Professional Documents
Culture Documents
behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2]
They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is
inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in
all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or
any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being
universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They
require empathy and the rule of law[6] and impose an obligation on persons to respect the
human rights of others.[1][3] They should not be taken away except as a result of due process
based on specific circumstances;[3] for example, human rights may include freedom from
unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.[7]
The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and
regional institutions.[3] Actions by states and non-governmental organizations form a basis of
public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights[8] suggests that "if the public discourse of
peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human
rights." The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke
considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human
rights to this day. The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of
continued philosophical debate;[9] while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a
wide variety of rights[5] such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement,
prohibition of genocide, free speech,[10] or a right to education, there is disagreement about
which of these particular rights should be included within the general framework of human
rights;[1] some thinkers suggest that human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid
the worst-case abuses, while others see it as a higher standard.[1]
Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath
of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust,[6] culminating in the adoption
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1948. Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of
universal human rights.[11] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of
natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became
prominent during the European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis
Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and which featured prominently in the political
discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the
modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century,[12]
possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes,[6] as a realization of
inherent human vulnerability and as being a precondition for the possibility of a just
society.[5]
Whereas 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...
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Supported by several international conventions and treaties (such as the United Nation's
Universal Declaration of Human rights in 1948), these include cultural, economic, and
political rights, such as right to life, liberty, education and equality before law, and right of
association, belief, free speech, information, religion, movement, and nationality.
Promulgation of these rights is not binding on any country, but they serve as a standard of
concern for people and form the basis of many modern national constitutions.
Although they were defined first by the Scottish philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) as
absolute moral claims or entitlements to life, liberty, and property, the best-known expression
of human rights is in the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776 which proclaims that "All
men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which,
when they enter a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their
posterity." Called also fundamental rights. See also civil rights and natural rights.
There is now an acceptance among the international community about the centrality of human rights
and their importance in democracy and development. This unit explores the link between human
rights, democracy, good governance and pro-poor development. It emphasizes that human rights
protection is indispensable to entrenching substantive democracy and promoting pro-poor
development.
"My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the
strongest"
The greatest protection of human rights emanates from a democratic framework grounded in the rule
of law. A functional democracy that accommodates diversity is increasingly becoming the planet's best
bet against the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the abuse that inevitably results
from it. The Commonwealth too, rejects foreign domination, authoritarian dictatorships, military
regimes and one-party rule. All nations of the Commonwealth have chosen democracy as their
preferred form of government and this is affirmed in the official position that undemocratic nations
are not welcome in this community of nations wedded to the principles of liberty and democratic
political processes that are spelt out in the Singapore Declaration, 1971. Yet the challenge before the
Commonwealth today is to deepen this democracy from just its basic electoral form into a common
enterprise between people and government. While the strength and level of democracy in different
parts of the Commonwealth may vary, the human rights framework offers the key means to move
from basic electoral democracy to the fully-fledged version.
The principle that 'all power ultimately rests with the people and must be exercised with their consent'
lies at the heart of democracy. Democracy is premised on the recognition and protection of people's
right to have a say in all decision making processes which is itself based on the central principle of
equality of all human beings. The exercise of this fundamental political right requires a guarantee of
crucial freedoms -to express one's thoughts and opinion without fear, to seek and receive
information, to form associations and to assemble in a peaceful manner to discuss public affairs
amongst others. Accommodation of the views of minorities is essential to prevent democracy from
degenerating into despotism by the majority. The purpose of democracy like that of human rights
protection is to uphold the dignity of every individual and to ensure that the voices of the weakest are
also heard. Its core values -freedom, equality, fraternity, accommodation of diversity and the
assurance of justice underpin the norms of human rights as well.
"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the only object of good
government -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd
President of the United States of America.
Across the Commonwealth democracy is endorsed, as in the Harare Declaration as the only legitimate
means of governance. Democracy is no longer equated with the mere ability to hold regular elections
-this is just the starting point. The Commonwealth has recognized that to be meaningful, mere
representative democracy must deepen into substantive and participatory democracy. As the
Commonwealth Expert Group in Democracy and Development stated: "The scope of democracy
must...be widened beyond elections, so that democratic institutions and processes facilitate, protect
and reinforce the full range of human rights."
The goals of human rights are sometimes summed up as freedom from fear and want and to be able
to develop one's potential. These are also the aims of governance. Governance is much more than
the business of running the State machinery to keep one's borders safe and the law and order
situation under control. States also have the mandate to eliminate inequalities and inequities
entrenched in society that results in the exploitation and the marginalization of certain groups,
depriving them of basic rights to a life of dignity. In addition, States have, at the international level,
undertaken to guarantee protection for the human rights of all citizens. The test of governance is the
degree to which the State machinery delivers on these commitments. Every human right corresponds
to a human aspiration and a norm of treatment to which everyone is entitled. The international
human rights regime, which is continuously evolving with the progress of time, provides universally
accepted legal standards against which the performance of the State machinery can be measured. At
a minimum, parliamentarians in a democracy must actively work to promote people's welfare,
rejecting all forms of discrimination and exclusion, facilitate development with equity and justice, and
encourage the most comprehensive and full participation of citizens in decision-making and action on
diverse issues affecting society.
Most people living in the Commonwealth today are poor. Too many of them are among the absolute
poor. A third of the 200 million citizens of the Commonwealth live on less than US$1 a day - the
internationally accepted measure of extreme poverty. There are also significant pockets of poverty in
the richer states like the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As many people have pointed out
poverty is much more than just lack of income.
Poverty is a condition brought about by people and policies and is not a natural and normal condition.
It can and must be changed as a matter of priority. The state of poverty itself, and not the act to
eliminate it, is a violation of human rights. Development sees human beings as having needs that
should be fulfilled where possible. Human rights ensure that these become legal obligations of the
duty holder -namely the State - against which claims can be made.
South Africa and Uganda have recognized the human rights to food, housing, health care, education
and a clean and safe environment by writing them into their constitutions as fundamental rights that
the State is legally obligated to provide for all citizens. In other countries like India and Bangladesh
where non-binding constitutional directives to achieve similar goals exist, the judiciary has expanded
the scope of the fundamental right to life to include some of these basic entitlements indispensable
for the enjoyment of a life of dignity.
Despite this, poverty reduction efforts have traditionally been guided by the paternalist 'welfare'
approach where the State becomes the benefactor of the poor who must wait upon the generosity
and goodwill of the giver. In some countries with high incidence of poverty this approach has
degenerated to distribution of patronage for buying support and approval for those wielding State
power. The accent is also placed on 'reduction' rather than 'eradication' of poverty. A charitable
approach to development also allows richer nations to keep development assistance at the level of
grace and favor, reinforcing dependencies and sharpening misleading perceptions of the alleged
inadequacies of the developing world.
In contrast, the rights based approach is by definition pro-poor in nature as it requires developmental
planning to target the weakest and the most vulnerable first and foremost. Human rights standards
provide the benchmarks against which success of development policies must be measured. Setting
targets based on human rights allows policymakers to create realistic frameworks for achieving rights
and making informed evaluations of the effectiveness of their policies and programmes. Situating
development and poverty alleviation within a human rights framework gives primacy to the
participation and empowerment of the poor, insists on democratic practices, and ensures that the
rationale of poverty reduction no longer derives only from the fact that the poor have needs, but is
based on the rights of all through entitlements that give rise to obligations on the part of international
community, nation-states, the commercial sector and local communities and associations as enshrined
in law.
Role of Parliamentarians
All human rights carry corresponding obligations that must be translated into
concrete duties to guarantee these rights. For many years, traditional human
rights discourse was dominated by the misperception that civil and political
rights require only negative duties while economic, social and cultural rights
require positive duties. In this view, the right to free speech is guaranteed
when the state leaves people alone, whereas the state must take positive action
to guarantee the right to health by building health clinics and providing
immunization.
This positive versus negative dichotomy has been discredited recently in favor
of the understanding that all human rights have both positive and negative
components. It is a matter of common sense that civil and political rights,
including free speech, require the positive outlay of state resources in terms of
providing a functioning judicial system and educating people about their
rights. Conversely, all ESCR have negative aspects; some states prevent
people from freely exercising ESCR, for example by blocking food or medical
supplies to disfavored groups or regions.
Most scholars and activists now agree that duties for all human rights -- civil
and political as well as ESCR -- can be divided into several discrete categories
based on the type of duties. Although there is some variation in these
typologies, they converge along the following basic categories: the duties to
respect, protect, and fulfill.
ABSTRACT:
Human rights are those minimum rights which are compulsorily obtainable by every
individual as he/she is a member of human family. The constitution of India also guarantees
the equality of rights of men and women. However, in the sphere of women's human rights in
India, there exists a wide gulf between theory and practice. Indian society is a male
dominated society where men are always assumed to be superior to society. The women in
India very often have to face discrimination, injustice and dishonour. Though women in India
have been given more rights as compared to men, even then the condition of women in India
is miserable. The paper will throw light on the human rights of women in India and that how
all the fundamental rights given to the women are being violated in India, by focussing on the
various crimes done against them.
The constitution of India has granted equal rights to the men and women. According to article 14 -
'The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of laws within the
territory of India'. And Article 15 states - 'State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them,. But today, it seems that there is a wide
gulf between theory and practice. The women in India have always been considered subordinate to
men. Though the articles contained in the constitution mandates equality and non - discrimination on
the grounds of sex, women is always discriminated and dishonoured in Indian society. Although
various efforts have been taken to improve the status of women in India, the constitutional dream of
gender equality is miles away from becoming a reality.
Though, Human Rights are the minimum rights which are compulsorily obtainable by every
individual as he/she is a member of human society. But it has been found that each and every right of
the women is being violated in one or another way. The crimes against women in India are increasing
at a very fast pace. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had predicted that growth rate of
crime against women would be higher than the population growth by 2010, which was found to be
true. The table below represents a list of top 5 most dangerous cities in India in terms of crimes
against women
There is a need to discuss the rights of the women separately as women represents more than half the
population of India, yet she is discriminated and violated in every sphere of her life. Only women are
a prey to crimes such as rape, dowry, bride burning, sexual harassment, selling and importation,
prostitution and trafficking etc. Have you heard the men as a victim to all these crimes? The answer is
"NO". This year there has been 20% increase in women trafficking, procurement of minor girls
accounted for 19.8%, importation of girls accounted for 4.9% and buying of girls for prostitution
accounted for 2.3% approx. Then how these Human Rights are beneficial to women? Though
government is taking a number of steps to improve the condition of women in India, but there is a
long way to go.
The paper will study the various human rights of women in India and how they are being violated.
Although special rights are being given to woman as compared to men, yet they are least beneficial to
them.
The Indian women exploitation is not the present phenomenon. Rather she is being exploited from the
early times. The women in Indian society never stood for a fair status. The following crimes were
done against the women in the past times.
• DEVADASIS:
Devadasis was a religious practice in some parts of southern India, in which women were
married to a deity or temple. In the later period, the illegitimate sexual exploitation of the
devadasi's became a norm in some part of the country.
• JAUHAR:
Jauhar refers to practice of the voluntary immolation of all wives and daughters of defeated
warriors in order to avoid capture and consequent molestation by the enemy. The practice was
followed by the wives of Rajput rulers, who are known to place a high premium on honour.
• PURDAH:
Purdah is a practice among some communities of requiring women to cover their bodies so as
to cover their skin and conceal their form. It curtails their right to interact freely and it is a
symbol of the subordination of women.
• SATI:
Sati is an old custom in Indian society in which widows were immolated alive on her
husband's funeral pyre. Although the act was supposed to be voluntary on thw widow's part, it
is believed to have been sometimes forced on the widow.
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Protraction:
Despite declaring their intentions to recognize human rights standards and international
humanitarian law through the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), neither the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) nor the National Democratic Front
(NDF)-Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP)-New People’s Army (NPA) have been
truly determined to improve the human rights situation in the Philippines caused by
almost four decades of conflict. Both sides wish to destroy each other militarily as well
as use the peace talks as a diversionary tactic. To say that one or both sides are not
really serious about the whole process may seem too facile an explanation for the lack
of progress in the talks. But indeed, neither side has demonstrated genuine sincerity to
the process. The Philippine government is dominated by a politico-economic elite
composed of powerful families that manipulate elections through patronage, corruption,
and violence. Meanwhile, the CPP-NPA-NDF seeks to overthrow the government and
establish a “people’s democracy” based on a Stalinist- Maoist one-party dictatorship.
The solution lies in third party forces: civil-society organizations and international
political entities.
CONCLUSION
This study has analysed the norms of international law that are related to the right to adequate
food in emergency situations. In so doing, it has focused on two main issues: the obligations of
States and non-State entities to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate food in
emergencies; and the principles and standards applicable to food and food-related aid
programmes implemented by international humanitarian agencies.
Under international human rights law, every human being has the right to have physical and
economic access at all times to adequate food or to the means for its procurement. In order to
progressively realize this right, each State has a legal obligation to take steps to the maximum of
its available resources, both individually and through international assistance and cooperation. As
a fundamental human right, the right to adequate food applies in emergency situations, including
both natural disasters and armed conflicts.
The recognition of the right to adequate food embodied in human rights law is supplemented by
norms contained in other branches of international law (refugee law, economic law,
environmental law). Moreover, in armed conflicts, international humanitarian law is applicable.
International human rights law and international humanitarian law (where applicable) are
complementary. Human rights law, which is applicable (albeit to different degrees) in both peace
and war, recognizes the right of individuals to have access at all times to safe and nutritious food
or to the means for its procurement. Humanitarian law, on the other hand, applies only in armed
conflicts (and in other related situations, like occupation) and is instrumental to protecting certain
basic human rights, including the right to food, in these situations. Many of its provisions are
aimed at ensuring that persons or groups not taking or no longer taking part in the hostilities are
not denied food or access to food, by prescribing certain conduct and prohibiting certain
behaviour.
Thus, international humanitarian law contains numerous provisions aimed at facilitating
humanitarian assistance to persons in need, which impose obligations both upon the parties to the
hostilities and upon States not taking part in the conflict. Parties to the conflict must allow
humanitarian assistance whenever the basic needs of the civilian population, including food, are
not fulfilled and an impartial humanitarian organization offers such assistance. Indeed, while
humanitarian assistance is under international law subject to the consent of the affected State, the
discretion of the latter in refusing consent is limited by several norms and principles of
international (humanitarian and human rights) law: aid offers cannot be considered unfriendly
acts; refusals must be justified by valid reasons; refusals could constitute violations of human
rights law provisions on the right to food and the right to life; refusals could amount to deliberate
starvation of civilians, war crime, genocide or crime against humanity, punishable under
international law. Under international humanitarian law, parties to the conflict must also protect
relief consignments and facilitate their rapid distribution, and must refrain from delaying or
diverting them. In addition, international humanitarian law limits the right of the parties to
international and non-international armed conflicts to choose methods and means of warfare, and
prohibits the use of starvation of civilians. A party to the conflict cannot attack, destroy, remove
or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as
foodstuff, crops, drinking water installations, or make these objects the target of reprisals.
Finally, food and food-related aid must meet certain minimum requirements, especially in terms
of food safety for human consumption. Due regard must be given to cultural acceptability.