UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

SUBMITTED BY; BILQUEESA YOUSUF

ENROLLMENT NO; 17042122007

SEMESTER; BA.LLB 10TH

TOPIC; HUMAN RIGHTS: NATURE, CONCEPT,ORIGIN AND

DEVELOPMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS SOME CONTEMPORARY ISSUES:

ROLE OF NGO'S

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

SELF-DETERMINATION

SUBMITTED TO; Prof. MIR MUBASHIR

MEANING OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
Human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. These are moral claims which are inalienable
and inherent in all individuals by virtue of their humanity alone, irrespective of caste, color,
creed, and place of birth, sex, cultural difference or any other consideration. These claims are
formulated in what is today known as human rights. Human rights are sometimes referred to as
fundamental rights, basic rights, inherent rights, natural rights and birth rights.

DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

The essence of human rights are brought to light and defined as “Human rights are those minimal
rights, which every individual must have against the State, or other public authority, by virtue of
his being a ‘member of human family’ irrespective of any consideration. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, defines human rights as “rights derived from the
inherent dignity of the human person.” Human rights when they are guaranteed by a written
constitution are known as “Fundamental Rights” because a written constitution is the
fundamental law of the state.

CHARACTERISTICS AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Following are the characteristics of human rights:

1. Human Rights are Inalienable - Human rights are conferred on an individual due to the very
nature of his existence. They are inherent in all individuals irrespective of their caste, creed,
religion, sex and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual even after his death.
The different rituals in different religions bear testimony to this fact.

2. Human Rights are essential and necessary - In the absence of human rights, the moral,
physical, social and spiritual welfare of an individual is impossible. Human rights are also
essential as they provide suitable conditions for material and moral upliftment of the people.

3. Human Rights are in connection with human dignity - To treat another individual with dignity
irrespective of the fact that the person is a male or female, rich or poor etc. is concerned with
human dignity.

4. Human Rights are Irrevocable: Human rights are irrevocable. They cannot be taken away by
any power or authority because these rights originate with the social nature of man in the society
of human beings and they belong to a person simply because he is a human being. As such
human rights have similarities to moral rights.
5. Human Rights are Necessary for the fulfillment of purpose of life: Human life has a purpose.
The term “human right” is applied to those conditions which are essential for the fulfillment of
this purpose.

6. Human Rights are Universal – Human rights are not a monopoly of any privileged class of
people. Human rights are universal in nature, without consideration and without exception. The
values such as divinity, dignity and equality which form the basis of these rights are inherent in
human nature.

7. Human Rights are never absolute – Man is a social animal and he lives in a civic society,
which always put certain restrictions on the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms. Human rights
as such are those limited powers or claims.

8. Human Rights are Dynamic - Human rights are not static, they are dynamic. Human rights go
on expanding with socio-eco-cultural and political developments within the State. Judges have to
interpret laws in such ways as are in tune with the changed social values.

9. Rights as limits to state power - Human rights imply that every individual has legitimate
claims upon his or her society for certain freedom and benefits. So human rights limit the state’s
power. These may be in the form of negative restrictions, on the powers of the State, from
violating the inalienable freedoms of the individuals, or in the nature of demands on the State,
i.e. positive obligations of the State.

Concept of Human Rights:

Human rights are the rights a person has simply because he or she is a human being. Human
rights are held by all persons equally, universally, and forever. “All human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Kant said that human beings have an intrinsic
value absent in inanimate objects. To violate a human right would therefore be a failure to
recognize the worth of human life. Human right is a concept that has been constantly evolving
throughout human history. They have been intricately tied to the laws, customs and religions
throughout the ages. Most societies have had traditions similar to the "golden rule" of "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you." The Hindu Vedas, the Babylonian Code of
Hammurabi, the Bible, the Qur'an (Koran), and the Analects of Confucius are five of the oldest
written sources which address questions of people’s duties, rights, and responsibilities.

Different counties ensure these rights in different way. In India they are contained in the
Constitution as fundamental rights, i.e. they are guaranteed statutorily. In the UK they are
available through precedence, various elements having been laid down by the courts through
case law. In addition, international law and conventions also provide certain safeguards.
Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples
of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include
civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality
before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in
culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. “A human right is a
universal moral right, something which all men, everywhere, at all times ought to have,
something of which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice, something which
is owing to every human simply because he is human.”[3] Human rights are inalienable: you
cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease being a human being. Human rights are
indivisible: you cannot be denied a right because it is "less important" or "non-essential." Human
rights are interdependent: all human rights are part of a complementary framework. For example,
your ability to participate in your government is directly affected by your right to express
yourself, to get an education, and even to obtain the necessities of life.

Another definition for human rights is those basic standards without which people cannot live in
dignity. To violate someone's human rights is to treat that person as though he or she was not a
human being. To advocate human rights is to demand that the human dignity of all people be
respected.In claiming these human rights, everyone also accepts the responsibility not to infringe
on the rights of others and to support those whose rights are abused or denied.

Basic Requirements for Human Rights –

Any society that is to protect human rights must have the following characteristics -

1. A de jure or free state in which the right to self-determination and rule of law exist.

2. A legal system for the protection of human rights.

3. Effective organized (existing within the framework of the state) or unorganized guarantees.
HISTORY AND EVOLUTION:

The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.):

In 539 B.C. Cyrus the Great, the first king of Persia, conquered the city of Babylon and freed the
slaves and declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established
racial equality. The decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language
with cuneiform script, which is known as Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has been
recognized as the world’s first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official
languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and Rome. There the
concept of “natural law” arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain
unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the
nature of things. The first examples of a codification of laws that contain references to individual
rights are the tablet of Hammurabi. The tablet was created by the Sumerian king Hammurabi
about 4000 years ago this kind of precedent and legally binding document protects the people
from arbitrary persecution and punishment.

In ancient Greece where the concept of human rights began to take a greater meaning than the
prevention of arbitrary persecution. Human rights became synonymous with natural rights, rights
that spring from natural law.
According to the Greek tradition of Socrates and Plato, natural law is the law that reflects the
natural order of the universe, essentially the will of the Gods who control nature. A classic
example of this occurs in Greek literature, when Creon reproaches Antigone for defying his
command not to bury her dead brother, and she replies that she acted under the laws of the gods.
This idea of natural rights continued in ancient Rome, where the Roman jurist Ulpian believed
that natural rights belonged to every person, whether they were a Roman citizen or not.

There are other documents asserted individual rights they are:

1. The Magna Carta (1215)

2. The Petition of Right (1628)

3. The US Constitution (1787)

4. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and

5. The US Bill of Rights (1791)

The Magna Carta (1215):
Magna Carta, or “Great Charter,” signed by the King of England in 1215, was a turning point in
human rights. It is the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led
to the rule of constitutional law today in the English-speaking world.
In 1215, after King John of England violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which
England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which enumerates
what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them was -
1. The right of the church to be free from governmental interference,

2. The rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and to be protected from excessive
taxes.

It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established
principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding
bribery and official misconduct.

Petition of Right (1628):

The next recorded milestone in the development of human rights was the Petition of Right,
produced in 1628 by the English Parliament and sent to Charles I as a statement of civil liberties.
The Petition of Right, initiated by Sir Edward Coke, was based upon earlier statutes and charters
and asserted four principles:

(1) No taxes may be levied without consent of Parliament,

(2) No subject may be imprisoned without cause shown (reaffirmation of the right of habeas
corpus),
(3) No soldiers may be quartered upon the citizenry and
(4) Martial law may not be used in time of peace.

United States Declaration of Independence (1776):

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration
stressed two themes:
1. Individual rights and
2. The right of revolution.
These ideas became widely held by Americans and spread internationally as well, influencing in
particular the French Revolution.
The Bill of Rights (1791):
The Bill of Rights protects
1. Freedom of speech,
2. Freedom of religion,
3. The right to keep and bear arms,
4. The freedom of assembly and
5. The freedom to petition.
It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled
self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting
establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life,
liberty or property without due process of law.
In criminal cases it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital offence, or infamous
crime, guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the district in which the crime
occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):

In 1948, the United Nations Human Rights Commission brought the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights under the chairmanship of Eleanor. It is considered to be the international Magna
Carta for all mankind
In its preamble and in Article 1, the Declaration unequivocally proclaims the inherent rights of
all human beings: “Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts
which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human
beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights.”
The Member States of the United Nations pledged to work together to promote the thirty Articles
of human rights that, for the first time in history, had been assembled and codified into a single
document. In consequence, many of these rights, in various forms, are today part of the
constitutional laws of democratic nations.
On October 24, 1945, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations came into being as
an intergovernmental organization, with the purpose of saving future generations from the
devastation of international conflict.
United Nations representatives from all regions of the world formally adopted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948.
The Charter of the United Nations established six principal bodies, including the General
Assembly, the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and in relation to human
rights, an Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
The UN Charter empowered ECOSOC to establish “commissions in economic and social fields
and for the promotion of human rights” One of these was the United Nations Human Rights
Commission, which, under the chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt, saw to the creation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Declaration was drafted by representatives of all regions of the world and encompassed all
legal traditions. Formally adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, it is the most
universal human rights document in existence, delineating the thirty fundamental rights that form
the basis for a democratic society.
Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all Member Countries to publicize the text
of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally
in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of
countries or territories.

Today, the Declaration is a living document that has been accepted as a contract between a
government and its people throughout the world. According to the Guinness Book of World
Records, it is the most translated document in the world.
What are NGOs?
The term non-governmental or non-profit is normally used to cover the range of organizations
which go to make up civil society. Such organizations are characterized, in general, by having as
the purpose of their existence something other than financial profit. However, this leaves a huge
multitude of reasons for existence and a wide variety of enterprises and activities. NGOs range
from small pressure groups on, for example, specific environmental concerns or specific human
rights violations, through educational charities, women's refuges, cultural associations, religious
organizations, legal foundations, humanitarian assistance programmes – and the list could
continue – all the way to the huge international organizations with hundreds or even thousands of
branches or members in different parts of the world

Role of human rights NGOs:

As is well-known, a considerable number of NGOs is engaged in the protection of human rights
both at the national and international level. The varied role of these NGOs can be summarized as
follows.

A. Agenda setting:
NGOs play a crucial role in the creation of the political atmosphere and context to stimulate
action in the field of human rights by governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).
They contribute to drawing the attention of world public opinion to human rights issues,
influence the setting of the public agenda in this respect and help governments and IGOs to
identify and prioritize key human rights issues.

B. Standard setting:
NGOs are actively involved in the drafting process of human rights conventions and treaties
(e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Convention against Torture) and thus help in the development of human rights norms. Lobbying
is generally the means by which NGOs provide their input in standard setting (e.g., 1993 World
Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing,
2001 World Conference on Racism). In many instances part of the lobbying strategy consists in
submitting legal studies drafted by experts, which contain the NGO’s own interpretation of the
applicable international rules and suggestions for improvements.

C. Enforcement:
NGOs help to safeguard human rights against government infringement through techniques such
as diplomatic initiatives, fact-finding missions, reports, public statements and mobilization of
public opinion. These techniques have proven successful, since in most circumstances, NGOs are
more independent from political forces than States or IGOs and thus are more able to identify
and criticize human rights violations.

Once NGOs bring a problem to a State’s attention it becomes more difficult to ignore human
rights violations.
Most NGOs publicly report the results of their missions and thus provide valuable information
about violations of human rights. Publicity is an important factor in the enforcement of human
rights by NGOs. NGOs also contribute to the enforcement of human rights by carrying out
research and providing it to IGOs (especially, but not only, the UN human rights bodies) or to
national delegations or governmental bodies. Once norms are promulgated and the machinery to
hold States accountable for human rights violations is in place, NGOs play a predominant role in
providing the machinery with the information necessary for them to discharge their tasks
effectively.

D. Aid and Education:

NGOs provide assistance to victims of human rights violations. They also assist States and IGOs
in the implementation of human rights programmes by acting as their agents on the field. NGOs
sometimes represent persons in their dealings with national officials or before courts or IGOs. In
addition; NGOs educate the general public by disseminating information on human rights and
offering courses on the topic.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM:
“Cultural relativists” believe human rights should take account of cultural differences. Cultural
relativism states that values are defined by local culture as opposed to global ideology. Cultural
relativists argue that human rights were developed by Western countries and are based on
Western morality. They should therefore not be imposed on non-Western societies that have
different histories, cultures and levels of development.
Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture,
are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea
that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a
product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural
perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be
considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be
considered “right” or “wrong.”

In response, Universalists argue that ideals like liberty and security belong to all of us. They are
critical of cultural relativist arguments, which they see as an attempt to justify oppression of
minorities or defend harmful cultural practices.
Cultural relativism has been criticized as a means for nations to pick and choose which rights
they are willing to uphold.
SO, there is a tension between human rights as entirely universal and not subject to modifications
due to culture, on the one hand, versus human rights as affected by the cultural demands of
specific contexts, on the other.
This tension (perhaps "collision") between the idea of "universal human rights" as an objective
truth, and the cultural relativism of diverse communities throughout the world brings up all sorts
of complicated arguments about imperialism and colonialism, objective versus subjective truths,
ethnocentrism and xenophobia.
SELF DETERMINATION:
Introduction:

The right to self-determination refers to the right of an individual to determine his own destiny.
The right allows people to choose their own political status and to determine their own form of
economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of
different outcomes ranging from political independence to full integration within a state. The
importance of the right lies in the right of people to make a choice. In practice, however, the
possible outcome of the exercise of self-determination often determines the attitude of
governments towards the actual claim by a person or nation. Nevertheless, the right to self-
determination is a right that is recognized in international law as a right of the process belonging
to people and not to states or governments.

What is Self-determination?
Article I of the Charter of the United Nations explains the principle of self-determination. The
principle was first incorporated under the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks
proposals which subsequently evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the
United Nations Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle of self-determination as
a fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among the states. It is a right
which is recognized in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which
both entered into force in 1976. Paragraph 1 of this Article provides that every person has the
right to self-determination. By virtue of the said right, people can freely determine their own
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Impact of Self-Determination Claims on Other Human Rights:

Whenever self-determination is involved, confusion between political goals and basic human
rights norms, humanitarian issues evolve. There is also a potential impact of self-determination
that it claims to encourage violent conflict. Although it is a truism, it also needs to be reiterated
that more human rights are violated during the time of wars than at any other time. If the
policymakers do not come to a better understanding of how to respond to the claims for self-
determination, then such claims are likely to increase. It is also possible that the number of
violent conflicts increases, and if the conflicts will increase then it will have a direct impact on
the entire gamut of international human rights. At the same time, if human rights alone are
concentrated upon then it is possible that all the human rights that we want to protect can be
protected and violence can be curbed.

By doing so it is not possible that the disputes over self-determination will disappear, but they
can be resolved by the countries.
If one creates a genuinely democratic rights-respecting regime, it is less likely that people will
want to leave it. If, however, they do leave it, it is also more likely that any separation will occur
peacefully. This approach suggests that even when self-determination is purportedly the issue, it
is better to try to address denials of human rights before trying to address the denial of so-called
self-determination. As a practical matter, a nongovernmental organization or human rights
activist is more likely to be able to influence a government by focusing on respect for human
rights than by entering the quagmire of self-determination and secession. I think that one is also
more likely to protect what we would all agree are human rights – for example, physical
integrity, use of language, and protection of culture without confusing those rights with political
goals. Even if we may share some of the latter goals, it is essential to keep them distinct from the
universally recognized and legally articulated provisions of international human rights law.