Individual rights

Individual rights are rights that are exercised by single physical person. In due course of
time many declarations relating with human rights were made at international level.
Among these the declarations that recognize the individual human rights at the
international level, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) is the
most known. At international level human rights are in the first place for the protection of
the individual. Its major objective is to protect the individual human being against abuse
of power by the authority or by other individuals and to protect against state power. The
fact that from the first place Human rights is for the protection of individual can be
inferred from the reading of UDHR preamble: where as the 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. Then what follows is a list of
human rights, phrased in terms of individual rights usually the sentence reads every one
has the right to or its entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration’
Art.2), (‘life, liberty and security of person; Art 3) or (‘no one shall be held in slavery or
servitude; Art 4) or (be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment; Art 5).1 Even right which are to be exercised in group are provide as
individual right. For instance article 20 of the Universal Declaration can be read as
everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. For the exercise
of that right at least two persons are needed, as individual cannot assemble or associate
on his own. But the right is formulated as pertaining to individual. Moreover the two
human rights covenants of 1966(ICCPR and ICESCR) recognize individual right
especially the former that are rights claimed by single physical person. One of the typical
example of individual right is the right to life and liberty of person.

The Right to Life and Liberty of Person

The right to life, which is one of individual right, considered as the cornerstone for all
other rights. Where the right to life is not respected all other rights will have no meaning
since it is only if someone is alive that she/he can enjoy the freedom of expression,

1
religion or others. Equally important are the right to liberty and the security of person.
These rights are interrelated and inseparable as are equally important. These rights are
recognized under the UDHR, ICCPR and FDRE constitution.

The killing of a human person has been strongly condemned by most religious and
philosophies for centuries. The human rights law regime has in turn sought to uphold this
most sacred of rights in a number of treaties. The life of an individual is clearly protected
form being arbitrarily taken by state. The legal bias for the right to life, both at
international and national level is provided under Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article of
15 of the FDRE constitution. Article 15 of the FDRE constitution read as follow:

Every person has the right to life. No person may be deprived of his life except as a
punishment for a serious criminal offence determined by law.

Any human right provision at least impose the obligation to respect’ and ‘protect’ on the
government and accordingly when we speak of the human right to life, we are first of all
speaking about the state’s obligation to respect the right to life. This obligation of the
state can be inferred form the third sentence of article 6(1) of ICCPR and the second
sentence of Article 15 of the FDRE constitution. Deprivation of one’s life arbitrary is a
probation that has attained universal recognition world wide. This obligation to respect
will be violated not only through a direct killing by state, but also through other acts such
as through acts of enforced disappearance. In addition to disappearance, failure to
investigate and prosecute those who are guilty of arbitrary killings constitutes a violation
of this obligation of the state.

The state obligation to protect the right to life means to take positive measures that are
concrete and targeted towards safeguarding individuals’ right to life. This obligation is
necessary for the full enjoyment of individual’s right to life.

The other individual human right is the right to liberty which is generally considered as a
concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the

2
ability to act according to his/her own free will. This right is incorporated under Article 9
and 17 of ICCPR and FDRE constitution respectively.

Group Rights

Group rights are rights that all members of a group have in certain countries, solely by
virtue of being in that group. It is rights that are to be exercised by collectivity. When the
group right is considered, that group rights are not entities created to assert the rights of a
group against its own members, rather as a voluntary formed group who agree to pull
their individuals rights for specific purpose. The free and informed concept of the
members of the group is critical along with the effective exercise of the group rights
through suitable arrangement such as legitimate representation.2 The exercise of group
rights is considered in light of principle that all rights are subject to limitation or modified
duties.3 This reasoning behind recognition of group rights practical meaning to human
rights that are mean to be protected

In any case individuals do not seek to attain their goals merely by individual’s action.
They pursue them collectively through group action, and an analysis of group is
necessary part of sociology, cross-cutting that which is made in terms of institutions.

In recent decades, almost every international organization regional or global has adopted
human right norms and responded to human right violations by member states,
consideration of human right issue, particularly group right has reach in to all organs and
bodies of UN’s including the security council which has identified serious human rights

Today, human rights form an important part of law, at both national and international
level. The UN has played and continues to play critical role. The norms of human rights
through hard work and negotiation at international meetings have been agreed under
international documents and treats.

3
Presently, a number of institutions with UN system like United Nation General Assembly
are to initiate studies and make recommendation for the purpose of assisting in the
realization of group rights and fundamental freedoms for all with out distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion. So, generally, like the individual human rights the group
rights has been recognized in the contemporary international world. The right to self
determination is one of clear example of group rights.

The right to self-determination

The right to self determination represents the root of modern international human rights
protection especially in protecting minority groups. In the first instance, the principle of
self-determination was meant to counter the arbitrary shuffling of populations form one
political entity to the next, as had been common practice throughout world history.4

In Article 1 of the UN charter in paragraph 2, mention one of the purposes of the United
Nations to develop friendly relation among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to
strength universe peace. Moreover both ICCPR and ICESCR recognize the right to self
determination under article 1 in common which can be read as follow “All peoples have
the right to self determination. By virtue of that right they free determine their political
status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The inclusion
of self determination in this covenants have great political significance when many
former colonies had achieved or were achieving political independence.

We can classify self determination into External and Internal self determination. External
self-determination has been realized by granting political independence, joining another
state or obtaining some other kind of political status, for example association with one or
more existing states while Internal self-determination refers to the right of peoples to
choose their own form of state and government.5 The right to internal self-determination
includes the right to a representative government and various forms of self government or
autonomy. It refers to an element of democratic decision making, which is exercised

4
jointly with other political human rights as laid done in Article 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the
ICCPR. It contains seeds of aright of revolution against dictatorships that systematically
and grossly violate human rights.6

The right to self determination has been enshrined in the FDRE constitution under Article
39(1). This particular provision guarantees the right of self determination of the nations,
nationalities and people of Ethiopia in the broad concept and beyond guarantying this
right, the provision makes the right none_ derogate and extended to secession. This
indicates the guaranty given for the group rights because under our constitution, the terms
‘nation, nationality and people’ is defined as ‘a group of people who have share a large
measure of a common culture or similar customs mutual intelligibility of language, belief
in a common or related identified, a common psychological make up, and who inhabit an
identifiable predominantly contiguous territory.7 Thus, the definition clearly indicated
that the right of self-determination is conferred on these group of people.

Approaches towards Individual and Group Rights

With regard to the relationship between collective rights and individual rights, there are
different approaches forward by different scholars and followed under different countries
legal system. These approach answer which should prevail in case of conflict when
individual and group rights came in to conflict. We can classify these approaches in to
three. The first approach argues for priority of individual rights. The second approach on
the other hand argues for the priority of group rights. While the third approach argue for
the protection of individual and group rights without putting any priority to these
categories of rights. The above stated approach fabricated due to the fact that the
international instruments as well as FDRE constitution offer no guidance on what is to be
done when the group and individual rights came in to conflict.

Individual First
The first approach argued that group rights should always serve to reinforce the exercise
of individual’s right. Then group rights are then subjected to individual human rights.

5
This preference is based on the notion that what has been achieved in the filed of human
rights should at least be preserved.8 Whether a collective demand should be accepted as a
right depends on the question whether it adds something to guarantees offered by already
existing human rights to be a dignified human existence and the quality of a society as a
whole.9 According to their argument priority should be given for the protection of
individual rights and then after the realization of this individual rights, the protection
extends to the protection of group rights. Scholars argue for the protections of individual
rights are most from western which focus on the protection of individual rights and
believe that group rights should not be used by undemocratic states to oppress
individuals.

When we consider the case of our country, there are some political parties who claim for
the protection of individuals right should precede the protection of group rights. For
instance the proposal they had prepared during the 1997 as well as 2002 lection suggested
that priority should be given for the protection of individual human beings10 and they
argue that the question of group right come next after the realization of individual rights.
And they said the right of individual human being is respected not only due to his being
membership of a nations and nationalities but because of their peculiar humanity.11

Some Ethiopian scholars argue the claim that individual rights override collective rights
is of a great practical significance in Ethiopia. They argue that political empowerment of
cultural communities can threaten significant groups like women and children who
receive unequal treatment in many ethnic and religious communities. Unless the
constitution recognizes and is perceived to recognize, that individual rights prevail over
the collective rights of cultural communities the fate of most citizens would be vulnerable
to the prejudices and customs of local authorities.12 They say the importance of the
priority of rights is not confined to underprivileged groups. Freedoms of movement,
occupation and association would not be meaningful unless they are guaranteed in self
governing communities, otherwise, they would be merely privileges of residents of
federal cities and employees of cultural government.13 Citizenship cannot vary in
accordance with ethnic identity.14 Individual rights defined a guaranteed status of equal

6
citizenship. They are an impartial yardstick for legitimate claims that each can make of
every one across cultural diverse and politically autonomous communities.15 To put
individual rights first in a democracy is compelling. All who accept the charter must
agree that the exercise of the right to self determination that are incompatible with the
equal protection of the fundamental rights of citizens are illicit.16

Group Right First

On the other hand there are scholars who advocate that group rights should prevail over
individual right. They argue the satisfaction of group right is a necessary condition
precedent or a prerequisite for the materialization of civil and optical rights of individuals
constituting the collective in question.17 There is a right to self determination because
there are fundamental interests of citizens that can be secured only by communities, not
individuals. Cultural traditions such as form of kinship, style of art, shared beliefs and
customs can not be created, conserved or cultivate by individuals. Language and religion,
understood in the broadest terms as culture’s perspective on the world and the meaning of
life, belong to a community. The collective right of cultural communities to self-
determination therefore answers to the fact that individuals shape their lives in specific
place through particular cultures with which they identify themselves. They argue that the
group rights should be respected because culture should be taken as a priority factor than
individual rights. Since protection to individual right is mainly the focuses of the western
and not the tradition of the non-west who favor collective rights then they say we should
first promote our tradition which focuses on collectivity than individualist. They try to
connect their argument with Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativist argues that culture
should be taken account while we talk about human rights. Culture is the source of the
individual and communal world view which provide the community with values and
interest to be pursed in life, as well as the legitimate means for pursuing them. 18 So
individual rights recognized under international instrument should come in to force as
long as they do not contradict the culture of a given community or group. In case there is
contradiction between group right and individual’s right, group rights should be given
priority. Individuals should be socialized in to a group such that “we of me” or group

7
welfare, is part of the self. That is the interest of the individual should be subject to the
interest of the group or the collective.

Absence of Priority between Individual and Group Right

The third approach argues for the protection of individual and group rights without
putting any priority to this category of rights. They say we have to understand the nature
and purpose of human right. Human right by its nature is indivisible and universal and its
purpose is to protect and promote the well being of every human person. The full respect
of individual’s right by itself may not necessary entail the actual respect of that particular
individual’s person’s right in its fullest extent. Some of the rights enumerated and
protected by international law, although possible to enforce individually, normally
exercised by groups. The reason that the group has strong claim is not for the mere
protection of group as an entity, but pre-supposing the existence of individuals with a
certain groups.

They say in principle individual rights and group rights are not contradictory. There is a
strong relationship between individual and group rights. They are complementary to each
other.

In Ethiopia the ruling party argues that the group as well individual rights should be seen
equally.18 In current practical situation of Ethiopia individual and group rights are not
separated/independently stand. The reason for the need of full respect of nations and
nationalities is there is no way to respect individual rights than doing this. 19 Members of
disparaged group rightly claim that their dignity as individuals cannot be respected unless
the worth of the cultural community to which they belong is affirmed.

Moreover, owning to discriminatory practice, many believe that they have been harmed
disproportional by governmental negligence of the freedom and welfare of citizens. The
claim to self rue therefore arises from a desire for freedom and fair treatment by citizens
who belong to historically disparaged and disadvantage cultural communities. It is also

8
true that in a situation where individuals are prohibited to feely express their idea and
could not form association in a way they want, the right of nations and nationalities could
not be respected. Because it threatens the right of individual who reside in national and
nationalities so does the right of nations and nationalities will be override. The two are
strongly connected and the respect of one is base for the respect of other.
They say our constitution does not allow in the pretext of individual rights to override the
right of nations and nationalities it also true it does not allow the suppression of
individual rights in the pretext of nations and nationalities.20

The thought that group rights are used to suppress individual right has no any
constitutional base. Concerning this issue Article 25 of FDRE constitution state all
persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. In this respect , the law shall guarantee to all persons equal
effective protection without discrimination on the grounds of race, nation, nationality or
other social origin, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property,
birth or other status.21 So our constitution provide prohibition on the interest to override
individual right under the pretext of group rights.22 There could be contradiction in the
implementation of group and individual rights.23 So when we face such kind of
antagonism it is not good to make premature judgment that the one prevail over the other
and it has to be expected. Such kind of decision erodes finally both rights. The solution is
rather, when we face such kind of problem, to reconcile these rights in contradiction in a
manner protecting the nature of these rights. Since this rights are interdependent and
complementary to one another. These rights could not stand separately or independently.
In my opinion the third approach is plausible. There should not be priority given either
individual or group right. In nature individual and group right are not contradictory rather
they are interdependent and complementary. The fact that individual rights are respected,
benefit the group. This is due to the fact that the beneficiaries of the individual right are
individuals who resides in the group in turn this will benefit the group which is aggregate
of the individual. At the same time the fact that group rights are respected will make
individuals in a better place. The intention of recognition of group right is that in any case
individuals do not attain their goals by individual action if they do not pursue them

9
collectively through group action. The reason that group has strong claim, is not for the
mere protection of group as an entity, but presupposing the existence of individuals with
in certain groups. No problem of any moment arises if the group in question is conceived
simply as an aggregation of individuals. Mostly group rights are recognized due to the
fact that members of disparaged groups rightly claim that their dignity as individuals can
not be respected unless the worth of the cultural community to which they belong is
affirmed. Collectives are entitled to human rights due to the fact that rights are invoiced
that can not be reduced to individual rights. The intention of recognizing a group right is
not with the belief to limit the interest/right of individuals rather it is to place them in a
better position.

So according to my opinion individual and group rights are not things standing
independent of each other. For instance the argument forwarded by different scholars
arguing, the full respect of individual right leads to the full respect of group right is
inadequate. This reasoning can be proved by taking the aspects of linguistic rights. The
right to linguistic freedom is an individual right which is meant to protect the free use of
language in private life. The full respect to this individual linguistic right does not help
the right to linguistic equality. Which is meant to guarantee the use of particular language
in public life, presupposes state action. Meaning, the right to linguistic equality, being
positive liberties it call for commission, by state. In such case, if the linguistic equality of
a certain nation is respected, an individual in that nation freely enjoy the freedom of
language. Thus our constitution has recognized both individual and group rights in order
to bring the practical implementation of these rights; each and every person with in the
country should respect each other and develop the culture of democracy. Especial in the
language case individual has freedom of language in his private life, including instituting
a case at a court, also have a right to get interpreter if he or she can not speak the
language at the expense of the state. On the other hand, an individual should know the
official language of a certain nation in order to engage in work or to be employed and
give service in a particular action.

1
0
On the contrary the argument which says since self-determination is accorded to groups
as a group rights, protection of group right is a precondition for protection of individual
right does not lead to the respect of individual rights in the fullest extent even though the
individuals all ultimately the beneficiaries of self determination on the other hand, if
his/her individual privacy, liberty and the life are not respected it is difficult to argue the
right to self determination which is group right, may necessity lead to respect of
individual human right in fullest extent.

Due to the above reason it is plausible to see individual and group rights as part of human
right that should be protected and promoted in order to achieve the full realization of it.
Finally, those individuals who argue for the protection of individual and group right
separately, should understand that these rights are interdependent and complementary to
each other and that the state should give the same emphasis to these category or rights.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Human rights are special sort of inalienable entitlement they attach to all persons equality
by virtue of their humanity, irrespective of race, nationality, or membership of any
particular social group. In langue of human rights ‘right’ includes both individuals and
group of human right. For the existence and well development of those rights, the
promotion and the protection provided by the state can play a fundamental role. This
arrangement presupposes the existence of states as well as the nations that individuals or
groups may claim something from the political authority. There are clear individual rights
such as right to life and the right to liberty and the right of self determination is clearly a
group right.

However there is situation where these rights come in to conflict. With regard to this
issue and the issue which prevail in case of antagonism of these right there are three
approaches. The first approach advocates for the prevalence of individual right arguing
that at least what we preserve/reach in human right should be stayed as it is. The second
approach on the other hand argue for the prevalence of group right over individual right

1
1
they argue that the protection of group right is a condition precedent, or a perquisite for
the protection of individual human rights. They try to justify their argument by taking the
right to self determination in account. The right to self determination is accorded to a
group and without the realization of self determination, the protection of individual right
is almost unthinkable. On the other hand there is third approach which says we should not
priories one over other.

As far as my opinion individual and a group right are not contradictory by nature in
principle rather it is only when we come to implementation of these rights that the
conflict may arise. And when we face with such kind of problem it is good to solve
through having the knowledge of their nature and make balance. The fact that individual
rights are respected benefit the individuals who resided in the group and the fact that
group rights respected benefit and make individuals in a better place or position. It is
plausible to think. The intention of recognizing group right is to enable individuals to be
benefit of it rather than eroding their right. It will ease the problem if we think that both
individual and group rights are exercised in relation to the community.

So both individual and group rights must have the same purpose in safeguarding the
human right. They are interdependent and complementary to each other and the state
should give the same emphasis to these categories of rights in legal as well as practical
aspect. In this case, the state should enact regulations which guarantee the protection and
the promotion of both categories of rights.

1
2