# data[].attributes.body
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and was described by Beitz as "the founding document of modern human rights doctrine". It is considered one of the most important milestones in the history of human rights and serves as a foundational text for international human rights law. Rather than giving a set of principles, the members found it easier to agree on the terms of a declaration. It is intended to set a universal standard for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The UDHR, together with the 2 covenants - the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - make up the International Bill of Rights ('Human Rights Bodies- an Introduction'- Sir Nigel Rodley).

# data[].attributes.headline
My Initial Understanding of Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.subject
My Initial Understanding of Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Before I ever took this module, I had my own idea of what human rights were. My understanding was that human rights were certain things that all people had an entitlement to e.g food, shelter, water. When I thought of human rights, the first thing that came to mind would be third-world countries in Africa or Asia. For example, slums in Kolkata. I would soon find out that human rights is much more than that.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is the UN Security Council a Flawed system?/ Protection of HR

# data[].attributes.subject
Is the UN Security Council a Flawed system?/ Protection of HR

# data[].attributes.body
The UN security council was set up to prevent another world war happening after WW2. It consisted of 5 permanent members, the US, China, Russia, the UK and France (essentially the powers that came out victorious over the Nazis in WW2) (You can’t spell “dysfunction” without the UN, Today Explained). also included a rotation of 10 members that each get 2 year terms. A recent issue concerning the UN Security Council was the war in Ukraine. However, it was a problem that the security Council could not prevent. The United Nations Security Council never anticipated what would happen if a permanent member of the Council were the ones who start the war. This issue that the UN Security Council is facing really highlights the flaws within the council. The UN Security Council is supposed to mandate peace operations and protect the human rights of the people but if they can't even stop a permanent member of the council from starting a war what purpose do they really serve?

# data[].attributes.headline
Cross-Cultural Definition of Human Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Cross-Cultural Definition of Human Rights

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights scholar Abdullahi An-Na'im makes the case for a cross-cultural definition of international human rights, concentrating on how a ban on cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment should be interpreted (Toward a Cross-Cultural Approach to Defining International Standards of Human Rights, Abdullahi An-Na'im, 1995). He agrees that cultural relativity is a crucial factor to take into account because various cultures may interpret and justify particular behaviours in different ways. In order to overcome prevailing opinions and interpretations, An-Na'im highlights the importance of both cross-cultural communication and internal cultural discourse inside each society in order to reach a wider agreement on human rights norms. An-Na'im talks about Islamic punishments mentioned in Sharia law, in particular the punishment of amputation of the right hand for theft and stoning to death for adultery. These are only theoretical examples he uses since he acknowledges that the likeliness of these punishments happening are low. However, I agree with An-Na'am that a cross-cultural approach should be considered when it comes to human rights as many cultures and countries do not have a conception of human rights and that protocol may vary in different countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Ancient civilisations were the first people to identify laws and rights. The code of Hammurabi from Babylon (1754BC) noted the first legal principles that we see today. For example, the protection of property, the prohibition of murder and the presumption of innocence (L2207, Lecture 1).
Natural Rights:
Natural rights are thought to be inherent in every human being. Everybody has these rights. They are by virtue of our humanity. Stoic philosophers formulated the doctrine of natural rights as something that belonged to all men. It was something that every human being everywhere was entitled to " in virtue of the simple fact of being human and rational". (Maurice Cranston, What are Human Rights?(1973),p.2).

# data[].attributes.body
Victoria Pratt, a judge who presided over Municipal Court in Newark, New Jersey spoke on Dahlia Lithwick's podcast on "The Power of Dignity". She tells us how her father was an African American rubbish collector from Harlem, who was born in the 1940s. He spent many summers in the segregated south. He never felt as though he was a real citizen of his country even though he was. He felt that he could never act without a "penalty for his existence".

She recalls a time where a white man came to her house trying to get her parents to take part in a “predatory mortgage”. She was frustrated watching her father be differential to this white man responding to him with "yes sir” as if the white man was above him. She remembers feeling shame since her father wouldn’t look at the white man in the eyes but what she didn't understand was that that could be his death warrant.This anecdote from Pratt highlights how her father's dignity was compromised due to societal injustices during his upbringing. He couldn't even look at this man in the eye. It is clear that human rights should come from the real life examples around us such as Pratt's father. Pratt said that she now realises that her father was responding in what she called “survival mode". He had to act that way in order to survive.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout weeks 1-5, my understanding of what human rights are and where they come from has developed massively. I believe that human rights are rights that we posses simply due to the fact that we are human. I've learned that the foundations of Human Rights come from the International Bill of Human Rights. I've also realised that problems surrounding human rights are not just in developing countries but were prevalent in the US not so long ago after reading Victoria Pratt's story and also South Africa after reading Navanethem's story (What are Human Rights for?, Navanethem Pillay). It is evident that the definition of Human Rights and their sources is not as black and white as it may seem.

# data[].attributes.body
Hobbes(1651)
Hobbes established a "social contract" theory. This is where people surrender their natural rights for complete protection and sovereignty. This was to ensure the chaos of the state of nature was escaped.
Locke(1690)
Locke's theory of human rights is based on the idea of natural rights. He believed that people have inherent and inalienable rights, which include the rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by the government but they exist in the state of nature. He believed that the government owed a duty to the people of which it governs. Locke placed emphasis on the importance of individual rights, in particularly the right to property, which was seen by him as a fundamental natural right.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I think that Locke's view of human rights is more fair to the people. Locke believes that people have natural, inalienable rights which are present regardless of what the government say. However, Hobbes says we should give up those rights to the government in return for sovereignty. Locke clearly has a view that is more fair to the people since he believes that the government owe a duty to them and not the other way around.