Chapter: 1

Human Rights: Origin and Development

The term ‘right’ indicates a behavior, action, or a policy that is

morally good or justified; required by law or duty. 1 In subjective terms,

right connotes power to exact or to do something.2 Consequently, right

entails one to decide how he/she is to be treated by other individuals,

society and government. Generally, it is considered that, rights stem from

two realms, positive law and natural law. Positive law refers to the laws of

the state and natural law refers to laws that are based on nature of the

individuals that are instrumental in formation of moral principles of the

society. Jack Donnelly defines human rights as:

“the rights one has simply because one is

human being.”3

Human rights are the rights of the person by virtue of being

human; in other sense, every human being has inherent dignity

irrespective of one's background, color, citizenship and faith.4 Every one

possesses the equal human rights by virtue of humanity. Human rights are

dynamic which evolve according to the changing needs of the humans in

different contexts. On these lines, Ackerly writes:

1
Jonathan Crawther, ed. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, p.1011.
2
Lalfakzuala, Human Rights in Deuteronomy, p.3.
3
Jack Donnely, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p.10.
4
Michael J. Perry, Towards a Theory of Human Rights, Religion, Law, Courts, p.5.

1
 “Not only have “human rights” been developing
within and between states, in treaties, in
national legislatures, in international courts, in
United Nations sponsored meetings, and in
activist’s networks, but also, because they have
been developing institutionally, they have been
developing as a system of knowledge and
values.”5

Human rights can be of different nature, like civil rights, economic

rights, political rights, without these rights one cannot grow and enjoy life

as a human being. Human rights are considered as inalienable rights,

because one cannot cease to be a human, irrespective of his/her mental or

social status, and behavior. In other words, no entity has the right to deny

human rights to anyone. Therefore, human rights are neither dependent on

any government or social structures nor derived from any legal or socio-

political structures. They are derived from rational human nature that is

believed to be common to all human beings.6 In civil society law is

needed for effective implementation of the human rights. However, when

the legal system of the society or regime of the state does not respect

human rights then there is an issue of human rights violation, which needs

to be addressed.

The glimpses of human rights can be found when ethical rules and

customs formulated in some of the earliest societies for appropriate

behavior and attitude towards other human beings. These ethical rules or

5
Brooke A. Ackerly, Universal Human Rights in a World of Difference, p.24.
6
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p.2.

2
customs are not human rights as understood today. Nonetheless, they

reflect values such as human dignity, equality and fairness. The concept of

human rights as we understand now was unknown in ancient and

medieval times. 7 Rights were conferred on certain categories of people

only, like in Athenian Democracy, certain citizens of Athens had certain

privileges like, to participate in cultural events and political decisions and

others were excluded.

The Magna Carta of 1215 CE, is considered as an important

milestone in the human rights struggle, where the freemen English feudal

lords intended to restrain the king from arbitrary arrest or punishment of

any kind. Consequently, Magna Carta was only concerned with baronial

liberties rather than universal human rights. However, the irony of the

human rights was that many groups fought for their rights, but later they

realized that they prepared ground for new groups to demand the same

rights from them, ultimately these rights were to be pronounced as

common to all humans.

Enlightenment was significant phase in the history of western

philosophy in 18th century CE. In enlightenment period reason was

considered as a primary source for legitimacy and authority in all the

aspects of all life. Taking reason as a primary source enlightenment

thinkers questioned the traditional institutions, customs, moral beliefs,

7
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.18.

3
political structures and economic structures. ‘Natural Law’ developed by

enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes in 17th and

18th century CE, played a tremendous influence in the formative stages of

human rights. Consequently, American and French revolutions produced

‘American Declaration of Independence,’ and ‘Declaration of the Rights

of Man and of the Citizen’ in 18th century CE.

The universal concept of rights in above mentioned documents are

based on universal human nature as propounded by natural law. However,

the concept of universality understood in 18th CE was not worldwide in

scope, and these rights were incorporated in constitution and applied only

to the citizens of the state.8 Nonetheless, not all the citizens enjoyed the

privileges, particularly women, children and slaves who were excluded

fully or partially from possessing the rights. In this regard, Eva Brems

quotes Olwen Huften:

“the mainstream enlightenment conception of

the human right was that of the man able to fend
for himself in the free market economy. Black
slaves as property, women and children as
dependents upon fathers and husbands, and
even servants did not initially qualify for
inclusion.”9

The drafters of ‘American Declaration of Independence’ were

supporters of slavery and did not consider women as equal to men.

8
Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity, p.17.
9
Ibid., p.18.

4
Similarly, in France, women were not given equal status with men. In 18th

century CE, Olymbe de Gouges was executed, as she demanded to include

women to be full subjects of rights and proposed ‘Declaration of Rights of

Woman and of the Female Citizen.’ This gender discrimination was

based on enlightenment thought, that rights are based on universal human

nature derived by the reason, and women were considered as naturally

irrational. On these lines, ‘French National Convention’ confirmed in the

year 1973 CE, that:

“children, the insane, minors, women, and

prisoners, until their rehabilitation will not be
citizens.” 10

The people colonized by Europeans were also denied the equal

rights along with European and American citizens. Therefore, Eva Brems

concludes that exclusivist concept of rights in 18th and 19th century CE,

also reflected in the international politics. International Law was limited

only to a few states that recognized each other, and not all the countries

that are not civilized according to European standards, therefore

considered as “barbarian” or “savage” which can be conquered and

colonized.

10
Ibid., p.19.

5
Perspectives on Human Rights

The different perspectives on human rights are categorized under

the notion of ‘Three Generation Rights’ envisioned French jurist Karel

11
Vasek. These categories of rights are based on the three themes of

French Revolution; Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The first generation

rights are civil and political rights, second generation rights are concerned

with equality in socio-economic and cultural rights, and third generation

rights are solidarity rights. All these three generation of rights are integral

in nature, in this regard, Burn H Weston writes:

“The three generations are understood to be

cumulative, overlapping, and, it is important to
note that they are interdependent and
interpenetrating.”12

First generation rights are largely seemed to be influenced by John

Locke’s philosophy of Individual rights: self-preservation and right to

property. Locke places tremendous importance on individual as moral

agent and rational being with inherent liberty. Although the idea of

liberalism has been there for many centuries, it was formulated as doctrine

in America only in 18th century CE. Along with Locke, Jean Jacques

Rousseau, also played a significant role in developing individual rights,

and democracy, commonly known as liberal democratic tradition. The

11
Burn H Weston, “Human Rights: concepts and content,” in Human Rights in the
World Community: issues and action, p.21.
12
Ibid.

6
liberal idea imposes restriction on state to interfere in the life and

activities of individual and their interests. Rousseau, in his book Social

Contract, demonstrates that all power is derived from people whose will

is all the time sovereign.13 By Rousseau’s work, individual rights became

the key element in the politics of the state.

The ‘American Declaration of Independence’, clearly demonstrates

the individual spirit of liberal doctrine; this declaration paved the way for

similar declaration in the succeeding human rights history of liberal

societies of the west., In this regard, O. P. Chauhan states that:

“These rights have been identified as

“important, moral and universal”. They are
Essential for individuals, to develop their
personality, their human qualities, their
intelligence, talents, and conscience and enable
them to satisfy their spiritual and higher
needs.”14

Consequently, an individual structures his/her socio-political and

economic activities, without any external interference. By this it is to be

seen that an individual has capacity to make choices without infringing on

other’s rights. In this regards, Jeremy Waldron writes:

“The idea of rights is based on a view of the

human individual as essentially a thinking
agent, endowed with an ability to deliberate
morally, to see things from others’ points of

13
Cited in, Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics,
p.27.
14
O.P. Chauhan, Lalit Dadwal, Human Rights: Promotion and Protection, pp.1-2.

7
 view, and to transcend a preoccupation with his
or her own particular or sectional interests.” 15

Thus, liberal doctrine fosters a resistance to political absolutism.

The liberal political doctrine guarantees: freedom to practice any religion,

freedom of speech, and right to property. Liberal concept of rights gave

an impetus to human struggle leading to emancipation from feudalism to

the growth of capitalism. 16 However, these rights can be claimed only in

an organized society or state and not in anarchy. Nevertheless, liberal

rights conceived against the state to resist the arbitrary authority. 17

In contrast to first generation rights, the second-generation rights

demand state intervention to secure “equitable production and distribution

of the values or capabilities involved.” 18 The liberal philosophy was

contested by socialist tradition; one of the key promoters of socialist

tradition was Karl Marx. Karl Marx philosophy had a great influence in

the history of international politics. Marxism places a great significance

on society as whole rather than on individuals. Therefore, Marxism

focuses on collective rights rather than the rights of individuals. The

underlying criterion is that, individuals are benefited when society as a

15
Jeremy Waldron, Liberal Rights, p.330.
16
Ibid., p.26.
17
O.P. Chauhan, Lalit Dadwal, Human Rights: Promotion and Protection, p.2.
18
Burn H Weston, “Human Rights: concepts and content,” in Human Rights in the
World Community: issues and action, p.22.

8
whole is benefited. Therefore, welfare of the society as whole sets limits

to the liberty of the individuals.19

Karl Marx contended that liberal tradition of individual rights is

actually rights of the bourgeois; the elite and dominant class of the

society, which controls the access to natural resources and means of

20
production. According to Marx, bourgeois rights enable them to access

the natural resources and production, and deprive the rights of the

proletariats. Therefore, for Marx, liberal rights are not based on human

dignity but on market value. The working class without any access to

resources and production lacks consciousness, and power to assert its

rights. As the liberal tradition promotes equality and dignity only in

theoretical sense, camouflaging and protecting the de fault economic

inequalities of the society. 21 Therefore, Marxism by curtailing the

individual rights protects the masses from exploitation by few élites.

Marxism believes that without economic security and equality, there is no

use of civil rights. 22

Third generation rights are mainly promoted by third world

countries; developing and underdeveloped countries. According to Burn H

19
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.28.
20
Abdullahi A. An-Naim, ed. Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest
for Consensus, p.402.
21
Burn H. Weston, “Human Rights: concepts and content,” in Human Rights in the
World Community: issues and action, p.22.
22
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.29.

9
Weston, third world countries demand, global redistribution of power,

wealth and other capabilities.23 Some of the rights demanded by third

world countries can be right to socio-political and cultural self-

determination, right to economic development, rights to participate and

benefit from common heritage of humankind, right to peace, sustainable

environment and humanitarian relief in calamities and disasters. All these

rights are presented as collective rights, which demand concentrated

efforts at global level. 24

Therefore, survival and liberation become two corner stones of

third generation rights. The promoters of third generation rights insist that

there is a ‘trade-off’ between individual civil rights and right to equitable

socio-economic and cultural rights. To achieve latter one needs to forego

the former, especially in third world countries. There is a possibility that,

the elites of Asian countries, in order to defend their sovereignty, cultural

values and in some cases to defend their totalitarian regime assert for third

generation rights. The above mentioned elites reject the first and second

generation rights as product of western philosophy, and alternatively

present their socio-cultural values, under the notion of ‘Asian Values’. 25

23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.31.

10
Institutionalization of Human Rights

After the First World War and with rise of Nazism and Fascism,

the need for freedom, protection of minorities, and refugees was intensely

felt. Consequently, in the year 1920 CE, the 'League of Nations' was

formed with forty two nations. The primary goal of the league was to

secure international peace and security through negotiation, arbitration

and collective security. The Charter of League of Nations did not develop

definition or description of rights and freedom but only made broad

reference to individual rights. 26 The primary goal of the league was to

secure international peace and security through negotiation and

arbitration. However, League of Nations was also concerned about issues

like, abolishing slavery, forced labor, prostitution, child labor, and global

health problem. It aimed to secure fair and humane conditions of work

and just treatment of indigenous people by their colonizers. 27

The slavery commission, appointed by League of Nations fought

slave trading and forced prostitution all over the world, for instance, it

obtained a commitment from Ethiopian government to eradicate slave

trading. 28 It worked with Liberia to stop slavery and forced labor.

Commission of Refugees looked after the affairs of refugees, especially

ex-prisoners of war. It took interest in repatriation and resettlement of

26
Ibid., p.20.
27
The United Nations and Human Rights, p.4.
28
F.S. Northedge, The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920-1946, p.48.

11
refugees. After the first world war, throughout Russia, there were two to

three million refugees and the commission helped half a million refugees

to return home. 29 It also took care of stateless people. League of Nations

had limited influence over it member nations. It was unable to stop

powerful nations from violating human rights. Leaders like Adolf Hitler

and Mussolini never obliged with the ‘League of Nations’ instead

withdrew their membership. Consequently, League of Nations ceased to

exist in the year 1946 C E. The failure of League of Nations provided a

situation for nationalists like Fascist and Nazis to reign in terror. In this

regard, Michelin R. Ishay, comments:

“The inability to construct viable human rights

mechanism to secure either liberal or socialist
rights in domestic and global politics during the
inter war period provided the fertile soil for the
spread of particularistic trends.” 30

The Nazism and Fascism were the greatest threat to democratic

process and individual rights. Persecution of minorities, genocides,

militarism, and inhuman treatment in occupied territories were common

phenomena before and after the Second World War. This situation

necessitated the need of international body to maintain international peace

and promotion of human rights. Consequently, United Nations was

established in the year 1945 C.E.

29
George Scott, The Rise and fall of the League of Nations, p.59.
30
Micheline Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the
Globalization Era, p.178.

12
 Initially the United Nations Charter was signed by 51 countries but

at present most of the countries in the world are signatories to the charter.

The preamble of the charter highlights the maintenance of peace, security

at global level and respect for human rights. The Charter is the foundation

for all the international documents on human rights. 31 Charter neither

catalogues nor defines human rights but refers to it broadly.

Consequently, there was need to develop a document to specifically

define and describe rights based on the provisions of the Charter. ‘Article

68’ of the United Nations charter directs ‘The Economic and Social

Council’ to establish a permanent commission on human rights.

As per the direction of ‘Article 68’ of the charter, the Commission

for Human Rights was constituted and one of the primary agenda was to

draft a document on human rights based on the provisions of the

Charter.32 Under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of former

United States president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the commission comprised

of members from contrasting backgrounds, Pen-Chung Chang, was

Confucian philosopher, Charles Malik was a Lebanese spokesperson for

Arab league, Rene Cassin a Jew, who lost his relatives in holocaust.

Above mentioned composition of human rights commission

indicates that, United Nations wanted a truly Universal Declaration,

31
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.16.
32
Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins,
Drafting and Intent, p.3.

13
covering different world views on human rights issues across the globe.

The above mentioned commission circulated questionnaire to thinkers and

writers from member states so that inputs from different philosophies,

cultures, religions would be considered while drafting the declaration, by

this endeavor the drafters were attempting to think beyond the narrow

limits of western tradition. 33 Consequently, the Human Rights

commission drafted, ' ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights' and it was

adopted by United Nations General Assembly without a single dissenting

vote on 10th December of 1948 CE. The resolution for the adoption of

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ was supported by 48 votes, and

8 nations abstained from voting and two nations were absentees.

The preamble of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

mentions that, all human beings possess equal inalienable inherent

dignity, and this moral principle is considered as the foundation for global

freedom, justice and peace. Members of the United Nations need to

observe the above mentioned precept in the preamble, and give

fundamental freedom to all people, irrespective of race, sex color, birth

etc. The ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ was proclaimed by the

‘General Assembly’ as, ‘Common Standard of Achievement’ for all

people and all nations to the end that every individual and every organ of

33
Micheline Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the
Globalization Era, p.17.

14
society. Consequently, member nations of United Nations shall strive by

education to promote respect for these rights and freedom. Members of

United Nations are expected to take progressive measures both at national

and international level to secure universal and effective recognition and

observance of human rights, both among the people of member states and

among the people of territories under their jurisdiction.34

Rene Cassin, one of the main drafter of the ‘Universal Declaration

of Human Rights’, identified four pillars of the document: dignity, liberty,

equality and brotherhood.” The first two articles of ‘Universal Declaration

of Human Rights’, can be categorized under the first pillar, dignity. These

articles talk about human dignity shared equally by humankind,

irrespective of race, nationality, religion, and creed. Third article mentions

about right to life and security.

Rest of the Articles, talk about liberty, equality, especially in socio-

economic arena, and can be classified under second-generation rights.

Articles twenty-seven and twenty eight constitute third generation rights

of post colonial era, where third world countries claim national solidarity

rights to share equally heritage common to humankind and benefit from

all the socio-economic and scientific development.35 It is seen that each of

the categories of rights mentioned above represent a historical milestone

34
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Guide for Teachers, p.20.
35
Micheline Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the
Globalization Era, pp. 3-4.

15
in the history of struggle for human rights. Adoption of ‘Universal

Declaration of Human Rights’ was a significant milestone in the history of

human rights. ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ became a

standard reference all over the world, and foundation for human rights

movements. ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ influence and

evaluates government policies. No government can afford to ignore these

standards and all the governments bound to feel their impact at home and

in external relations.36

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ possessed moral and

political authority. It became a standard to measure the conduct of the

governments. And it is reflected in constitutions of many nations, and

judiciary. The balanced approach in accommodating different genres of

rights made ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ to withstand the test

of time in spite of many criticisms.

All the Articles of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, start

with the word, “Everyone” or “No one” or “Men and Women” this

implies that the rights enshrined in ‘Universal Declaration of Human

Rights’ are meant for all the human beings without any discrimination.37

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ balances different perspectives

on human rights. The range of issues covered in ‘Universal Declaration of

36
Asbjorn Eide, Gudmundur Alfredsson, ed. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement, p.xxv.
37
Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on Politics, p.36.

16
Human Rights’ are personal rights to life, nationality, recognition before

law, protection against torture , and protection against discrimination

based on race, sex, color, and nationality. Article twenty nine, mentions

an injunction that everyone has an obligation and duty towards

community that enhances the full development of an individual.

The Legal rights covered in ‘Universal Declaration of Human

Rights’ are rights to fair trial, protection against arbitrary arrest, arbitrary

interference with one’s family, home or reputation. Rights to food, health

care, right to work, rest, leisure and social security come under the gamut

of economic rights. Social rights include right to education, rights to

participate in cultural life of community. 38 The ‘Universal Declaration of

Human Rights’ not only mentions rights but calls for a transformation in

different spheres to realize the human rights enshrined in it. ‘Universal

Declaration of Human Rights’ is a comprehensive system of rights, which

are proclaimed as indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, this fact

has been recently endorsed in Vienna Declaration adopted in World

Conference for Human Rights in 1993 CE.39

To make the precepts of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

to be implemented there was need to convert it into treaty form so that the

signatories will be more accountable in implementing the human rights.

38
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p.2.
39
Asbjorn Eide, Gudmundur Alfredsson, ed. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights: A Common Standard of Achievement, p. xxx.

17
Consequently two covenants; ‘International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights’ and ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights’ were adopted by United Nations. The above mentioned

two covenants and ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ are

commonly called as 'International Bill of Human Rights'. These covenants

included for reporting, and monitoring the compliance of human rights

under the leadership of United Nation Economic and Social Council.

Subsequently, based on the provisions of the United Nations charter and

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ many treaties were adopted and

ratified.

During six decades of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’,

there has been a considerable progress in the implementation of human

rights. There is a growing awareness and mobilization for human rights

even in the states where there is no respect for human rights. The rights

mentioned in ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ may not have

been realized in all the countries but people all over world, are realizing

the rights due to them. The ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

continues to provide an inspiration to the human rights movement.

The unrealized utopian provisions of the ‘Universal Declaration of

Human Rights’ remind the enormous efforts needed in focused direction.

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ is strictly universal; it applies to

all human beings, and globally binding. Human rights in ‘Universal

18
Declaration of Human Rights’ are inherent, inalienable, and inviolable,

demanding state obligation to respect, protect or fulfill people’s human

rights. It serves not only individuals, among rights-holders are also

collectivities such as nations (peoples) and ethnic and religious minorities.

On 25th June, 1993 CE, Vienna Declaration was adopted by the

representatives of 171 member states of the United Nations. The

conference was attended by seven thousand participants from the broader

spectrum of the society, two third of the participants were from grass-root

level.40 The main agenda of Vienna World Assembly was to evaluate the

progress made in implementing human rights and address the obstacles in

the field of human rights. Concept of universality and democracy

mentioned and asserted in ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ was

challenged from different countries, especially countries of East Asia.41

The indivisibility of human rights was questioned, some countries tended

to give priority to economic and collective rights at the cost of individual

and civil rights. In addition, there were growing voices for third

generation rights, which are described in the earlier section.

The above mentioned issues set the agenda for Vienna conference,

which is highlighted in the statement made by United Nations, Secretary

General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in Vienna at the opening of the World

40
Bhaskara Rao, ed.World conference on Human Rights, p.1.
41
Eva Brems, Human Rights :Universality and Diversity, p.22.

19
Conference. Boutros mentioned that, the Vienna conference need to be

guided by three important requirements, which are supposed to be

considered as three imperatives for Vienna conference. The first

imperative is universality of human rights, in this context Boutros

mentioned that, the human rights continue to evolve in the history,

meeting the needs of various people without losing universality as their

essence. 42 Second imperative according Boutros: guarantee of the human

rights upheld by states in any differing situations by effective mechanism

and procedures. Finally emphasizing democracy as third imperative,

Boutros mentioned that, only democracy can guarantee human rights

within states and communities. In accordance with Boutros speech the

first article of the ‘Vienna Declaration and Program of Action’ solemnly

affirms that:

“Human rights and fundamental freedoms are

the birthright of all human beings; their
protection and promotion is the first
responsibility of Governments.” 43

Vienna Declaration, strongly endorsing democracy mentions that,

democracy empowers the people to determine their own political,

economic, and social status. Therefore, democracy, development, respect

for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and

reinforce each other. And it is the responsibility of the international

42
Bhaskara Rao, ed. World conference on Human Rights, p.10.
43
Ibid., p.25.

20
community to promote democracy in the entire world. Apart from the

above mentioned concerns, Vienna Declaration also addressed the issues

like development, poverty, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, racism, gender

discrimination, external debt, terrorism, refugees, minority people, torture,

cruel punishment, judicial systems, human rights education, good

governance, issues of migrant workers and rights of indigenous people

Contemporary Trends in Human Rights

Since its inception, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ is

assailed from different quarters, and surrounded by many debates. An

inquiry into the origin, nature and content of human rights leads to host of

conceptual hurdles one needs to overcome to accept the human rights as

authoritative. There is a need to evaluate criticism from different quarters.

In this section, the significant debates like, the source of human rights,

philosophical foundations for human rights, universality and cultural

legitimacy of international human rights corpus are analyzed.

The concept of human rights is thought to be the product of western

secular philosophies, but time and again this view has been challenged.

One of the strongest challenges to the above mentioned view was posed

by George Jellinek, who was constitutional historian and legal

theoretician. He published a book, ‘The Declarations of the Rights of Man

and Citizens: A contribution to Modern Constitutional History.’ In the

21
above mentioned book, the author asserts that declaration of human and

civil rights in the French revolution is not responsible for the historical

origin for the codification of human rights as commonly assumed. He also

points out that, continuity between natural law and human rights cannot

be overestimated, as the concepts of natural law could never lead to the

institutionalization of human rights unless there was a driving force. 44

By this assertion Jellinek wanted to shift the credit for first

declaration of human rights from the French Enlightenment to the

Christian roots of America. Because the primary driving force behind the

American Declaration of Independence was the Christian religious

groups. The above mentioned groups struggled for religiously founded

ideas of religious freedom, which according to Jellinek, are the source of

other human rights. In the same vein Jellinek adds that, freedom of

conscience and inalienable rights of individuals are based on religion

rather than political ideology. For Jellinek, human rights cannot be based

on law or civil rights, but only on religious grounds. 45

However scholars like Ernst Troeltsch, do not negate the influence

of enlightenment for the codification of human rights. For him the

44
Cited in Hans Joas, “Max Weber and the origin of Human Rights: A study on
Cultural Innovation,” IIIS Discussion Paper, p.7.
45
Cited in, Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of Human Rights: A Critique on
Politics, p.55.

22
enlightenment thought had transformative effect on protestant

Christianity. He states that:

“the entire history of western culture was

characterized by interplay between Christian
idea of love and conceptions of natural law.” 46

Max Weber, on the other hand, did not negate the role of religion in

formation and institutionalization of human rights in their rationalistic

forms. 47 However, in other context, he mentions that human rights are

tools of capitalism for its expansion. For Jack Donnelly the human rights

are a set of social practices that emerged in response to changing socio-

political and economic context of modern west.48 Although, the list of

human rights are loosely connected to abstract philosophical reasoning,

but they emerge from political struggle based on concrete human

suffering. Human rights, for the past three centuries were ever expanding

in terms of subjects and respective substance, moving closely towards full

and equal inclusion of all the members of the humankind, the Homo

sapiens. The arguments used by so called privileged classes, racists and

bourgeois for their rights, were used by other marginalized group for their

rights. Consequently, disposing the hierarchical world of rulers and

46
Quoted in, Hans Joas, “Max Weber and the origin of Human Rights: A study on
Cultural Innovation,” p.15.
47
Ibid., p.12.
48
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, pp. 60-61.

23
subjects, and resulting in more egalitarian world of office holders and

citizens.

Human rights are dynamic in nature that evolves consciously, based

on changes in socio-economic and political structures, changing mode of

oppression and ideas of human dignity. Modern Markets and Modern

States are the two interrelated changes. The capitalistic markets and

sovereign bureaucratic states pervaded Europe than the entire globe, as a

result the traditional socio-economic and political structures were

drastically changed or replaced. This resulted in new kind of problems

and challenges to human dignity. The injustice and human sufferings

created by modern markets and modern states were first experienced in

West; therefore, the West took the initiative in the origin and development

of human rights.49 Emerging working class of the west became a powerful

political force to reckon. The political struggle of this newly recognized

working class led to newer understanding of human dignity and its

implications to life of dignity. Therefore, Jack Donnelly writes that:

“human rights, rather than a timeless system of

essential moral principles, are a set of social
practices that regulate relations between, and
help to constitute, citizen and states in modern
societies”.50

49
Ibid., p. 62.
50
Ibid., p. 61

24
 The foundation for human rights is another widely debated topic in

contemporary human rights discourse. Foundations, are the moral

principles, philosophy, or belief systems on the given social practices, or

code of conduct to ground itself. Therefore, foundations are something

beneath the social conventions or reasoned choice. Advocates of human

rights, and people who struggled for rights mostly appealed to the

foundations of the human rights. Natural Law was appealed down through

the centuries to ground the human rights. In the ‘Declaration of American

Independence’ there is an appeal to the divinity, i.e., creator has endowed

human beings with certain inalienable rights.

Conversely, Jeremy Bentham rejects human rights based on natural

law. For him rights are from the government, and without government

there is no question of rights. Bentham believes that, humans are self-

seeking and egoistic, with a strong drive for the self preservation and self

gratification. And there is need to curtail this drive for self gratification,

for realization of the rights of all. And this curtailment can be achieved

only by coercion which is the work of the governments. Therefore without

the government and its policies there is no question of rights. Therefore

Bentham rejects that idea of inalienable inherent human rights. 51

51
Arthur Dyck, Rethinking Rights And Responsibilities: The Moral Bonds Of
Community, p.37.

25
 Arthur Dyck conceptualizes human rights based on responsibilities

towards community. He asserts that, contemporary human rights are based

on individual rights and self preservation. Arthur Dyck mentions that,

the individualistic rights based on Hobbesian model, tear down the

communities and severe the human bond and relationships. Instead,

Arthur Dyck advocates that, human rights needs to be based on

philosophy which fosters human relations and bonds, in this regard he

writes:

“…that there are human relations or bonds that

are logically and functionally necessary to make
communities and individuals possible and to
sustain them. These relations, brought about by
certain of natural proclivities and inhibitions as
human beings, identify basic moral
responsibilities. These moral responsibilities are
what actualize human rights, and they are what
the ones demanded of human beings when
rights are claimed.” 52

On the other hand, Tore Lindholm, attempts to ground human rights

on the premise mentioned in the article one of ‘Universal Declaration of

Human Rights’: ‘every human being is entitled to freedom and equal

dignity’. Lindholm, further explicating this view writes:

“Article 1 of UDHR establishes that the

proximate normative premise in justifying
universal human rights is the moral principle
that every human being is entitled to freedom
and equal dignity, where “entitled” indicates
what human beings are due as a question of

52
Ibid., 10.

26
 reciprocal moral recognition. It furthers settles
that heeding freedom and equal dignity is an
overriding concern, perhaps always and
everywhere, but certainly universally among
human beings now and in the foreseeable
future.”53

For Lindholm, freedom and equal dignity are universal axioms

which ground ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. He also makes

room for cultural variations within the above mentioned broad based

axiom. According to him the concept of freedom and equal dignity are un-

explicated, and these can be interpreted in the light of cultural values and

specific contexts within the frame work and provisions mentioned in the

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.

However, Article one of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’,

does not provide an answer for the questions as to why and how such a

normative commitment to freedom and equal dignity become a premise

for the rest of the articles in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.

In response to the question raised, Lindholm explains, the second sentence

of the of article one ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’:

“…they should act toward one another in a

spirit of brotherhood.” 54

53
Tore Lindholm, “The Case of Liberalism and Marxism,” in Human Rights in
Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for Consensus, p. 395.
54
See Appendix, A, for full document of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

27
 This phrase implies that, ‘reason and consciousness as foundation

of certain duties. Moreover, another constrain which Lindholm thinks for

universal consensus of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ is the

challenges and the context mentioned in the paragraphs of preamble to

‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. 55 The context mentioned is the

barbarous acts like war and genocide, which have outraged the conscious

of humankind. The challenge will be the advent of a world where human

beings will enjoy freedom of speech, belief, and freedom from fear and

want.

According to Lindholm, the above mentioned context and

challenges will bring the consensus and negotiated implementation

program. In this context Lindholm writes:

“Compared to its classical western

predecessors, the “official” United Nations
foundation of the internationally acknowledged
system of human rights is a more complex,
more realistic, and more “open-ended” scheme
of justification, at least if we accord pride of
place to the Universal Declaration . This
justificatory scheme relies on a commitment to
inherent freedom and equal dignity for its
proximate normative premises (leaving the
deeper premises out of official doctrine) and on
an interpretation of historically evolving global
societal circumstances for its descriptive
premises”.56

55
Ibid., p.397.
56
Ibid.

28
 Conversely, Marxism maintains that, overarching vision of

classless society which is impending through class struggles influences

the concept of human rights. And the contemporary human rights are

subordinate to this vision. As mentioned in preceding sections Marx

criticizes contemporary human rights as bourgeois rights, which are used

as a tool to safeguard property and control means of production leading to

exploitation of the proletariats. Consequently, the revolutionary class

struggle leads to classless society and total emancipation of the exploited

classes. In this context, according to Marxism, human rights are just

instruments leading to total emancipation as clearly explicated in

Hermann Klenner in his book, ‘Marxism and Human Rights’. In the above

mentioned book, Klenner writes:

“No Marxist conception of human rights that

moves beyond purely negative points can be
developed without the detailed proofs provided
by Marx and Engels… of the epoch of world–
historical transition from capitalism to
communism.” 57

Therefore according to Klenner, human rights are historically

conditioned, ideologically suspect, which need to be transcended.58

Conversely, Lindholm, contests the above mentioned Marxian view.

According to Lindholm, vitiated Marxian conception of human rights

views it as a policy and not a system of rights in the context of impending

57
Ibid., p.412.
58
Ibid.

29
communism. And the vision of ‘Total Emancipation’ is intellectually

suspect and extremely controversial, and cannot be used to ground human

rights. In this regard, Lindholm writes:

“historical calling of the modern proletariat

…to lead humanity” must yield, within the
relevant societal domain, to a morally and
legally binding system of (genuine) human
rights: heed of people human rights must never
be outweighed by stratagems for the total new
mode of production, appropriation and life.” 59

As mentioned earlier the universality of international human

rights corpus is questioned and debated on many factors. Some of the

important factors are: varied cultural, philosophical and political models

around the globe. In this section some of the debates are narrated. Eva

Brems argues that, International Human rights corpus is universal because

it has been formally accepted when ‘Universal Declaration of Human

Rights’ was adopted by General Assembly of United Nations. However,

this universality was questioned, when the eight member nations of

United Nations abstained from voting. 60 Nevertheless this objection was

weakened when the ‘Vienna Declaration’ asserting the commitment to

international human rights was accepted with consensus, at second United

Nations World Conference.

59
Ibid.
60
Eva Brems, Human Rights :Universality and Diversity, p.6.

30
 The existential roots of human rights are found to be common to all

cultures, in this regard, Eva Brems mentions that, ‘United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’ sponsored many

projects to find the value systems, cultures, religions and ideologies which

are compatible and endorse universality of international corpus of human

rights. Consequently, the researchers found out that:

“the concept of human rights itself, at the level

of explicit theories, legal rules, or objectives
ethnological description is not universal. Yet
the existential roots of human rights, the
fundamental requirement that a certain respect
is due to human beings can be found across the
world.”61

The existential roots of human rights are focused by some to claim

for universality of human rights, nonetheless some who look for human

rights concepts per se in all cultures conclude that there is no such

universality of human rights. 62 Eva Brems cites functional acceptance of

international corpus of human rights as another criterion for its universal

application. Functional acceptance of human rights refers to the fact that,

people of all cultures, ideological backgrounds, nationalities feel the need

of security and privileges offered in international corpus of human rights.

Across the world, people’s movements, trade unions, non-governmental

61
Ibid., p. 9.
62
Ibid.

31
organizations refer human rights for their claims. Therefore this can be

termed as ‘existential universality of human rights.’

Along with Brems, Jack Donnelly, endorses ‘existential

universality of human rights.’ According to Jack Donnelly, one of the

reasons for universal application for international human rights aroused

due to advent of global markets and modern states. Human dignity of the

traditional communities was protected by customs, moral codes of the

society by restricting the powers of the traditional rulers. The social

support structure of the traditional community provided the safety and

safeguarded interests of all the members of the community. But by the

advent of modern state and markets, these traditional communities were

destabilized in socio-economic and political arenas. Consequently human

dignity and safety became vulnerable to violation. In this context, human

rights become indispensable to address the violation, as traditional

mechanism became inadequate to handle the situation created by modern

markets and states. 63

Cultural Relativism

Cultural factors play an important role in shaping value systems of

the society and provide moral reasons for action or inaction on certain

issues. Therefore, study of cultural legitimacy of human rights is

63
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice,p.92.

32
significant because culture plays an important role in human rights

violations as well as upholding the human rights. Cultural legitimacy of

international human rights is essential because people should comprehend

the human rights and its content as product of their own value systems and

not imposed by external cultures or political regimes. 64

According to Ann-Belinda Pries, recent anthropology discarded

culture as static, homogenous and conversely culture is considered as

complex, variable, multi-vocal and contested.65 Culture is not stagnant

and constantly changes by the various influences. Culture adapts to

changing environment, cultural changes happen through internal discourse

or through cross-cultural influences. Culture is viewed by scholars as

contested, power struggles are waged to control and disseminate particular

strand of culture. Henceforth, culture is built upon selective elements of

past and present. Culture is also used to mask the repressive regimes and

justify certain barbarous acts. This has been demonstrated with recent

examples by Jack Donnelly, as he writes:

“ Relativist arguments became particularly

perverse when they support a small elite that
has arrogated to itself the “right” to speak for
“its” culture or civilization , and then imposes
its own self-interested views and practices on
the broader society, invoking cultural relativism
abroad while ruthlessly trampling on local

64
Abdullahi A. An-Naim, ed. Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest
for Consensus, p. 431.
65
Cited in Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p. 86.

33
 customs. Consider, for example Suharto and his
cronies in Indonesia, who sought to cloak their
version of modern state-based repression and
crony capitalism in the aura of traditional
culture. In Zaire, President Mobutu created the
practice of ‘Salongo’ a form of communal labor
with a supposedly traditional basis, which was
in fact essentially a revival of the colonial
practice of corvee labor.” 66

Cultural relativity implies that different cultures have varied

concepts of value systems, moral codes, concept of human nature and

dignity. And cultural relativism asserts that external value systems and

moral principles cannot be legitimate human rights in alien culture. Chris

Brown, promoting cultural relativism contends that, universal human

rights cannot be transplanted to other alien societies which do not share

the same moral values. Brown asserts that universal grounding of rights is

a fiction. 67 The universal rights will hold good only in the society of their

origin and development. Chris Brown argues that it not possible to

formulate general moral standards based on common denominator;

because any attempt to devise the common denominator based on the

existing social practices will be devoid of any content because cultures

vary drastically. Neither general moral standard can be based on ‘reason’

for practical ‘reason’ gives different result in varied societies.

66
Ibid., p.103.
67
Chris Brown, “Universal Human Rights: a critique,” in Human Rights in Global
Politics, p.104.

34
 For Brown, human rights were successful in a liberal society

because, these are most free and congenial societies in human history.

Rights were honored and widely respected in these societies. Thus

creating conducive atmosphere for right based politics. And it is

impossible to extract rights and de-contextualize them to apply world

wide as a package. The contemporary sovereignty based global order

allows varied moral values, creating a value-pluralism. But ‘Universal

Declaration of Human Rights’ is based on one particular value system of

liberal societies. And there is no compelling reason for others to accept

moral values of liberal societies sidelining their own concept of ‘Good’.

Chris Brown supports the relativist argument and endorses that the

cultural practices of the societies need to be judged by moral values

shared by the society, and not by external, de-contextualized, general

moral standards.

Like Chris Brown, Makau Mutua, endorses cultural relativist

argument but on a different ground. According to Mutua, culture is not

monolithic and all cultures are dynamic and internally discontinuous.

Nevertheless, each culture has unique nature and is a product of

accumulated wisdom of community. 68 Therefore, according to Mutua,

cultural legitimacy of human rights becomes indispensable. Though

people of different cultures accepted the present human rights corpus,

68
Makau Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique, p.ix.

35
nevertheless, they want to make a contribution at different levels, even

radical reformulation. Therefore the present human rights corpus should

be considered as experimental project and not a final draft. In this regard,

Mutua quotes, Richard Schwartz:

“Every Culture will have its distinctive ways of

formulating and supporting human rights. Every
society can learn from other societies more
effective ways to implement human rights.
While honoring the diversity of cultures, we can
also build toward common principles that all
can support. As agreement is reached on the
substance, we may begin to trust international
law to provide a salutary and acceptable
safeguard to ensure that all people can count on
a minimum standard of human rights.”69

Mutua agrees to the fact that, some basic human rights violations

like genocide, slavery, in international human rights corpus are universal.

Nonetheless, Mutua argues that, there is a need for rethinking on issues

like typology of political society, and economic philosophy that

international human rights corpus should endorse. Mutua alleges that, the

present international human rights corpus is biased and controlled by

western countries to spread liberal democracy and thus leading to political

and cultural homogenization at the cost of cultural diversities, supplanting

all other traditions. Therefore, the ‘Universal Declaration of Human

Rights’ which is referred as “Common Standard of Achievement” for all

peoples and nations” is considered as fallacy.

69
Ibid., p.4-5.

36
 Mutua mentions that, the present form of human rights corpus will

not find acceptance in non-western countries as it does not reflect the

indigenous cultures of non-western societies, except for some elites with

selfish interests. According to Mutua, non-western countries participated

in drafting and adoption of ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’,

nevertheless, the levers of power in the United Nations are with western

countries, and numerical majority of third world countries in United

Nations cannot wield the power to steer it and its declarations. According

to Mutua, the equality of all nations big and small mentioned in the

international human rights corpus is fiction, and subtly hides the unequal

power relations. In this regard, Mutua writes:

“… the UN charter puts forward another

pretense-that all nations “large and small” enjoy
same equality. Even as it ratifies power
imbalances between the Third World and the
dominant American and European powers, the
United Nations gave the latter the primary
power to define and determine “world peace”
and “stability.” This fiction of neutrality and
universality, like so much else in the lopsided
world, undergird the human rights corpus and
belie its true identity and purposes. This
international rhetoric of goodwill reveals just
beneath the surface, intentions and reality that
stand in great tensions and contradictions with
it.”70

70
Ibid., p. 13.

37
 In response to above mentioned cultural relativist approach, Jack

Donnelly, takes a balanced view, he makes space for cultural factors,

nevertheless, maintains universality of human rights. Explaining his

approach, Jack Donnelly writes that, he opts for cross-cultural dialogue

that integrates the non-western symbolism into the international human

rights discourse, consequently creating stronger base for international

human rights in non-western societies. 71 However, Jack Donnelly

presupposes that the above mentioned dialogue and incorporation is based

on the accurate understanding of the international human rights.

Though, there are some variations over the interpretation and

implementation of certain internationally recognized rights there is still

some consensus overlapping. In this context, Jack Donnelly thinks that,

culture is of no great problem for universality of human rights. However,

Jack Donnelly makes it clear that, there is a universal consensus only at

conceptual level or general statements of ‘Universal Declaration of

Human Rights’ and not on interpretation and mode of implementation of

the rights. Therefore cultural relativist’s objection to conceptual or

abstract rights listed in ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ tend to

be in vain. Rights connected with basic dignity of a person include right

to life, liberty, security, and equality before law. These rights are stated in

general terms; and demand to be accepted by all cultures.

71
Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, p. 89.

38
 However different cultures are free to interpret and implement the

rights in their own context. By this arrangement, Jack Donnelly makes

space for cultural factors to play a role within the broader framework of

moral values presented in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’.

For a given ‘right’ there may be modestly varied interpretation, in such

context culture plays a role to select the interpretation, which is not

arbitrary or motivated by self interest, but fulfills the demands of moral

values presented in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’

Jack Donnelly maintains that, there are some cultural practices like

slavery; extrajudicial execution, female infanticide, and trial by ordeal,

that are condemned universally by all the external observers. These

cultural practices need to be condemned even if the whole culture in

question believes differently. In this regard Jack Donnelly asserts that:

“Negative external judgments may be

problematic. In some cases, however, they are
not merely permissible but demanded.” 72

In line with Donnelly, Abdullahi, presents a balanced view to solve

the tension of universality and cultural relativism. Abdullahi, argues that,

there is no need to discard international human rights for reasons like

culture, because these rights are a product of a struggle for many years.

And once this is lost it may not be regained, because they provide a

framework on human rights discourse. Nevertheless, they need not be

72
Ibid.

39
held in absolute terms, but need to be reviewed for cultural legitimacy. 73

But on the cultural side, Abdullahi writes:

“On the cultural side, each of us must work

from within his/her culture to bridge the gap, as
much as possible, between the present
international standards, on the one hand, and the
norms and values of the culture, on the
other….cultures are dynamic and changing,
both internally and in response to external
forces and influences. I believe that there are
always alternative resources and positions
within the culture that are closer to the present
international standards than those perceived to
be problematic from the point of view of those
standards.”74

Member countries of ‘Association for Southeast Asian Nations,’

especially Singapore, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and

Malaysia, supported international human rights corpus nominally, without

asking much questions. Nonetheless, these countries started to critique

the international human rights, questioning its relevance in Asian context;

this is a relatively new phenomenon for varied reasons. Asian countries

started to take international human rights seriously when they were used

as criteria for trade relations, international aids and varied kinds of

sanctions. These concerns were categorically expressed by Asian

representatives in Vienna, General World United Nations Assembly. 75

73
Abdullahi A. An-Naim, ed. Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest
for Consensus, p. 432.
74
Ibid.
75
Eva Brems, Human Rights: Universality and Diversity, p.61.

40
 Another reason for Asian assertion is its newly gained self

confidence by the economic prosperity of some Asian states. ‘Association

for Southeast Asian Nations,’ countries demand democratization of the

United Nations system which is presently controlled by few nations. And

these few nations dominate the international affairs using human rights as

instrument of political pressure and domestic interference for self

interests. Some countries like China and Singapore prefer to model their

distinct economic and political societies, with authoritarian governments.

For these nations the rights of social and economic development take

priority over civil and political rights which are contradictory to

indivisible characteristic of international human rights corpus.

Asian human rights critique also focuses on collective rights along

with individual rights, sometimes collective rights take precedence over

individual rights. This deviation from main stream of human rights

movement is mainly due to the claim that Asian societies are more

communitarian than individualistic.76 Another reason quoted, for

undermining individual rights is to enhance disciplined governance for

economic prosperity, which is beneficial to the entire society and not for

just a few individuals. Henceforth, Asian nations demand the

interpretation and implementation of international human rights in line

with Asian socio-economic and cultural context. Though Asian critique of

76
Ibid., p. 86.

41
human rights does not challenge universality of human rights, nonetheless

they demand respect for diversity. 77 Therefore, ‘Association for Southeast

Asian Nations,’ countries demand evaluation, interpretation and

implementation of international human rights based on local context of

the nations.

In response to the above mentioned assertion of ‘Association for

Southeast Asian Nations,’countries, Eva Brems writes that, Asian critique

of international human rights mainly emanates from government circles,

therefore in Asian critique of human rights, it can be noted that economic

policies, sovereignty of states, political model of societies are dominant

issues rather than cultural values. However, cultural factor is used to

promote government agenda in international forums.

77
Ibid., p. 88.

42