Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Supreme Court Justice Davis Davis, in his 1867 opinion
for Ex Parte Milligan, wrote "By the protection of the law, human rights
are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of
wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people."
Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound
social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of
human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions
brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing
minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The
women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the
right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries
succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential
was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British
rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities
succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights
movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on
behalf of women and minorities in the United States.
Human rights are sometimes divided into negative and positive rights.
"Negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American
legal tradition, are rights that a government and/or private entities
may not take action to remove. For example, right to life and security
of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due
process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of
speech, religion, assembly; the right to bear arms.
Yet, some feel that the cultural imperialism argument is not entirely
factual. While Western political philosophers like Locke, Hobbes and
Mill made important contributions to the development of modern
notions of human rights, the concept of human rights itself has origins
in many world cultures and religions, including Christian, Jewish and
Islamic traditions. Additionally, this argument leads to absolute
relativism if taken too far. If all viewpoints and moral frameworks are
equally valid then one cannot condemn any behaviour, however
outrageous or horrific. In practice, human rights offer a basis to
criticise such behavior or conduct, including imperialism. As such,
human rights can be a transformative tool for self-determination.
A set of debating points revolves around the question of who has the
duty to uphold human rights. Human rights have historically arisen
from the need to protect citizens from abuse by the state and this
might suggest that all mankind has a duty to intervene and protect
people wherever they are. Divisive national loyalties, which emphasise
differences between people rather than their similarities, can thus be
seen as a destructive influence on the human rights movement
because they deny people's innately similar human qualities. But
others argue that state sovereignty is paramount, not least because it
is often the state that has signed up to human rights treaties in the
first place. Commentators' positions in the argument for and against
intervention and the use of force by states are influenced by whether
they believe human rights are largely a legal or moral duty and
whether they are of more cosmopolitan or nationalist persuasion.
Monitoring