# data[].attributes.body
In this visual diary I will try to illustrate the history, meaning, and purpose of human rights and to attempt to answer the question of "What are human rights"?

But firstly, we need to approach the question of where do they come from? Different kind of rights are something that have been present in our societies dating centuries back and have evolved throughout history:

1. Babylon: In the Babylon period we find the "Code of Hammurabi" (1754 BC), a document with rights and obligations. In this code, we see the beginnings of rights we enjoy in our present times, such as life, property or presumption of innocence.

2. Ancient Greece: The idea of natural rights starts to be introduced, the concept that we must be respected to some extent due to our shared condition of human beings. As Cicero said "We are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon Nature" (Lecture 1 LW2207, 2023). As such, the ancient greeks enjoyed some rights that we still enjoy today like freedom of speech.

As we can see, the concept of rights and humanity is something that goes back in time, although its content has been shaped throughout the years.

# data[].attributes.body
Natural rights are those that are inherent to us as humans, a basic level of rights equally shared amongst every person. This differentiates them from civic rights, which are particular and reserved to certain groups of people.

The philosophy behind natural rights can be found behind human rights also, as they are meant to have the effect of law but due to their inherent nature to human beings they subsist without the law. This is to say, in the case that the law is not respectful towards rights they are still present in people and respect is still expected. This is what makes them so powerful, "We can use human rights to criticize what is problematic about the law" (Lecture 1 LW2207, 2023).

The presence of natural rights grows stronger with the Enlightenment period, and we start to see the concept proliferating in legal texts:

1. US Declaration of Independence (1776): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

2. French Declaration on the Rights of Man (1789): “The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man.”

Nevertheless, the US Declaration of Independence goes even further, stating that the Government should take an active role in protecting these rights, which leads to our next debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Should the state interfere in our enjoyment of our rights? Or should it adopt a passive role and limit itself to not obstruct it?

To illustrate the two main arguments I will talk about liberalism and I will expose Martha Nussbaum's perspective.

Liberalism: The most important human trait for liberals is autonomy, the capacity for humans to be free and actively control the course of our lives. A defensor of this is John Locke. In this sense, the state should interfere the minimum possible.

Martha Nussbaum draws attention to the fact that human beings "are interdependent and that we rely on others for material support, which is why we need the state to provide it" (Lecture 2 LW2207, 2023). Nussbaum argues that all rights should be accompanied with state provisions, not just those in the first generation category.

While the liberal ideology conceives the human as an autonomous individual, Nussbaum thinks more collectively, as society in which we need each other to enjoy our rights.

In my opinion, this second perspective is more accurate. I believe that not all individuals come from the same background, and while some people can enjoy their rights without any aid, there are still many vulnerable groups that are not in the same position. Not only this, there are human rights that nobody could enjoy without state provision, such as the right to vote.

This, to me, is an essential part of human rights. Although they exist before state intervention, without it in many cases they would not be effective.

# data[].attributes.body
The key idea to human rights is their universality, their applicability to all human beings independently of their social, cultural or territorial background. This has brought up a debate about universality and diversity.

The problem arises when we acknowledge the fact that there is such a wide variety of different cultures and societies around the world, which makes me think, can we really find a set of rights that are the same for all of us? I will now procede to expose two perspectives on this topic.

1. Moral relativists: They consider that human rights are based on moral values, and that these moral values are determined by our own particular culture. This means that these values are not universal, and will only be useful in the context of a specific culture or region. Moral relativists take this perspective to an extreme, arguing that there's no room for dialogue, because all moral values are correct in the ambit they stem from.

2. Rationality: The other side of the argument is that there's a rational end to human rights, and thus as rational beings we can universally agree on a combination of human rights.

I believe that there's truth in both arguments.

On the one hand it is impossible to completely detach ourselves from our cultural values. In this sense, I share scholar An-na'im's view when he states that "culture influences how we see and interpret the world" (Lecture 2 LW2207, 2023). Nevertheless, I think that the fact that we all have different cultures and moral values is an enriching factor that shouldn't be seen as a hindrance to finding universal ground.

On the other hand, I find the rationality argument somewhat unclear. If we say something is good because it is rational and therefore should be universal, to what extent can we argue that it came from our shared rational capabilities and not from our cultural or moral values? In this respect, it has been argued that some things that we believe to be universal and rational are really just western conceptions.

This is a very complex debate, notwithstanding, we can find a useful answer in An-na'im's writings. He presents a universal cultural legitimacy theory. Through this theory he believes that in spite of our cultural bias we can find common ground through internal dialogue (in order to find legitimacy for rights within one's own culture) and cross-cultural legitimacy, "so that peoples of diverse cultural traditions can agree on the meaning, scope, and methods of implementing these rights" (An-na'im, 1995).

# data[].attributes.body
A key element to be able to answer the question of what are human rights is their purpose, What are they for? Why do we need them?

In my view, human rights become extremely necessary in today's society. As I see it, their purpose is to offer protection, protection from others and especially from the state.

This idea is patent in the literature of the Enlightenment period, specifically in Hobbes' Leviathan. In this book he argues that we need to renounce to part of our freedom and liberties in favor of the state, a contractual relationship from which we obtain protection from other's who can potentially harm us.

This idea is followed by Locke, who again highlights the states duty to protect us.

Where do human rights come in this scenario? The problem is that the modern world is more complex than what Hobbes and Locke contemplated, and sometimes the state itself can become a threat to our rights.

This idea is perfectly reflected by Navanethem Pillay, who illustrates the fact that "for too many people in the world, human rights remain an unfulfilled promise, ... We live in a world where crimes against humanity are ongoing, where mass rape and murder continue with impunity, and where the most basic economic rights critical to survival are not realized and often not even accorded the high priority they warrant" (Pillay, 2014). Or Kenneth Roth when he says that "the modern state can be a source of both good and evil" (Roth, 2014).

This is the main struggle of human rights, their implementation and enforcement. This is where international human rights law comes into play, as a "vehicle for translating... for crossing the divide between international and domestic human rights by providing implementation and enforcement" (Lecture 5 LW2207, 2023).

International human rights law has particular differences to state law. State law can be easily enforced by means of its security forces, but international human rights law can not due to state sovereignty. It is true that when states sign a treaty (treaties being the largest source of human rights) they are expressing adherence to its content, nevertheless there are ways that states can avoid complying, for instance through reservations. If human rights law cannot be properly enforced, how can it achieve its purpose? The UN has put several mechanisms at our disposal, charter organs such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. However, their action and that of other organisms is always limited to some extent by sovereignty, which means that human rights are more efficiently enforced within states borders.

Notwithstanding, this doesn't mean that the international human rights law system is not efficient or is expendable. Even though we are aware of human rights violations in our present day, the subject is being constantly debated by states in the Human Rights Council and scrutinized through the Universal Periodic Review. I believe that many of the advances in the subject are due to the fact that there's public debate on the matter, that pressure is put on states to comply and protect human beings. In this line, as Roth said "shame can be a powerful motivator" (Roth, 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
To finally be able to draft an answer to the initial question we have to inevitably talk about the justifying theories behind human rights.

1. Autonomy and rationality: We can best illustrate this justification through James Griffin's work. He suggests that we have normative agency, "the capacity to form pictures of what a good life would be and to try to realise these pictures" (Griffin, 2000). This separates us from animals and therefore justifies that we, unlike animals, enjoy human rights. As I view it, this is a very limited approach since vulnerable groups become excluded, and if taken literally they wouldn't deserve human rights, an unacceptable affirmation in our modern society.

2. Dignity: Dignity is a recurring theme in international law instruments, all the same, there is no universal definition for it. For me, the most accurate perspective is that of Jeremy Waldron, who concieves a dual relationship between dignity and human rights. On the one hand, "human rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person" (Lecture 2 LW2207, 2023); on the other hand, dignity informs the specific content of rights.

3. Capabilities: Here it becomes necessary to talk about Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Sen's perspective is that autonomy should only be taken into consideration to the extent of what we are actually capable of doing, since humans have different opportunities and this limits our autonomy. Nussbaum agrees and ads that we need material support from the state to enjoy our autonomy, dignity and rights. The issue with this approach, is that even though it's less exclusive than the first justification, it still requires a minimum level of agency that not all individuals have the use of.

4. Basic interests: According to Buchanan human rights come from the interests we share in order to accomplish a good, decent life. The positive side of this approach, is that even though it can be difficult to pinpoint interests worthy of protection, it suggests that human rights are justified by a large range of values and it does not exclude people for their level of agency.

5. Obligations: Joseph Raz, the main defensor of this perspective, in order to avoid an excessive proliferation and consequent devalue of human rights argues that human rights are only those that can be effectively imposed on others, that create obligations for third parties. I believe human rights go much further than that, and that we shouldn't reject the existence of a right due to its difficulty to be enforced. We should instead find a form of articulation that would allow it. Focusing on the party that has the obligation to respect and comply provides a new perspective that should not be ignored, however, we must not loose sight of the fact that human rights are inherent to human beings, and that is their reason to be.

6. Interference: Charles Bates focuses on practice rather than the meaning of rights. He states that agreement on human rights should entail the possibility of interference in state's affairs if violations are known to be happening. This has been criticized as it would be difficult to get states to sign human rights treaties if by consequence interference in their internal affairs was a possibility. I agree with Bates. It is true that states may be unmotivated to sign human rights, however, how much significance does their signature really have if they are not ready to accept consequences for their violations?

All these theories contribute to the meaning of human rights. There has been debate as to determine which takes precedence over the rest. Nonetheless, as Beitz observes, "The 1948 document does not propose any justifying theory" (Beitz, 2003). From my perspective the issue is not finding a universal justification to human rights, I consider this to be an impossible task considering the influence of our own cultures and set of views. For me, it is about learning from all the different underlying principles and aiming to extract the positive aspects from each one create a set of rights that is rich in meaning. This will contribute to solve other problems such as articulation or enforcement.

# data[].attributes.headline
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM

# data[].attributes.subject
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS AND WHERE DO THEY COME FROM

# data[].attributes.body
As has been made patent during this diary, the question presented does not come without debate and controversy.

What they are and where they come from are to me, the same question. Human rights come from constant dialogue both trough time and between different cultures, societies, states, and individuals. This has shaped the content during the years to reflect those values that we as a society prioritize the most. This is what human rights are for me.

This is why the similarity between human rights and a "living tree" is so accurate. The list is not closed, they are constantly evolving. For instance, during certain periods of history vulnerable groups were excluded (slaves, women, etc.) from the enjoyment of human rights and now it would be inconceivable in modern democratic states.

As I see it, the key is to follow An-Na'im's proposal of engaging in an internal discourse and cross-cultural dialogue "to agree on a body of beliefs to guide action in support of human rights in spite of disagreement on the justification of those beliefs" (An-na'im, 1995). This is what enriches the content of rights, rather than finding a strict universal meaning for them. Through cross-cultural dialogue we can aim to find universal common ground, instead of imposing western values on societies where those values maybe do not fit.