Introduction to Human Rights A review of readings and topics

The International Human Right Legal Framework International law is the rules agreed upon by the governments of the world. International law is the rules agreed upon by the governments of the world. Principle of sovereignty: there is no higher authority within the territory of a state than the government that represents the people of that state. Principle of sovereignty: there is no higher authority within the territory of a state than the government that represents the people of that state. International Law: a system of rules International Law: a system of rules Treaties (or conventions (when many states sign onto it): written contracts/agreements): hard law Treaties (or conventions (when many states sign onto it): written contracts/agreements): hard law Customary laws: reoccurring actions that become customary Customary laws: reoccurring actions that become customary General principles: centrally acknowledged concepts General principles: centrally acknowledged concepts

The International Human Right Legal Framework (cont.) 1945: UN Charter. The language of HR becomes a fundamental value of the UN system and a general principle of international law 1945: UN Charter. The language of HR becomes a fundamental value of the UN system and a general principle of international law Commission on Human Rights: Commission on Human Rights: -provides state with a space for complaining about each other’s Hr records -Assigns special rapporteurs (or working groups) working on specific countries and issues 1948: Universal declaration of HR 1948: Universal declaration of HR

The International Human Rights legal framework (cont.) 1966: International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights 1966: International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights 1993: Vienna convention set up the High Commission on Human Right (HCHR) 1993: Vienna convention set up the High Commission on Human Right (HCHR) 1993: International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia ( ICTY) 1993: International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia ( ICTY) 1994: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 1994: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 2002: International Criminal Court (ICC) 2002: International Criminal Court (ICC)

Positive and Negative Rights Rights in general (and human rights in particular) are often describe as (valid) claims that create duties. There are also conceived of as entitlement Rights in general (and human rights in particular) are often describe as (valid) claims that create duties. There are also conceived of as entitlement If X has a right to P then (at least) someone has a duty: If X has a right to P then (at least) someone has a duty: a) not to interfere with X or b) to aid X A right that creates a negative duty is in that sense a negative right (International Covenant on Civil and Political rights) A right that creates a negative duty is in that sense a negative right (International Covenant on Civil and Political rights) A right that creates a positive duty is in that sense a positive right (International Covenant on social, economic and cultural rights) A right that creates a positive duty is in that sense a positive right (International Covenant on social, economic and cultural rights)

Negative and Positive Rights (cont.) Henry Shue in Basic Rights argues that human rights entail 3 types of duties: Henry Shue in Basic Rights argues that human rights entail 3 types of duties: 1- Duty not to deprive the right-holder of the enjoyment of her right 2- Duty to protect against deprivation 3- Duty to aid those whose rights have been violated Shue also argues that the distinction negative/positive rights is not valid, most rights entail both positive and negative duties Shue also argues that the distinction negative/positive rights is not valid, most rights entail both positive and negative duties

Cultural Genocide Neither the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses directly the crime of Cultural Genocide. Neither the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses directly the crime of Cultural Genocide. Morsink argues that not having the rights of minority groups included in these two documents is damaging. Morsink argues that not having the rights of minority groups included in these two documents is damaging. Failure to include cultural genocide (which was part of the first draft of the genocide convention) results from the horrors of World War II ethnic cleansing and from the composition of the League of Nations. Failure to include cultural genocide (which was part of the first draft of the genocide convention) results from the horrors of World War II ethnic cleansing and from the composition of the League of Nations. Morsink concludes that the Universal declaration must be amended. Morsink concludes that the Universal declaration must be amended.

Cultural Genocide (cont.) The case of Native Americans Prof. Den Ouden warns against the phrase “minority groups rights” that, she argues, is often associated with special rights and tinted with racism. Prof. Den Ouden warns against the phrase “minority groups rights” that, she argues, is often associated with special rights and tinted with racism. It is a case of tribal sovereignty and self determination (competing sovereignties: Native-American self- determination versus US constitution) It is a case of tribal sovereignty and self determination (competing sovereignties: Native-American self- determination versus US constitution) And a case of multiple violations of a collective right to self-determination and of a right to a future (reservations, economic, dependency, prohibition of native languages in boarding schools, etc…) And a case of multiple violations of a collective right to self-determination and of a right to a future (reservations, economic, dependency, prohibition of native languages in boarding schools, etc…)

Immigrant Rights (Globalization, the state and Human Rights) Sovereign states have a right to control their borders Sovereign states have a right to control their borders Given that right, how should government treat citizens and non-citizens? How should governments rule? Given that right, how should government treat citizens and non-citizens? How should governments rule? According to contemporary international Human Rights norms states should be: According to contemporary international Human Rights norms states should be: a) liberal states b) democratic states c) welfare states Economic globalization is a threat to the welfare state Economic globalization is a threat to the welfare state

Immigrant Rights (Globalization, the state and Human Rights) (cont.) Immigrants and refugees are less protected than citizens and are being subjected to various forms of Human Right violations Immigrants and refugees are less protected than citizens and are being subjected to various forms of Human Right violations Examples of violations Examples of violations Labor rights violations (non payment of wages, hazardous work conditions) Labor rights violations (non payment of wages, hazardous work conditions) Social rights violations (denial or lack of access to health care, lack of safety and police protection) Social rights violations (denial or lack of access to health care, lack of safety and police protection) Political rights violations (illegal arrest, detention, deportation, being kept in an immigration status of undocumented without an option to regularization, being denied access to political representation) Political rights violations (illegal arrest, detention, deportation, being kept in an immigration status of undocumented without an option to regularization, being denied access to political representation)