Which human rights exist?

Over the previous two basic courses we learned how the idea of human rights developed and how the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" came about. But what form do the human rights we have addressed so far take?

Human rights are innate rights; they are equal for each and every person across the entire globe. Each individual has a right to these rights simply because he/she is human, regardless of his/her nationality, belief, and regardless of sex. Human rights, then, are irrevocable, which means they are always applicable and can be taken away from no one. Their most important function is to protect citizens against encroachment by the state.

Human rights encompass many areas. Therefore, it makes sense to divide these into several groups:

We will be taking a look at these different groups in succession to get a better understanding of just what is contained within the special category of human rights today. It would also be useful to take a look at some of this issue's most important documents, which we have made available on the materials pages, including one of the most important, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".

After we have presented the four main human rights groups in more detail, we will be addressing two interesting questions:

[Back to top of page]

Group 1: Personality rights

The first group is made up of so-called personality rights. Contained among these are rights intended to protect the person against encroachment and rights ensuring that a person's human dignity remains intact. An example of these rights is the right to life, which forms the basis of all other rights, and the right to personal growth. A good example of the impact that personality rights have had on our lives is provided by corporal punishment; even in this century and in democratic countries, it was still allowed to physically punish people for their crimes. Indeed, only a few decades ago it was still perfectly normal for a teacher physically to punish his/her pupils! Personality rights are firmly at the centre of human rights and they can be found in all human rights documents and lists.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Group 2: Political and civil rights

Political and civil rights, alongside personality rights, form a second group of rights. Their aim is to ensure that every person is free to take part in his/her community's political life, without fear of unwarranted punishment. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press play an important role in this, since these rights reflect the attitude and satisfaction of the people with their government. When these attitudes can no longer be presented in an uncensored way, the government loses its claim to democratically represent the interests of its people.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Group 3: Social and economic rights

Social and economic rights form a further group. One of their main tasks is to ensure that, at a minimum, every person has access to the absolute essentials and that survival is guaranteed. Moreover, these rights also grant every person the right to an education. If we accept that more befits human life than simply to survive, then it is essential to create for each individual a foundation on which achievement and improvement is possible.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Group 4: Third Generation Rights

So-called third generation rights were introduced fairly recently to complement the other human rights. They take into account the non-rigid nature of human rights and the fact that they are developing and changing constantly. They also reflect the rise of new problems endangering the right to life; an argument which would suggest that new rights should also be included in the list of human rights.

In addition to development rights, which are intended to reduce the gap between rich and poor, environmental rights make up an important section of third generation rights. Their task is to ensure that people's natural environment is not over damaged or completely destroyed. Since the World Environment Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, human rights including the right to an intact environment - especially for the coming generation - have become increasingly important. Rather than human rights being fixed and immovable, we can see that they are flexible enough to keep up with new challenges such as global environmental problems and to react to them.

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Nevertheless, the rights listed in the last two groups are often referred to as - solidarity rights - and are not undisputed. They are different in quality to the rights of the first two groups, which are always valid everywhere. The following text highlights this:

"Since the demise and discrediting of communism and the social concepts on which it was founded, ideologically exaggerated human rights contrivances have become less frequent. On a global scale, two controversies have moved into the foreground: One is the question surrounding the new collective human rights categories, while the other concerns the problem of universal validity of human rights set against a host of differing cultures. The first discussion is characterized by an attempt by representatives of countries from the southern hemisphere and "progressive" champions of human rights from the north to include so-called solidarity rights in the universal human rights. The main solidarity rights include the right to peace, the right of development and the right to a cleaner environment. Despite the honorable nature of these important political goals, it remains disputed as to whether these collective goals can actually be regarded as being similar in legal claim to individual political rights. The postulated solidarity rights are, without exception, an expression of collective circumstances and presume political action, with failure always being a possibility. The central philosophical premise behind the human rights idea, however, has always been that human rights must be morally and legally enforceable personal rights to which everyone is entitled and must be kept and upheld at all times and in every state."

[Ludger Kühnhardt, Menschenrechte, Minderheitenschutz und der Nationalstaat im KSZE-Prozeß, in: Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 47/1994, 13f.]

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

As we have seen, human rights change and adjust to current circumstances. The peace researcher, Johan Galtung, has provided a metaphor to help in understanding this:

"Perhaps a metaphor would be helpful here. On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights first saw the light of day, born out of the United Nations Assembly. The result aptly reflected Jewish and Christian society, including the tendency of this culture to see itself as being universal. Let us consider this as the first boarding point on a bus journey that may well be eternal. There will be other bus stops along the way. New passengers will board. Passengers on the bus will begin to talk. Perhaps some of the passengers will decide to get off. There will be more such bus stops and new explanations (declarations), with each of these reflecting a wider and deeper dialogue between civilizations. Each culture will make a contribution. Each culture will be thankful that other cultures are also making a contribution. Each culture will understand: 'If you accept something from me, I will behave accordingly'. And as the journey continues, we will all profit from true universalism, out of a universality seen as a never ending process, which encompasses all cultures."

[Johan Galtung, Menschenrechte — anders gesehen, Frankfurt/Main 1994, 230f]

[Back to top of page]    [Back to overview]

Now that we have looked in more detail at all the things involved in human rights, the question remains as to the difference between human rights and basic rights. We came across this frequently disputed aspect during basic course as we took a look at the development of human rights. Here we learnt that human rights came from philosophical thought and from the 17th century onwards have been finding their place in state constitutions. They have, in a way of speaking, been poured into firm shape and guaranteed to the citizen in a concrete form. The abstract person of the philosophers became the concrete citizen of those shaping the constitution. Basic rights were introduced to protect the citizen against encroachment by the state and formed a central component in the prevailing school of thought around liberalism.

It's worth noting, then, that as far as content is concerned, basic rights and human rights are not different; the differences are more a question of form. Basic rights are rights guaranteed to citizens by the state and are contained in a state's constitution. A citizen may enforce these rights in the courts. Human rights are more a representation of the basic idea behind these rights. Until the middle of the 20th century, human rights were used to express a moral claim to rights with status above all state systems - natural rights. With the adoption of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" by the United Nations, the emphasis is now moving towards putting them into concrete form  - in the same way as basic rights on a national level - and establishing enforceable rights on a global scale.

The three stages involved in the development of human rights from the philosophical idea, to implementation in basic rights, to the attempt at global implementation through the United Nations is illustrated in Illustration 1

[Back to top of page]

We have seen how human rights have been included in modern democratic constitutions as elementary basic rights. This leads to the question as to whether a democratic system is a necessary precondition for the implementation of human rights and human dignity. One could equally ask: Is a democratic state possible without the realization of these rights? The following section is taken from a book and emphasizes the narrow and indissoluble connection between democracy and human rights:

"The essence of political enlightenment in modern times is the unit formed by human rights, separation of powers and democracy. The actual effectiveness of human rights is dependent on their legal validity and this is dependent on separation of powers. Only when state powers are actually bound by law, can they be bound to human rights. State powers are only bound by law, however, in a system that separates power, where the executive possesses neither the law nor is able to break through it, where the executive is bound by the legislators and the constitution and where independent judges monitor the upholding of the law.

(...) Democracy, on the other hand, is a precondition for the development and further development of human rights, where the citizens are free to form their own laws and publicly control all three authorities. And so the circle is closed: Separation of powers and democracy begin from the idea of human rights and in turn flow back into it. The three components which are human rights, separation of powers and democracy form a legal institutional unit. The presence of this unit is a precondition for humanity and justice, for freedom and human dignity for everyone. If one of these essential three elements is no longer present, the remaining two do not exist."

[Taken and translated from Martin Kriele, Befreiung und politische Aufklärung. Plädoyer für die Würde des Menschen, Freiburg 1980, 42]

[See also the advanced subject of democracy: Basic rights]

[Back to top of page]    [Human Rights start page]    [Illustrated overview]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods