User:AlasdairEdits/Human rights

• - [ ] Introduction
  • - [ ] History
    • - [ ] Philosophical foundations
    • - [ ] Enlightenment
    • - [ ] Modern Human Rights Movement
• - [ ] Human Rights Theory
  • - [ ] Philosophy of human rights
    • - [ ] Anaylisis
    • - [ ] justifications
    • - [ ] Criticism
  • - [ ] Substantive Rights
    • - [ ] Introduction
    • - [ ] Classifying Human Rights
    • - [ ] 3 generations
    • - [ ] other classifications
    • - [ ] Links in to some prominent rights articles (e.g freedom of speech)
  • - [ ] Evolution of rights
    • - [ ] here some of the current "are they rights questions"
• - [ ] Protecting Human Rights
  • - [ ] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • - [ ] The other bits currently at the top of the article e.g international organisations ect ect would go here, with some further rejiging- but that can be worked out later
  • - [ ] Section on Human rights violations
  • - [ ] Possibly something on notable human rights defenders e.g Mandela, Aung Sung Su Kii ect
• - [ ] End

Categorisation

As can be seen, the term "Humant rights" has been used to cover a broad spectrum of rights claims, from the right to freedom from torture, to the right to a "cultural identity". While all human rights are claims, the nature and response to such a claim can be very different and these rights can be classified in a variety of different ways. At the international level, perhaps the most prominent categorisation has been between civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights a classification reflected in the major United Nations Human Rights Treaties, numerous nations are signatories to treaties gaurenteeing one but not the other of these rights. Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights have argued that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. In addition to this classification, a wide variety of other classifications have been used to categorise and attempt to highlight unique features of groups of rights , with varying degrees of support in international and academic communities.

Civil, Political, Econonmic, Cultural and Social Rights

Alleged Dichotomy

It has been argued traditionally in the drafting and creation of human rights treaties that there is a fundamental dichotomy

• positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)
• resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide
• progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement
• vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge
• ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right
• socialist, as opposed to capitalist
• non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law
• aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

• negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action
• cost-free
• immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to
• precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure
• non-ideological/non-political
• capitalist
• justiciable
• real 'legal' rights

In The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Amongst several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.

First, second and third generation rights

Another categorization, first offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation has the advantage of X . However, it has been criticised by some commentators for historical innaccuracy This categorisation is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:

“ If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important. ” — Philip Alston

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

“ ...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored. ” — Philip Alston

“ Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation. ” — Olivia Ball, Paul Gready

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."

Other Categorisations

Four Freedoms

Main article: Four Freedoms

Civil Liberties

Main article: Civil Liberties

Individual and Collective Rights

Individual and collective rights