental needs of their people and protect their basic
freedoms, enforcing the ever-important relevance of human rights internationally.61
Human rights reflect the minimum standards necessary for people to live with dignity.
Human rights give people the freedom to choose how they live, how they express themselves,
and what kind of government they want to support, among many other things. Human rights
also guarantee people the means necessary to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, housing,
and education, so they can take full advantage of all opportunities. Finally, by guaranteeing
life, liberty, equality, and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who
are more powerful.
According to the United Nations, human rights:
Ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as
intelligence, talent, and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual and other62
61
http://www.rightforeducation.org/all-topics/law-rights/what-are-human-rights/
62
http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/human_rights_basics
Page | 38
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
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.63
It is therefore apparent that some of the most widely accepted and central tenants of human
rights universality, inalienability and indivisibility emerge as highly contentious upon close
inspection. Yet, rather than undercutting the entire concept of human rights, these critiques
simply remind us to continually revaluate our assumptions of rights to make them ever more
inclusive and ever more tangible to those who remain on the outside, looking in.
63
Page | 39
THE CONCEPT OF UDHR
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has inspired a number of other human rights
laws and treaties throughout the world. By 1948, the United Nations new Human Rights
Commission had captured the worlds attention. Under the dynamic chairmanship of Eleanor
RooseveltPresident Franklin Roosevelts widow, a human rights champion in her own right
and the United States delegate to the UNthe Commission set out to draft the document that
became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Roosevelt, credited with its
inspiration, referred to the Declaration as the international Magna Carta for all
mankind.64 It was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948.The Member States
of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles of human rights
that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single document. In
consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the constitutional laws
of democratic nations.
The Declaration today
The Declarations influence lives on. It is relevant not just to societies experiencing conflict
and repression, but also to peaceful democracies with the ongoing need to address injustice
and insults to human dignity. Nearly every state in the world has accepted the Declaration. It
provides a universal set of minimum standards for how people should be treated. The
Declaration has been adapted to apply to different parts of the world and has a direct link to
our own human rights legislation. In Europe, the Declaration forms the basis of the European
Convention on Human Rights. This Convention in turn was incorporated in UK law by the
Human Rights Act 1998.65
Worldwide influence
The Declaration has inspired more than 80 international conventions and treaties, as well as
numerous regional conventions, and domestic laws. It has also been the catalyst for an
expanding system of human rights protection for groups such as disabled people, indigenous
peoples and women. It has been translated into more than 360 languages.
64
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001144/114488E.pdf accessed at 8p.m. on 10/09/2017
65
Human rights and social justice, Joseph Wronka, sage publications, inc. , p. 48
Page | 40
The Universal Declaration, along with two important covenants (promises by government to
citizens), makes up what is known as the International Bill of Human Rights. These
covenants are the:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 1966), and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 1966).
SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

RIGHTS
1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and
ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.
2. Dont Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.
3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.
5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.
6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you!
7. Were All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all
fairly.
8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when
we are not treated fairly.
9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and
keep us there, or to send us away from our country.
10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us
should not let anyone tell them what to do.
11. Were Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing
something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it
is not true.
12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right
to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason.
13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to
travel as we wish.
14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in
our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.
15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.
Page | 41
16. Marriage and Family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they
want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are
separated.
17. The Right to Your Own Things. Everyone has the right to own things or share them.
Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason.
18. Freedom of Thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to
have a religion, or to change it if we want.
19. Freedom of Expression. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what
we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.
20. The Right to Public Assembly. We all have the right to meet our friends and to work
together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we dont want to.
21. The Right to Democracy. We all have the right to take part in the government of our
country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders.
22. Social Security. We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and
childcare, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.
23. Workers Rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work,
and to join a trade union.
24. The Right to Play. We all have the right to rest from work and to relax.
25. Food and Shelter for All. We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children,
people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for.
26. The Right to Education. Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should
learn about the United Nations and how to get on with others. Our parents can choose what
we learn.
27. Copyright. Copyright is a special law that protects ones own artistic creations and
writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own
way of life and to enjoy the good things that art, science and learning bring.
28. A Fair and Free World. There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and
freedoms in our own country and all over the world.
29. Responsibility. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and
freedoms.
30. No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights.
Page | 42
THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General
Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World
War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international
community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen
again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to
guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and
which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at
the first session of the General Assembly in 1946.
The Assembly reviewed this draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and
Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council "for reference to the
Commission on Human Rights for consideration in its preparation of an international bill
of rights." The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its members to
formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights".
Later the work was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of
the Commission from eight States, selected with due regard for geographical distribution.
The Commission on Human Rights was made up of 18 members from various political,
cultural and religious backgrounds. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the UDHR drafting committee. 66
With her were: Ren Cassin of France, who composed the first draft of the
Declaration, the Committee Rapporteur Charles Malik of Lebanon, Vice-Chairman
Peng Chung Chang of China, and John Humphrey of Canada, Director of the UNs
Human Rights Division, who prepared the Declarations blueprint. But Mrs. Roosevelt
was recognized as the driving force for the Declarations adoption.
The Commission met for the first time in 1947.
In her memoirs, Eleanor Roosevelt recalled:
Dr. Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there
is more than one kind of ultimate reality. The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than
simply Western ideas and Dr. Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach. His
remark, though addressed to Dr. Humphrey, was really directed at Dr. Malik, from whom it
66
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/the-united-nations.html accessed at 9 p.m.
on 11/09/2017
Page | 43
drew a prompt retort as he expounded at some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.
Dr. Humphrey joined enthusiastically in the discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr.
Chang suggested that the Secretariat might well spend a few months studying the
fundamentals of Confucianism!67
The final draft by Cassin was handed to the Commission on Human Rights, which
was being held in Geneva. The draft declaration sent out to all UN member States for
comments became known as the Geneva draft.
The first draft of the Declaration was proposed in September 1948 with over 50
Member States participating in the final drafting. By its resolution 217 A (III) of 10
December 1948, the General Assembly, meeting in Paris, adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights with eight nations abstaining from the vote but
none dissenting.
The entire text of the UDHR was composed in less than two years. At a time when the
world was divided into Eastern and Western blocks, finding a common ground on
what should make the essence of the document proved to be a colossal task.
67
id
Page | 44
BASIS OF UDHR
Fifty years after its adoption, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remains a landmark
document, embodying principles which reflect humanitys most profound and enduring
aspirations.
In the first three lines of its Preamble, this exceptional text captures the essence of all that
follows: recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world. There are eight paragraphs in the Preamble.
First it says that inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Different members but one human family or common humanity is the concept. The
freedom, justice and peace are enunciated in the UDHR as higher values or
objectives of the human family and dignity and rights are considered the means or
foundations of those objectives. The rights are characterized in two adjectives: equal
and inalienable.68
The second paragraph justifies the need for human rights protection. It indirectly
refers to the background to the Declaration which outraged the conscience of
mankind and rightly claims that disregard and contempt for human rights have
resulted in barbarous acts. It refers to four freedoms; of speech and belief on the
one hand, and freedom from fear and want on the other hand, as the highest
aspirations of the common people.
The full text of the third paragraph reads as follows:
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to
rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law. 69 Although qualified as a last resort and against tyranny and oppression, this
paragraph obviously endorses a sort of right to rebellion. This is something taken directly
from the 18th century French Declaration on the Rights of Man.
The fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh paragraphs highlight various reasons why the
United Nations in particular needs to proclaim this Declaration:
To promote the development of friendly relations between nations
68
Supra 1, p. 38
69
Ibid, p. 40
Page | 45
To further the affirmation in the Charter the faith in fundamental human rights,
To fulfil the pledge the member states have given to respect and observe human
rights and fundamental freedoms in cooperation with the United Nations.
As a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance.
In the final paragraph it declares that Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.70
Foundation Principles
Articles 1 and 2 can be considered the foundation principles of the Declaration and
perhaps of all human rights with some qualification.
Article 1 says that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in
a spirit of brotherhood. One may argue that the formulation is too abstract and a
better purpose would have served if it was formulated to say all human beings should
be free and equal in dignity and rights. The unfortunate fact is that many of us are not
free or equal by birth or thereafter. Equally questionable is whether the humans are
always endowed with reason while it is correct to say that they should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood. But for a spirit of brotherhood, not only
rights but duties are also of paramount importance.71
From a conceptual point of view, Article 2 is more acceptable than Article 1. It is
pronounced against the abhorrent discrimination in society.
Article 2 says 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.72
70
International law and human rights, Dr. H.O. aggarwal, ed. 20 th , p. 790
71
Id
72
Supra 8, p. 793
Page | 46
SCOPE OF UDHR
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that everyone
has the right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality
nor denied the right to change his nationality. Enshrining citizenship and the right to be free
from arbitrary deprivation of citizenship as human rights in and of themselves, article 15 of
the UDHR establishes the bedrock legal relationship between individuals and states. While
all states are bound to respect the human rights of all individuals without distinction, an
individual's legal bond to a particular state through citizenship remains in practice an
essential prerequisite to the enjoyment and protection of the full range of human rights. This
article examines the scope and content of article 15 of the UDHR. The proliferation of human
rights norms in international and regional instruments has developed substantive limitations
on state sovereignty over citizenship regulation that gives meaning to that provision. In
particular, the universal anti-discrimination norm and the principle that statelessness should
be avoided have emerged to constrain state discretion on citizenship. But some important
gaps in the international legal framework on nationality persist. For example, few normative
principles prescribe conditions for granting citizenship and there is a lack of consensus on
what constitutes statelessness arising from ineffective citizenship. While human rights
developments over the past 60 years have made great strides in giving content and meaning
to article 15 of the UDHR, further normative and practical developments are necessary to
realize the effective promise of that provision.73
73
Mirna Adjami Julia Harrington,Refugee Survey Quarterly, Volume 27, Issue 3, 1 January 2008, Pages 93
109,https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdn047
Page | 47
SALIENT FEATURES OF UDHR
The key features of universal declaration of human rights are as following:-

(1) It is a pronouncement of the inalienable and inviolable rights available to the all
members of human family.
(2) The outstanding feature of the universal declaration of human right is that it does not
create a binding obligation on the part of the state nor it provide for its enforcement,
yet it constitutes a "common standard of achievement of all peoples and all
nations". Even though it is not a legally binding document, UDHR was the first step
in creation of the International Bill of Rights.
(3) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) gives us a framework for
developing international human rights law. The human rights conventions that have
come into existence since 1948 are very much concrete interpretations of the
UDHR.74
(4) The recognition and declaration of human rights is the foundation of freedom, justice
and peace in the world.
(5) It is the last resort and a rebellion against tyranny and oppression.
(6) It promotes friendly relation between nations of the world.
(7) It promotes social progress and better standard of life in larger freedom.
(8) It brought about the promotion of universal respect and observance of human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
(9) It acts like a guideline for human king in determining what is right and what is
wrong.
74
Textbook on international human rights, K.M. smith, ed. 5 th, p.53,oxford university press
Page | 48
THE SEVEN CORE FREEDOMS OF UDHR
They are those rights that concerns individuals directly and influence their peaceful existence
as human beings either within or outside their country. The freedoms include the following:
1) Freedom from Discrimination: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion etc.
2) Freedom from Fear: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by
an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations and or
any criminal charge against him.
3) Freedom of Want: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association
with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Men and women of full age,
without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to form
family.
4) Freedom of Religion and Conscience: Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience
and religion, this right include freedom to change his religion or beliefs either alone or in
community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance.
5) Freedom of Assembly: Everyone has the freedom to take part in any gathering that one
wishes.
6) Freedom of Association: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Everyone has the right to
work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and for
protection against unemployment.
7) Freedom of Thought, Belief, Opinion and Expression: Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression, this includes freedom to hold opinion without
interference and to seek, receive and impact information and ideas through any media and
regardless of international boundaries.75
75
Supra 14, p. 55
Page | 49
THE IMPACT AND THE EVOLVING IMPORTANCE OF THE
DECLARATION
Probably no other document of any kind, certainly no other statement of human rights, has
ever been debated so extensively and intensively by such a diverse group of people
representing such varied cultures and backgrounds.
Although few asserted at the time of its adoption by the General Assembly that the
Declaration was legally binding in any comprehensive sense, in the intervening period it has
come to be widely regarded as legally binding at least in part on all States. 76
Three main instrumentalities contributed to this development:
First, many States have incorporated the Universal Declaration by reference into their
own constitutional and statutory law and judicial interpretations.
Second, regional intergovernmental organizations, both specifically human rights
organizations and more general ones, have incorporated the Universal Declaration by
reference into their charters or endorsed it in resolutions of one sort or another.
Finally, the United Nations itself, and many of its Specialized Agencies, have
repeatedly invoked the Declaration in resolutions and declarations.
76
Supra 1, p. 40
Page | 50
APPLICATION OF UDHR
It is, of course, unanimously agreed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not
viewed as imposing legal obligations on states at the time of its adoption by the General
Assembly in 1948.
In the oft-cited words of Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights during the drafting of the Declaration and a U.S. representative to the General
Assembly when the Declaration was adopted:
In giving our approval to the declaration today, it is of primary importance that we keep
clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It is not a treaty; it is not an international
agreement. It is not and does not purport to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is a
declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with the approval
of the General Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common standard
of achievement for all peoples of all nations.' 77
The status of the Declaration when it was adopted in 1948 is described by the United Nations
as that of "a manifesto with primarily moral authority, the first of "four stages in the
generation of the document the General Assembly has called the International Bill of Human
Rights."The subsequent three documents-the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, its Optional Protocol, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights-were consciously adopted as legally binding treaties open for ratification or
accession by states in contrast to the more political or hortatory Declaration.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is now widely acclaimed at the Magna Carta of
humankind, to be complied with all actors in the world arena. What began as a mere common
law has now hailed both as an authoritative interpretation of human rights provision of the
United Nations Charter and as established Customary Law, having the attributes of Jus
Cogens and constituting the heart of the global bill of rights.78
If the UDHR is regarded as to have acquired the status of customary rules it would imply that
the subject covered by it, atleast in principle, shall be governed by international law and is
thus outside the domestic jurisdiction of states.
77
Rzeczpospolita No. 185, Aug. 10, 1990, at 2, quoted in Ministry of Education Statement, POLISH NEWS
BULLETIN, Aug. 10, 1990.
78
The domestic application of international human rights norms,in developing human rights jurisprudence
(1988), p. 97
Page | 51
The UDHR and Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution drew on the principles enshrined in UDHR, not merely because of
their philosophical value but because the founders of the country realized that the social-
political-economic exploitation of the masses of India in the hands of centuries of foreign rule
cannot but otherwise be rectified than by Constitutional guarantees. In incorporating them
into the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they also made certain fundamental rights like
Right to Life, absolutely non-derogable than through due process of law.79 Later, in
Keshavananda Bharathi, Menaka Gandhi, and a couple of more cases referred earlier, the
Supreme Court of India expanded the Right to Life into Right to Life with dignity. The
import of such an interpretation is truly unique in the annals of Constitutional Law anywhere
in the world. A comparative list of few of the freedoms listed in the UDHR and Articles of
Indian Constitution is provided below:
Name of the rights Universal Declaration of Indian Constitution

Human Rights
Equality before law Article 7 Article 14
Prohibition of discrimination Article 7 Article 15(1)
Equality of opportunity Article 21(2) Article 16(2)
Freedom of speech and Article 19 Article 19(1)(a)
expression
Protection to life and Article 9 Article 21
personal liberty
Protection of slavery and Article 4 Article 23
forced labour
Freedom of conscience and Article 18 Article25(1)
religion
Also in India the Human Right Act 1993 is the Act which provides for the constitution of
'National Human Rights Commission, the State Human Rights Commission in States and
Human Rights Courts' for better protection of Human Rights and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. This Act is called the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993. It extends to the whole of India. and is deemed to have come into force on the 28th day
79
Supra 8, p. 796
Page | 52
of September, 1993 where by "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.80
80
http://www.clcbd.org/journal/13.html accessed at 9 p.m. on 12/09/2017
Page | 53
CRITICISM OF UDHR
The primary criticism of UDHR has always been and continues to be the limited focus to
Westernized countries and non inclusion of the problems of the countries which later became
United Nation members. The U.N. now posses three times the strength it did at the time the
declaration was made. It is fast becoming an archaic document due to its static nature.
Popular critical aspects are:
1. Non Binding Nature: The common problem with any international treaty is its non
binding nature. However in the case of UDHR, this is of paramount importance as
despite the acceptance of UDHR globally, members continue to flout it openly as
there is no sanction or penalty due to the non binding nature of the declaration.
2. Western Bias81: Predominantly Muslim countries, such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iran,
and Saudi Arabia, have criticized the UNDR for its perceived failure to take into
account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. The rights of
women, freedom of speech to criticize Islam, and the right of Muslims to change their
religion are particular sticking points for Islamic states. For example, in 1981, the
Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the
UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition," which could
not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. Further many
African and Asian countries and their human rights issues were neglected due to the
under representation at the time of formation. They too feel that the declaration is not
suited to be universal till it encompasses all such human rights.
3. Does not fit Soviet/Communist Governance: First via lenin and now increasingly
by China, the UDHR is being criticized for imposing human rights. China has
maintained that the rights are its internal matter and cannot be forced upon it through
the UDHR. Lenin too had the same objection that the UDHR is based around a
democratic capitalistic society and cannot apply to the soviet republic.
4. Article 16 Not All Encompassing: Article 16 dealing with the right of men and
women to marry as well as have a family does not take into account polygamy,
transgenders or extended family or tribal systems. Its wording is too restrictive for it
to apply universally.
81
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Criticism
Page | 54
5. Generalisation of Article 11 and 12: Although Article 11 deals with the
presumption of innocence all penal offences. In many nations such as India, there are
provisions to exclude presumption of innocence for certain offences. Further article
12 deals with the right to privacy and uses the words that there shall be no
arbitraryintereference. The word arbitrary is ambiguous and does not specify or
restrict any interference.
6. Article 14 Provides Shelter for Political Crimes: Article 14 makes seeking asylum
a universal and inalienable right as long as it is to escape persecution for political
crime. This however contradicts the justice that the UDHR was intended to dispense
as political persecution may not always be victimization of an individual but could
genuinely mean justice delivered due to crimes against the human population under
the guise of politics.
7. Static: The UDHR is a document detailing the fundamental inalienable
incontrevertable rights of Humans, but as new rights arise and new violations are
found, it should constantly be updated to reflect the current scenario. However this is
not the case.
The General Assembly in the preamble proclaimed the Declaration as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations, towards which individuals and societies should
strive by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and
effective recognition and observance.
The use of the phrase progressive measures indicates that states with fewer means and
resources are able to realise the rights at a slower pace. The only acknowledgment however,
that entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration can be fully realized.
Page | 55
UDHR AND INDIA
Drafting of Indian Constitution and incorporation of its Principles: In an attempt to find
the answer and going to the history of making of the Indian Constitution, it is found that the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights had a large influence,. This Declaration had a great
impact on the philosophy and ideology of the Constitution framers, while the Constitution of
India was in the making at that time. Many similar rights were incorporated in our
Constitution under the headings Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the State
Policy in Chapter III & IV respectively and these rights have a great significance for the
Indian people as they have enabled every citizen of India to live freely and honourably.
The Constitution vis--vis UDHR: The peculiarity of the Constitution of India, as in
comparison to other Constitutions, lies in the fact that is constantly being changed and
expanded. The mechanism for this change is well based, inter alia, upon the stipulation of
Judicial Activism, which is also one of the responsibility of the Judiciary, to interpret the
Constitution in the interest and well being of those people of the Nation (who gave
themselves the Constitution). The forerunner to this cause has been the Supreme Court,
which has often and consistently read the provisions of the Universal Declaration, so as to
include and provide the basic and primary rights to the people of India. The Honble Court,
while interpreting the provisions of the constitution, has not limited the scope of the various
articles to what was laid and understood by the constitutional framers but has discussed in the
light of UDHR. In this process of deciding case after case on the aspect of human rights of
the citizens, the Court has consistently read the scope of Human Rights as in consonance with
the provisions of the Universal declaration, along with the other International Covenants, to
which India is a party.
Fundamental Rights and UDHR: The Fundamental Rights that are guaranteed under the
Constitution have a close similarity with those in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in
form and content in Articles14-32. The Constitution therein directs the State to provide
adequate means of livelihood, equitable distribution of material resources, equal pay for equal
work, a living wage for all workers, just and human conditions of work, unemployment cover
for all people in old age and sickness, and free and compulsory education for children. Indian
Constitution, in tune with international endeavors also provides four basic principles to
govern the criminal justice system.
Article 11(2) UDHR and Article 20(1): The Prevention of Ex-post Facto Operation of
Criminal Law, as a principle, enshrined as the nature of that no person shall be accused and
Page | 56
convicted of an offence for an act, which was not an offence under the law in force on the
date when it was committed, is guaranteed under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, as
a Fundamental Right along with Article 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For another example, the inclusion of Fundamental Duties brought our Constitution in line
with Article 29 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and with provisions in
several modern Constitutions of other countries.82The Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative submits that Right to Information is also part of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to which India is a signatory.83
It was in this light that the fundamental rights incorporated in Part III of the Constitution had
been described by Dr. S. Radhakrihnan as a pledge to our people and a pact with the civilized
world.84It must therefore be held that Part III and IV essentially form a basic element of the
Constitution, without which its identity will completely change and it is on this account that a
number of provisions in part III and part IV are fashioned on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.23
Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provide that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to freedom of
peaceful assembly and association. These rights are reflected in Article 19 of the Constitution
of India.
Article 29(1) of UDHR and Part IV A: The fundamental duties enshrined in the
Constitution of India, contained in Part IV A, are in consonance with Article 29 (1) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says, "everyone has duties to the community
in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible". We must reaffirm
faith in recognition of the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all citizens as the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, which implies obligations and
responsibilities. Human rights, thus, go hand in hand with responsibilities. It is very
necessary that all citizens should be made aware of the potential of Article 51A relating to
fundamental duties as a means to ensure the protection of human rights.85
82
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b1-7.html
83
Where Art. 19 of the Declaration reads as, Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression; This
right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
84
Kulshereshtha, V.D., Landmarks in Indian Legal and Constitutional History(Lucknow: Eastern Book
Company, 7th edition, 1997)
85
http://education.vsnl.com/rlek/news.html> Company, 7th edition, 1997)
Page | 57
INDIAN JUDICIARY AND UDHR
1. Re Aadhar Case: The Most recent example of this is in the Aadhar case wherein the
Apex Court held Right To Privacy to be a fundamental right. This is also enshrined in
Article 12 of the UDHR. The recognition of the right to privacy internationally,
through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, to which India is a signatory, was pointed to. Landmark
American cases recognising the right to privacy as a part of the 4th and 5th
amendment were also referred to. The cases discussed included the recognition of the
right to privacy of one's home and residence, the freedom from arbitrary searches and
seizures, the privacy of personal data, freedom from surveillance and the privacy of
personal choice. The counsels, in fact, pointed to the irony of having a discussion on
the right to privacy in 201786
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India87 : The Indian Supreme Court in this case has held
that Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1948 while debates in the Indian Constitution
were going on. Hence, it must be assumed that the makers of the Indian Constitution,
in framing Part III of the Constitution on the Fundamental Rights were influenced by
the provisions of the Universal Declaration. It is therefore legitimate for the Court to
refer to the comparable provisions of the Universal Declaration in construing the
intent and scope of the relevant text of Part III of the Constitution.
3. Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Asst. Passport Officer, Government of India88 : In this
case, the Supreme Court held that in the light of the Universal Declaration stating
Everyone has the right to leave any country including his own, the Right was
available only to normal citizens i.e. it was not available and not applicable to
criminals avoiding penalties or political agitators etc., likely to create International
tension or to persons who may disgrace our country abroad. The case, which was
concerned with the issue of right to movement, the Honble Supreme Court held that
as under the Universal declaration of human rights, "Everyone has the right to leave
any country including his own" and it being applicable to normal persons did does not
86
http://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-hearing-aadhaar-petitions-arguments-favouring-right-to-
privacy-are-strong-but-outcome-is-uncertain-3840857.html
87
AIR 1978 SC 597)
88
(AIR 1967 SC 1836)
Page | 58
apply to criminals avoiding penalties or political agitators, etc. likely to create
international tensions or persons who may disgrace our country abroad.
4. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab89: In the celebrated case of I.C. Golak Nath v.
State of Punjab, The Honble Supreme Court , while discussing the constitutional
validity of a provision, specifically laid that on a comparison of the Universal
Declaration with Parts III and IV of our Constitution remarkable similarity in the two
documents was to be found. Both were manifestos of man's inviolable and
fundamental freedoms and thereby, were to be construed as being the forerunners for
the enforcements and protection of human right.
5. A.D.M. Jabalpur V Shivakant Shukla90: In the case it was submitted before the
Court by the Counsel from the Respondent that the Court should keep in mind the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in interpreting the Constitution, the basis for
which was Art. 51 of the Constitution, which laid for respect of International Law. It
also governs the conditions of their operation and suspension and nothing, which
conflicts with the provisions of the Constitution, could be enforced under any
disguise.
6. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration91 : The Court laid that even after
discussing the relevant statutory provisions and constitutional requirements, Court
was to remember Article 592 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, all
persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for
the inherent dignity of the human person. J. Krishna Iyer categorically stated that in
interpreting the constitutional and statutory provisions the Court must not forget the
core principle found in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948.The court held that the ambit of personal liberty protected by Article 21 is wide
and comprehensive. It embraces both substantive rights to personal liberty and the
procedure provided for their deprivation and the handcuffing was a violation of right
to live with dignity, unless restricted in the interest and security of the state
93
7. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi : The Court
specifically laid that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and
all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessaries of life such as adequate
89
(AIR 1967 SC 1643) Para 177
90
1976 SCR 172
91
(AIR 1980 SC 1535)
92
Art. 5 --No one shall be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmen
93
(AIR 1981 SC 746)
Page | 59
nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing
oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with
fellow human beings. For the broad interpretation of the right, the Court referred to
the right to protection against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
enunciated in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right
extended to prisoners where as part of the right to live with human dignity, they
would be entitled to have Further in the case, Justice Bahgwati, while deciding on the
aspect of the Right of a detenu held that the Right to protection against torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (in prison), laid under Article 5 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is implicit under Article 21 of eth
Constitution of India, under Right to live.
8. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India94:The Court was precise in laying that Articles 14 and
19 conferred rights, which were elementary for the proper and effective functioning of
a democracy and were universally so regarded, as being evident from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. but it was to be stated broadly that fundamental rights
represent civil and political rights while directive principles embody social and
economic rights, representing the broad spectrum of human rights, as contemplated in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which contained not only rights
protecting individual freedom (Articles 1 to 21) but also social and economic rights
intended to ensure socioeconomic justice to everyone (Articles 22 to 29).
9. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India95: The question being as to
what was the true scope and meaning of the expression "traffic in human being and
begar and other similar forms of forced labour" in Article 23, the Supreme Court
came to a conclusion that when the Constitution-makers enacted Article 23 they had
before them Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but they
deliberately departed from its language and employed words which would make the
reach and content of Article much wider than that of Article 4 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. They banned 'traffic in human beings' which was an
expression of much larger amplitude than 'slave trade' and they also interdicted "begar
and other similar forms of forced labour.
94
(AIR 1982 SC 149)
95
(AIR 1982 SC 1473)
Page | 60
10. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India96: The Court, while deliberating on the issue of
the production or carrying on trade in dangerous chemicals by multinational industries
on the soil of Third World countries held that it called for the strictest enforcement of
constitutional guarantees for enjoying human rights in free India. For this issue, the
Supreme Court drew its attention towards the Charter of Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The Court considered Article 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the Declaration which
held for all human beings being free and equal in dignity and rights, everyone having
the right to life, liberty and security of his person, everyone having the right to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law, all being equal before the law and
being entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law and everyone
having the right to an effective remedy by competent National Tribunal for acts
violating fundamental rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution or by the law.
11. State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khidiram Chakma: 97Supreme Court accepted the
view of two authors namely Blackburn and Taylor, that Art. 14 of the Universal
declaration of Human Rights, which speaks of the right to enjoy asylum, has to be
interpreted in the light of the instrument (i.e. the Universal Declaration itself) as a
whole; and must be taken to mean something, which is much more than a
documentary compilation of International Human Rights Standards, but a human right
code for the effective development of the citizens.
12. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P: Right to shelter, to make the life meaningful, was
also recognized in Art. 25(1) of the Universal declaration, which declares for
everyone the right to standard of living, adequate for the health and the well being of
himself and his family and includes food, clothing, housing, medical care and
necessary food services.98
13. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka99: Supreme Court looked into the Provisions of
the Universal Declaration to interpret the Right to Education as a concomitant to
Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III of the constitution. The words in the
declaration that Education shall be directed to the full development of Human
personality were held to be inclusive under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
which was thus to be guaranteed and enforced by the Judicial activism.
96
(AIR 1990 SC 1480) Para 28
97
(AIR 1994 SC 1461)
98
. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. (1996) 2 SCC 549
99
(AIR 1992 SC 1858)
Page | 61
14. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India: the Honble
Supreme Court of India laid that Art. 1 of the Universal Declaration asserts100 Human
sensitivity and moral responsibility of every state. The Court laid that the
constitutional concern of social justice as an elastic continuous process is to accord
justice to all sections of the society by providing facilities and opportunities to remove
the handicaps and disabilities with which poor etc. are languishing and secure dignity
of person. Thus the human rights, as contemplated in the Universal Declaration
included right to live with dignity.101
15. Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde102: Honble Supreme
Court held that right to economic empowerment to the Scheduled Tribes as enshrined
under Art. 46 of the Constitution, is a fundamental human right under Arts. 1,3,17,22
and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 of the protected tribes
while the Court reiterated the fact that the State is enjoined under Declaration on the
Right to Development, to provide facilities and opportunities consistent with Art. 38 of
the Constitution. Thus when it is said that Samatha49 was the first case on the
incorporation of Right to development is a misnomer. On the aspect of right of
Schedule Tribes in the Universal declaration, Art. 22 50 of the Declaration gains
prominence as it allows the State to make special effort for those, who have been
denied the parlance of equality, for generations and have continuously been at a lower
hand, whenever the distribution of national resources, for the economic and social
growth, has been an issue for consideration before the state. This aspect has to
highlighted, thus, that for the promotion of an egalitarian society, the Supreme Court
allowed and for this purpose even read the Universal Declaration for the special
protection of chosen groups/ classes while the declaration, in strict terms nowhere
mentions of special protected groups.
16. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal103: Supreme Court revisited one of the aspects of
the Universal Declaration and laid that the Universal declaration of Human Rights,
1948, which marked the emergence of a world wide trend of protection and guarantee
of certain basic Human Rights, stipulates in Art. 5 that No one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and therefore,
100
Art. 1-- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
101
(AIR 1994 SC 1461)
102
1995 Supp (2) SCC 549
103
(1997) 1 SCC 416
Page | 62
showing its concern while considering this Writ Petition on an issue of Custodial
Death the Court considered that despite the pious declaration the crime continues
unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and takes steps for its
eradication.
17. Extra Judl. Exec. Victim Families Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.104
: In this judgment this Court highlighted the reason for the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993 as follows:-29. Keeping this in mind, as well as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Parliament enacted the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993 is of considerable significance and accepts the importance of issues relating
to human rights with a view, inter alia, to bring accountability and transparency in
human rights jurisprudence.
In conclusion the Indian Judicary through its activism is enforcing the UDHR wherever
possible and wherever the makers of the constitution have missed it. Yet there is still a lot
that remains to be achieved in the field of Human Rights especially at grass root levels. Every
nation needs to contribute to the prevention of incidents such as ethnic hatred,acts of
genocide, xenophobic attitudes, discrimination in the name of race , religion, caste, creed and
such other manifestations of Human Rights Violation. States as well as individuals must take
responsibility for enforcement of principles of UDHR.105
104
W.P.(Crl.) No.129 of 2012 decided on July 14, 2017
105
Contribution Of Indian Judiciary To Social Justice Principles Underlying the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, by Gopal subramanium, Additional Solicitor General of India. Journal of the Indian Law
Institute Vol 50:4
Page | 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/
http://libertyandhumanity.com/themes/international-human-rights-law/the-universal-
declarations-bias-towards-western-democracies/
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12991698
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b1-7.html
http://education.vsnl.com/rlek/news.html
http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14864.html
http://www.academia.edu/3627627/The_Evolution_Of_International_Human_Rights_
Law
http://www.clcbd.org/journal/13.html
https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/hdn047
http://www.firstpost.com/india/supreme-court-hearing-aadhaar-petitions-arguments-
favouring-right-to-privacy-are-strong-but-outcome-is-uncertain-3840857.html
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2016/09/14/are-human-rights-really-universal-
inalienable-and-indivisible/
http://www.rightforeducation.org/all-topics/law-rights/what-are-human-rights/
BOOKS
Paul Gordon Lauren.The evolution of International Human rights 3rd edition
Cassese, Antonio. 2005. International Law. 2nd Ed. USA: Oxford University Press.
Textbook on international human rights, K.M. smith, ed. 5th, p.53,oxford university
press
Justice Palok Basu, Law relating to Protection of Human Rights under Indian
Constitution and allied laws, 2nd Ed, 2007, Modern Law Publications
Joseph Wronka, Human rights and social justice, 2008, Sage publications
Contribution Of Indian Judiciary To Social Justice Principles Underlying the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by Gopal subramanium, Additional Solicitor
General of India. Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol 50:4
Kulshereshtha, V.D., Landmarks in Indian Legal and Constitutional History, 350,
(Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 7th edition, 1997)
Page | 64
Genovese, Michael. 2004. Encyclopaedia of the American Presidency. USA:
InfoBase Publishing.
Mary A. Glendon, Knowing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Prof. S.R. Bhansali, Law relating to human rights in international and national laws
and constitutions, 2013, Universal Law Publishing
Grech, Omar. 2012. 80:20 Development in an Unequal World. 6th edition. Colm
Regan, (Ed). Ireland: 80:20 Educating and Acting for a better World.
The Changing Fortunes of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Genesis and
Symbolic Dimensions of the Turn to Rights in International Law The European
Journal of International Law Vol. 19 no. 5
Misra, Ranganath, J. in, Jaiswal, Paramjit, S. & Jaiswal, Nishtha, Human Rights and
the Law, v, (New Delhi: APH Publishing Co., 1996)
Ishay, Michelin. 2008. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the
Globalization Era. London: University of California.
Locke, J. 1986. Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government. New York:
Prometheus books.
Page | 65

Ihr

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ihr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project on

International Human Rights

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MRS. JASNEET WALIA GROUP 7

It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and

6. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union (AIR 1981 SC

Interdependent and indivisible:

Equal and non-discriminatory:

Both Rights and Obligations:

Cultural CLASSIFICATION Political

HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENT AS HUMAN CREATIONS

CIVIL RIGHTS AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

CIVIL RIGHTS LISTED

The right to a fair trial

The right to freedom of assembly and association

The Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

The right to freedom of expression

The right to an effective remedy

The right to privacy

The right to liberty and security

The right to asylum

The right to freedom from discrimination

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a

ECONOMIC,SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

marriage and family;

Ethnic Groups Cultural preservation

DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF

Following centuries of ongoing revision, repetition and reconceptualisation, international

By definition, inalienability involves the inability of something to be taken from or given

According to the United Nations, human rights:

SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN

The key features of universal declaration of human rights are as following:-

(6) It promotes friendly relation between nations of the world.

Name of the rights Universal Declaration of Indian Constitution

You might also like