Nature of Human Rights

Introduction:
This chapter talks about two issues; the nature of human rights and how new norms evolve which depict the complex nature of international law of human rights.
This chapter will also highlight that any articulation of an international law of human rights has to contend with contention and confusion over the meaning of the term ‘human rights’.
The contested nature of human rights:
In this chapter, we will look at the debate over the supposedly universal nature of human rights.
The universality of human rights will be discussed in regard to human rights, culture and religion.
A useful starting point for the discussion on the contested nature of rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. In its preamble it notes: “...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights if all members of the human family did the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are responsible for their actions towards others and should act in a spirit of brotherhood.
These provisions make it clear that all human beings are considered to be born free and equal.
Alongside “their inherent dignity”, this forms the principle of belief which is the foundation of UDHR.
The United States Declaration of Independence as adopted by the USA in 1776 asserts: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.”
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man, adopted in 1789 after the French Revolution, similarly asserts in Article 1: “Men are born free and equal in rights” and then in Article 4 “...the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the same rights.”
Therefore, the rights apparently extend to all by virtue of their being human - although in some cases the reference is to ‘men’ only. The UDHR is more inclusive than the US and French Declarations as it extends to ‘all human beings.’
However, human rights are considered universal as they extend to all human beings.
The meaning of human rights:
It is understood that if we are talking about human rights, we are eventually talking about rights that belong to all so long as they are considered as being human. Being human is the reason for rights to exist as that is their source.
Human rights extend to all regardless of whether an individual is considered, for example, a criminal or terrorist.
These are the rights that cannot be forfeited or denounced, in human rights language, they are inalienable.
Although human rights extend to all, this does not mean that everyone benefits from them equally. The above three declarations state that all (in two cases men only) are born or created equal, which implies that they are not equal in reality but as well as all are born, they are entitled to the same rights.
This raises several questions. On what basis are these rights enjoyed, and second, who enjoys them? In other words, who is human?
A biological definition does explain who is human, but it only gets you so far. On what basis should only humans enjoy such rights?
There are other highly intelligent and sentient animals that exist and if humans are to enjoy the rights, on the basis of, for example their intelligence, ability to feel emotions and empathise, to communicate and to create elaborate and complex social structures, then actually great apes, among others should also be entitled to certain basic rights.
So, the real question is, why humans?
Some theorists have argued this but there is absolutely no consensus that these rights should be extended to other intelligent sentient beings.
However, among humans at least an agreement that human beings (or at least some of them) should enjoy rights.
This distinction between humans is due to the fact that societies are rarely organised on the basis of a member being human but rather on distinctions within societies, be it race, religion, gender, caste and so forth.
There cannot even be a scientific statement of basic human nature that depends on qualities that are not suitable for scientific measurement: faith or morality, for instance. Although, science can provide a definition of humanity, and hence a grounding for a theory of human rights.
However, societies have not always been organised around notions of human dignity. Historical or cross-cultural examples show that societies organise themselves around a class or grouping of ‘inferiors’ who are deprived of the privileges enjoyed by others.

[@ajmalrahim60]

Excellent Keep it up