International law

International Human Rights Law

The UN and the Protection of Human Rights

The notion of human rights refers to rights that belong to a human being. The legal recognition of these rights dates back to the 20th century, after World War II. However, there are also legal instruments that recognize some human rights in ancient times. The idea of human rights is debated as to whether it is more ancient or not. In French, it is referred to as "les droits de l'homme," which translates to "men's rights." However, the use of the term "human rights" is more appropriate due to its concern for universality and inclusivity.

Are human rights ethical, political, or legal? Before delving into the theories, it is necessary to affirm the moral existence of human rights. This refers to the existence of moral justification for human rights. Why do human rights exist and need to be recognized as legal norms? When you have a human right, you may have corresponding duties, but not necessarily. The legal recognition of human rights implies that there was a recognition of rights that belong to all individuals.

to human beings and legal duties for the state that must recognize the existence of human rights.

• Ethical theories: human rights law only as a second stage once the existence and the content of human rights have been clarified - Human rights as universal moral rights that belong to all human beings.
• Political theories: legal recognition as part of their moral nature and existence. But...conditioning the existence of human rights on their enforceability presumes the determinacy of their duties and undermines the idea of human rights.
• A legal theory: recognition of universal moral rights as a subset of universal moral rights that protect fundamental general interests of humanity. A right may be recognized before the duties that correspond to it are specified. Human rights are mutually granted by members of a given political community.

Someone can ask: are there some justifications of human rights? Whether human rights are moral rights concerning the attribution of.

subjective faculty to human beings. It is important to differentiate the justification from the object of human rights law— human rights justify duties on states: you have a right for example, right to education, what about the corresponding duty for the state? The corresponding duty is of course that the state must provide schools, teachers and training for the teachers. But actually duties are not the justification of human rights law.

Human rights must be differentiated also for the moral structure of human rights because the moral structure pertains more to the fact that human rights correspond to the interest of all human beings. So moral rights are the interests of all human beings and also that is the burden for the state to protect this interest against to threats and possible violations of those rights. In some cases, HR can and must be limited in terms of non-absolute HR and the limitation of the freedom of movement in cases of emergency.

There is also an history evolution of

International human rights law: the mechanisms that exist at international level (UN) are not so effective as the mechanisms that exist at regional level.

Moral justification of human rights is different according to how we consider it and how we perceive the purpose of human rights, such as achieving peace, development, or quality. So the grounds of human rights can differ according to the society.

Human rights can be considered as legal and moral rights. But we can say that legal rights are moral rights. Legal rights, which are recognized by law and perceived as sufficiently important, are moral rights but not vice versa. We cannot say that all moral rights, meaning religious rules or rules that exist in society, always correspond to legal rights.

Legal human rights law has recognized a bunch of rights that were considered important, such as civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

What about the other rights? New rights that have been consolidated or have yet to be consolidated. For example, the right to a healthy environment, is that a moral interest?

It is shared by the society or all human beings? What about to the legal human right? Does it exist? According to some scholars yes however others are more reluctant in the recognition of the healthy environment because legal rights are moral rights. Access of internet - is this a moral interest for humanity? Is this a legal right? Well not in all domestic laws this right is recognized at int law, attempts to recognize access to internet but not necessary. Legal human rights are moral rights (religion, do not necessarily correspond to legal rights).

Basic justification of human rights: Equality and dignity - justification that you can find for the existence of human rights and also justify the inclusion of more rights that can developed overtime depending on the society, on the evolution that society has, is related to these two concepts.

This leads to the universalism of HR - universality and indivisibility of HR. Universalism has been put into question by some scholars and some state.

Opposite of universalism is relativism in HR. It means that HR are different in every society. Universalism is more contextualized, and relativism cannot really protect human beings because relativism can justify honour crimes or violence against women or children. Universalism in absolute terms is a problem. When you concern this word in absolute terms without considering the differences that exist within the different societies, that is a problem. There is a more contextualized universalism, which means that human rights are universal, they exist and are based on equality and dignity, however we cannot deny the fact that all these rights are implemented at domestic level because universal human rights are recognized by legal instruments at international level that are accepted by all countries in the world and that accept the basis of human rights included in main legal instruments, with some differences. What matters is the minimum threshold (that is established at 100 international).

level) and you have the application of these rights at domestic level and this change a lot because the implementation of hr can lead ot greater protection of HR and can also appreciate the differences that exist in a particular society, but we cannot recognize either an absolute universalism which can be considered a sort of western imperialism or relativism which justifies huge violations of HR. What it is in the middle there is the contextualized universalism that considering universal human rights take into account the implementation at domestic level.

Human rights law requires moral or cultural foundations it cannot generate itself:

1. moral rights: that is the attribution of innate subjective faculties to human beings (ius naturalis of the Middle Ages, natural rights of the Renaissance, ...)
2. legal rights: Roman law, contract law, the 'domestication' of rights in the constitutions - discourse of the development of what has come to be termed constitutional or basic

times. In Africa, there were some tribes that recognized the rights of individuals, such as the right to life, the right to property, and the right to a fair trial. 2nd PHASE In the Middle Ages: the concept of human rights was not recognized as it is today. The power was in the hands of the monarchs and the church, and individuals had very limited rights. However, there were some movements that advocated for certain rights, such as the Magna Carta in England, which limited the power of the king and established some basic rights for the nobility. 3rd PHASE In the Enlightenment: the concept of human rights started to gain more attention. Philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that individuals have certain natural rights that cannot be taken away by the government. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and property. 4th PHASE In the 18th and 19th centuries: the idea of human rights became more widespread. The American and French Revolutions were influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and led to the recognition of certain rights in their respective declarations of independence and bills of rights. 5th PHASE In the 20th century: the concept of human rights was further developed and codified in international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, is considered a milestone in the history of human rights. It recognized a wide range of rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. 6th PHASE In the present day: the human rights movement continues to evolve and expand. There are ongoing struggles for the recognition and protection of rights, particularly for marginalized groups such as women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals. International organizations, such as the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, play a crucial role in promoting and monitoring human rights around the world.times.There was the Manden Charter (1235) proclaimed in Kurukan Fuga, named after the territory situated above the upper Niger river basin (between present Guinea and Mali) one of the oldest constitution in the world, transmitted mainly in oral form that contains some charters on social peace, inviolability of human being on education, on food security , abolition of slavery, treatment of foreign. This was considered a common heritage of human kind in 2009. Preamble of seven chapters advocating social peace in diversity, the inviolability of the human being, education, the integrity of the motherland, food security, the abolition of slavery by razzia (or raid), and freedom of expression and trade. 2 PHASE Medieval times and beginning of the Modern Age • Magna Charta Libertatum (1215) modelled on feudal contract British Museum in London. No free men shall be taken in prison or outload for exile or harmed, lawful judgment, this is the starting point of due process rights: right to have a proceeding,

To have an impartial tribunal. Mainly written for the barons in feudal times but first example on the limitations of the sovereign powers of the King or the Prince whose powers over the citizens were limited thanks to this legal instrument:

• Edict of Nantes (1598)
• Petition of Rights (1628)
• Bill of Rights (1689)
• Habeas Corpus (1679) - Sovereignty limited. Habeas Corpus means that all person that is arrested must know the charges against him/her. So, to know the reason why your liberty is limited. Habeas corpus is extremely fundamental for the HR that belong to due process rights.

In the 17th century we have several philosophers that invoked natural liberty and equality like Locke (1690) and Rousseau who elaborated the notion of social contract. What is important is that all those instruments, human rights were transformed into law. Thanks to the new constitutions through which the recognition of constitutional rights was achieved.

3 PHASE

The Age of Constitutions and

The recognition of human rights as constitutional rights:

Declaration of the good people of Virginia (1776) - after the American War of Independence you see this document.

“We hold this truth to be self-evident (obvious) that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure those rights governments are constituted among men deriving that just powers from the consent of the governed. Any form of government becomes destructive with this ends and right of the people to author and destruct these forms of government.”

People have certain inherent rights, something that pertains to the existence of human beings and therefore it is something that must be recognized because it belongs to human beings themselves. This declaration set out the idea of government by consent, so people acknowledge and vote for the government. Again, this liberty and this freedom is only for white men.

"and not other minorities." - Declaration of the rights of Man and the Citizen (26 August 1789)