essay based on human rights

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

Updated on
Dec 9, 2023

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf.

What are Human Rights

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Did you know that the 10th of December is celebrated as Human Rights Day ?

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Home » Essay » Essay on human rights (100, 200, 300, & 500 Words)

Essay on human rights (100, 200, 300, & 500 Words)

Essay on human rights (100 words), essay on human rights (200 words), essay on human rights (300 words), essay on human rights 500 words, importance of human rights, protection of individual freedoms, equality and non-discrimination, social justice and accountability, peace and security, historical development of human rights, ancient roots, enlightenment and enlightenment thinkers, universal declaration of human rights (udhr), subsequent international human rights instruments, challenges in securing and promoting human rights, violations and lack of accountability, discrimination and inequality, limited awareness and education, global cooperation and enforcement.

Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that every individual is entitled to, regardless of their nationality, race, gender, religion, or any other status.
Human rights are important because they safeguard individuals against discrimination, oppression, and abuse, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to lead a life of freedom, dignity, and fairness. They also create a foundation for peace, social justice, and sustainable development.
Human rights promote equality by prohibiting unfair treatment and discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, or social status. They ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities and access to resources, services, and opportunities, regardless of their background.
Human rights serve as a tool for social justice by holding governments, institutions, and individuals accountable for their actions. They provide mechanisms for seeking redress in cases of violations, ensuring that those responsible for human rights abuses are held accountable, and victims receive justice.

Human Rights Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on human rights.

Human rights are a set of rights which every human is entitled to. Every human being is inherited with these rights no matter what caste, creed, gender, the economic status they belong to. Human rights are very important for making sure that all humans get treated equally. They are in fact essential for a good standard of living in the world.

Moreover, human rights safeguard the interests of the citizens of a country. You are liable to have human rights if you’re a human being. They will help in giving you a good life full of happiness and prosperity.

Human Rights Categories

Human rights are essentially divided into two categories of civil and political rights, and social rights. This classification is important because it clears the concept of human rights further. Plus, they also make humans realize their role in different spheres.

When we talk about civil and political rights , we refer to the classic rights of humans. These rights are responsible for limiting the government’s authority that may affect any individual’s independence. Furthermore, these rights allow humans to contribute to the involvement of the government. In addition to the determination of laws as well.

Next up, the social rights of people guide the government to encourage ways to plan various ways which will help in improving the life quality of citizens. All the governments of countries are responsible for ensuring the well-being of their citizens. Human rights help countries in doing so efficiently.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Human Rights

Human rights are extremely important for the overall development of a country and individuals on a personal level. If we take a look at the basic human rights, we see how there are right to life, the right to practice any religion, freedom of movement , freedom from movement and more. Each right plays a major role in the well-being of any human.

Right to life protects the lives of human beings. It ensures no one can kill you and thus safeguards your peace of mind. Subsequently, the freedom of thought and religion allows citizens to follow any religion they wish to. Moreover, it also means anyone can think freely.

Further, freedom of movement is helpful in people’s mobilization. It ensures no one is restricted from traveling and residing in any state of their choice. It allows you to grab opportunities wherever you wish to.

Next up, human rights also give you the right to a fair trial. Every human being has the right to move to the court where there will be impartial decision making . They can trust the court to give them justice when everything else fails.

Most importantly, humans are now free from any form of slavery. No other human being can indulge in slavery and make them their slaves. Further, humans are also free to speak and express their opinion.

In short, human rights are very essential for a happy living of human beings. However, these days they are violated endlessly and we need to come together to tackle this issue. The governments and citizens must take efforts to protect each other and progress for the better. In other words, this will ensure happiness and prosperity all over the world.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

This post is the first installment from UChicago Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic in a series titled — The Matter of Human Rights. In this 16-part series, law students examine, question and reflect on the historical, ideological, and normative roots of the human rights system, how the system has evolved, its present challenges and future possibilities. Eleni Christou is a third year in the Law School at the University of Chicago.

Why Human Rights?

By: Eleni Christou University of Chicago Law School Class of 2019

When the term “human rights” is used, it conjures up, for some, powerful images of the righteous fight for the inalienable rights that people have just by virtue of being human. It is Martin Luther King Jr. before the Washington monument as hundreds of thousands gather and look on; it is Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom; or a 16-year-old Malala telling her story, so others like her may be heard. But what is beyond these archetypes? Does the system work? Can we make it work better? Is it even the right system for our times? In other words, why human rights?

Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability. Human rights offer us a principled framework, rooted in normative values meant for all nations and legal orders. In a world order in which states/governments set the rules, the human rights regime is the counterweight, one concerned with and focused on the individual. In other words, we need human rights because it provides us a way of evaluating and challenging national laws and practices as to the treatment of individuals.

The foundational human right text for our modern-day system is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948, this document lays out 30 articles which define the rights each human is entitled to. These rights are designed to protect core human values and prohibit institutions and practices that are contrary to the enjoyment of the rights. Rights often complement each other, and at times, can be combined to form new rights. For example, humans have a right to liberty, and also a right to be free from slavery, two rights which complement and reinforce each other. Other times, rights can be in tension, like when a person’s right to freedom of expression infringes upon another’s right to freedom from discrimination.

In this post, I’ll provide an example of how the human rights system has been used to do important work. The international communities’ work to develop the law and organize around human rights principles to challenge and sanction the apartheid regime in South Africa provides a valuable illustration of how the human rights system can be used successfully to alleviate state human rights violations that previously would have been written off as a domestic matter.

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa had a system of racial segregation called ‘ apartheid ,’ literally meaning ‘separateness.’ The minority white population was committing blatant human rights violations to maintain their control over the majority black population, and smaller multiethnic and South Asian communities. This system of apartheid was codified in laws at every level of the country, restricting where non-whites could live, work, and simply be. Non-whites were stripped of voting rights , evicted from their homes and forced into segregated neighborhoods, and not allowed to travel out of these neighborhoods without passes . Interracial marriage was forbidden, and transport and civil facilities were all segregated, leading to extremely inferior services for the majority of South Africans. The horrific conditions imposed on non-whites led to internal resistance movements , which the white ruling class responded to with extreme violence , leaving thousands dead or imprisoned by the government.

While certain global leaders expressed concern about the Apartheid regime in South Africa, at first, most (including the newly-formed UN) considered it a domestic affair. However, that view changed in 1960 following the Sharpeville Massacre , where 69 protesters of the travel pass requirement were murdered by South African police. In 1963, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 181 , which called for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, which was later made mandatory. The Security Council condemned South Africa’s apartheid regime and encouraged states not to “indirectly [provide] encouragement . . . [of] South Africa to perpetuate, by force, its policy of apartheid,” by participating in the embargo. During this time, many countries, including the United States, ended their arms trade with South Africa. Additionally, the UN urged an oil embargo, and eventually suspended South Africa from the General Assembly in 1974.

In 1973, the UN General Assembly passed the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , and it came into force in 1976. This convention made apartheid a crime against humanity. It expanded the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies outside of the South African context, and laid the groundwork for international actions to be taken against any state that engaged in these policies. This also served to further legitimize the international response to South Africa’s apartheid regime.

As the state-sanctioned violence in South Africa intensified, and the global community came to understand the human rights violation being carried out on a massive scale, countries worked domestically to place trade sanctions on South Africa, and many divestment movements gained popular support. International sports teams refused to play in South Africa and cut ties with their sports federations, and many actors engaged in cultural boycotts. These domestic actions worked in tandem with the actions taken by the United Nations, mirroring the increasingly widespread ideology that human rights violations are a global issue that transcend national boundaries, but are an international concern of all peoples.

After years of domestic and international pressure, South African leadership released the resistance leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 and began negotiations for the dismantling of apartheid. In 1994, South Africa’s apartheid officially ended with the first general elections. With universal suffrage, Nelson Mandela was elected president.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly , newly elected Nelson Mandela recognized the role that the UN and individual countries played in the ending of apartheid, noting these interventions were a success story of the human rights system. The human rights values embodied in the UDHR, the ICSPCA, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, provided an external normative and legal framework by which the global community could identify unlawful state action and hold South Africa accountable for its system of apartheid. The international pressure applied via the human rights system has been considered a major contributing factor to the end of apartheid. While the country has not fully recovered from the trauma that decades of the apartheid regime had left on its people, the end of the apartheid formal legal system has allowed the country to begin to heal and move towards a government that works for all people, one that has openly embraced international human rights law and principles in its constitutional and legislative framework.

This is what a human rights system can do. When state governments and legal orders fail to protect people within their control, the international system can challenge the national order and demand it uphold a basic standard of good governance. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights system has grown, tackled new challenges, developed institutions for review and enforcement, and built a significant body of law. Numerous tools have been established to help states, groups, and individuals defend and protect human rights.

So why human rights? Because the human rights system has been a powerful force for good in this world, often the only recourse for marginalized and minority populations. We, as the global community, should work to identify shortcomings in the system, and work together to improve and fix them. We should not — as the US has been doing under the current administration — selectively withdraw, defund, and disparage one of the only tools available to the world’s most vulnerable peoples. The human rights system is an arena, a language, and a source of power to many around the world fighting for a worthwhile future built on our shared human values.

Pozen center 2022-23 director's report, interracial marriage under attack: thinking the unthinkable, read: "the politics of torture" by kathleen cavanaugh, read "democracies and international law" by tom ginsburg, read "agents of change: political philosophy in practice" by ben laurence.

Join our mailing list to receive a weekly digest of Pozen-related news, opportunities, and events.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Human Rights

Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to education.

The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of human rights. The strong claims often made on behalf of human rights (for example, that they are universal, inalienable, or exist independently of legal enactment as justified moral norms) have frequently provoked skeptical doubts and countering philosophical defenses (on these critiques see Lacrois and Pranchere 2016, Mutua 2008, and Waldron 1988). Reflection on these doubts and the responses that can be made to them has become a sub-field of political and legal philosophy with a very substantial literature (see the Bibliography below).

This entry addresses the concept of human rights, the existence and grounds of human rights, the question of which rights are human rights, and relativism about human rights.

1. The General Idea of Human Rights

2.1 how can human rights exist, 2.2 normative justifications for human rights, 2.3 political conceptions of human rights, 3.1 civil and political rights, 3.2 social rights, 3.3 rights of women, minorities, and groups, 3.4 environmental rights, 4. universal human rights in a world of diverse beliefs and practices, bibliography: books and articles in the philosophy of human rights, recent collections, guides to international human rights law, other resources, related entries.

This section attempts to explain the general idea of human rights by identifying four defining features. The goal is to answer the question of what human rights are with a description of the core concept rather than a list of specific rights. Two people can have the same general idea of human rights even though they disagree about which rights belong on a list of such rights and even about whether universal moral rights exist. The four-part explanation below attempts to cover all kinds of human rights including both moral and legal human rights and both old and new human rights (e.g., both Lockean natural rights and contemporary human rights). The explanation anticipates, however, that particular kinds of human rights will have additional features. Starting with this general concept does not commit us to treating all kinds of human rights in a single unified theory (see Buchanan 2013 for an argument that we should not attempt to theorize together universal moral rights and international legal human rights).

(1) Human rights are rights . Lest we miss the obvious, human rights are rights (see Cruft 2012 and the entry on rights ). Most if not all human rights are claim rights that impose duties or responsibilities on their addressees or dutybearers. Rights focus on a freedom, protection, status, or benefit for the rightholders (Beitz 2009). The duties associated with human rights often require actions involving respect, protection, facilitation, and provision. Rights are usually mandatory in the sense of imposing duties on their addressees, but some legal human rights seem to do little more than declare high-priority goals and assign responsibility for their progressive realization. One can argue, of course, that goal-like rights are not real rights, but it may be better to recognize that they comprise a weak but useful notion of a right (See Beitz 2009 for a defense of the view that not all human rights are rights in a strong sense. And see Feinberg 1973 for the idea of “manifesto rights”). A human rights norm might exist as (a) a shared norm of actual human moralities, (b) a justified moral norm supported by strong reasons, (c) a legal right at the national level (where it might be referred to as a “civil” or “constitutional” right), or (d) a legal right within international law. A human rights advocate might wish to see human rights exist in all four ways (See Section 2.1 How Can Human Rights Exist?).

(2) Human rights are plural . If someone accepted that there are human rights but held that there is only one of them, this might make sense if she meant that there is one abstract underlying right that generates a list of specific rights (See Dworkin 2011 for a view of this sort). But if this person meant that there is just one specific right such as the right to peaceful assembly this would be a highly revisionary view. Human rights address a variety of specific problems such as guaranteeing fair trials, ending slavery, ensuring the availability of education, and preventing genocide. Some philosophers advocate very short lists of human rights but nevertheless accept plurality (see Cohen 2004, Ignatieff 2004).

(3) Human rights are universal . All living humans—or perhaps all living persons —have human rights. One does not have to be a particular kind of person or a member of some specific nation or religion to have human rights. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existence . People have human rights independently of whether they are found in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture. This idea of universality needs several qualifications, however. First, some rights, such as the right to vote, are held only by adult citizens or residents and apply only to voting in one’s own country. Second, the human right to freedom of movement may be taken away temporarily from a person who is convicted of committing a serious crime. And third, some human rights treaties focus on the rights of vulnerable groups such as minorities, women, indigenous peoples, and children.

(4) Human rights have high-priority . Maurice Cranston held that human rights are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation “a grave affront to justice” (Cranston 1967). If human rights did not have high priority they would not have the ability to compete with other powerful considerations such as national stability and security, individual and national self-determination, and national and global prosperity. High priority does not mean, however, that human rights are absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as “resistant to trade-offs, but not too resistant” (Griffin 2008). Further, there seems to be priority variation within human rights. For example, when the right to life conflicts with the right to privacy, the latter will generally be outweighed.

Let’s now consider five other features or functions that might be added.

Should human rights be defined as inalienable? Inalienability does not mean that rights are absolute or can never be overridden by other considerations. Rather it means that its holder cannot lose it temporarily or permanently by bad conduct or by voluntarily giving it up. It is doubtful that all human rights are inalienable in this sense. One who endorses both human rights and imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that people’s rights to freedom of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious crimes. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that human rights are very hard to lose. (For a stronger view of inalienability, see Donnelly 2003, Meyers 1985).

Should human rights be defined as minimal rights? A number of philosophers have proposed the view that human rights are minimal in the sense of not being too numerous (a few dozen rights rather than hundreds or thousands), and not being too demanding (See Joshua Cohen 2004, Ignatieff 2005, and Rawls 1999). Their views suggest that human rights are—or should be—more concerned with avoiding the worst than with achieving the best. Henry Shue suggests that human rights concern the “lower limits on tolerable human conduct” rather than “great aspirations and exalted ideals” (Shue 1996). When human rights are modest standards they leave most legal and policy matters open to democratic decision-making at the national and local levels. This allows human rights to have high priority, to accommodate a great deal of cultural and institutional variation among countries, and to leave open a large space for democratic decision-making at the national level. Still, there is no contradiction in the idea of an extremely expansive list of human rights and hence minimalism is not a defining feature of human rights (for criticism of the view that human rights are minimal standards see Brems 2009 and Raz 2010). Minimalism is best seen as a normative prescription for what international human rights should be. Moderate forms of minimalism have considerable appeal, but not as part of the definition of human rights.

Should human rights be defined as always being or “mirroring” moral rights? Philosophers coming to human rights theory from moral philosophy sometimes assume that human rights must be, at bottom, moral rather than legal rights. There is no contradiction, however, in people saying that they believe in human rights, but only when they are legal rights at the national or international levels. As Louis Henkin observed, “Political forces have mooted the principal philosophical objections, bridging the chasm between natural and positive law by converting natural human rights into positive legal rights” (Henkin 1978). Theorists who insist that the only human rights are legal rights may find, however, that the interpretations they can give of universality, independent existence, and high priority are weak.

Should human rights be defined in terms of serving some sort of political function? Instead of seeing human rights as grounded in some sort of independently existing moral reality, a theorist might see them as the norms of a highly useful political practice that humans have constructed or evolved. Such a view would see the idea of human rights as playing various political roles at the national and international levels and as serving thereby to protect urgent human and national interests. These political roles might include providing standards for international evaluations of how governments treat their people and specifying when use of economic sanctions or military intervention is permissible (see Section 2.3 Political Conceptions of Human Rights below).

Political theorists would add to the four defining elements suggested above some set of political roles or functions. This kind of view may be plausible for the very salient international human rights that have emerged in international law and politics in the last fifty years. But human rights can exist and function in contexts not involving international scrutiny and intervention such as a world with only one state. Imagine, for example, that an asteroid strike had killed everyone in all countries except New Zealand, leaving it the only state in existence. Surely the idea of human rights as well as many dimensions of human rights practice could continue in New Zealand, even though there would be no international relations, law, or politics (for an argument of this sort see Tasioulas 2012). And if in the same scenario a few people were discovered to have survived in Iceland and were living without a government or state, New Zealanders would know that human rights governed how these people should be treated even though they were stateless. How deeply the idea of human rights must be rooted in international law and practice should not be settled by definitional fiat. We can allow, however, that the sorts of political functions that Rawls and Beitz describe are typically served by international human rights today.

2. The Existence and Grounds of Human Rights

A philosophical question about human rights that occurs to many people is how it is possible for such rights to exist. Several possible ways are explored in this section.

The most obvious way in which human rights come into existence is as norms of national and international law that are created by enactment, custom, and judicial decisions. At the international level, human rights norms exist because of treaties that have turned them into international law. For example, the human right not to be held in slavery or servitude in Article 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe, 1950) and in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN 1966) exists because these treaties establish it. At the national level, human rights norms exist because they have through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom become part of a country’s law. For example, the right against slavery exists in the United States because the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and servitude. When rights are embedded in international law we speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights.

Enactment in national and international law is clearly one of the ways in which human rights exist. But many have suggested that this cannot be the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many people have looked for a way to support the idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings (see Morsink 2009). One way that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being God-given. The U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) claims that people are “endowed by their Creator” with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On this view, God, the supreme lawmaker, enacted some basic human rights.

Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply to thousands of years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human rights are specific and many of them presuppose contemporary institutions (e.g., the right to a fair trial and the right to education). Even if people are born with God-given natural rights, we need to explain how to get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.

Attributing human rights to God’s commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people do not believe in the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, and if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes.

Human rights could also exist independently of legal enactment by being part of actual human moralities. All human groups seem to have moralities in the sense of imperative norms of interpersonal behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (for example, a prohibition of the intentional murder of an innocent person) and specific values (for example, valuing human life.) If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms prohibiting murder, these norms could partially constitute the human right to life.

The view that human rights are norms found in all human moralities is attractive but has serious difficulties. Although worldwide acceptance of human rights has been increasing rapidly in recent decades (see 4. Universal Human Rights in a World of Diverse Beliefs and Practices ), worldwide moral unanimity about human rights does not exist. Human rights declarations and treaties are intended to change existing norms, not just describe the existing moral consensus.

Yet another way of explaining the existence of human rights is to say that they exist most basically in true or justified ethical outlooks. On this account, to say that there is a human right against torture is mainly to assert that there are strong reasons for believing that it is always morally wrong to engage in torture and that protections should be provided against it. This approach would view the Universal Declaration as attempting to formulate a justified political morality for the whole planet. It was not merely trying to identify a preexisting moral consensus; it was rather trying to create a consensus that could be supported by very plausible moral and practical reasons. This approach requires commitment to the objectivity of such reasons. It holds that just as there are reliable ways of finding out how the physical world works, or what makes buildings sturdy and durable, there are ways of finding out what individuals may justifiably demand of each other and of governments. Even if unanimity about human rights is currently lacking, rational agreement is available to humans if they will commit themselves to open-minded and serious moral and political inquiry. If moral reasons exist independently of human construction, they can—when combined with true premises about current institutions, problems, and resources—generate moral norms different from those currently accepted or enacted. The Universal Declaration seems to proceed on exactly this assumption (see Morsink 2009). One problem with this view is that existence as good reasons seems a rather thin form of existence for human rights. But perhaps we can view this thinness as a practical rather than a theoretical problem, as something to be remedied by the formulation and enactment of legal norms. The best form of existence for human rights would combine robust legal existence with the sort of moral existence that comes from widespread acceptance based on strong moral and practical reasons.

Justifications for human rights should defend their main features including their character as rights, their universality, and their high priority. Such justifications should also be capable of providing starting points for justifying a plausible list of specific rights (on starting points and making the transition to specific rights see Nickel 2007; see also Section 3 Which Rights are Human Rights? below). Further, justifying international human rights is likely to require additional steps (Buchanan 2012). These requirements make the construction of a good justification for human rights a daunting task.

Approaches to justification include grounding human rights in prudential reasons, practical reasons, moral rights (Thomson 1990), human well-being (Sumner 1987, Talbott 2010), fundamental interests (Beitz 2015), human needs (Miller 2012), agency and autonomy (Gewirth 1996, Griffin 2008) dignity (Gilabert 2018, Kateb 2011, Tasioulas 2015), fairness (Nickel 2007), equality, and positive freedom (Gould 2004, Nussbaum 2000, Sen 2004). Justifications can be based on just one of these types of reasons or they can be eclectic and appeal to several (Tasioulas. 2015).

Grounding human rights in human agency and autonomy has had strong advocates in recent decades. For example, in Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Application (1982) Alan Gewirth offered an agency-based justification for human rights. He argued that denying the value of successful agency and action is not an option for a human being; having a life requires regarding the indispensable conditions of agency and action as necessary goods. Abstractly described, these conditions of successful agency are freedom and well-being. A prudent rational agent who must have freedom and well-being will assert a “prudential right claim” to them. Having demanded that others respect her freedom and well-being, consistency requires her to recognize and respect the freedom and well-being of other persons. Since all other agents are in exactly the same position as she is of needing freedom and well-being, consistency requires her to recognize and respect their claims to freedom and well-being. She “logically must accept” that other people as agents have equal rights to freedom and well-being. These two abstract rights work alone and together to generate equal specific human rights of familiar sorts (Gewirth 1978, 1982, 1996). Gewirth’s aspiration was to provide an argument for human rights that applies to all human agents and that is inescapable. From a few hard-to-dispute facts and a principle of consistency he thinks we can derive two generic human rights—and from them, a list of more determinate rights. Gewirth’s views have generated a large critical literature (see Beyleveld 1991, Boylan 1999).

A more recent attempt to base human rights on agency and autonomy is found in James Griffin’s book, On Human Rights (2008). Griffin does not share Gewirth’s goal of providing a logically inescapable argument for human rights, but his overall view shares key structural features with Gewirth’s. These include starting the justification with the unique value of human agency and autonomy (which Griffin calls “normative agency”), postulating some abstract rights (autonomy, freedom, and well-being), and making a place for a right to well-being within an agency-based approach.

In the current dispute between “moral” (or “orthodox”) and “political” conceptions of human rights, Griffin strongly sides with those who see human rights as fundamentally moral rights. Their defining role, in Griffin’s view, is protecting people’s ability to form and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life—a capacity that Griffin variously refers to as “autonomy,” “normative agency,” and “personhood.” This ability to form, revise, and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life is taken to be of paramount value, the exclusive source of human dignity, and thereby the basis of human rights (Griffin 2008). Griffin holds that people value this capacity “especially highly, often more highly than even their happiness.”

“Practicalities” also shape human rights in Griffin’s view. He describes practicalities as “a second ground” of human rights. They prescribe making the boundaries of rights clear by avoiding “too many complicated bends,” enlarging rights a little to give them safety margins, and consulting facts about human nature and the nature of society. Accordingly, the justifying generic function that Griffin assigns to human rights is protecting normative agency while taking account of practicalities.

Griffin claims that human rights suffer even more than other normative concepts from an “indeterminacy of sense” that makes them vulnerable to proliferation (Griffin 2008). He thinks that tying all human rights to the single value of normative agency while taking account of practicalities is the best way to remedy this malady. He criticizes the frequent invention of new human rights and the “ballooning of the content” of established rights. Still, Griffin is friendly towards most of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Beyond this, Griffin takes human rights to include many rights in interpersonal morality. For example, Griffin thinks that a child’s human right to education applies not just against governments but also against the child’s parents.

Griffin’s thesis that all human rights are grounded in normative agency is put forward not so much as a description but as a proposal, as the best way of giving human rights unity, coherence, and limits. Unfortunately, accepting and following this proposal is unlikely to yield effective barriers to proliferation or a sharp line between human rights and other moral norms. The main reason is one that Griffin himself recognizes: the “generative capacities” of normative agency are “quite great.” Providing adequate protections of the three components of normative agency (autonomy, freedom, and minimal well-being) will encounter a lot of threats to these values and hence will require lots of rights.

Views that explain human rights in terms of the practical political roles that they play have had prominent advocates in recent decades. These “political” conceptions of human rights explain what human rights are by describing the things that they do . Two philosophers who have developed political conceptions are discussed in this section, namely, John Rawls and Charles Beitz (for helpful discussions of political conceptions and their alternatives see the collections of essays in Etinson 2018 and Maliks and Schaffer 2017).

Advocates of political conceptions of human rights are often agnostic or skeptical about universal moral rights while rejecting wholesale moral skepticism and thinking possible the provision of sound normative justifications for the content, normativity, and roles of human rights (for challenges to purely political views see Gilabert 2011, Liao and Etinson 2012, Sangiovanni 2017, and Waldron 2018).

John Rawls introduced the idea of a political conception of human rights in his book, The Law of Peoples (Rawls 1999). The basic idea is that we can understand what human rights are and what their justification requires by identifying the main roles they play in some political sphere. In The Law of Peoples this sphere is international relations (and, secondarily, national politics). Rawls was attempting a normative reconstruction of international law and politics within today’s international system, and this helps explain Rawls’s focus on how human rights function within this system.

Rawls says that human rights are a special class of urgent rights . He seems to accept the definition of human rights given in Section 1 above. Besides saying that human rights are rights that are high priority or “urgent,” Rawls also accepts that they are plural and universal. But Rawls was working on a narrower project than Gewirth and Griffin. The international human rights he was concerned with are also defined by their roles in helping define in various ways the normative structure of the global system. They provide content to other normative concepts such as legitimacy, sovereignty, permissible intervention, and membership in good standing in the international community.

According to Rawls the justificatory process for human rights is analogous to the one for principles of justice at the national level that he described in A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971). Instead of asking about the terms of cooperation that free and equal citizens would agree to under fair conditions, we ask about the terms of cooperation that free and equal peoples or countries would agree to under fair conditions. We imagine representatives of the world’s countries meeting to choose the normative principles that constitute the basic international structure. These representatives are imagined to see the countries they represent as free (rightfully independent) and equal (equally worthy of respect and fair treatment). These representatives are also imagined to be choosing rationally in light of the fundamental interests of their country, to be reasonable in seeking to find and respect fair terms of cooperation, and impartial because they are behind a “veil of ignorance”—they lack information about the country they represent such as its size, wealth, and power. Rawls holds that under these conditions these representatives will unanimously choose principles for the global order that include some basic human rights (for further explanation of the global original position see the entries on John Rawls and original position ).

Rawls advocated a limited list of human rights, one that leaves out many fundamental freedoms, rights of political participation, and equality rights. He did this for two reasons. One is that he wanted a list that is plausible for all reasonable countries, not just liberal democracies. The second reason is that he viewed serious violations of human rights as triggering permissible intervention by other countries, and only the most important rights can play this role.

Leaving out protections for equality and democracy is a high price to pay for assigning human rights the role of making international intervention permissible when they are seriously violated. We can accommodate Rawls’underlying idea without paying that price. To accept the idea that countries engaging in massive violations of the most important human rights are not to be tolerated we do not need to follow Rawls in equating international human rights with a heavily-pruned list. Instead we can work up a view—which is needed for other purposes anyway—of which human rights are the weightiest and then assign the intervention-permitting role to this subset.

Charles Beitz’s account of human rights in The Idea of Human Rights (Beitz 2009) shares many similarities with Rawls’s but is much more fully developed. Like Rawls, Beitz deals with human rights only as they have developed in contemporary international human rights practice. Beitz suggests that we can develop an understanding of human rights by attending to “the practical inferences that would be drawn by competent participants in the practice from what they regard as valid claims of human rights.” Observations of what competent participants say and do inform the account of what human rights are. The focus is not on what human rights are at some deep philosophical level; it is rather on how they work by guiding actions within a recently emerged and still evolving discursive practice. The norms of the practice guide the interpretation and application of human rights, the appropriateness of criticism in terms of human rights, adjudication in human rights courts, and—perhaps most importantly—responding to serious violations of human rights. Beitz says that human rights are “matters of international concern” and that they are “potential triggers of transnational protective and remedial action.”

Beitz does not agree with Rawls’s view that these roles require an abbreviated list of human rights. He accepts that the requirements of human rights are weaker than the requirements of social justice at the national level, but denies that human rights are minimal or highly modest in other respects.

Beitz rightly suggests that a reasonable person can accept and use the idea of human rights without accepting any particular view about their foundations. It is less clear that he is right in suggesting that good justifications of human rights should avoid as far as possible controversial assumptions about religion, metaphysics, ideology, and intrinsic value (see the entry public reason ). Beitz emphasizes the practical good that human rights do, not their grounds in some underlying moral reality. This helps make human rights attractive to people from around the world with their diverse religious and philosophical traditions. The broad justification for human rights and their normativity that Beitz offers is that they protect “urgent individual interests against predictable dangers (”standard threats“) to which they are vulnerable under typical circumstances of life in a modern world order composed of independent states.”

3. Which Rights are Human Rights?

This section discusses the question of which rights belong on lists of human rights. The Universal Declaration’s list, which has had great influence, consists of six families: (1) Security rights that protect people against murder, torture, and genocide; (2) Due process rights that protect people against arbitrary and excessively harsh punishments and require fair and public trials for those accused of crimes; (3) Liberty rights that protect people’s fundamental freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, and movement; (4) Political rights that protect people’s liberty to participate in politics by assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office; (5) Equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and freedom from discrimination; and (6) Social rights that require that governments ensure to all the availability of work, education, health services, and an adequate standard of living. A seventh category, minority and group rights, has been created by subsequent treaties. These rights protect women, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, children, migrant workers, and the disabled.

Not every question of social justice or wise governance is a human rights issue. For example, a country could have too many lawyers or inadequate provision for graduate-level education without violating any human rights. Deciding which norms should be counted as human rights is a matter of considerable difficulty. And there is continuing pressure to expand lists of human rights to include new areas. Many political movements would like to see their main concerns categorized as matters of human rights, since this would publicize, promote, and legitimize their concerns at the international level. A possible result of this is “human rights inflation,” the devaluation of human rights caused by producing too much bad human rights currency (See Cranston 1973, Orend 2002, Wellman 1999, Griffin 2008).

One way to avoid rights inflation is to follow Cranston in insisting that human rights only deal with extremely important goods, protections, and freedoms. A supplementary approach is to impose several justificatory tests for specific human rights. For example, it could be required that a proposed human right not only protect some very important good but also respond to one or more common and serious threats to that good (Dershowitz 2004, Donnelly 2003, Shue 1996, Talbott 2005), impose burdens on the addressees that are justifiable and no larger than necessary, and be feasible in most of the world’s countries (on feasibility see Gilabert 2009 and Nickel 2007). This approach restrains rights inflation with several tests, not just one master test.

In deciding which specific rights are human rights it is possible to make either too little or too much of international documents such as the Universal Declaration and the European Convention. One makes too little of them by proceeding as if drawing up a list of important rights were a new question, never before addressed, and as if there were no practical wisdom to be found in the choices of rights that went into the historic documents. And one makes too much of them by presuming that those documents tell us everything we need to know about human rights. This approach involves a kind of fundamentalism: it holds that when a right is on the official lists of human rights that settles its status as a human right (“If it’s in the book that’s all I need to know.”) But the process of identifying human rights in the United Nations and elsewhere was a political process with plenty of imperfections. There is little reason to take international diplomats as the most authoritative guides to which human rights there are. Further, even if a treaty’s ratification by most countries can settle the question of whether a certain right is a human right within international law, such a treaty cannot settle its weight. The treaty may suggest that the right is supported by weighty considerations, but it cannot make this so. If an international treaty enacted a right to visit national parks without charge as a human right, the ratification of that treaty would make free access to national parks a human right within international law. But it would not be able to make us believe that the right to visit national parks without charge was sufficiently important to be a real human right (see Luban 2015).

The least controversial family of human rights is civil and political rights. These rights are familiar from historic bills of rights such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791, with subsequent amendments). Contemporary sources include the first 21 Articles of the Universal Declaration , and treaties such as the European Convention , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , the American Convention on Human Rights, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights . Some representative formulations follow:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 13.1)

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests (European Convention, Article 11).

Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law. 2. Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country. 3. Every individual shall have the right of access to public property and services in strict equality of all persons before the law (African Charter, Article 13).

Most civil and political rights are not absolute—they can in some cases be overridden by other considerations. For example, the right to freedom of movement can be restricted by public and private property rights, by restraining orders related to domestic violence, and by legal punishments. Further, after a disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake free movement is often appropriately suspended to keep out the curious, permit access of emergency vehicles and equipment, and prevent looting. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits rights to be suspended during times “of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” (Article 4). But it excludes some rights from suspension including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of ex post facto criminal laws, and freedom of thought and religion.

The Universal Declaration included social (or “welfare”) rights that address matters such as education, food, health services, and employment. Their inclusion has been the source of much controversy (see Beetham 1995). The European Convention did not include them (although it was later amended to include the right to education). Instead they were put into a separate treaty, the European Social Charter . When the United Nations began the process of putting the rights of the Universal Declaration into international law, it followed the same pattern by treating economic and social standards in a treaty separate from the one dealing with civil and political rights. This treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (the “Social Covenant,” 1966), treated these standards as rights—albeit rights to be progressively realized.

The Social Covenant’s list of rights includes nondiscrimination and equality for women in economic and social life (Articles 2 and 3), freedom to work and opportunities to work (Article 4), fair pay and decent conditions of work (Article 7), the right to form trade unions and to strike (Article 8), social security (Article 9), special protections for mothers and children (Article 10), the right to adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11), the right to basic health services (Article 12), the right to education (Article 13), and the right to participate in cultural life and scientific progress (Article 15).

Article 2.1 of the Social Covenant sets out what each of the parties commits itself to do about this list, namely to “take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation…to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” In contrast, the Civil and Political Covenant commits its signatories to immediate compliance, to “respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory the rights recognized in the present Covenant” (Article 2.1). The contrast between these two levels of commitment has led some people to suspect that economic and social rights are really just valuable goals. Why did the Social Covenant opt for progressive implementation and thereby treat its rights as being somewhat like goals? The main reason is that many of the world’s countries lacked the economic, institutional, and human resources to realize these standards fully or even largely. For many countries, noncompliance due to inability would have been certain if these standards had been treated as immediately binding.

Social rights have often been defended with linkage arguments that show the support they provide to adequate realization of civil and political rights. This approach was first developed philosophically by Henry Shue (Shue 1996; see also Nickel 2007 and 2016). Linkage arguments defend controversial rights by showing the indispensable or highly useful support they provide to uncontroversial rights. For example, if a government succeeds in eliminating hunger and providing education to everyone this promotes people’s abilities to know, use, and enjoy their liberties, due process rights, and rights of political participation. Lack of education is frequently a barrier to the realization of civil and political rights because uneducated people often do not know what rights they have and what they can do to use and defend them. Lack of education is also a common barrier to democratic participation. Education and a minimum income make it easier for people near the bottom economically to follow politics, participate in political campaigns, and to spend the time and money needed to go to the polls and vote.

Do social rights yield a sufficient commitment to equality? Objections to social rights as human rights have come from both the political right and the political left. A common objection from the left, including liberal egalitarians and socialists, is that social rights as enumerated in human rights documents and treaties provide too weak of a commitment to material equality (Moyn 2018; Gilabert 2015). Realizing social rights requires a state that ensures to everyone an adequate minimum of resources in some key areas but that does not necessarily have strong commitments to equality of opportunity, to strong redistributive taxation, and to ceilings on wealth (see the entries equality , equality of opportunity , distributive justice , and liberal feminism ).

The egalitarian objection cannot be that human rights documents and treaties showed no concern for people living in poverty and misery. That would be wildly false. One of the main purposes of including social rights in human rights documents and treaties was to promote serious efforts to combat poverty, lack of education, and unhealthy living conditions in countries all around the world (see also Langford 2013 on the UN Millennium Development Goals). The objection also cannot be that human rights facilitated the hollowing out of systems of welfare rights in many developed countries that occurred after 1980. Those cuts in welfare programs were often in violation of the requirements of adequately realizing social rights.

Perhaps it should be conceded that human rights documents and treaties have not said enough about positive measures to promote equal opportunity in education and work. A positive right to equal opportunity, like the one Rawls proposed, would require countries to take serious measures to reduce disparities between the opportunities effectively available to children of high-income and low-income parents (Rawls 1971).

A strongly egalitarian political program is best pursued partially within but mostly beyond the human rights framework. One reason for this is that the human rights movement will have better future prospects for acceptance and realization if it has widespread political support. That requires that the rights it endorses appeal to people with a variety of political views ranging from center-left to center-right. Support from the broad political center will not emerge and survive if the human rights platform is perceived as mostly a leftist program.

Do social rights protect sufficiently important human interests? Maurice Cranston opposed social rights by suggesting that social rights are mainly concerned with matters such as holidays with pay that are not matters of deep and universal human interests (Cranston 1967, 1973. Treatments of objections to social rights include Beetham 1995; Howard 1987; and Nickel 2007). It is far from the case, however, that most social rights pertain only to superficial interests. Consider two examples: the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to free public education. These rights require governments to try to remedy widespread and serious evils such as severe poverty, starvation and malnutrition, and ignorance. The importance of food and other basic material conditions of life is easy to show. These goods are essential to people’s ability to live, function, and flourish. Without adequate access to these goods, interests in life, health, and liberty are endangered and serious illness and death are probable. Lack of access to educational opportunities typically limits (both absolutely and comparatively) people’s abilities to participate fully and effectively in the political and economic life of their country.

Are social rights too burdensome? Another objection to social rights is that they are too burdensome on their dutybearers. It is very expensive to guarantee to everyone basic education and minimal material conditions of life. Frequently the claim that social rights are too burdensome uses other, less controversial human rights as a standard of comparison, and suggests that social rights are substantially more burdensome or expensive than liberty rights. Suppose that we use as a basis of comparison liberty rights such as freedom of communication, association, and movement. These rights require both respect and protection from governments. And people cannot be adequately protected in their enjoyment of liberties such as these unless they also have security and due process rights. The costs of liberty, as it were, include the costs of law and criminal justice. Once we see this, liberty rights start to look a lot more costly.

Further, we should not generally think of social rights as simply giving everyone a free supply of the goods they protect. Guarantees of things like food and housing will be intolerably expensive and will undermine productivity if everyone simply receives a free supply. A viable system of social rights will require most people to provide these goods for themselves and their families through work as long as they are given the necessary opportunities, education, and infrastructure. Government-implemented social rights provide guarantees of availability (or “secure access”), but governments should have to supply the requisite goods in only a small fraction of cases. Note that education is often an exception to this since many countries provide free public education irrespective of ability to pay.

Countries that do not accept and implement social rights still have to bear somehow the costs of providing for the needy since these countries—particularly if they recognize democratic rights of political participation—are unlikely to find it tolerable to allow sizeable parts of the population to starve and be homeless. If government does not supply food, clothing, and shelter to those unable to provide for themselves, then families, friends, and communities will have to shoulder this burden. It is only in the last hundred or so years that government-sponsored social rights have taken over a substantial part of the burden of providing for the needy. The taxes associated with social rights are partial replacements for other burdensome duties, namely the duties of families and communities to provide adequate care for the unemployed, sick, disabled, and aged. Deciding whether to implement social rights is not a matter of deciding whether to bear such burdens, but rather of deciding whether to continue with total reliance on a system of informal provision that distributes assistance in a very spotty way and whose costs fall very unevenly on families, friends, and communities.

Are social rights feasible worldwide? Another objection to social rights alleges that they are not feasible in many countries (on how to understand feasibility see Gilabert 2009). It is very expensive to provide guarantees of subsistence, measures to protect and restore people’s health, and education. Many governments will be unable to provide these guarantees while meeting other important responsibilities. Rights are not magical sources of supply (Holmes and Sunstein 1999).

As we saw earlier, the Social Covenant dealt with the issue of feasibility by calling for progressive implementation, that is, implementation as financial and other resources permit. Does this view of implementation turn social rights into high-priority goals? And if so, is that a bad thing?

Standards that outrun the abilities of many of their addressees are good candidates for treatment as goals. Viewing them as largely aspirational rather than as imposing immediate duties avoids problems of inability-based noncompliance. One may worry, however, that this is too much of a demotion for social rights because goals seem much weaker than rights. But goals can be formulated in ways that make them more like rights. They can be assigned addressees (the parties who are to pursue the goal), beneficiaries, scopes that define the objective to be pursued, and a high level of priority (see Langford 2013 and Nickel 2013; see also UN Human Rights and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals ). Strong reasons for the importance of these goals can be provided. And supervisory bodies can monitor levels of progress and pressure low-performing addressees to attend to and work on their goals.

Treating very demanding rights as goals has several advantages. One is that proposed goals that greatly exceed our abilities are not so farcical as proposed duties that do so. Creating grand lists of social rights that many countries cannot presently realize seems farcical to many people. Perhaps this perceived lack of realism is reduced if we understand that these “rights” are really goals that countries should seriously promote. Goals coexist easily with low levels of ability to achieve them. Another advantage is that goals are flexible: addressees with different levels of ability can choose ways of pursuing the goals that suit their circumstances and means. Because of these attractions it may be worth exploring sophisticated ways to transform very demanding human rights into goals. The transformation may be full or partial. It is possible to create right-goal mixtures that contain some mandatory elements and that therefore seem more like real rights (see Brems 2009). A right-goal mixture might include some rights-like goals, some mandatory steps to be taken immediately, and duties to realize the rights-like goals as quickly as possible.

Equality of rights for historically disadvantaged or subordinated groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents repeatedly emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have equal human rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties. The Civil and Political Covenant, for example, commits participating states to respect and protect their people’s rights “without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or social status” (on minority and group rights see Kymlicka 1995, Nickel 2007).

A number of standard individual rights are especially important to ethnic and religious minorities, including rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination. Human rights documents also include rights that refer to minorities explicitly and give them special protections. For example, the Civil and Political Covenant in Article 27 says that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities “shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”

Feminists have often protested that standard lists of human rights do not sufficiently take into account the different risks faced by women and men. For example, issues like domestic violence, reproductive choice, and trafficking of women and girls for sex work did not have a prominent place in early human rights documents and treaties. Lists of human rights have had to be expanded “to include the degradation and violation of women” (Bunch 2006, 58; see also Lockwood 2006 and Okin 1998). Violations of women’s human rights often occur in the home at the hands of other family members, not in the street at the hands of the police. Most violence against women occurs in the “private” sphere. This has meant that governments cannot be seen as the only addressees of human rights and that the right to privacy of home and family needs qualifications to allow police to protect women within the home.

The issue of how formulations of human rights should respond to variations in the sorts of risks and dangers that different people face is difficult and arises not just in relation to gender but also in relation to age, profession, political affiliation, religion, and personal interests. Due process rights, for example, are much more useful to young people (and particularly young men) than they are to older people since the latter are far less likely to run afoul of the criminal law.

Since 1964 the United Nations has mainly dealt with the rights of women and minorities through specialized treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007). See also the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Specialized treaties allow international norms to address unique problems of particular groups such as assistance and care during pregnancy and childbearing in the case of women, custody issues in the case of children, and the loss of historic territories by indigenous peoples.

Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects some groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II. The right against genocide is clearly a group right. It is held by both individuals and groups and provides protection to groups as groups. It is largely negative in the sense that it requires governments and other agencies to refrain from destroying groups; but it also requires that legal and other protections against genocide be created at the national level.

Can the right against genocide be a human right? More generally, can a group right fit the general idea of human rights proposed earlier? On that conception, human rights are rights of all persons . Perhaps it can, however, if we broaden our conception of who can hold human rights to include important groups that people form and cherish (see the entry on group rights ). This can be made more palatable, perhaps, by recognizing that the beneficiaries of the right against genocide are individual humans who enjoy greater security against attempts to destroy the group to which they belong (Kymlicka 1989).

In spite of the danger of rights inflation, there are doubtless norms that should be counted as human rights but are not generally recognized as such. After all, there are lots of areas in which people’s dignity and fundamental interests are threatened by the actions and omissions of individuals and governments. Consider environmental rights, which are often defined to include rights of animals or even of nature itself (see the entry on environmental ethics ). Conceived in this broad way environmental rights don’t have a good fit with the general idea of human rights because the rightholders are not humans or human groups.

Alternative formulations are possible, however. A basic environmental human right can be understood as requiring maintenance and restoration of an environment that is safe for human life and health. Many countries have environmental rights of this sort in their constitutional bills of rights (Hayward 2005). And the European Union’s Bill of Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , includes in Article 37 an environmental protection norm: “A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.”

A human right to a safe environment or to environmental protection does not directly address issues such as the claims of animals or biodiversity, although it might do so indirectly using the idea of ecosystem services to humans (see Biodiversity and Human Rights . A justification for a human right to a safe environment should show that environmental problems pose serious threats to fundamental human interests, values, or norms; that governments may appropriately be burdened with the responsibility of protecting people against these threats; and that most governments actually have the ability to do this.

Climate change is currently a major environmental threat to many people’s lives and health, and hence it is unsurprising that human rights approaches to climate change have been developed and advocated in recent decades (see Bodansky 2011, Gardiner 2013, and UN Human Rights and Climate Change ). One approach, advocated by Steve Vanderheiden accepts the idea of a human right to an environment that is adequate for human life and health and derives from this broad right a more specific right to a stable climate (Vanderheiden 2008). Another approach, advocated by Simon Caney, does not require introducing a new environmental right. It suggests instead that serious action to reduce and mitigate climate change is required by already well-established human rights because severe climate change will violate many people’s rights to life, food, and health (Caney 2010). One could expand this approach by arguing that severe climate change should be reduced and mitigated because it will cause massive human migrations and other crises that will undermine the abilities of many governments to uphold human rights (for evaluation of these arguments see Bell 2013).

Two familiar philosophical worries about human rights are that they are based on moral beliefs that are culturally relative and that their creation and advocacy involves ethnocentrism. Human rights prescribe universal standards in areas such as security, law enforcement, equality, political participation, and education. The peoples and countries of planet Earth are, however, enormously varied in their practices, traditions, religions, and levels of economic and political development. Putting these two propositions together may be enough to justify the worry that universal human rights do not sufficiently accommodate the diversity of Earth’s peoples. A theoretical expression of this worry is “relativism,” the idea that ethical, political, and legal standards for a particular country or region are mostly shaped by the traditions, beliefs, and conditions of that country or region (see the entry on moral relativism ). The anthropologist William G. Sumner, writing in 1906, asserted that “the mores can make anything right and prevent condemnation of anything” (Sumner 1906).

Relativists sometimes accuse human rights advocates of ethnocentrism, arrogance, and cultural imperialism (Talbott 2005). Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that “one’s own group is the center of everything” and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are “scaled and rated” (Sumner 1906; see also Etinson 2018 who argues that ethnocentrism is best understood as a kind of cultural bias rather than as a belief in cultural superiority). Ethnocentrism can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions. Finally, cultural imperialism occurs when the economically, technologically, and militarily strongest countries impose their beliefs, values, and institutions on the rest of the world. Relativists often combine these charges with a prescription, namely that tolerance of varied practices and traditions ought to be instilled and practiced through measures that include extended learning about other cultures.

The conflict between relativists and human rights advocates may be partially based on differences in their underlying philosophical beliefs, particularly in metaethics. Relativists are often subjectivists or noncognitivists and think of morality as entirely socially constructed and transmitted. In contrast, philosophically-inclined human rights advocates are more likely to adhere to or presuppose cognitivism, moral realism , and intuitionism .

During the drafting in 1947 of the Universal Declaration, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association warned of the danger that the Declaration would be “a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in Western Europe and America.” Perhaps the main concern of the AAA Board in the period right after World War II was to condemn the intolerant colonialist attitudes of the day and to advocate cultural and political self-determination. But the Board also made the stronger assertion that “standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive” and thus “what is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another people” ( American Anthropological Association Statement on Human Rights 1947 ).

This is not, of course, the stance of most anthropologists today. Currently the American Anthropological Association has a Committee on Human Rights whose objectives include promoting and protecting human rights and developing an anthropological perspective on human rights. While still emphasizing the importance of cultural differences, anthropologists now often support cultural survival and the protection of vulnerable cultures, non-discrimination, and the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples.

The idea that relativism and exposure to other cultures promote tolerance may be correct from a psychological perspective. People who are sensitive to differences in beliefs, practices, and traditions, and who are suspicious of the grounds for extending norms across borders, may be more inclined to be tolerant of other countries and peoples than those who believe in an objective universal morality. Still, philosophers have been generally critical of attempts to argue from relativism to a prescription of tolerance (Talbott 2005). If the culture and religion of one country has long fostered intolerant attitudes and practices, and if its citizens and officials act intolerantly towards people from other countries, they are simply following their own traditions and cultural norms. They are just doing what relativists think people mostly do. Accordingly, a relativist from a tolerant country will be hard-pressed to find a basis for criticizing the citizens and officials of the intolerant country. To do so the relativist will have to endorse a transcultural principle of tolerance and to advocate as an outsider cultural change in the direction of greater tolerance. Because of this, relativists who are deeply committed to tolerance may find themselves attracted to a qualified commitment to human rights.

East Asia is the region of the world that participates least in the international human rights system—even though some important East Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea do participate. In the 1990s Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and others argued that international human rights as found in United Nations declarations and treaties were insensitive to distinctive “Asian values” such as prizing families and community (in contrast to strong individualism); putting social harmony over personal freedom; respect for political leaders and institutions; and emphasizing responsibility, hard work, and thriftiness as means of social progress (on the Asian Values debate see Bauer and Bell 1999; Bell 2000; Sen 1997; and Twining 2009). Proponents of the Asian values idea did not wish to abolish all human rights; they rather wanted to deemphasize some families of human rights, particularly the fundamental freedoms and rights of democratic participation (and in some cases the rights of women). They also wanted Western governments and NGOs to stop criticizing them for human rights violations in these areas.

At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, countries including Singapore, Malaysia, China, and Iran advocated accommodations within human rights practice for cultural and economic differences. Western representatives tended to view the position of these countries as excuses for repression and authoritarianism. The Conference responded by approving the Vienna Declaration . It included in Article 5 the assertion that countries should not pick and choose among human rights: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Perhaps the debate about relativism and human rights has become obsolete. In recent decades widespread acceptance of human rights has occurred in most parts of the world. Three quarters of the world’s countries have ratified the major human rights treaties, and many countries in Africa, the Americas, and Europe participate in regional human rights regimes that have international courts (see Georgetown University Human Rights Law Research Guide in the Other Internet Resources below). Further, all of the world’s countries now use similar political institutions (law, courts, legislatures, executives, militaries, bureaucracies, police, prisons, taxation, and public schools) and these institutions carry with them characteristic problems and abuses (Donnelly 2003). Finally, globalization has diminished the differences among peoples. Today’s world is not the one that early anthropologists and missionaries found. National and cultural boundaries are breached not just by international trade but also by millions of travelers and migrants, electronic communications, international law covering many areas, and the efforts of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. International influences and organizations are everywhere and countries borrow freely and regularly from each other’s inventions and practices.

Worldwide polls on attitudes towards human rights are now available and they show broad support for human rights and international efforts to promote them. Empirical research can now replace or supplement theoretical speculations about how much disagreement on human rights exists worldwide. A December 2011 report by the Council on Foreign Relations surveyed recent international opinion polls on human rights that probe agreement and disagreement with propositions such as “People have the right to express any opinion,” “People of all faiths can practice their religion freely,” “Women should have the same rights as men,” “People of different races [should be] treated equally,” and governments “should be responsible for ensuring that [their] citizens can meet their basic need for food.” Big majorities of those polled in countries such as Argentina, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Nigeria, China, India, and Indonesia gave affirmative answers. Further, large majorities (on average 70%) in all the countries polled supported UN efforts to promote the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration. Unfortunately, popular acceptance of human rights ideas has not, however, prevented a recent slide in many of these same countries towards authoritarianism.

Ashford, E., 2015, “A Moral Inconsistency Argument for a Basic Human Right to Subsistence,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beetham, D., 1995, “What Future for Economic and Social Rights?”, Political Studies , 43: 41–60.
Beitz, C., 2015, “The Force of Subsistence Rights,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
––– 2009, The Idea of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, D., 2013, “Climate Change and Human Rights.” WIREs Climate Change , 4: 159–170.
Besson, S., “Human Rights and Constitutional Law: Patterns of Mutual Validation and Legitimation,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beyleveld, D., 1991, Dialectical Necessity of Morality: An Analysis and Defense of Alan Gewirth’s Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bodansky, D., 2010, “Introduction: Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues,” Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law , 38: 511–524.
Boylan, M. (ed.), 1999, Gewirth: Critical Essays on Action, Rationality, and Community , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Brandt, R. B., 1983, “The Concept of a Moral Right,” Journal of Philosophy , 80: 29–45.
Brems, E., 2009, “Human Rights: Minimum and Maximum Perspectives,” Human Rights Law Review , 9: 343–372.
Brownlee, K., 2013, “A Human Right Against Social Deprivation,” Philosophical Quarterly , 63: 251, 199–222.
––– 2015, “Do We Have a Human Right to the Political Determinants of Health,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, A., 2010, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and the Use of Force , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunch, C., 2006, “Women’s Rights as Human Rights,” in B. Lockwood (ed.), Women’s Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Caney S., 2010, “Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds,” in Humphreys, S. (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., 2012, Globalization and Sovereignty , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., 2004, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12: 90–213.
Claude, R. and Weston, B. (eds.), 2006, Human Rights in the World Community , 3rd edition, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Corradetti, C., 2009, Relativism and Human Rights , New York: Springer.
––– (ed.), 2012, Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights , New York: Springer.
Cranston, M., 1967, “Human Rights, Real and Supposed,” in D. D. Raphael (ed.), Political Theory and the Rights of Man , London: Macmillan.
–––, 1973, What Are Human Rights? , London: Bodley Head.
Cruft, R., 2012, “Human Rights as Rights,” in Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
–––, 2019, Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dershowitz, A., 2004, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights , New York: Basic Books.
Donnelly, J., 2012, International Human Rights , 4th edition, Philadelphia: Westview Press.
–––, 2013, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice , 3rd edition, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Dworkin, R., 2011, Justice for Hedgehogs , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
––– 1978, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: De Gruyter.
Etinson, A. (ed.), 2018, Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, “Some Myths about Ethnocentrism,” Australian Journal of Philosophy , 96: 209–224.
Feinberg, J., 1973, Social Philosophy , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fellmeth, A., 2016, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law , New York: Oxford University Press
Finnis, J., 2012, “Grounding Human Rights in Natural Law,” American Journal of Jurisprudence , 60: 195–225.
––– 2011, Natural Law and Natural Rights , 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Follesdal, A. 2018, “Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, S., 2013, “Human Rights in a Hostile Climate,” in Holder, C., and Reidy, D. (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gewirth, A., 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1982, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1996, The Community of Rights , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilabert, P., 2018, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––2009, “The Feasibility of Basic Socioeconomic Rights: A Conceptual Exploration,” The Philosophical Quarterly , 59: 559–581.
–––2011, “Humanist and Political Perspectives on Human Rights,” Political Theory , 39: 439–467.
––– 2018, “Reflections on Human Rights and Power,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glendon, M., 2001, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , New York: Random House.
Gould, C., 2004, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, J., 2008, On Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, H., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?” Philosophical Review , 64: 175–191.
Hayden, P. (ed.), 2001, The Philosophy of Human Rights , St. Paul, MN: Paragon Press.
Hayward, T., 2005, Constitutional Environmental Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henkin, L., 1978, The Rights of Man Today , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Holder C., and Reidy, D. (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, S. and Sunstein, C., 1999, The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes , New York: Norton.
Howard, R., 1987, “The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority Over Civil and Political Rights?” Human Rights Quarterly , 5: 467–90.
Ignatieff, M., 2004, The Lesser Evil, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kateb, G., 2011, Human Dignity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kennedy, D., 2004, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
King, J., 2012, Judging Social Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kymlicka, W., 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
––– (ed.), 1995, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lacrois, J. and Pranchere, J., 2016, Human Rights on Trial: A Genealogy of the Critique of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lafont, C., 2013, Global Governance and Human Rights , Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Langford, M. et al. (eds.), 2013, The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lauren, P., 2003, The Evolution of International Human Rights , 2nd edition, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Liao, M. and Etinson, A., 2012, “Political and Naturalistic Conceptions of Human Rights: A False Polemic?”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 9: 327–352.
Locke, J., 1689, The Second Treatise on Civil Government , New York: Prometheus Books, 1986.
Lockwood, B. (ed.), 2006, Women’s Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Luban, D., 2015, “Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maliks, R. and Schaffer, J. (eds.), 2017, Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyers, D., 1985, Inalienable Rights: A Defense , New York: Columbia University Press.
–––, 2016, Victims’ Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights , New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D., 2012, “Grounding Human Rights,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 15: 207–227.
Miller, R., 2010, Global Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morsink, J., 1999, Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
–––, 2009, Inherent Human Rights: Philosophical Roots of the Universal Declaration , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Moyn, S., 2010, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
––– 2018, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mutua, M., 2008, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique , Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Nickel, J., 2018, “Assigning Functions to Human Rights: Methodological Issues in Human Rights Theory,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2016, “Can a Right to Health Care be Justified by Linkage Arguments?”, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics , 37 (4): 293–306.
–––, 2007, Making Sense of Human Rights , 2nd edition., Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
–––, 2008, “Rethinking Indivisibility: Towards a Theory of Supporting Relations Between Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly , 30: 984–1001.
–––, 2013, “Goals and Rights—Working Together?”, in M. Langford, et al., The MDGs and Human Rights: Past, Present, and Future , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
Nussbaum, M., 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2007, Frontiers of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Okin, S., 1998, “Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences,” Hypatia , 13: 32–52.
O’Neill, O., 1986, Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty, Development and Justice , London: Allen and Unwin.
–––, 2005, “The Dark Side of Human Rights,” International Affairs , 81: 427–439.
Orend, B., 2002, Human Rights: Concept and Context , Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.
Pogge, T., 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rawls, J., 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1999, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J., 2010, “Human Rights Without Foundations,” in Besson, S., and Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinbold, J., 2017, Seeing the Myth in Human Rights , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rorty, R., 2012, “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality,” in Cistelecan, A., and Rathore, A. (eds.), Wronging Rights? Philosophical Challenges for Human Rights , London: Taylor and Francis.
Sangiovanni, A., 2017, Humanity Without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A., 2004, “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 32: 315–356.
–– 1997, Human Rights and Asian Values, New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.
Shue, H., 1996, Basic Rights , 2nd edition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Simmons, B., 2009, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law and Domestic Politics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sumner, L., 1987, The Moral Foundation of Rights , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sumner, W., 1906, Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals , Boston: Ginn and Co.
Talbott, W., 2010, Human Rights and Human Well-Being , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
––Talbott, W., 2005, Which Rights Should be Universal? , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tasioulas, J., 2015, “On the Foundations of Human Rights,” in R. Cruft, S. Liao, and M. Renzo (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–– 2012, “On the Nature of Human Rights,” in Ernst, G. and Heilinger, J. (eds.), 2011, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Tomalty, J., 2016, “Justifying International Legal Human Rights,” Ethics and International Affairs, 30: 483–490.
Tomasi, J., 2012, Free Market Fairness , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tierney, B., 1997, The Idea of Natural Rights , Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co.
Tuck, W., 1979, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teson, F., 2005, Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality , Ardsley, NY: Transnational.
Thomson, J., 1990, The Realm of Rights , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vanderheiden, S., 2008, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change, New York: Oxford University Press.
Waldron, J., 2018, “Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/Rawls Approach,” in Etinson, A. (ed.), Human Rights: Moral or Political?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1993, Liberal Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
––– (ed.), 1987, Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man , London: Methuen.
Wellman, C., 1995, Real Rights , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1998, The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
–––, 2010, The Moral Dimensions of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wenar, L., 2015, Blood Oil , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolff, J., 2015, “The Content of the Human Right to Health,” in Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolterstorff, N., 2008, Justice: Rights and Wrongs , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Corradetti, C. (ed.), 2012, Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights , New York: Springer.
Crisp, R. (ed.), 2014, Griffin on Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruft, R., Liao, S., and Renzo, M. (eds.), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holder, C. and Reidy, D., (eds.), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maliks, R. and Schaffer, J., (eds.) 2017, Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

Georgetown Law Library Human Rights Law Research Guide
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library .
Francisco Suarez (1548–1617), entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
Human Rights entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

Acknowledgments

The assistance of Adam Etinson, Pablo Gilabert, and Erin Sperry is acknowledged with gratitude.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

5 Human Rights Topics For Your Human Rights Essay

When you’re writing a paper on human rights, you want to pick a topic that’s relevant and compelling. It seems like our world is heading in a downwards spiral, but writing about the issues provokes action, which in turn results in change. Here are five topics that have been getting attention (or aren’t getting enough attention) in recent years. These are all important; choosing one just comes down to what speaks to you most powerfully:

Police brutality in the United States

Violence by American police is a major issue in the human rights arena these days and data indicates it’s getting worse. According to Killed By Police, a website that tracks police killings, 2018 has witnessed more deaths than in the last five years over the same period of time. It most likely won’t get better, as the DOJ recently ended a program that helped keep corrupt police departments in check. Black Americans are most vulnerable; in 2012, they made up 31% of police-killing victims, while only comprising 13% of the total US population.

Questions an essay could answer: Why are African-Americans and other minorities at a higher risk of police violence than white people? What has been done to undermine efforts to change the policing system? What could reduce killings by law enforcement?

Global mental health treatment

We hear a lot about how the mental health system in America is broken, but on a global scale, it’s just as much of a problem. Close to 800 000 people die due to suicide every year, which is one person every 40 seconds. Not much has been done to treat this issue, though according to a World Bank study, poor mental health has a drastic effect on one’s quality of life. Most governments have very small budgets for mental health treatment. In a WHO study, around 47 countries (out of 191) do not have any kind of national legislation or policies on mental health.

Questions an essay could answer: What is the current state of mental health treatment around the world? What specific treatments exist? What effect does poor mental health have on a nation’s economy, culture, etc? Why hasn’t the United Nations taken more aggressive action?

US policy on refugees

Since President Trump took office and instituted increasingly harsh limits and action on refugees and immigration, the US has entered a dark time. Just nine months after entering office, he capped the refugee admissions number to 45,000. Other programmes have been completely eliminated, such as the Central Americans Minors programme, which let children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras join their parents who are legally in the US. Those seeking asylum have also been met with significant opposition. The biggest story, of course, is how children are being separated and interned apart from their parents. These are just a few topics that a paper about the US refugee policy could cover.

Questions an essay could answer : How has the current US refugee policy affected other countries’ opinion on America? How is this policy different than America’s stance in the past? What are the potential consequences of letting so few refugees into the country, for them and for the United States?

Transgender rights in Europe

In recent years, transgender rights have been challenged in the political arena with legislation such as the Bathroom Laws and weakened legal protection against work discrimination. What’s happening in Europe? In many countries like Belgium and Switzerland, transgender individuals were until very recently legally required to undergo sterilization and surgery before obtaining new identification papers. What provoked this change?

Questions an essay could answer: What is the history of trans rights in Europe? What countries have made the most positive moves in accepting transgender individuals? What can the United States do to follow progressive European countries into a new era?

Disability rights in America

Though somewhat ignored by the media, disability rights are under attack in America. Various pieces of legislature include deep cuts to Medicaid and removals of protections for disabled workers and students. One of the biggest blows is the Medicaid work requirement, which is currently allowed in three states. In order to receive assistance, people must meet a certain number of hours, but those with disabilities or illnesses won’t be able to. In response, Americans with disabilities are rising up in protest.

Questions an essay could answer: How are disability advocates fighting for their cause? What is the Trump administration’s response to activists? What can be done to protect those with disabilities?

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

Apply now: UN Post Graduate Diploma in Global Health Procurement and Supply Chain Management

About the author, human rights careers.

Human Rights Careers (HRC) provides information about online courses, jobs, paid internships, masters degrees, scholarships and other opportunities in the human rights sector and related areas.

Funding the Resident Coordinator system: All you need to know.

UN in Action
Global Level
Regional Level
Countries and Territories

Regional Teams

Rcp: africa, rcp: arab states, rcp: asia and the pacific, rcp: europe and central asia, rcp: latin america and the caribbean, featured content.

Resources Library
Executive Board Session Documents
UNCT Key Documents Library
Annual UNCT Results Reports
UNSDG Chair Report on DCO
System-Wide Contribution to the SDGs
UNSDG Data Portal
How We Work (Our Common Premises)
Resident Coordinator Statistics

2030 Agenda

2030 Agenda and the SDGs
RCs and the Decade of Action
Engaging with Human Rights Machinery
About the Goals
Goals Knowledge Platform
Youth SDG Dashboard
SDG Action Campaign
Joint SDG Fund
UNCT Toolkit

Quick links

How We Work

Human Rights-Based Approach

Universal values principle one: human rights-based approach.

Human Rights has been central pillar of the United Nation’s work from its inception in 1945 with the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations. We can proudly celebrate having given birth to a normative era in which the international community, inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has produced an outstanding corpus of international norms and standards for a life of dignity and well-being for all. You can read more about these achievements here . The human rights-based approach (HRBA) is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to analyse inequalities which lie at the heart of development problems and redress discriminatory practices and unjust distributions of power that impede development progress and often result in groups of people being left behind. Under the HRBA, the plans, policies and processes of development are anchored in a system of rights and corresponding obligations established by international law , including all civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and the right to development. HRBA requires human rights principles (universality, indivisibility, equality and non-discrimination, participation, accountability) to guide United Nations development cooperation, and focus on developing the capacities of both ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations, and ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights.

While there’s no universal recipe for a human rights-based approach, United Nations agencies have nonetheless agreed a number of essential attributes in the 2003 Common Understanding on HRBA to Development Cooperation , which indicates that:

All programmes of development co-operation, policies and technical assistance should further the realisation of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.
Human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process.
Development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights.

The Universal Human Rights Index is a tool designed to facilitate access to human rights recommendations issued by the United Nations’ human rights mechanisms, including the nine treaty bodies established under the international human rights treaties , the special procedures and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Human Rights Council. The UNSDG has produced guidance on strengthening strategic engagement with the human rights machinery . HRBA is one of the six Guiding Principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework . The Companion Piece on the Guiding Principles provides guidance to United Nations country teams on application of the HRBA in the context of the Cooperation Framework, and other UNSDG operational and training materials on the HRBA can be found under Resources .

Related Resources

Skip to content
Skip to primary sidebar

Harvard Human Rights Journal

Spring 2024 Essay Contest Prompt: Human Rights in Practice

Submissions should be essays about a topic broadly connected to the practice of human rights advocacy. Successful submissions will introduce a novel approach or perspective to their topics, will center practice-based experiences, and will have a strong nexus to human rights law. Submissions may, for example, explore how to overcome contemporary challenges in human rights litigation, or how advocates can better represent the interests of communities at the grassroots level.

Submissions Window : January 17, 2024 – February 28, 2024. Submissions received outside this window will not be considered.

Winners will be announced in the Spring of 2024 and published in the Online Journal .

Submission Guidelines:

Qualifications : The essay contest is open to all current students at Harvard University, including undergraduate and graduate students.

Length Limitations : Submissions should be approximately 1,000–2,000 words, including footnotes.

Citation Format : All assertions should be cited. Please cite sources using footnotes rather than endnotes. Law students should ensure footnotes comply with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation . For other students, the use of a consistent citation system providing complete source information in the footnotes is sufficient.

Submission Instructions : Participants should send their submission, as an attachment in Microsoft Word format, from an official Harvard email address to the HHRJ Submissions Committee ( [email protected] ), along with a copy of a recent CV. The subject line of the email should include “Essay Contest Submission” and the author’s last name.

Human Rights Violation Essay Sample, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Human Rights Violation Essay Outline

Introduction, elevate your writing with our free writing tools.

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Thesis: The enforcement and upholding human rights goes a long way in promoting justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

The law punishes heavily those people who violate human rights. Essays on violation of human rights can be tough to most students with the help of credible essay writing service like Gudwriter you get MBA essay writing for students who are struggling to complete their assignments or essays.

Paragraph 1:

There is a general agreement that fundamental human rights and freedoms should be accorded to people no matter the situation or circumstance.

These rights include but not limited to civil liberties, political rights and most important the right to life.
A violation of human rights denies individuals their basic moral entitlements.
Some of the universal human rights abuses and those termed as crimes against humanity include, ‘genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization, medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation’.

Paragraph 2:

In times of warfare, there is often a widespread violation of human, political, and fundamental rights.

In such situations, the worst violation of human rights and specifically the right to life include massacres, starvation of people, and genocide.
The murder of individuals and causing them bodily harm, prevention of birth, or forcibly transferring children is a violation of human rights.

Paragraph 3:

Sometimes women face the worst form of human right violation through rape or forced into prostitution.

Crimes involving sexual mutilation, humiliation, and forced pregnancy are common.
Another case of human violation among women is that of trafficking where they are transported to long distances for prostitution.

Paragraph 4:

The police are also notorious for violating basic human rights.

The most common violation of basic human rights by the police is brutality.
It is a dangerous human right violation since even though it is considered illegal, it can be carried out under the color of law.

Paragraph 6:

Protection of Human rights

The question that ought to be considered is how these rights should be protected.
When it comes to crimes against humanity, there should be a humanitarian intervention.
Although it is a highly protested debate, humanitarian intervention will go a long way in ensuring that people are not subjected to inhuman treatment.
The international community should also ensure that international standards related to human rights are promoted without having an interest in a nation but for the sake of the suffering citizens.

Understanding one’s rights goes a long way in preventing human rights violations.

The citizens of any nation should have adequate knowledge of their rights to ensure that they are not violated.
It is often said that knowledge is power which means that when people possess knowledge concerning their rights, they will know when their rights are violated and where to go to seek redress.

Paragraph 7:

Due to globalization governments should revise their laws to fight against human rights violation.

In the wake of the 21 st century, there has been an increase in trading activities across borders meaning that non-state actors are more involves in issues related to human rights.
Although globalization has enhanced the ability to carry out activities beyond borders, some people have found loopholes where they can violate human rights.
Governments should ensure that they close such loopholes by the formation of laws that acknowledge the world as a global village.

Paragraph 8:

All governments across the world should put in place strict penalties against people that violate human rights.

For instance, when it comes to police brutality, the government through its arms should ensure that people who suffer receive justice.
A restate of the thesis statement
A summary of the main points
A take-away statement made based on presented facts or information

Human rights violation essay instructions – ways through which human rights are violated and what can be done to ensure human rights are protected.

Human Rights Violation and Protection

In every society, there are fundamental rights and freedoms put in place. A human right is a moral principle or a norm that describes or sets specific standards of human behavior and protected in a country’s constitution. There is also the concept of natural rights. Defined, natural rights are those rights that are believed all human beings and animals are entitled to as provided by natural law. Society often views these rights to be inalienable, implying it is almost impossible to take them away. Noteworthy, life, liberty, and property are the most important natural rights. When the U.S. was declaring itself independent from the British, “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness” were mentioned as the natural rights. The Declaration of the Rights of Man too espoused the idea.

Those who supported the idea, including Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, believed that the government has the purpose of protecting the natural rights of people through a social contract. In such a contract, members of a society implicitly agree to pursue social benefits through mutual cooperation. However, different actions and practices often lead to violation of these rights. A violation of human rights is dangerous and illegal in any society since it defeats the purpose the rights were established in the first place. The enforcement and upholding of human rights goes a long way in promoting justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.

There is a general agreement that fundamental human rights and freedoms should be accorded to people no matter the situation or circumstance. These rights include but not limited to civil liberties, political rights, and most importantly the right to life. The protection of human rights ensures that individuals are not treated inhumanely or indecently. A violation of human rights denies individuals their basic moral entitlements. That is, violation of these rights means that one is treated in an undeserving manner. Some of the universal human rights abuses and those termed as crimes against humanity, according to Ekpa (2016), include genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization, medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation.

In times of warfare, there is often a widespread violation of human, political, and fundamental rights. In such situations, the worst violation of human rights and specifically the right to life include massacres, starvation of people, and genocide. Defined, genocide refers to the killing of people of a particular race, ethnicity, or religious group en-masse (MacKinnon, 2017). The killing of people and causing them bodily harm, prevention of birth, or forcibly transferring children are all human rights violations. Genocide is considered as one of the most serious violation of human rights.

Sometimes, women face the worst form of human rights violation through rape or forced prostitution. At other times, the international community fails to consider sexual crimes that happen during times of war. However, crimes involving sexual mutilation, humiliation, and forced pregnancy are common (Bunch, 2013). Another case of human violation among women is that of trafficking whereby they are transported to long distances for prostitution. At times, these acts against women are performed intentionally. For instance, in the 1990s, the media proclaimed that rape and other sexual crimes were carried out deliberately during the Bosnian war.

The police are another group that are notorious for violating fundamental human rights. The most common violation of human rights by the police is brutality. Most of the times, the police are known to exert excessive violence when quelling riots and protests. It is a dangerous human rights violation since even though it is considered illegal, it can be carried out under the color of law. There are numerous videos and news article that show images of people being mistreated in the hands of people who should uphold and implement the very human rights.

Protection of Human rights

Undoubtedly, there are numerous cases of human rights violations . The question that ought to be considered is how these rights should be protected. When it comes to crimes against humanity, there should be a humanitarian intervention (Shelton, 2015). Although it is a highly protested debate, humanitarian intervention will go a long way in ensuring that people are not subjected to inhumane treatment. The international community should also ensure that international standards related to human rights are promoted without having an interest in a nation but for the sake of the suffering citizens.

Understanding one’s rights goes a long way in preventing human rights violations. The citizens of any nation should have adequate knowledge of their rights to ensure that they are not violated. It is often said that knowledge is power, which means that when people possess knowledge concerning their rights, they will know when the rights are violated and where to go in order to seek redress.

Due to globalization, governments should revise their laws to fight against human rights violation. In the wake of the 21st century, there has been an increase in trading activities across borders meaning that non-state actors are more involved in issues related to human rights (Shelton, 2015). Although globalization has enhanced the ability to carry out activities beyond borders, some people have found loopholes through which to violate human rights. Therefore, governments should ensure that they close such loopholes by adopting laws that acknowledge the world as a global village.

All governments across the world should put in place strict penalties against people who violate human rights. For instance, when it comes to police brutality, a country’s government through its arms should ensure that people who suffer receive justice. Sometimes, the government might turn a blind eye to such situations, but the situations brew catastrophe in the long run. In this light, the fight against human rights violation should start with the government and spread to other parties.

The enforcement and upholding of human rights goes a long way in promoting justice, tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity. When human rights are violated, it means that there is a total disregard of basic human moral entitlements. Therefore, people should be educated on their rights and governments should play a role in protecting these rights without turning a blind eye to any situation involving human rights violation.

Bunch, C. (1990). Women’s rights as human rights: Toward a re-vision of human rights. Hum. Rts. Q. , 12 , 486.

Ekpa, S. (2016). Human rights violation. SSRN . Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2738447

MacKinnon, C. A. (2017). Rape, genocide, and women’s human rights. In Genocide and human rights (pp. 133-144). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shelton, D. (2015). Remedies in international human rights law . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)

Human’s rights as the attribute of society, the four schools of thoughts: observing the perspectives, natural school: the natural course of events, protest school: opposing the situation, deliberative school: agreeing upon the basics, discourse school: when it is the right time to talk, multiculturalism in different forms, human rights and linguistic diversity, reference list.

In contrast to the other institutions that suggest a single form of the notion existing in the given society, the area of human rights allows to switch the shapes of the very notion of human rights according to the sphere it is applied to. In spite of the fact that the core idea of the human rights remains the same, the form it takes can vary depending on the field of use. The universality of human rights allows them to get into every single part of people’s lives, and this is a subject that needs further exploration.

The way the human rights are interpreted now does not differ from the basic principles set by the founders of democracy. Throughout the centuries, the main idea of human rights remained the same, claiming every single person to have the package of rights that are to be inherent and be an integral part of living a full life of a free man. Set long time ago and representing the range of freedoms that have been proclaimed since the times of the French Revolution, these right still speak of the democracy in motion, demanding the constitutional law and the recognition of a man’s liberty. The situation has not changed much since then, the established rights for life, education, voting and freedom of speech, remain the same.

However, there have been some amendments that presupposed certain improvements, but the basics were left untouched. Nowadays, almost every country can claim that it suggests a full range of the necessary rights and freedoms to its citizens. The democracy principles spread all around the world, and the modern society seems to have all the attributes to be called democratic for recognizing people’s right and freedoms in full. However, it is still curious how the law that outlines the most important points of human rights can convey the idea, and the way this idea can switch its shape as it transgresses from one sphere of analytical and philosophical thinking into another one.

Dembour (2006) defines human rights as the most obvious things that should actually be taken for granted, without clarifying them in such a detailed manner in the set of laws, “One claims a human right in the hope of ultimately creating a society in which such claims will be no longer necessary” (p. 248). The existence of the four schools of human right can explain the fact of these rights switching their shape so suddenly and with such a scale. There four schools consider human rights in absolutely different light. The ideas of different scholars may be considered from the point of view of those four schools of thought. A lot of scholars dwelling upon human rights in the relation to multiculturalism and language refered themselves to one of the Dembour’s schools.

One of the most well-known schools is probably the natural school that considers human rights as they are given, in plain. Presupposing that human rights are something that one has been granted since the day of birth, the followers of this school suggest that the subject under discussion can be valued from the point of view of the plain nature. Eriksen (1996) supports this idea dwelling upon the fact that different nations can exist together on the basis of understanding this idea. Taylor (1994) also supports this idea claiming people with different understanding of human rights may respect each other and perceive them as they are.

The idea that this philosophy conveys is that a person’s rights are the incorporation of the laws of nature and it presupposes that people should act according to their inner understanding of their rights and freedoms. This theory is close to idealism, which is supported by Donelly (2003) who is sure that people have rights “simply because one is a human being” (p. 10).

As opposed to natural school of thought, protest school of thought believes that human rights cannot be considered as a universal notion because they are limited to such concepts as morality, dignity, and moral integrity (Dembour, 2006, p. 236). In particular, the supporters of this concept find some political and intellectual inferences related to human rights. They believe that universality of human rights fails to consider the dignity and individuality of each person. More importantly, the theory suggests that human rights impose a kind of responsibility on each individual.

If to consider human freedom as one of inherent components of human rights, one should be aware of the fact that all freedoms enjoyed by individuals should be deserved first. Indeed, a person takes all existing freedoms for granted finding it unnecessary to fight for them. They agree with the assumption that freedom is an innate right of humans (Denbour, 2006, p. 237). This position also reveals that illusionary possession of the fundamental freedoms should be protected by law.

This school of thoughts can be interpreted through visions and outlooks of Varennes (2007). In particular, his point of view is narrowed to the idea that language right should protected on equal basis with human rights because it reveals their identity and responsibility for their culture and country. Hence, Varennes (2007) states, “…the use of a language in private activities can be in breach of existing international human rights such as the rights to private and family right” (p. 117).

Drawing the line between the protest scholars, language right should be protected by law as well. Such a position explains Varennes’ affiliation to this theoretical framework. The problem of linguistic justice is also considered by Patten and Kymlicka (2003) and Wei (2009) who believe that should be linguistic justice because it is an inherent component of human rights.

As compared with natural and protest theoretical framework whose primary concerns are based on a strong belief in human rights, deliberate school of thought are fully loyal to this concept. They conceive human rights as an idealistic conception that exists regardless of human experience. According to this school, “human rights are thus no more than legal and political standards; they not moral, and certainly not religious, standards” (Dembour, 2006, p. 248). Therefore, the limited perception of human rights impels the scholars to believe that this phenomenon is nothing else but adjudication.

While analyzing different ideas and positions, Dembour (2006) concludes that deliberate theorists find human rights beyond political and legal dependence. Rather, they compare them with religion, stating that it is a universal notion existing outside the context of morality, law and politics. Due to the fact that human rights are perceived as something secular, deliberate school of thought subjects this conception to idolatry.

Following the main concepts of deliberate school, Aikman (1995) provides his own vision of linguistic diversity and cultural maintenance that should be preserved irrespective of laws and politics because it is more connected with social needs and socio-cultural environment in the country. More importantly, Boumann (1999) provides the separatist vision of linguistic rights in correlation of his position to its universality. In particular, the scholar beliefs that multiculturalism and human right should be reevaluated and be more connected with ethnic and religious identity, but not political and legal perspectives.

Although Biseth (2008) seems to be more radical in his vision of multiculturalism, the scholar also represents deliberate school of though believing that linguistic diversity is inevitable due to diversity in culture and cultural heritage. In particular, Biseth (2008) stands for equality and universality of human right with regard to linguistic right, which should be perceived as something integral and inherent to a human. In general all the above-presented scholars agree with the necessity to perceive linguistic right as something independent from politics and law.

Dwelling upon discourse school of thought and relating it to the human rights, it is possible to states that Dembour (2006) defined the scholars who belonged to this school as those who, “not only insist that there is nothing natural about human rights, they also question the fact that human rights are naturally good” (p. 251). The representatives of this school are sure that those human rights exist only because people talk about them. Moreover, Dembour (2006) believes that if the notion of human rights does not exist, so there is nothing to fight for and to protect.

Koenig and Guchteneire (2007) believe that due to high rate of migration and international communication human rights became international and there is nothing to discourse about. It is possible to refer Holmarsdottir (2009) to this school of thought as his ideas are closely connected to the ideas presented by Dembour (2006). Holmarsdottir (2009) is sure that there are no human rights which have been given to people since their birth. Only the government can give people their rights. He writes, “a government is considered as having as exclusive right to make and implement policy in the interest of all the people” (Holmarsdottir, 2009, p. 223).

All these ideas and perspectives may be easily considered from the point of view of multiculturalism and language problem in the concept of human rights.

It is important to remember that different cultures presuppose in some cases absolutely dissimilar norms and rules. In this case, human rights policies are not an exception. But, there is the tendency that many counties live in the multicultural society, so different norms and rules should collaborate and be combined. But, it is impossible to provide in the real society. Aikman (1995) states that many indigenous peoples struggle for the right to use their languages on their territory.

The multiculturalism has entered the society of Harakmbut Amazon people so deeply that these people have to fight for the opportunity to use their native language. It is natural that the countries with the same problems create the Declarations where the status of their country is stated as bicultural and it allows people to use their native language. Thus, indigenous peoples have created the draft of the declaration which allows them to use their traditions and culture in the multicultural society they are made to live in. The text of the draft states that peoples who are influenced by other cultures can “revitalise, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, philosophies, writing system and literature” (Aikman, 1995, p. 411).

Baumann (1999) is sure that people can never understand the main idea of multiculturalism and can still see the problem there until they do not rethink the problem. According to Baumann (1999), the multiculturalism should become global “just as environmentalism and feminism need to be global to succeed” (p. 32). Thus, human rights will be followed and there will not be a problem if the whole world is involved into multicultural society. The author also states that the problems in the society are mostly solved by the civil rights which exclude foreigners. Is not it the violation of the principles of the multiculturalism (Baumann, 1999)?

The problems in the multicultural society became extremely debatable. The appearance of different politics within the problem makes it possible to become politically neutral for most people. Thus, the politics of equal dignity is based on the principle that people on the whole Planet should be equally respected. Thus, their human rights should be respected as well. This politics creates the universal human potential. The main idea of this potential is that people should be respected, no matter what ethnical group they belong to or what language they speak. Still, the problem of the relations between people in the multicultural society remains unsolved (Taylor, 1994, p. 41).

While many people dwell upon the importance of the multiculturalism and the culture globalization, Halla (2009) states that globalization of culture has absolutely negative impact on the whole society. It is important to understand that the multiculturalism in the whole world eliminates the uniqueness of the peoples and their cultures. Halla (2009) is sure that multiculturalism reduces people from using their rights to live in the country they were born in. It is really important for elite to maintain multiculturalism in the world society as in this case people are required to buy the western products and goods. On the one hand, the culture globalization has a positive effect (especially in education and in the right of choice). On the other hand, the problem is extremely sharp for small peoples who cannot resist cultural globalization and lose their unique qualities (Halla, 2009).

Dwelling upon multiculturalism and human rights, Eriksen (1996) uses the example of Mauritius. The religious, language and cultural diversity of this community is rather varied and difficult, still people in Mauritius are given an absolute freedom of which religion they may follow (there are four main religions on the island, three of which are subdivided into numerous sects), which subjects to study at school (most core subjects are options, so students are not obligated to learn the things they do not want or do not like due to their cultural or religious preferences), and which language they want to speak. Even though that the main language on the island is English, the cultural languages are spoken and supported by the society (Eriksen, 1996). Thus, the main idea of the said is that multiculturalism which does not violate human rights is the multiculturalism where the peoples with different cultures live on the same territory, but there are no quarrels and problems in the cultural question.

There are a lot of different forms how multiculturalism may be considered. Still, many people understand this notion as the impact of one culture under another one when the smaller should resists. This understanding is correct as in most cases it is so. Here is one dominant culture which influences the whole society and other nationalities should submit to the requirements provided by other nations. This form of multiculturalism is wrong. People should not be submitted to somebody only because they are stronger or are considered to be more developed. Culture is not an economy or politics, this human facility should not be measured with anything. Thus, if some people have a culture, it should be protected and no one should violate the rights of others calling this multiculturalism.

Still, there is a better form of multiculturalism which is practiced on small islands all over the world. This form of multiculturalism is like a rainbow or a salad, as opposed by Eriksen (1996). The ingredients and elements are in one and the same ‘society’, they are gathered together, but they do not try to take up each other. Living on one and the same territory people do not impose their rights and cultures on others, they just learn to live together, and this is the form of the multiculturalism which should be spread worldwide, when human rights are not violated and human uniqueness is not spoiled.

Without any doubts, the idea of human rights has already touched upon numerous aspects of life: people want to know more about their rights, they want to take as many steps as possible to improve the conditions under which they have to live, and, finally, they want to understand the main idea of their rights and define possibilities. The idea of human rights and its connection to linguistic diversity seems to be a powerful aspect to evaluate the chosen theme from. There is a certain link between language rights and human rights (Varennes, 2007).

It is usually wrong to believe that only some groups of people may have their language rights because any person has his/her own language rights, and those people whose rights are violated by the government in some way have to re-evaluate their status and their possibilities. There were many attempts to advocate language rights, and one of them was supported by the political movement in the middle of the 1960s (Wei, 2000). Still, the question concerning rights remains to be open, and a variety of discussions may take place.

Nowadays, the idea of linguistic diversity is narrowed to several languages which are defined as those with some kind of future. In fact, the power of linguistic diversity is great indeed as any language is considered to be a factor that may contribute to cultural diversity that influences the development of human rights. Linguistic diversity seems to be a serious challenge for the vast majority of democratic polities because language is usually regarded as “the most fundamental tool of communication”; this is why even if the “minorities are not in themselves bearers of collective rights, the transnational legal discourse of human rights does de-legitimize strong policies of language homogenization and clearly obliges states to respect and promote linguistic diversity” (Koenig & Guchteneire, 2007, p. 10).

So, linguistic diversity is the source of controversies, which may be developed on the political background, influence considerably human rights in various contexts, and predetermine “the stability and sustainability of a wide range of political communities” (Patten & Kymlicka, 2003, p. 3). Still, this aspect has to be regulated accordingly because it has a huge impact on the development of the relations between different people. For example, a number of politically motivated conflicts are connected with language rights which have to be established separately from other human rights.

And even the increase of inequalities depends on language rights and prevents the development of appropriate society. In case language rights and other aspects which are based on linguistic diversity do not move in accordance with people’s demands and interests, there is a threat that people can make use of their own assumptions about language policies (Holmarsdottir, 2009), and these assumptions can hardly be correct. However, Biseth (2009) admits that diversity in languages as well as competence in these languages plays an important role in social development, this is why they cannot be neglected but elaborated.

People suffer from a variety of limitations which are based on human inabilities to use their own languages but the necessity to use the official language. Such restrictions lead to people’s inabilities to get appropriate education in accordance with their interests, to participate in political life of the country a person lives in, and even to ask for justice when it is really necessary.

This is why another important aspect that has to be evaluated is how the chosen human rights perspective may influence the promotion of linguistic justice and diversity that is widely spread nowadays. Some researchers say that linguistic rights have to become one of the basic types of the existed human rights. Speakers, who use a dominant language, and linguistic majorities find the existed linguistic human rights an excellent opportunity to express their ideas and their demands. Still, there are many people, the representatives of linguistic minorities, who cannot support the idea of linguistic human rights because only the smallest part of the existed languages has the official status.

It happens that some individuals undergo unfair attitude or are suppressed by the majorities because of the language they use. Taking into consideration this fact, it is possible to say that wrongly introduced linguistic human rights may negatively influence other human rights including the political representation. The outcome of such discontents and misunderstanding is as follows: people are in need of appropriate improvements and formulations which may consider cultural heritage, educational demands, and freedom of speech.

In general, the evaluation of the human rights perspective on linguistic diversity helps to comprehend that there are many weak points in the already existed system that influences and manages a human life. People are eager to create some rules, requirements, and obligations to follow a particular order and to develop appropriate relations. Still, linguistic diversity continues developing and changing human lives. And the main point is that some researchers and scientists still find this diversity an important aspect of life that cannot be changed, and some people cannot understand the importance of this diversity as it considerably restricts human rights.

In conclusion, the question of human rights is constantly discussed in the modern world. There are different opinions on the problem, some people state that human rights even do not exist as the notion (Dembour, 2006), still, most people assure that human rights exist as the duties of the society (Donnelly, 2003). Moreover, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (UN, 1993) dwells upon the very notion of human rights and the system of international human rights which relate people to the multicultural society where those rights should be followed. The problem stands sharp in the education where students, desiring to study their own languages have to learn others. Moreover, the impact of the dominant language is rather damaging on the others who exists in one society.

It is really important to remember that living in the multicultural society and trying to adopt the cultures and traditions of other dominant nations, many peoples ruin their uniqueness, they become ordinary, forgetting their roots. As the same time, the process of culture globalization leads people to the universality of human rights. This step may be significant in preventing human rights violation in the society.

Aikman, S. (1995). Language, literacy and bilingual education. An Amazon people’s strategies for cultural maintenance. International Journal of Educational Development, 15 (4), 411-422.

Baumann, G. (1999). The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic, and Religious Identities . New York: Routledge. Web.

Biseth, H. (2009). Multilingualism and Education for Democracy. International Review of Education, 55 (1), 5-20.

Dembour, M. B. (2006). Who believes in human rights? Reflections on the European Convention . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donnelly, J. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Eriksen, T. H. (1996). Multiculturalism, Individualism and Human rights: Romanticism:The Enlightenment and Lesson from Mauritius. In R.Wilson (ed. ) Human rights, Culture and Context, Anthropological Perspective (pp. 49-69). London, Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press 47-17.

Holmarsdottir, H. (2009). A tale of two countries: language policy in Namibia and South Africa. In H. Holmarsdottir and M. O’Dowd (Eds.). Nordic Voices: Teaching and Researching Comparative and international Education in the Nordic Countries (pp. 221-238). Amsterdam: Sense.

Koenig, M., & Guchteneire, P. d. (2007). Political Governance and Cultural Diversity. In M. Koenig & P. d. Guchteneire (Eds.), Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies (pp. 3-17). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Patten, A., & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory: Context, issues and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 1-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C. (1994). The Politics of Recognition. In C. Taylor & A. Gutmann (Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (pp. 25-73). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

UN (1993). Vienna Declaration and programme of Action . Web.

Varennes, F. d. (2007). Language Rights as an Integral Part of Human Rights – A Legal Perspective. In M. Koenig & P. d. Guchteneire (Eds.), Democracy and Human Rights in Multicultural Societies (pp. 3-17). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Wei, Li (2000). Dimensions of bilingualism. In Li Wei (Ed.), The Bilingualism Reader (pp. 3-25). London: Routledge.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 1). The Universality of Human Rights. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/

"The Universality of Human Rights." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Universality of Human Rights'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Universality of Human Rights." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-universality-of-human-rights/.

Culture and Religion in Human Rights Universality
The Importance of Music Universality
The Universality vs. Linguistic-Relativity of Language
Theory of Culture Care Diversity and Universality
Kant’s and Friedman’s Philosophy about Theory of Universality
What Are Human Rights?
Shakespeare’s Universality: Here’s Fine Revolution
Researching of Racial Appearance in Media
Challenges for Universal Human Rights
Social Change Strategies: The Discussion
Human Rights and Resistance of South Asia
Abortion Practice in the Middle East
Cyber Practices and Moral Evaluation
Domestic Legal Traditions and State' Human Rights
The Issues of Human Rights

IMAGES

International Human Rights (400 Words)
Human Rights Essay
Essay Human Rights and English Law
Essay On Human Rights
⇉Human Rights
Human_Rights_Commission_Essay_Contest_Winners.pdf

VIDEO

English Essay about Human Rights| Essay on Human Rights
10 lines essay on human rights day in English| Human rights day essay| Human rights| #humanrights
Imagine a World Where Human Rights are a Reality for Everyone
Essay on Human Rights || Human rights essay in english || essay on Human rights day
10 Lines Essay On Human Rights In English
Artical 16 Human Rights United nations 1948

COMMENTS

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500
Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights. Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour.
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
The ethical basis of human rights has been defined using concepts such as human flourishing, dignity, duties to family and society, natural rights, individual freedom, and social justice against exploitation based on sex, class or caste. All of these moral arguments for human rights are part of ethical discourse.
240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Samples
Human Rights Violations in Today's World. This paper addresses questions regarding human rights, including the United Nations' involvement in enforcing those rights violations and the role of non-governmental organizations in addressing the issue. Shirin Ebadi's Perspective on Women's Human Rights Activism and Islam.
PDF Human Rights: A Brief Introduction
The ethical basis of human rights has been defined using concepts such as human flourishing, dignity, duties to family and society, natural rights, individual freedom, and social justice against exploitation based on sex, class or caste. All of these moral arguments for human rights are part of ethical discourse.
Essay on human rights (100, 200, 300, & 500 Words)
Essay on Human Rights 500 words Importance of Human Rights Human rights play a vital role in the well-being and development of individuals and societies. They serve as a safeguard against discrimination, oppression, and abuse, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to lead a life of freedom, dignity, and fairness.
Inspiring human rights essays everybody should know
Through each of these specific areas, this report gives examples of the human rights framework in action through real-life cases. Part 1: So Software Has Eaten the World: What Does It Mean for Human Rights, Security and Governance; Part 2: Digital Disruption of Human Rights. This two-part article from Eileen Donahoe, Director of Global Affairs ...
Free Human Rights Essay Examples & Topic Ideas
Check our 100% free human rights essay, research paper examples. Find inspiration and ideas Best topics Daily updates. ... It would be best used to illustrate the argument in favor of abortion rights based on the [regnant women's right to health, which is its major strength. Pages: 3; Words: 1064;
The global politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity
Benjamin Gregg, in The Human Rights State (Gregg, 2016), argues that we need to rethink human rights in a post-metaphysical or even a post-religious way, thereby advocating for a constructivist conception of human rights.Gregg's book is a tour de force, as it is excellently written in a clear and accessible manner and advocates a more secular, pluralistic and localized conception of human ...
The UN Human Rights System
The human right system as defined by the United Nation Human Rights System is a system whereby, the fundamental rights of humans are observed as well as character and worth of all the persons. Included in this system is the application of equal rights and system to all persons. We will write a custom essay on your topic. 809 writers online.
10 Tips for Writing a Human Rights Essay
To excel at writing human rights essays, follow these 10 tips: 1. Choose a topic you are passionate about. First and foremost, you need to find a topic you are truly passionate about. Human rights are such a broad field of study and can be linked to nearly any other subject - from history and anthropology to technology and medicine.
Human Rights Essay for Students and Children
500+ Words Essay on Human Rights. Human rights are a set of rights which every human is entitled to. Every human being is inherited with these rights no matter what caste, creed, gender, the economic status they belong to. Human rights are very important for making sure that all humans get treated equally. They are in fact essential for a good ...
"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou
Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability.
Human Rights
Grounding human rights in human agency and autonomy has had strong advocates in recent decades. For example, in Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Application (1982) Alan Gewirth offered an agency-based justification for human rights. He argued that denying the value of successful agency and action is not an option for a human being ...
Human rights
human rights, rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and ...
5 Human Rights Topics For Your Human Rights Essay
Here are five topics that have been getting attention (or aren't getting enough attention) in recent years. These are all important; choosing one just comes down to what speaks to you most powerfully: Police brutality in the United States. Violence by American police is a major issue in the human rights arena these days and data indicates it ...
Feminist Perspectives on Human Rights
Feminist Futures: Measuring the Achievement of Women's Human Rights. This essay points to a number of controversies, such as issues regarding culture, sexuality, and neo-imperialism, which need further consideration by feminists. ... Second, because human rights data are often outcomes based and reflect the performance of states, they are ...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Essay
As it is widely known, this act was adopted in 1948. According to this document, every person (or it would be better to say human beings) must be entitled to certain rights, which cannot take away from him or her (Weiss, 14). We will write a custom essay on your topic. 809 writers online. Learn More.
UNSDG
The human rights-based approach (HRBA) is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. It seeks to analyse inequalities which lie at the heart of development problems and redress discriminatory ...
Spring 2024 Essay Contest Prompt: Human Rights in Practice
Submissions should be essays about a topic broadly connected to the practice of human rights advocacy. Successful submissions will introduce a novel approach or perspective to their topics, will center practice-based experiences, and will have a strong nexus to human rights law. Submissions may, for example, explore how to overcome contemporary ...
Gender equality and women's rights
Gender equality is at the very heart of human rights and United Nations values. Gender-based discrimination is prohibited under almost every human rights treaty. Despite much progress made in securing women's rights globally, millions of women and girls continue to experience discrimination and violence, being denied of their equality ...
Human Rights History and Approaches
Based on human rights, modern ethical norms of the public and professional spheres are also formed—one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon in medicine. For example, in medicine, there is a practice of using medical students to care for patients. ... This essay, "Human Rights History and Approaches" is published exclusively on IvyPanda ...
Human Rights Violation Essay Sample
Some of the universal human rights abuses and those termed as crimes against humanity, according to Ekpa (2016), include genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization, medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation. In times of warfare, there is often a widespread violation of human, political, and fundamental rights.
The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)
In particular, Biseth (2008) stands for equality and universality of human right with regard to linguistic right, which should be perceived as something integral and inherent to a human. In general all the above-presented scholars agree with the necessity to perceive linguistic right as something independent from politics and law.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

This Blog Includes:

What are Human Rights

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Essay on human rights (100, 200, 300, & 500 Words)

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Human Rights Essay for Students and Children

Human Rights Categories

Importance of Human Rights

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

Related Articles

Bibliography

Human Rights

1. The General Idea of Human Rights

2. The Existence and Grounds of Human Rights

3. Which Rights are Human Rights?

Other Internet Resources

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

5 Human Rights Topics For Your Human Rights Essay

You may also like

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

Apply now: UN Post Graduate Diploma in Global Health Procurement and Supply Chain Management

Regional Teams

2030 Agenda

Quick links

How We Work

Human Rights-Based Approach

Related Resources

Spring 2024 Essay Contest Prompt: Human Rights in Practice

Submission Guidelines:

Human Rights Violation Essay Sample, with Outline

Human Rights Violation Essay Outline

Human Rights Violation and Protection

Protection of Human rights

Related Posts

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

The Universality of Human Rights Essay (Critical Writing)

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS