Human rights

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Human rights are universally recognized moral principles that set standards of behavior and are often protected by national and international law. They are described as inherent and inalienable, belonging to every individual simply by virtue of being human. That claim sounds simple. The reality behind it is anything but. How did an idea this sweeping take shape, and who decided what belonged on the list? Why do nations that signed the same declaration still argue over which rights matter most? And how does a principle meant for everyone get enforced across borders, when the world is full of governments that would rather it stopped at theirs? These are the questions that have shadowed human rights from the start, and they remain unresolved today.

• 2. From Natural Law To Revolution

  ›

  Ancient peoples did not share the modern conception of universal human rights, yet the idea has roots stretching back centuries. In the West, Jewish and Christian scriptures offered conceptual foundations, while Roman law supplied a sense of what implementation might look like. St Augustine was among the earliest thinkers to examine the legitimacy of human laws. He tried to define which rights arise naturally from wisdom and conscience, and whether people are obligated to obey laws that are unjust.

  The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights, which emerged within the medieval natural law tradition. Spanish scholasticism pushed it further. During the 16th and 17th centuries, Luis de Molina, Domingo de Soto, and Francisco Vitoria of the School of Salamanca defined law as a moral power over one's own. They named rights tied to the body, such as life and property, and rights tied to the spirit, such as freedom of thought and dignity. Far from Europe, the Kouroukan Fouga served as the constitution of the Mali Empire in West Africa. Composed in the 13th century, it was one of the very first charters on human rights, including a right to life and to the preservation of physical integrity, along with significant protections for women.

  John Locke, the 17th century English philosopher, identified natural rights as life, liberty, and estate. He argued these fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. The 18th century turned philosophy into upheaval. The United States revolution of 1776 produced the Declaration of Independence, and the French revolution of 1789 produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The American document declared it self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Behind these revolutions stood older English ground: Magna Carta, issued in 1215, which shaped the 1689 English Bill of Rights and later constitutional documents.

• 3. The Word Enters The Language

  ›

  In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator that he hoped to enlist his readers in the great cause of human rights. The phrase itself was young. It probably came into use sometime between Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man and Garrison's publication. In 1849, Henry David Thoreau wrote about human rights in his treatise On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, a work that later shaped human rights and civil rights thinkers.

  United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis gave the term legal weight in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte Milligan. By the protection of the law, he wrote, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people. Across the 20th century, movements claimed the phrase as their own. Labour unions in Western Europe and North America won the right to strike and rules against child labour. The women's rights movement secured the vote for many women. Mahatma Gandhi's leadership of the Indian independence movement became one of the most influential national liberation struggles, helping drive out colonial powers.

• 4. Building The Declaration

  ›

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948, partly in response to the events of World War II and the Holocaust. It was non-binding, yet it was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and ensure they did their duties to their citizens. The declaration called its work the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

  Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the Human Rights Commission that framed the document, beginning to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members did not immediately agree on its form or whether it should be enforced. Canadian law professor John Humphrey handled much of the cross-national research, while French lawyer René Cassin shaped the structure. Cassin built the document around dignity, liberty, equality, and brotherhood in its first articles, moving outward to rights of individuals, then spiritual and political rights, then economic, social and cultural rights. He placed the final three articles in the context of limits, duties, and the social order.

  The declaration was adopted unanimously, with abstentions from the Soviet bloc, apartheid South Africa, and Saudi Arabia. Its drafters drew on a committee of experts representing all continents and all major religions, and consulted leaders including Mahatma Gandhi. Yet the legal scholar Henry J. Richardson III argued that the major governments of the day worked to ensure these principles carried only international application, with no legal obligation to apply them domestically. He observed that letting their own discriminated-against minorities claim enforcement would have been political dynamite.

• 5. Splitting The Rights

  ›

  The onset of the Cold War exposed a fault line running straight through the declaration. Capitalist states emphasized civil and political rights such as freedom of thought, speech, and association, and were reluctant to include economic and social rights like the right to work or to join a union. Socialist states argued strongly for those economic and social rights. The disagreement had consequences. The rights of the declaration were split into two separate covenants, allowing states to adopt some and set others aside.

  In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were adopted, making the declaration's rights binding. They came into force only in 1976, once enough countries had ratified them. The United States ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights only in 1992. The economic covenant commits 155 state parties to work toward granting economic, social, and cultural rights. Other instruments followed, among them the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the conventions against racial discrimination and against discrimination against women, the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force in 2002.

• 6. Who Enforces It

  ›

  The United Nations is the only multilateral governmental agency with universally accepted jurisdiction over universal human rights legislation. Its most senior human rights body is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The UN Human Rights Council, created in 2005, has a mandate to investigate alleged violations. Forty-seven of the 193 UN member states sit on the council, elected by secret ballot of the General Assembly, serving a maximum of six years, with membership suspendable for gross abuses. Based in Geneva, it meets three times a year and retains independent rapporteurs to investigate and report.

  Treaty bodies sit alongside the political ones. Committees of independent experts monitor compliance with the core treaties, from the Human Rights Committee overseeing the political covenant to the Committee Against Torture, which receives reports every four years and whose subcommittee may inspect countries that opt in. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008. The International Court of Justice settles disputes between nations but holds no jurisdiction over individuals. That role falls to the International Criminal Court, which investigates war crimes and crimes against humanity within its jurisdiction since 2002. International courts act only where a national legal system cannot try a case itself, and only after all local remedies are exhausted.

  The map of enforcement is also regional. In over 110 countries, national human rights institutions operate under the Paris Principles, defined at a Paris workshop on 7-the 9th of October 1991. The African Union, established in 2001 and consisting of fifty-five states, works through the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Organization of American States, headquartered in Washington, D.C., runs an inter-American commission alongside a court in San José, Costa Rica. The Council of Europe, founded in 1949 and seated in Strasbourg, upholds the European Convention on Human Rights, which all 47 of its members have signed. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled for the first time that the Swiss government had violated human rights by not acting strongly enough to stop climate change.

• 7. The Universalism Debate

  ›

  Cultural relativism poses the sharpest challenge to the idea that human rights belong to everyone. Its proponents argue that not all rights are universal, and that some conflict with cultures and threaten their survival. Paragraph 5 of the 1993 Vienna Declaration gave the argument footing, stating that national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. The rights most often contested this way are the rights of women.

  In 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, called the declaration a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition that Muslims could not implement without trespassing Islamic law. In the 1990s, the former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, claimed Asian values differed from Western ones and favored social stability over personal freedoms. Mahathir's former deputy countered that to call freedom unAsian was to offend the forefathers who died struggling against tyranny. Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan called it racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.

  Michael Ignatieff argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively the argument of those who wield power in cultures that commit abuses, while the powerless are the ones whose rights are compromised. Relativistic arguments, critics note, tend to forget that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than 1948. The declaration itself was drafted by people of many traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French Zionist, and a representative from the Arab League.

• 8. Rethinking Rights Themselves

  ›

  Karel Vasak proposed that human rights come in three generations: first-generation civil and political rights, second-generation economic, social and cultural rights, and third-generation solidarity rights such as the right to peace and a clean environment. The third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. The human rights expert Philip Alston warned against treating everything as essential, writing that if every possible element is deemed necessary, then nothing will be treated as truly important.

  Some thinkers question the framework entirely. The philosopher Zhao Tingyang argues that the traditional model fails to be universal because it arose from contingent aspects of Western culture, and proposes an alternative he calls credit human rights, in which rights are tied to responsibilities. Simone Weil made a parallel case, arguing for a focus on human obligations over individual rights. She held that obligations belong to the self while rights exist only when others recognize their duties toward us. A person alone in the universe, she wrote, would have no rights but still would have obligations, and duty to the human being as such, that alone is eternal.

  The frontier keeps moving. In 2021, the United Nations Human Rights Council officially recognized having a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right. In 2025, the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion that such an environment is a human right, and that failing to protect the planet from climate change may violate international law.