DP1 Students: IA Engagements!

Nature and Evolution of Human Rights

Most important things

This is one of those cases where IB doesn't really have a "two sides" kind of thing. Human rights are human rights, and we basically follow one definition (with some disagreement being explored in the "Debates Surrounding Human Rights" part of the unit, which is on a different page.)

From the boxes above you should be able to see that the UDHR is given paramount importance, and that's accurate. It is the baseline for all international human rights agreements, and in the past IBO has asked Paper 2 questions that were specifically centered on the UDHR and its importance.

What does IB mean when they say human rights are...

Inalienable?

It means they only belong to things that originally come from the planet Earth.

"Inalienable" essentially means they cannot be denied. Anyone who says that a person or group doesn't have a particular human right is wrong.

The practical question is how to ensure that they are not denied, and that is (attempted) by the international system of agreements and by human rights monitoring efforts.

Universal?

Universal means they belong to everyone regardless of who you are or where you come from.

Man? Woman? Same rights.

Black? White? Same rights.

American? Australian? It pains me to say this, but... same rights.

Hindu? Muslim? Christian? Same rights, but we'll agree to disagree about the afterlife.

Upstanding citizen? Criminal? Same. Rights.

Indivisible?

This means they cannot be divided; leaders and states do not get to cherry pick the rights they prefer people to have. Everyone, everywhere has all of the human rights listed in the UDHR.

This is essentially the approach that says "if you signed the damn document, then you'd better make sure to at least try."

The other idea behind indivisibility is that these rights are stronger and more significant all-together than they are individually (so it's kinda like interdependence, but with rights rather than countries.)

What's the Deal with the UDHR?

First of all, the UDHR is not actually a law (we'll see that here.)

Second, it came together after the end of World War 2 and the establishment of the United Nations (in 1945, and the UDHR was passed in 1948.)

The system that existed prior to the United Nations (the League of Nations) was deeply, deeply flawed. It was proposed at the end of World War 1 by the President of the United States, but his political rivals made sure that the USA did not ratify the agreement to actually join the League of Nations, so that was a bit of a blow right from the start. The League ultimately turned into a boys club for the European powers to feel good about themselves and ignore or ridicule other countries (the most infamous moment being when Italy invaded Ethiopia, and the country's leader pleaded for help at the League only to be laughed at. Well, Italy's invasion was one of the reasons why WWII was also fought in Africa.) All in all, the League did not manage to protect anyone and it fundamentally failed in its primary goal: avoiding another international conflict.

The horrific suffering of World War II made it clear that some kind of international agreement on basic human rights was necessary. It was also something that states had been kinda talking about before; the Geneva Conventions, governing practices during warfare like the use of certain weapons and the treatment of prisoners and civilians, had existed for over seventy years years at that point (the first Geneva Convention was formed in 1864.)

What did the UDHR do?

The UDHR represented a collective (dare I say... liberal) effort to determine the most essential rights that every person should enjoy, and that every state (and the UN) should seek to protect. It was drafted by individuals from all over the world, with every region having multiple representatives and every major faith being a part of the process. In the end, the document contains thirty articles, each representing a core right.

This was formalized somewhat with the passage of two subsequent agreements on civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. Together with the UDHR, these form the basis for international human rights law. All 192 current UN members have either signed the UDHR or expressed their agreement in another way.

"Milestones"

Most of the 'milestones' that IB wants you to know about will be covered on the page about codifying and protecting human rights, as they're a big part of the international human rights laws that have been passed. A more conventional way to think about milestones is the three so-called "generations" of human rights. This does not mean that the second and third generation developed later than the first, just that common discussion and codification of those rights happened later on. You can see examples of all three generations (esp. first and second) in the UDHR itself.)

1st Gen: Civil and Political Rights

These rights would include things like the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

Most civil and political rights would be considered negative rights, meaning that they are protected when the government does basically nothing to infringe upon them. Want to join a religion? Go for it! Post political content on Instagram? Sure, but get used to people not hitting the "like" button as much.

Countries' political systems and the priorities of their people and leaders often determines the importance placed on individual political and civil rights. Authoritarian states usually clamp down on civil rights but try to "balance" things by placing more emphasis on social and economic rights (e.g. "elections may not be free or fair, but we'll build programs that help you move up the social ladder or get rich.") Democratic countries often emphasize civil and social rights, but debate social/economic topics (e.g. no universal healthcare in the USA; debates in European countries about austerity measures and social spending.)

2nd Gen: Economic and Social Rights

These rights are typically positive rights, meaning that a government actually needs to do something in order for them to be guaranteed. A right to an education, for instance, is not something that you can expect to just take care of itself. It's not solved by inaction. Countries need school systems, funding, teachers, curricula, etc.

Many social and economic rights represent a kind of social safety net. They often focus on caring for the basics that people need, or provide support for when it's truly necessary. Pensions and social security, provisions for healthcare, rights to work and education all fall under second-gen rights.

Second-generation rights are often a priority for developing countries, as they have the most direct impact on people's standard of living and quality of life (not to say that civil/political rights don't have an impact, but being able to choose your own leader has less of an impact on your long-term quality of life than having access to a quality education or good healthcare.)

3rd Gen: Collective Rights

This is where we start to run into some difficulties. The idea of "collective" rights don't mesh super well with the established ideas and language of human rights -- "collective" stands almost in opposition to "individual," and human rights typically have been seen as individual rights that belong to every person.

Collective rights would be rights that belong to groups, which creates tension with established ideas and things like universalism (do indigenous groups have special rights compared to non-indigenous groups, for example.)

A different way to think of collective rights is that they represent some form of justice; they may be an attempt to improve the status of groups that have been abused or overlooked, so rather than being "special treatment" they could be viewed as efforts to extend these groups similar rights to those that others enjoy. Nonetheless, they remain controversial.

3rd generation rights are also collective in a way that refers to all of humanity: environmental rights are a good example of this. All people, everywhere, having the right to a clean environment is a collective right (that can be enjoyed individually, so there isn't the same kind of tension.)

What else should I be considering?

You'd be wise to keep in mind the three other key concepts from this unit.

Equality: clearly linked to human rights as they are meant to belong to everyone.

Liberty: many human rights can be specifically seen as "freedoms," like the freedom to speak your mind, the freedom of the media to print a variety of views, the freedom to worship a religion or follow your conscience. taken altogether, human rights are meant to grant general liberty to people (a concept promoted heavily by older Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke, who wrote of "natural rights" rather than "human rights.")

Justice: 3rd gen rights can be rather strongly linked to justice. 1st and 2nd gen, too, given that they can be interpreted as things that all people deserve. Justice also comes into play when human rights are not respected, or when they are violated. Simple restoration of rights may be possible, and helps lead to some kind of justice, but that is not always sufficient -- this is why things like war crimes are punished, or why some states are pariahs in the international community and take a long time to restore their reputation (keep an eye on Russia for the next decade or so!)

Page updated

Report abuse