Universal Declaration of Human Rights Amnesty International

This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. For the first time, the world had a globally agreed document that marked out all humans as being free and equal, regardless of sex, colour, creed, religion or other characteristics. We’ll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

The realization that the flagrant violation of human rights by Nazi and Fascist countries sowed the seeds of the last world war has supplied the impetus for the work which brings us to the moment of achievement here today. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept of human rights to ancient Greece and Rome, where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics, who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature. A classic example of this view is given in Sophocles’ play Antigone, in which the title character, upon being reproached by King Creon for defying his command not to bury her slain brother, asserted that she acted in accordance with the immutable laws of the gods.

Right to life

The United Nations approved the declaration, but the work of the commission was only partially done. The work to secure human rights around the world remains an ongoing struggle. Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state.

The laws of war do not prohibit war, but set out rules on the conduct of hostilities by both national armed forces and non-state armed groups in order to protect civilians, provide for the humane treatment of all prisoners, and reduce wartime suffering. While customs of war have existed for thousands of years, international treaties restricting warfare date back about 150 years. Most commonly recognized today are the Geneva Conventions as well as treaties banning certain weapons, such as the Land Mines Treaty. More frequently, governments that commit human rights violations are held publicly accountable for their actions by nongovernmental organizations. Some organizations provide direct services such as legal counsel and human rights education.

A status-based justification thus begins with the nature of therightholder and arrives immediately at the right. The instrumentalapproach starts with the desired consequences (like maximum utility)and works backward to see which rights-ascriptions will produce thoseconsequences. Within a status approach rights are not means for the promotion ofgood consequences.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. The UDHR was adopted by the newly established United Nations on 10 December 1948, in response to the “barbarous acts which … outraged the conscience of mankind” during the Second World War. Its adoption recognized human rights to be the foundation for freedom, justice and peace. On Human Rights Day and during Human Rights Week, we recommit to upholding the equal and inalienable rights of all people. The right to speak may simply be the only appropriate way to treatpeople with minds of their own and the capacity to use means toexpress it…

For that very reason, it is fitting that he haveprimary say over what may be done to them—not because such anarrangement best promotes overall human welfare, but because anyarrangement that denied him that say would be a grave indignity. Ingiving him this authority, morality recognizes his existence as anindividual with ends of his own—an independent being.Since that is what he is, he deserves this recognition. A legal system can be seen as a distribution of all of these varietiesof freedom. Any legal system will set out rules specifying who is freeto act in which ways, and who should be free from the unwanted actionsof others. A developed legal system will also determine who has theauthority (and so who is free) to interpret and enforce theserules.

Three Approaches to the Justification of Rights

Rights structure the form ofgovernments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it iscurrently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve adistribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certainview of what may, must, and must not be done. In conclusion, human rights are an essential foundation for a just and peaceful society.

Advance the promise of Freedom, Justice and Equality for all on #HumanRights75.

Other organizations try to protect human rights by bringing lawsuits on behalf of individuals or groups. And organizations such as Human Rights Watch use fact-finding and advocacy to generate pressure on governments to change their policies. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms, without distinction thelinecanada.com of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or another status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs.

Criticisms such as O’Neill’s do not target the language of rights as awhole. They aim squarely at the passive rights, and especially atclaim-rights, instead of at the active privileges andpowers. Nevertheless, it is again plausible that the spread of rightstalk has encouraged the tendencies that these criticisms suggest. Themodern discourse of rights is characteristically deployed by those whosee themselves or others as potential recipients, entitled to insiston certain benefits or protections. However, the strength of status-based rights can also be seen as aweakness of the theory. One does not wish to be carried from the greatimportance of each individual to the implausible position that allfundamental rights are absolute.

A player in achess tournament has a passive claim-right that his opponent notdistract him, and a professor has a passive immunity-right that heruniversity not fire her for publishing unpopular views. Hohfeld arranged the four incidents in tables of “opposites” and“correlatives” so as to display the logical structure of hissystem. For instance, if a person A has a claim, thenA lacks a “no-claim” (a no-claim is the opposite of aclaim). And if a person A has a power, then some personB has a “liability” (a liability is the correlative of apower). A has a power if and only if A has theability within a set of rules to alter her own or another’s Hohfeldianincidents.