# data[].attributes.body
I have delved deep into the origin of human rights, their disputed definitions and the differences and opposing arguments of universalism and relativism along with where they can be sourced from. The easy answer to the question of 'what are human rights?' may lie in their definitions and 'where do they come from?' in their sources but the true answer is much more extensive. Human rights are ever-changing, as we have seen, and to consider answering those questions it is essential that all aspects above are considered. While we can pinpoint certain theories of history there is no one clear-cut origin story of human rights. They have developed differently over centuries and over many different cultures. There may even be some thoughts or theories that were never documented in human history. Sources may assist in finding where human rights come from from a legal standpoint but human rights come from many different places. They are as much birthed from academic philosophising as they are from historical events. The answers to these age-old questions will continue to grow and evolve as do the civilisations that ask them. We must not be afraid of self-criticism. Time will undoubtedly cast our generation in a disparaging light, just as we do our predecessors. We must embrace this fact, knowing that we, as human beings, are not omniscient or infallible. We can only try to pursue the core ideals of truth, justice and equality for all.

# data[].attributes.body
Reservations have done their job effectively of encouraging countries to ratify treaties and this cannot be understated. They have benefitted the international community greatly in obtaining agreements between states that have even the most opposing ideological differences. Still, I cannot help but feel precarious about highlighting their achievements when there are many problematic areas associated with reservations too. Upon researching which states had a reservation for which treaty I found myself questioning if the good they do truly outweigh the cons.

The establishment of the three guidelines for implementation was a useful measure. I hope to see the duty to protect develop further and be enacted more rigorously as I believe that out of the three it has the most potential to benefit human rights law, especially surrounding the area of domestic abuse where statistics of femicide are increasing around the globe at a horrifying rate.

Concluding this section on a more optimistic note, I think the rapid progression that we've seen of human rights sources will hopefully continue. There is so much room for sources to grow and expanding them benefits both the individual whose rights are at stake as well as the legislatures of states.

# data[].attributes.body
Much like my opinion on the above definitions, I found it difficult to come to a conclusion on where I stand in the debate between cultural relativism and universalism. Before this lecture and these readings, I would have believed that I was a staunch cultural relativist, albeit I wouldn't have known the classification. I always try my best not to judge other practices and to tolerate beliefs that I may disagree with. I don't think it's true to say that there are absolutely no moral truths - I would argue that across cultures we would at least agree on the bare minimum that we are entitled to life itself. Equally, it is not just to subject every culture to assimilate into what the West poses as correct. A relevant case to this moral dilemma is the recent women's movement in Iran following the death of a young woman by Iranian state police. I believe Muslims and Islamic states should be allowed to follow their own practices but that there needs to be a line drawn when it comes to violating a right. Women should be allowed to wear a hijab if they feel this brings them closer to their culture - they have a right to their culture. There should absolutely not be a criminal charge for wearing a burqa like in France but there also shouldn't be a criminal charge or be murdered, for not wearing a hijab like in Iran. There needs to be some type of middle ground but that middle ground needs to be created without an ethnocentric mindset and with extensive communication between different parties through An-Na'im's idea of cross-cultural consensus. An-Na'im's approaches seemed the most logical and fair to me. We absolutely cannot sit by and let human rights violations happen but at the same time, we in the West cannot interfere every time we deem something as immoral. Who are we to classify what is and isn't immoral? Legitimising the content of moral values, as An-Na'im says, is crucial to this being possible. The fear of human rights becoming a neo-colonial venture is an extremely valid one considering its history and this always needs to be at the forefront of discourse surrounding universalism or any proposed 'blanket statement' proposals of human rights that show little regard for the diversity of the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of all the topics covered in this module, the philosophy of human rights has been the most captivating for me. I found myself thinking of the different arguments and theories posed throughout my daily life. I'm still unsure as to which theory I lean more towards. I think that Griffin's theory on autonomy would be very strong had it not been for the argument raised concerning individuals without autonomy. Considering human rights law, in my opinion, should protect the most vulnerable and the minorities of our society, Griffin's theory excludes too many people in this category.  I have a similar issue with Nussbaum, it feels like it perhaps lacks one element to complete it. Possibly, I believe Amartya Sen's approach to be the most applicable description. It is similar to what I like about Nussbaum's but without the need for minimal autonomy. Everyone would be free if it weren't for the restrictions that the capitalist system in which we live, poses. We are limited in our autonomy due to lack of money, bad health, poor education etc. I think that there are financial restrictions from obtaining a good life in the current society we live in and Sen observes this. I find Buchanan's theory plausible too. It's similar to the legal concept of a claim right which, from what I've learned so far, has worked well in fields such as property law. That being said, human rights is a completely different topic and deserves special consideration. The vagueness in Buchanan's theory as to who would determine a right is not concrete enough for me. I found myself also agreeing with a lot of Waldron's points as the concept of dignity is one that holds such significance that it is difficult to dispute. Dignity is both a definition and the content of human rights so, to me, this makes it very solid. I'm unsure whether I agree with Vauchez's proposal that dignity has levelled up to the wider dignitas of a community. Similarly, I'm unsure where I stand with Beitz's concept of interference. I enjoyed his writings and wholeheartedly agree that human rights are of international concern. That being said, I fear that promoting interference would inadvertently open the floodgates to human rights violations taking place by foreign states intervening under the guise of human rights aid.

# data[].attributes.body
I have always been very fascinated by the development of human rights in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The rate at which the legal framework of human rights developed and the numerous wins made by minority groups and oppressed classes such as black liberation groups, women's movements etc. have always been of particular inspiration to me. I have also always been interested in World War 2 and the lessons that it has thought us as a society about the potential evil of humanity and how important it is that we never let it occur again, that fascism and genocide can never be allowed to happen again. To delve further into how this belief was translated into preventative legal measures through the creation of the UDHR was a topic that, prior to this, I hadn't known enough about. After educating myself through this learning I do believe that the creation of the UN and the UDHR was beneficial and required. However, I am, at the same time, of the belief that they were both very western-centric instruments of international law. The very fact alone that the UN Charter was signed into effect in June 1945 in San Francisco and the US proceeded to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in August, only two months later, to me represents the contradictory nature of the UDHR.

# data[].attributes.body
“Crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities” - Chief United States Prosecutor, Justice Robert H. Jackson, at the Nuremberg trials.

# data[].attributes.body
"And here, over an acre of ground, lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which, except perhaps by a convulsive movement, or the last quiver of a sigh from a living skeleton, too weak to move. The living lay with their heads against the corpses, and around them moved the awful ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do, and no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them . . . Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live. A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms and ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle, and found the baby had been dead for days. This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life" - BBC report of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

# data[].attributes.body
The historical development of human rights is particularly interesting to me when I reflect on each argument proposed by people like Locke and Hobbes. Initially, Hobbes' Leviathan seems jarring, the concept of needing a sovereign for society to thrive, by upon some further reading I can appreciate the proposal, especially considering the period in which Hobbes was coming from - one of bloodshed and years of a brutal war. I found myself having to remind myself of the time frame which each reading. For example, Locke wrote of man having inalienable rights while also, at the same time, having an interest in the slave trade by being a shareholder in the Royal African Company. When he speaks of 'Man' this is a white, upper-class man and so, to me, this makes his work lack credibility. That is not to say that his theory of the social contract was not pivotal to the development of liberal thought. Likewise, when Cicero and Aristotle interpreted human rights they did so with the exclusion of slaves and women but their work was still vital to the development of human rights. While problematic, each philosopher builds on the other, often developing less-troublesome moral values than the next with time. Prior to this section's learning, I had underestimated the importance of human rights in both the American and French declarations. Perhaps this was due to the over-saturation of learning about them in school or elsewhere but never actually dissecting them. I enjoyed doing so.

# data[].attributes.body
The three duties to respect, defend and fulfil often overlap and existed closely to one another. Because of this, it may not always be easy to distinguish between them. Despite this lack of a clear-cut separation, the categorisation is nonetheless a useful tool to help identify the ways in which states can and must execute their obligations to international human rights law.

# data[].attributes.body
"The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction." -  Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras

# data[].attributes.body
The duty to fulfil is another positive right i.e it is a state's responsibility to 'fulfil' human rights. It is not enough to implement human rights law, states must take proactive measures towards the enjoyment of human rights. Furthermore, to fulfil human rights there must be consequences for any violations and remedies must be provided. A good illustration of rights in which 'doing nothing is not an option; where the state has a duty to fulfil, is ESC rights. An example of a duty to fulfil can be seen with the right to food. The state has to assist with enabling individuals to access food and to provide them with food when, by 'reasons beyond their control', they cannot enjoy their right to food (this includes victims of natural or other disasters).

# data[].attributes.body
It is worth noting that the duty to protect has been particularly important in linking states to the violation of women's rights. For example, violations such as domestic violence that occur within a private setting have been attributed to states' failures in the public sphere. By virtue of the duty to protect violations such as this are increasingly becoming an issue where states have a responsibility to act.

# data[].attributes.body
This failure of a duty to protect by the state can be seen in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras which involved the abduction and subsequent disappearance of a student activist. This was a landmark case that demonstrated that a state could be liable, even if they weren't directly responsible for the act itself but because of the lack of proactivity to prevent the human rights violation. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated:

"An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the [American] Convention. . . . [The state is liable when it] allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention."

# data[].attributes.body
States are required to protect individuals from human rights violations and to create an environment in which individuals can enjoy their rights. This difference is from the duty to respect as it requires the state to act therefore it is a positive obligation rather than a negative one. The state must proactively ensure that individuals are not subjected to human rights violations whether they are a result of state organs or agencies or third parties within the state. This includes environmental catastrophes or, a recent example, pandemics. During a covid the state has a duty to ensure that people had access to vaccines, there was a mask mandate, social distancing etc. States may be found liable for not complying with this duty to protect, but not in every case that involves violations of rights by private parties. If a state's inaction led to a human right's violation or the violation is a result of their own short comings they could be liable.

# data[].attributes.body
States have a duty to avoid doing anything that may violate an individual's rights; states have a negative obligation. States are trusted with not purposefully infringing on rights whether this is directly or through organs such as the legislature or executive. The state's duty of respect also includes the deliberate non-violation of rights through other state actors such as the police, army or other civil servants. The negative obligation of non-interference is the most 'classical' obligation and the idea stems from liberal philosophy.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the traditional international law approach of not outlining how obligations are discharged international human rights law has created a formula to assist with implementation. It is a formula made up of a duty to respect, protect and fulfil.

# data[].attributes.headline
Implementation of human rights obligations

# data[].attributes.subject
Implementation of human rights obligations

# data[].attributes.body
Despite implementation being a source of International Law, the way an obligation is meant to be implemented is unclear and, traditionally, there have never been any specific guidelines on implementation. Straight away this raises problems for international human rights law and the consequences for the individuals who benefit from it. This approach of leaving states to deal with it is too much of a risk considering the wide nature of duties involved. That being said, there is also an argument to be made for the vagueness of implementation as it encourages more states to ratify treaties if they know they can interpret certain provisions the way they want to. There is more freedom and so more of an incentive to ratify human rights treaties.

# data[].attributes.body
While reservations are beneficial in allowing states to adjust treaties accordingly to their own state there is a fear that they allow states to essentially cherry pick what rights and obligations they want to be bound by. Reservations also allow states to interpret certain provisions however they wish. They risk diluting the universality of human rights. It isn't exactly fair that through a reservation a state could ratify a treaty and reap the rewards of the positives of said human rights treaty but at the same time only agree to some of the obligations required by the state. Another problematic aspect of reservations is that they create a sense of legal uncertainty as reservations are vague and widely open to interpretation. This makes it challenging for individuals to understand the full extent of the rights they have. Treaty bodies have brought this issue to attention by criticising states for making reservations.

# data[].attributes.body
A state's opting out of certain obligations doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it because they are not committed to human rights. In some cases, a state may want a certain provision to reflect its culture appropriately. Another reason may that a State agrees with the treaty overall and wishes to ratify it but there may be a very small aspect they wish to limit. Instead of not ratifying the treaty as a whole they can sign on to it but just exclude or omit that specific part. State's may want to interpret a certain part of human rights their own way and a reservation allows that to happen.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

# data[].attributes.subject
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

# data[].attributes.body
The VCLT codified the already existing customary law of reservations in 1969. It defined reservations in Article 2 as:

"a unilateral statement, however, phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State."

# data[].attributes.body
A reservation enables states to join a treaty but to alter, modify or exclude human rights in respect of the treaty.  It's purpose is to limit a state's obligations under a certain treaty. It is not a complicated process, a government simply announces their reservation. An example of a reservation, albeit a controversial one is the USA's reservation to the ICCPR. They made a reservation under Article 7 concerning the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. This is because they stated Article 7 needed to be consistent with its constitutional protection of rights. Another common example is states joining a treaty such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but holding reservations to anything that conflicts with their state's following of Islamic Sharia Law.

# data[].attributes.body
"The obligations undertaken by states in the Convention are of an objective character, being designed to protect the fundamental rights of individual human beings from infringements by any other states, rather than to create subjective and reciprocal rights for the states parties themselves."

In this quote from 1961 the ECHR they outline their convention on human rights objective in the sense that it is not dependant on the commitment of other states.

# data[].attributes.body
‘States do not have any interests of their own; they merely have, one and all, a

common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes which are the raison d’être of the convention. Consequently, in a convention of this type one cannot speak of individual advantages or disadvantages to States, or of the maintenance of a perfect contractual balance between rights and duties.’
-ICJ, Reservations to the Convention on Genocide

The ICJ highlights the special character of human rights here by outlining that states sign on to human rights conventions to accomplish a higher purpose. Human rights treaties attempt to achieve a greater good than simply just outlining laws, they attempt to better humanity as a whole and so it is right to say they have a 'special character'.

# data[].attributes.headline
IHRL and PIL: similarities and differences

# data[].attributes.subject
IHRL and PIL: similarities and differences

# data[].attributes.body
As International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is a part of Public International Law (PIL) it follows the same rules surrounding treaty law and state responsibility. However, PIL are contractual, and reciprocal and require the state to perform duties and fulfil obligations towards one another. IHRL treaties are not contractual and require the state to not violate individuals. With PIL states and the subjects and not individuals. IHRL has a responsibility to the wider international community and individuals. Human rights treaties declare pre-existing moral obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned previously treaty bodies act as a source, although not explicitly mentioned in article 38(1). UN resolutions and soft laws like instruments from the UN's global summit meetings are also sources. Considering, again, the fluidity of human rights, this shows that other ways to develop human rights law are needed outside of the formal article 38(1). Many individuals look outside this article to form arguments surrounding human rights. This opens up the conversation surrounding whether or not there needs to be a set process for deciding human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned above, there is no central international human rights court and so when judicial decisions are used as a source they are taken from regional human rights judgments. According to Article 38(1)(d) these rulings act as "subsidiary means" for establishing international legal norms and they do not make it clear whose courts are being discussed or how much importance should be placed on the rulings. However, it does make reference to Article 59, which forbids the use of any precedent before the ICJ.

# data[].attributes.body
The concept of the third section of Article 38(1) is very vague and difficult to understand and thus is controversial and rarely used. It is usually only ever used if a decision maker needs further sources and the relevant information cannot be found in other sources. One view is that is refers, quite literally, to the general principles found in most national legal systems such as the right to a fair trial. Another approach is that they are 'general principles applicable directly to international legal relations'. All things considered, human rights are likely to be categorised as general principles rather than a source being a general principle.

# data[].attributes.body
A jus cogen norm is a norm that we can all agree on. This may sound contradictory to what we have discussed previously but according to the ICJ there are parts of international law that are so basic and fundamental to human life that we all agree on them. Some examples of jus cogens are genocide, the prohibition of torture and slavery. They are crimes that are so important that they cannot be ignored.

# data[].attributes.body
Bar a very few exceptions, Customary International Law is binding on all states. There is no requirement to sign up for it and it is unwritten but it is still a source of international law. Customary law derives from rules that come from general practices within states that are widely accepted as law, they are customs. This may make it difficult to identify what is customary international law at times. It is also possible for a treaty to codify it. It is made up of two components: opinio juris and state practise.

# data[].attributes.body
Some regional institutions have created their own human rights systems such as the ECHR. Regional rights treaties only operate within a certain region. A further example of some are the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These mentioned systems are the principal sources of human rights law for these regions.

# data[].attributes.body
A common element of treaties within the UN human rights system is treaty bodies. Treaty bodies are specialist committees where their members monitor how well each state implements human rights treaties. They are experts in their specific field and are employed on an unpaid basis and act in their individual capacities. Treaty bodies have been integral to the development of international human rights law and they do very important work. They are also a source of international human rights law.

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights treaties are not reciprocal but unilateral. States are committing to be bound by legal commitments set out in the treaty relating to their citizens and you as an individual do not need to do anything to be legally protected. Some key treaties:

• UNC 1945

• UDHR 1948

• ICCPR/ICESCR 1966

• ICERD 1965

• CEDAW 1979

• UNCAT 1984

• CRC 1989

• ICPRMWF 1990

• CRPD 2006

• ICPPED 2006

# data[].attributes.body
International human rights treaties mostly come from international treaties or regional treaties. Usually, only states sign up to treaties but organisations like the EU can sign up to a treaty (for example ECHR) or World Health Organisation. States consent to a treaty by a process called ratification, a treaty is then ratified. Each state has different requirements regarding the process of ratification. In Ireland, when we ratify a EU treaty it becomes law. Since the 1987 case of Crotty v An Taoiseach, a EU treaty becoming law requires an amendment to the constitution and so there always needs to be a referendum. For example, in 2008 Ireland rejected the first referendum of the Lisbon treaty. Other states may just have a minister approve the ratification or it can come following a parliamentary debate.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite this, we do have Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute that outlines the sources of International Public Law and so, in turn, human rights law too.

"The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a) international conventions [...];

b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c) the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;

d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law."

- Article 38(1)

# data[].attributes.headline
Sources of International Human Rights Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Sources of International Human Rights Law

# data[].attributes.body
Because the nature of human rights is one of an ever-evolving system IHRL lacks a single list of sources. It is too difficult to compile a single comprehensive list of sources considering human rights law is always changing.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite International Law lacking these instruments the International Court of Justice has said "that the absence of a court or tribunal with jurisdiction to resolve disputes about compliance with a particular obligation under international law does not affect the existence and binding force of that obligation. States are required to fulfil their obligations under international law, including … international human rights law." Even though there is no central court or legislature in international law states are still required to meet their obligations.

# data[].attributes.headline
International Human Rights Law and Public International Law

# data[].attributes.subject
International Human Rights Law and Public International Law

# data[].attributes.body
International Human Rights Law is a 'specialist regime' within public international law and so, naturally, their sources are the same. International law does not have a legislator like a state does. The UN General Assembly exists on an international scale but it does not create laws. There is no enforcement of international law and there is no international law court which has compulsory jurisdiction.

# data[].attributes.body
A source of law defines what constitutes law and what does not constitute law. A source identifies how decision-makers can decide what becomes legally obligatory responsibilities instead of simply just moral obligations or political values and gives us the foundations for legal obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
Feldman continues by addressing contradictions that can arise  with tolerance. If the idea of tolerance is mutual between cultures then it works but if a part of one culture is to be intolerant to another an issue arises. Likewise, assuming all cultures will adhere to tolerance can also be deemed as another type of universalism.

# data[].attributes.body
The only time the term 'margin of appreciation has been used is in this case. Richard Handyside purchased the British rights to a book called 'The Little Red School Book'. The book's purpose was to educate teenagers about sex with topics such as pornography, masturbation and abortion. While it had been published in numerous countries across Europe it was seized by authorities in Britain under the Obscene Publications Act. The Court found that the Act's aim of protecting minors satisfied the requirements for a restriction on free expression within the State's "margin of appreciation" to decide what was "necessary in a democratic society". The ECHR found that there was no violation of Article 10, which deals with the freedom of expression. As, there was no law for the protection of public morals they said that states should be entitled to this margin of appreciate to decide what is best for their own public morals but that the states power to do so was not unlimited. Handyside was allowed to publish his book in the end, albeit a censored version.

# data[].attributes.body
The margin of appreciation is a European Court of Human Rights doctrine that permits the court to take into consideration the way things are done in a particular state when making a ruling. The European Court said 'the main purpose of the Convention is ‘to lay down certain international standards to be observed by the Contracting States in their relations with persons under their jurisdiction’.

# data[].attributes.body
"I would emphasize that, in this age of self-determination, sensitivity to cultural relativity is vital for the international protection and promotion of human rights. " - An-Na'im

# data[].attributes.body
Coming back to An-Na'im, he writes in defence of cultural relativism. He says that while he is not advocating for absolute moral truths that it is still true to say that some universal morals could potentially apply to everyone. These moral truths are the lowest common denominator e.g a right to survival. He writes "Instead of being content with the existing least common denominator, I propose to broaden and deepen universal consensus on the formulation and implementation of human rights through an internal reinterpretation of, and cross-cultural dialogue about, the meaning and implications of basic human values and norms.". He believes that the bare minimum common denominator isn't good enough and we need to give moral values some content to be legitimate. This is difficult but can be done through communication between cultures to decide on basic universal human rights through what he calls, cross-cultural consensus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Chymorvah House, the B&B that Preddy and Hall were denied a double room

# data[].attributes.body
In the UK, a Christian couple who ran a B&B refused a same-sex couple to rent out a double room arguing that it was against their beliefs and promoted "sinful behaviour". The Supreme Court held that the Christian couple had unlawfully discriminated against the same-sex couple on the basis of their sexuality and that tolerance as needed on both sides. Lady Hale held "Mr Preddy and Mr Hall ran a hotel which denied a double room to Mr and Mrs Bull, whether on the ground of their Christian beliefs or on the ground of their sexual orientation, they would find themselves in the same situation that Mr and Mrs Bull find themselves today". The issue with this is, as previously stated if a part of one culture is to be intolerant of another should this be accepted? The ruling of this case didn't do anything to address the social conflict of the issue at hand. Furthermore, rulings like this risk transferring mistreatment from one group to the other.

# data[].attributes.body
Sandra Fredman writes that tolerance "stands for the principle that a person’s beliefs should not be prohibited because others regard them as morally wrong." The idea of tolerance stems from liberal political theory and it translates to the idea that the State shouldn't force any of their own interpretation of 'good' on its people. She says that one way of dealing with the challenges of relativism is using tolerance to appreciate and tolerate other cultures.

# data[].attributes.body
A case that demonstrates dominant groups within a culture making decisions for oppressed groups is Lovelace v. Canada. Sandra Lovelace was born Maliseet Indian, an indigenous people of North America. She married a non-Indian man and by doing so her indigenous status was revoked and she lost her Maliseet rights. The Indian Act of Canada removed Indian status from women marrying a non-Indian man but not for an Indian man marrying a non-Indian woman. She divorced and attempted to move back to her family home which was located at an Indian reserve but was not allowed to live there due to the revocation of her Indian status. Lovelace complained to the UN Human Rights Committee stating that this removal of rights and status breached her rights to enjoy her own culture under the ICCPR. The Canadian government responded by saying the Act was required to protect Indians as reservations were more threatened by non-Indian men than non-Indian women. A change to the Act could only happened with communication with indigenous communities. The HRC ruled in favour of Lovelace and stated that she had a right to enjoy her own culture and this act prevented her doing so.

# data[].attributes.body
An assumption of cultural homogeneity and a distinct line between Western cultures and other cultures underpins the critique that universal human rights promote Western ideals and values. Although numerous states in the West have attempted to control other cultures, the same systems of power have been used within the Western states. This is because Western cultures are not truly homogeneous. Internal human rights standards have been created to oppose the hierarchies of power in the same Western societies.

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to the position of universality being another form of neo-colonialism many Western feminists have argued that universalism is simply a cover for male norms. Considering that the UDHR was drafted by white and Western men this argument has a basis and presents further issues within the theory. This being said this feminist critique has also been called into question. Considering the progression of women's rights in the West, critics of this feminist approach believe that Western feminism advocates replacing male norms with their own version of white, middle-class, Western norms. However, the debate is challenging since cultural relativists who claim that feminism is a Western imposition may just be using it to justify violations of women's rights.

# data[].attributes.body
French Parliament banned the wearing of all face coverings in 2010, this included the burqa. Some supporting this move argued that face coverings were a form of sexist patriarchal oppression. However, I agree with Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf who says "French laicism seems as fundamentalist as the very religious fanatics it wants to keep out". The extreme attempt to essentially assimilate Muslims into French culture is a form of rigid ethnocentrism. Yusuf also writes that on a trip to France he was shocked to see pornographic ads displayed on large signs yet a woman wearing a face veil for her own religious beliefs is criminal in the same country. I resonate with this strongly as I would argue that if they are banning the burqa under the guise of human rights then they should also be banning the exploitation and sexualisation of women and the porn industry as that plausibly causes more harm to the greater society. Considering all of the above is still normalised the burqa ban is a neo-colonial venture, in my opinion.

.

# data[].attributes.body
Kenyan lawyer, Makau Mutua, prefaces his book 'Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique' by highlighting that there are parallels between the colonisation of Africa with Christianity and the modern human rights 'crusade'. He states that the same methods and disregard for culture are occurring and without any communication. He says "The official human corpus, which issues from European predicates, seeks to supplant all other traditions while rejecting them. It claims to be the only genius of the good society.”

# data[].attributes.body
It is very understandable that questions asking if modern human rights law is just another form of modern colonialism have arisen. Considering doctrines such as the UDHR being drafted by the west, by white men, with little consideration for the diverse cultures across the globe it is an extremely valid critique and one of concern.

# data[].attributes.body
Amrtya Sen is supportive of Asian Values as believes it can be seen as an ideological contrast to western beliefs. He argues that "while Europe may have been the home ground of liberty and individual rights, “Asian values” cherish discipline and order".

# data[].attributes.body
"While human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds." - Bangkok Delcaration 1993

# data[].attributes.body
The only time that there was ever a United Nation's World Conference on Human Rights was in 1993 in Vienna. This made it a significant conference for both the world at the time and a historical even on the timeline of human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the world conference, ministers and representatives from different Asian states adopted the Bangkok Declaration. The Bangkok Declaration both reaffirmed their respective government's commitments to the principles set out in the UDHR but it also attempted to voice their own views on human rights from a non-Western centric viewpoint. Notably, it also draws attention to the principles of sovereignty and the non-interference of internal affairs. The Bangkok Declaration can be considered as further criticism of universalism and another challenge to western hegemony.

# data[].attributes.body
Much like the issues that are raised with moral relativism, the critiques around cultural relativism lie with the inability to have debates surrounding other cultures and behaviour. Marie-Bénédicte Dembour writes in 'International Human Rights Law' on the topic of critiques surround the theory that "cultural relativism came to be denigrated for demanding that the intolerable be tolerated"

# data[].attributes.body
While universality incorporates the idea of universal standards applicable to everyone, cultural relativism is a theory that acknowledges the differences between cultures and the diverse differences in everyone's lives. An-na'im coins cultural relativism as 'enlightened ethnocentricity'. We can use this to uphold the values of other societies and respect the right of others to be different.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Christopher Columbus statue torn down during anti-racist riots in the USA.

# data[].attributes.body
Extreme cases of ethnocentricity lead to groups seeing their own culture as the superior one and anything else as immoral or uncivilised.  European settlers would use these justifications for 'civilising' the lands they colonised, enforcing their religion and beliefs to force other cultures to their own culture believing the more advanced way of living.  There are, unfortunately, too many historical examples of this such as the Spanish Inquisition or, closer to home, British rule in Ireland. An-Na'im does make sure to outline this 'rigid ethnocentrism' writing that it breeds intolerance and hostility to societies and persons that do not conform to our models and expectations'.

# data[].attributes.body
Our culture is what makes us who we are but it is also what creates our own tendencies of ethnocentrism. Initially, this term may seem a negative one. It is often mentioned in the discourse surrounding racism, colonialism and white western homogeny. However, An-na'im draws attention to the fact that ethnocentricity is beneficial to survival. We need to assimilate into our own culture for us to live in that culture.  He also says that appreciating our own ethnocentricity should lead us to respect the ethnocentricity of others.

# data[].attributes.body
In his article, 'Toward a Cross-Cultural Approach', Abdullahi Ahmed An-na'im prefaces his definition of culture by saying it's taken in it's widest meaning. He writes that culture is the "totality of values, institutions and forms of behaviour transmitted within a society, as well as the material goods produced by man [and woman]".

# data[].attributes.body
Universality means that individuals have equal human rights by the virtue of being human. In the 'Cambridge Companion of Human Rights' Chaloka Beyani writes 'in theory, the universality of human rights posits the centrality of the human being viewed as a whole over that that suggests a narrower focus on the autonomy of the individual.'

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural relativism provides a counter-argument to universalism. The two theories can contrast each other based on their underpinnings. Dembour continues and outlines that both universality and relativism have their positives and negatives. She says universality's good side is the 'elaboration of minimal common standards' and it's bad side is that it breeds arrogance. She says relativism has its positives such as 'respect for different ways' but its bad side is 'inaction or indifference.

# data[].attributes.body
The writers of the American Anthropological Society's declaration also contended that the colonisation and persecution of millions of people had been made acceptable by the West's continued claims to absolute truth

# data[].attributes.body
That being said, we could also view moral relativity as giving us a perspective of different cultures and assisting us in developing a sense of tolerance for other cultures that we may not understand. When we remove the preconceived ideas of what we learn to be right in our own culture we are able to understand others betters. The theories of both moral and cultural relativism give us good grounds to challenge the Western-centric approach and application of human rights law.

# data[].attributes.body
An issue that arises with the theory of moral relativism is that if we agree that there are no universal morals then an individual with one set of moral values or codes could never be justified in criticising anyone elses morals. Does an individual believing that a moral claim is right simply because that moral claim is what is relevant to them make it correct? One could argue that by this standard Nazi Germany or slavery couldn't be criticised as moral relativity shuts down the need for debate surrounding other cultures.

# data[].attributes.body
‘How can the proposed Declaration be applicable to all human beings, and not be a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in the countries of Western Europe and America?'
- The American Anthropological Association's 'Statement on Human Rights' to the UN Commission on Human Rights, 1947.

# data[].attributes.body
Moral Relativism centres around the idea that there is no single absolute moral truth with that every individual aligns. This is because our morality is relative to the society that we grow up in. This theory says that while there may be some general morals that can be applied to a larger community, there are no universal moral truths.

# data[].attributes.body
The UDHR was first published during the start of the Cold War when there were strong ideological differences between the USSR and the USA. The two separate covenants adopted in 1966, the previously mentioned ICCPR & ICESCR, mirrored the two different state's views of human rights. The USA prioritised negative rights such as free speech, and private property and the former Soviet Union prioritises positive rights such as food and housing. This gives a good example of the cultural difference in relation to the actual content of human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
We've seen in the above sections that human rights are postulated by the general idea that every individual has the same rights. The question that lies with this statement is whether it is fair to say that human rights are in fact universal. Is it fair to say that they are universal if we stop to consider the vast differences in culture, countries and opinions across the globe? As discussed, the arguments surrounding the exact definition of human rights are extensive in themselves and so, in turn, attempting to establish what exactly is included when we use the term 'human right' proves even more difficult. We need to consider that what we may consider the content of human rights varies by country or culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Beitz's arguments are centred around the concept that human rights are of international concern. An interesting question that he poses that stood out to me in 'What human rights mean?' is "Why, for example, should we think that social justice requires US citizens to do more for the factory worker in a Mexican maquiladora?"

# data[].attributes.body
While states are required to act when needed Beitz is very quick to draw attention to the theory of the 'just war'. While there may be a 'just cause', a state cannot just resort to war or conflict under the guise of upholding human rights unless it can be reasonably explained that it is the only solution; that the cause cannot be "won without disproportionate use of force or unacceptable collateral damage". He explains further "Nor may a country resort to war if it is unable or unwilling to commit the resources necessary to win its cause - that would simply inflict harm without hope of receiving a just result'.

# data[].attributes.body
Charles Beitz writes 'human rights are the basic requirements of global justice". He comes to this conclusion by highlighting, firstly, that human rights are closely connected to dignity and so require states to satisfy a certain requirement and that, secondly, they are of global concern. He says that "the violation of human rights over a period of time could justify some appropriate form of the remedial action by agents outside the society where the violation occurs".  In other words, there are some cases where international actors must pay attention and intervene where human rights are violated. He explains that if a state had the means to uphold human rights but failed to do so they may be subject to what he calls 'outside corrective interference'. If a state could not satisfy their human rights standards through a lack of resources this may require international actors to intervene and help.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of state intervention is one that is both topical considering the ongoing war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic, and controversial. There are arguments that states have not done enough to act when human rights have been violated on an international level and also that states have interfered with other states' sovereignty too much by using the justification of stopping human rights violations.

# data[].attributes.body
In order for this theory to work individuals need to comply with their own obligations but, furthermore, effective and reliable enforcement is essential to working out whether something is a human right in the first place. According to Raz you cannot enforce the right then it is not classified as a human right. He gives the example that health could not be effectively and reliably enforced on an international level as each state can govern this, subject to their own requirements, values, society ect. therefore it is not classified as a human right.

# data[].attributes.body
The limitations that affect Buchanan's theory aren't unfounded as many scholars are concerned that if human rights aren't restricted that they will grow too fast. There have been suggestions that human rights be cut back to their fundamental form so as to not water down the term. The conversation surrounding human rights has overlapped with other areas such as public policy and economics and there is a fear that this will 'water' them down.

# data[].attributes.body
The concern surrounding human rights growing too rapidly and entering too many fields gives rise to theories that are based on duty. According to Raz, it is not enough to put an emphasis on human rights' significance to humans for it they exist. He argues that to ensure a right holder's enjoyment of the right there is a case for imposing duties on others to respect those rights. Raz says rights are able to correspond with obligations in other and that we should focus on these obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
It is easy to say we all have basic common interests but who decides what exactly those interests are? If a basic interest defines a human right then what defines this common interest? Buchanan's basic interest approach is limited to civil and political rights and excludes socio-economic rights. He says that all rights are universal and we have them by the virtue of being human but his approach is limited to the 'widely shared conception' of human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
In contrast to the previously highlighted definitions, the basic interest theory does not lie in the need for an individual to have agency. An individual may be in a group that is excluded by Griffin, Kant or Nussbaum's theory and still be protected. It is not underpinned by autonomy or dignity but by a wider spectrum of interests. It is not the rights themselves (e.g the right to water) but the interest that they protect (interest to have safe drinking water, wash yourself)

# data[].attributes.body
"Man does not exist as a mere means for any use or will but as an end in himself’ - Immanuel Kant 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals'

# data[].attributes.body
For Nussbaum's theory to apply an individual would still require agency. While she states that the capabilities approach does not lie in rationality 'a minimum level of agency or capacity for activity' applies. Much like the criticism of Griffin and Kant, this need for even the most minimal of agency excludes people without that minimal agency. Sandra Fredman gives an example of this in her book 'Comparative Human Rights Law' as someone in a vegetative state being excluded from the capabilities approach.

# data[].attributes.body
Nussbaum believes we are, at core, social being and it our social relationships that determine our agency and autonomy. Nussbaum argues that we need both positive and negative rights (or first and second generation rights) in order to have a good life, a life worthy of dignity.

# data[].attributes.body
Sen believes that it is a person's right “to be and do what he or she chooses to be and do. However, due to external factors in life, the person’s autonomy is limited within the options available to them.

# data[].attributes.body
When France banned the act of 'dwarf throwing', a man named Wackenheim brought a case to say the ban impeded his right to work and was discriminatory. UN agreed with the French court that the ban was needed to 'protect public order, including considerations of human dignity'. This is an example of dignity not being limited to the individual but the greater dignitas.

# data[].attributes.body
"The individual, as the bearer of the right to dignity, should not be understood as an isolated and unencumbered being. Dignity contains individualistic as well as collective impulses" - South African Constitutional Court case of Barnard.

# data[].attributes.body
Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez argues that dignity has 'levelled up' and individuals uphold a wider 'dignitas' of their communities. People who hold rights must comply with certain duties to maintain the dignitas of their society.

# data[].attributes.body
Historically, the term 'dignity' was associated with dignitaries. It was merit reserved for the hierarchy of societies. For example, during feudalism, your dignity coincided with your status: lords had dignity, but peasants did not. We can see that as far back as Cicero, who argued that you had dignity related to your rank, dignity coined a very different meaning to what it has developed to today.

# data[].attributes.body
Allen Buchanan has developed an 'interests-based approach' to identifying human rights. He believes that being human means that there are some mutual interests inherent to us all and that these interests are critical in order to achieve a good life. He argues that they are so important that they should be receiving special protection. He says a human right is defined as a right that, if it were violated, would significantly threaten an individual's chance of living a good human life.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nussbaum's Central 10 Human Capabilities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Nussbaum's Central 10 Human Capabilities 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Life

2. Bodily health

3. Bodily integrity

4. The development and expression of senses, imagination and thought

5. Emotional health

6. Practical reason

7. Affiliation (personal and political)

8. Relationships with other species and the world of nature

9. Play

10. Control over one’s environment (material and social).

# data[].attributes.body
Both philosophers Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum developed ‘capability approaches’. Both present theories that focus on the need for material instruments and other human relationships in order for individuals to achieve a good and rewarding life.

# data[].attributes.body
Law and Philosophy scholar, Jeremy Waldron, defines dignity as the categorising of all people to this rank of what would have previously only been assigned to a Lord or Lady - that dignity is inherent to the person. Waldron outlines that dignity is used in two ways with human rights: human dignity is believed to be the source of all human rights, but also, some rights (e.g the right to be free from torture and other inhumane treatment) have dignity as its specific content.

# data[].attributes.body
The term 'dignity' prefaces many key human rights law documents. It is included in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also part of state constitutions, including the Irish Constitution. The importance of 'dignity' being core to these documents cannot be understated. Dignity is, essentially, what they are all framed around.