# data[].attributes.body
There is no one pivotal moment in which the concept of human rights was born but instead one could say, a thousand threads that came together. The code of Hammurabi was one such early thread, a set of 282 laws by which the people of ancient Babylon were expected to follow during the reign of King Hammurabi . A set of collective values and standards for which all citizens could rely. Although these standards were not equal among the citizens (with different punishments being prescribed based on a persons perceived value in society). The code contained at times, gruesome and primitive interpretations of retaliatory justice while remaining surprisingly progressive, addressing issues such as the presumption of innocence and minimum wage considerations for workers.

In ancient Greece philosopher's proselytised on the underpinning natural rights afforded by reason of our humanity. Seeking always to find the answers to the moral and ethical questions of creation and purpose. Asking what makes us human and what are the ethical challenges posed by being a part of society at large. Cicero stated "we are born for justice, and that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon nature". That philosophy that as humans we are entitled to a natural set of universal rights that are pre ordained not by government but by nature.

# data[].attributes.body
As we moved into the enlightenment period we see the profound impact of Thomas Hobbes 'Leviathan' which explored the theory of social contract. "Government is necessary not because man is naturally bad, but because man is by nature, more individualistic than social"
- Hobbes. The concept of a less individualistic society, where people were focused on collective good instead of personal gain.

John Locke later works 'two treatises of government' further explored the duty of the state to protect and support the peoples right to 'life, liberty and estate', that the state should seek to give life to these rights. Locke spoke of a less submissive power, where government only had the power which people gave to them. In comparing Hobbes and Locke through a modern viewpoint I would say that Lockes theory bares a closer resemblance to a democratic and human rights based viewpoint. Hobbes is comparatively too restrictive and disrupting to agency.

# data[].attributes.body
The Magna Carta - A charter originally hoped to quell the rumblings of impending rebellion which sought to assert that no man, including the king, is above the law.

1176 - The declaration of Independence - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as self evident truths/inalienable rights.

1789 - French declaration on the rights of man - "natural and imprescriptible rights of man"

1807 - Britain outlaws the slave trade

1827 - Britain, France and Russia intervene in the Ottoman empire

1915 - womens suffragette movement

1926 - Convention to suppress the slave trade and slavery

1920-39 - League of Nations

1945 Nuremburg Trials - 24 individuals trialled for crimes against humanity. These individual crimes were so serious, they needed to be lifted up out of their sovereign countries justice system and trialled on an international stage.

1945 - UN charter - Hope is to avoid further war and to 'promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms'

1948 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights - non legally binding document which still holds issues re sovereignty.

1951 - convention relating to the status of refugees (defining who a refugee is and what they're entitled to)

1965 - Convention on the abolition of all forms of racial discrimination

1966 - Codification of the UDHR - International covenant on civil and politicial rights and international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights

1979 - The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women

1984 - The convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

1990 - The convention on the rights of the child and international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

2002 - International criminal court established - jurisdiction - war crimes, aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity

2006 - Convention on the rights of people with disabilities

2010 - Convention for the protection of all persons from enforced dissapearance

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights law is a subset of public international law. There is no one single list of sources of human rights as the list is constantly evolving inline with changing social values. International court of justice Article 38(1) provides us with 4 sources including international conventions, international custom, general principles and judicial decisions. Countries agree when ratifying treaties that they will be bound by that treaty and a treaty body oversees. The international covenant on civil and political rights (ICCPR) and the International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR) are two of the most well known treaties. Countries that do sign up to be a party to the various treaties do tend to consider these treaties and international agreements when they are examining their own laws. We can see evidence of this most recently in Ireland where the Assisted Decision Making (capacity) act abolished wardship in order to start the process of Ireland becoming compliant with the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UNCRPD). Jus Cogens is a 'peremptory norm of general international law' which are universally understood and applicable legal norms such as prohibition of torture. Reservations can be made under treaties however and these can exclude or modify states obligations under a treaty in order to sign up. This can be done in cases where, for example, a country may have a difficulty within their own constitution which may make some aspect of a large treaty at odds with their domestic law. Reservations are a good way I think to bring countries on board on the whole to work towards a more human rights compliant legal framework.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that Griffins viewpoint reduces rights bearers to only those with the privilege of agency which is something that the most vulnerable members of society are left out of. I believe that those amongst us who are vulnerable to a loss of agency (such as children, the elderly and people with disabilities) are people for whom human rights are the most important.  Griffins normative agency theory feels quite regressive and at odds with the UNCRPD. If our personhood were rooted in such agency then every human being would, at some point in their life, be outside the scope of human rights just by the very nature of being extremely vulnerable due to age or disability.

I believe the inherent dignity of humanity is a solid justification for human rights and I think its clear throughout history that in all the worst human rights abuses we can see a clear history of dehumanisation. Attempts made by aggressors to strip the victim of human dignity, by othering and by comparison with animals. We can see this playing out presently across news outlets with the catastrophic destruction of Gaza and Netanyahu stating "this is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle". We see it across Europe in relation to the deaths of those so desperate to enter that they take their family to sea in dingys. As McCrudden states, "the power of the concept of human dignity is unquestionable". Its that punch in the gut word, it stirs within all of us this concept of personal but also collective dignity, the dignity of our countries, the dignity of humanity. Its hugely evocative and its key role in so many different human rights documents cannot be overlooked. I do find Beitz perspective very interesting on this however, because dignity is a natural right, timeless, non prescriptive and pre institutional and dignity certainly does meet those 3 criteria. The question is though does human rights? Human rights are not timeless, they are absolutely changing and evolving with time. Human rights are absolutely prescriptive in that we rely on states to uphold them, we must be given them, the state must protect and vindicate them. Are human rights pre institutional? Well I think thats a question that many scholars would argue for many years and never come to a definitive decision.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 2(7) of the UN charter reminds that each countries sovereignty is key and that nothing within the charter authorises the UN to "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction". This makes the enforcement of human rights very very difficult but countries are willing to depart with minimal amounts of sovereignty in order to partake but it is essentially a matter of co operation that they may withdraw from at any time. The UN human rights structure is better understood as a political structure than a legal structure due to its lack of enforcement abilities. The human rights council has 46 members and was formed in the wake of controversy and claims of political compromising in the previous human rights committee. The councils objectives are in the promotion of human rights, the prevention of human rights violations, to make prompt responses to human rights violations and promote open dialogue. Res 60/251 established the Periodic Review where all 193 states have their human rights records reviewed. A report is furnished at the end of the process and the state can they chose what to do with those recommendations.

# data[].attributes.body
Since the days of Hobbes and Locke an underpinning natural law to human rights has been understood. Rights possessed by the very nature of our humanity, "self evident truths", "inalienable rights" that attach to us at birth and follow us throughout our lives. Cultural relativism is the idea that our rights should be viewed through the lens of our culture because our beliefs and values form based off that culture and so something which may be very important to me may not be to another person. As an example - article 17 of the universal declaration of human rights says that

"1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"

This right to property is also one which Locke deemed to be one of the core universal rights, however how does this amalgamate with, for example, the views of indigenous groups who believe that the land belongs to no one and we are in partnership with the earth rather than a dominant owner amassing rights and power. In light of the stark environmental issues we face and the inability of most people under 40 to  actually purchase property, it seems fair to consider whether such a right really is an example of some universal right.

McNeilly very rightly points out that to attempt to imbed universal human rights into a culture with no consideration of the nuance of that culture could be potentially damaging. She proposes an ongoing work, a process, an action of universalisation to work towards which draws from the work of Judith Butler. A sort of endless and ongoing reach towards those ideals of human rights. McNeilly asserts that we cannot view human rights as a timeless entity applicable across all borders and that instead it must always be responding to the political and social challenges of the time and contexts.

Universality indeed has the potential to lack nuance and cultural sensitivity. Kuasikanz view that any abrasive western interference runs the risk of provoking nationalistic response and setting back human rights is certainly a view that seems supported by the experience of advocates. I believe that An-Na'im theory of enlightened ethnocentricity is the most balanced view of this area. Cultural relativism at a basic level is problematic because it is only through open conversation and constructive disagreement that we may build a more tolerant and inclusive society. Shutting down discourse can never be a healthy thing and we risk remaining neutral in times of great injustice. As an example, how far are we willing to stretch cultural relativism when it comes to matters such as LGBTQ+ rights? Do we accept the discrimination of this group of people as culture in some countries or do we agree that this is a human rights issue? Its a deeply complex and interesting area

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
"Where, after all, do human rights begin? .... in small places close to home" - Eleanor Roosevelt 

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights and how they are actualised have played a huge part in my life and I believe, the lives of many Irish people who have lived through the seismic social change we have experienced in the past 10 years. In 2013 when my son was born, I found myself involved in an Amnesty International campaign around the rights of women in pregnancy and childbirth and the impact of the 8th Amendment. ("She is not a criminal") The chilling effect that this legislation had on my complex pregnancy thrust me into an arena that forced me and my family to ask, how can I vindicate my rights? How can I protect the rights of my children? What are the mechanisms by which we turn the eyes of the world upon our government to push for change?

We watched with baited breathe and made submission after submission while other countries stopped just short of sanction. It was a very unique experience to live through, making annual submissions and awaiting reports. Our government warned of the fragile history and other countries condemned from a soft distance. The path ultimately trodden was painful and raw but as we reflect on that mountain that seemed so insurmountable then,  it is safe to say that any attempt to step in would have ended badly. As reproductive rights are rolling back all over the world we instead chose the path of humanising each other, of reminding that people do not live black and white lives but shades of grey. That those who need reproductive rights are our sisters, our daughters. One could argue we are more careful to guard our children's futures after what we've been through as a country. Indeed Roth states,
"When human rights abuses remain abstract - mere recitations of detention statistics or violated provisions of a penal code - it is far more difficult to mobilise public outrage than if the public can identify with the target of the abuse" and that was certainly the case for so many people in Ireland during this time. Difficult conversations blossomed where silence had always followed the word, whole families finally having those difficult conversations. Would we be ok if this was happening to our mum? our sister? Humanity was the key

# data[].attributes.body
The universal declaration of human rights is a cornerstone document in the history of human rights. It was adopted in 1948 as a post war vision of peace and unity for all nations, an international agreement intended to provide a platform for dialogue and community between countries. A document which laid down key individual rights and acted as an aspirational baseline that to this day has been translated into over 60 languages.