# data[].attributes.headline
"A human right is one that a person has, not in virtue of any special status or religion to others, but simply in virtue of being human"

# data[].attributes.subject
"A human right is one that a person has, not in virtue of any special status or religion to others, but simply in virtue of being human"

# data[].attributes.headline
"Societies' failure to respect it's people's human rights on a large scale may provide reason for outside agents to do something"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Societies' failure to respect it's people's human rights on a large scale may provide reason for outside agents to do something"

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Beitz shows great admiration for this doctrine which help him to narrow down his view and gain his Interference justification as explain further below: 

# data[].attributes.headline
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Doctrine

# data[].attributes.subject
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Doctrine

# data[].attributes.body
This is said to be a founding document of fundamental human rights doctrine by the author. It is described as setting 'a common standard of achievement for all nations and all people'. He draws much inspiration from this when deciding his interpretation of Human Rights. This becomes evident as he dismisses ideas that Human Rights as simply modern terminology for 'natural rights'. This belief is seen by Maurice Cranston who therefore believe the UN doctrine to be 'neither universal nor international nor even rights'. Such theorization greatly narrows down the scope of Human Rights. Beitz however says this view does not reflect how Human Rights function in the world today. He draws on examples on were Human Rights Function in the world today:

1. Firstly the UN and intervention incases of extreme human rights violations.
2. The US's legislation to report on other countries human rights practices.
3. Regional Human Rights Codes in Europe.
4. And finally NGOS- stating that human Rights Functions as a ‘foci’ of Political Activity in and outside of policy function of advocacy, education setting, monitoring standards in NGOs. He gives an honest account of the role they play saying it is misleading to account them commonly as ‘core of global civil society’. He factors in that as they our often led by developed country groups. Nevertheless, acknowledges they have greatly encouraged the growth of global human rights and added change to incentives for those who make national foreign policy.

The work of these practices would not fall narrowly into 'natural rights'. They fail to fit this category as they;

- are supposed to be pre-institutional,

-they are naturally supposed to belong to people.

- the are supposed to be timeless

Pre-institutionalism firstly the modern practice test given examples such as right to free trial. This is a human right which has historically been advocated for and continues to be by Human Rights Organizations. If human rights were thought to not need institutions as this natural right would dictate then this would not be considered same as right to education.

Once again Beitz draws on the Universal Doctrine to show how the second natural right characteristic wouldn't fit. Article 1 knowingly states that all are 'born free and equal in dignity and rights' and Article 2 that 'everyone is entitled to all the rights'. This makes them universal and natural law saying that it just belongs to people in virtue of there humanity would limit this.

Finally in terms of timelessness. He states that the founders of the Doctrine wouldn't have imagine it would to Ancient Greeks or the Middle Ages. He finds level of modernizations are needed for the it to be applicable.

# data[].attributes.body
Human Rights is a concept that has existed since ancient times. It may not have been thought to be human rights then and may look completely different to what it is today. It developed and shaped along with our values and knowledge. There is not one correct justification of what human rights are. There are multiple that can support each other.

Capabilities require an obligation by government and if you were to consider this universally it would require interference. Basic interest goes onto share values interference. Through this, we see despite sceptics troubled by not finding one overriding principle there is clear overlap in views. I believe the same can be said for cultural views. Western countries have often been a dominants voice but that is not because they have greater values. More troublingly it has been seen in the passed due to there own downfalls in human rights. This is seen by agreements against of Britain ending there slavery trade and in recent history World War 2 starting in Europe which then brought about the Universal Declaration of Rights. Obviously there has been human rights violations in all parts of the world but it is important to remember the wests to understand skepticism by other parts of the world of human rights impositions masking westernization or modern colonialism .

Considering this ongoing division in this we can be optimistic given despite a genuine consensus nations cotinine to gather together, sign up to treaties from all parts of the world. Asian nations have signed up to UDHR despite possibility of cultural disagreements. I think the progress we have made in last two centuries shows there is an absolute possibility for dialogue to increase to make human rights even more universal. There will of course always be some differences in views internationally as there our nationally. This does not mean we can not reach wide consensus through diplomacy.

As for my opinion on what human rights are, they are a combination of forever changing global values. They are should protect all including all equally despite autonomy. They are meant to help the vulnerable and empower those who are not in power. They include a right to dignity, in the modern understanding of the word. They are obligations in ourselves and in governing bodies to impose these human right.

In terms of limiting rights, it is a legitimate concern that they will grow at a vast speed and possibly coexist with other areas like public policy. Even so, it cannot be justified to limit rights in a way that does not allow them to continuing to progress. If we did not allow for its growth we would not have achieved the amount we have in human rights today. Human rights may naturally limit itself due to contrary views and moral relativism. There also many different sources for courts to look upon in deciding if something is a human right on an international level. This would solve the enforceability issue which is not a simple one. However human rights are not supposed to be easy. They may cost states money, they take time and discussion. I believe similarly to Beitz there is a need for a sense of ambition. They have evolved greatly in the last two centuries and there is no reason why they should not continue to flourish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
That all leads up to him making his own counter proposal to human rights being natural which will be explain in this section.

# data[].attributes.body
Beitzs proposes focusing on two ideas that are central to the human rights doctrine.

1. Human Rights are central to Human Dignity.

2. They are a global concern.

Combining these ideas, human rights are a basic requirement of global justice. They are conditions that societies ought to strive for. Given these two ideas, emphasizing them as an international concern under his proposal if a society fails to satisfy this should command the attention and resources of the international community. They should then become subject to international Interference. Alternatively if the failure was due to poor resources others should assist in forms such as international aid.

Key Issues:
One thing that may be found to turn people against this idea is security. Such as incases such as Haiti were military action is brought by multinational Institutions.

States may also fear for Sovereignty under this definition of Human Rights and there own diplomatic relations when asking action against another State.

Thirdly despite Beitz admiration for the broadness of ambition in the Universal declaration. The idea of interference can limit social and economic Rights. However it could also be argued that  Stats could fund projects economically encouraging International Development such as building schools to encourage governments to support the right to education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This sections demonstrates how the historical context builds upon his Justification of Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Agency:
Griffin defines agency as not being controlled or dominated by someone else. He finds it to be centered around a notion of agency. As agents humans can imagine and long for a better quality of life, valuing our status as agents highly. He then considers human rights as protections of this agency. The picture he wants to project at the center of his idea of agency is someone who is autonomous and is not blocked from pursuing their vision of a worthwhile life. We see here autonomy to choose to pursue and liberty in freedom to do so. He finds that either our missing agency is deficient.

Personhood:
Griffin finds personhood generates rights and practicalities shape them. He says personhood can be understood through strands of agency. The first of which being agency and the second being liberty.

These grounds the foundation of his Normative Agency Theory;

In this theory he distinguishes between humans and animals. He believes this distinction lies with the human ability to deliberate, access and choose what we think is a good life. He says we have agency in this which lies in our humanity. He believes if something is a human right it should support this theory.

Issues
Normative agency theory can be seen to be discriminatory. By 'virtue of being human', he does not include all humans. He only takes into account humans that our autonomous. Therefore it can exclude the most vulnerable in society such as infants, some portions of elderly and severely disabled people. For this reason I can not support Griffins augment. He speaks of protection yet those who need the most protection get excluded from his idea of rights. Human Rights doctrines speak of all being born equal such as the Universal Declaration but normative theory clearly contradicts this with its exclusion. If anything from history we have seen human rights should be about empowerment from the suffragettes movement empowering women's rights and to recent treaties on the rights of the child. These show that human rights are about given power back as well as protecting vulnerable groups as seen in child's rights treaties.

# data[].attributes.body
Beitz speaks about Universalism in his work. My initial thoughts would to be to support this idea. We are all citizens of the world not just our state it would seem just to try unify human rights and help innocent civilians receive there rights if they our coming from a place were the rights are being breached. However I must acknowledge my own biased from reflection of this research as well as acknowledging Beitz's. I am reading Beitz's work coming from a similar idea of morality. This section wishes to focus on the issues of focusing on a Universal and Moral Approach to Human Rights Law and ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
"Groups are focused on individuals and do not function outside the society of which they form part off"- American Anthropological Association

# data[].attributes.body
I again wish to draw back to Beitz inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it is source he refers to in drawing to Universality. However although it is an ambitious piece of work while drawing up the doctrine the American Anthropological Association outlined the issues of perspectives in which the Doctrine was being drawing up. The Association asked how it could be considered a Universal Doctrine when it is drawn in by the solely the US and Western Europe. UNESCO also carried out an investigation in 1947 into theoretical problems of the declaration. As noted by Na'im, other organizations brought attention to risks of ethnocentricity and the need for further cultural sensitivity in its drafting. Here we can see Beitz may have some unconscious bias coming from such a place. He and I may be more likely therefore to relate that reflect a set of values imposed by countries of our own cultures. This brings me to my next point of culturalism.

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural Relativism is the idea that ones beliefs should be understood based on the cultural background. The American Anthropological Society can be seen sparking the debate around this above. Below I will look at the right to culture and tensions that have grown due to not taking cultural views into account.

# data[].attributes.body
"Human Rights touch upon extraordinarily delicate matters culture and values"

# data[].attributes.body
Kauskikan notes that despite contreversy over respresentation of the International Doctrine. No Asian Country has rejected the UN Charter. He finds that they tend to interpret rather than reject such norms when there are disagreements and they discuss human rights with western delegates. He criticizes western pressure as reasoning for development in human rights for these reasons as condescending and ethnocentric western explanations.

Continuing on he speaks of Eastern and Southeast Asia countries that position themselves more with mainstream human rights. They are said to make an effort in staking out distinctive positions in line with their own culture, history and special circumstances.

Although it is hard to find a coherent human rights regime in such a vastly large region of different places, what is evident is a large discontent with a thoroughly western interpretation of human rights.

The Vienna Conference 1996:
Kausikan talks about the difficulty of finding a dialogue between a dividing west and south.  One of which reaches for a 'unrealistic' idea of culturalism but giving the alternative of 'paralyzing' cultural relativism.  In order to prevent this he suggests an open dialogue between regions to expand a larger consensus then this reality. However they are failing to do so with evidence of the Vienna Convention. He critics the parties of it as the West accusing Asia of undermining universalism. He finds the results of the convention may only have worsened division and increased skepticism of Asian countries of western posturing of human rights.

"Unrealistic" and "Paralyzing"
The above paints quate a negative picture of relations regarding human rights. Although it suggests an open dialogue. It gives evidence of worsening relationships which would make one wonder is anything but agreements that are ambiguous possible to achieve. He shows both parties have unrealistic goals with the harsh quoted language. I would disagree with this and hope to find in the rest of this section that both there goals can be exchanged to a greater extent.

Agreeing to Disagree:
In dealing with the above seen divide of these regions Kausikan finds that the West will have to formulate human rights approaches with greater nuance and precision. There are areas were there is a clear consensus on international moral duty like in cases of genocide, torture and slavery or described 'core human rights'. But in other areas such as freedom of the press, detention without punishment it is said that it will be doing so in a less definitive area of international law with room for elaboration and debate. The West will need to respect there may be no general consensus on universalism and imposing ideas such as democracy may provoke destructive conflict. For this reason he believes the west needs to 'agree to disagree'. Hence his conclusion reflects the ideas of Tolerance.

# data[].attributes.body
I will argue that dignity is a clear basis for human rights. Dignity coincides closely with respect which I have previously explained is one of the key sources of human rights.  Regionally we see the importance dignity in rights from the ECHR finding dignity to be 'inviolable'. It is furthermore a fundamental right of the Irish Constitution.It has been seen since some of earliest sightings of conceptualizing human rights from Cicreo. Furthermore key doctrines also demonstrate the importance of dignity in this matter. It has been seen in the historic doctrines such as US Declaration of Independence expressing as men are born equal in dignity. Although Circeo's view is quite different from modern views as he believed there was need to hold a particular rank to have dignity.  The US Independence Doctrine also shows rank with dignity in a very problematic way. This can be seen with it's Constitution as there constitution dictated African-Americans as "three fifths" of man. I find this incredibly importing to note as it is often used by human rights scholars to demonstrate were this concept came from in history. Still it showed that there was a discriminatory rank of dignity and also a great human rights violation in a doctrine meant to represent many human rights and liberties. This idea of rank can also be seen by renaissance scholars as referenced earlier by Griffin. The difference between the traditional view of dignity and the modern view will also be highlighted by Stephenie Hannette.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Our capability to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value" 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Our capability to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value" 

# data[].attributes.body
Capabilities could be said to be based on freedom. Sen finds it is about freedom to choose what one wishes to do and be. Sen uses capabilities to try gain a greater understanding of Human Rights. He believes they may have a common motive.

He finds capabilities can be helpful in understanding the opportunity aspect of human rights. Understanding these opportunities can help distinguish between whether one can actually do things that they would value and whether they would purses the means, instruments or permissions to do so.

Benefits:

Sen finds it would be beneficial to use such an approach to prevent the overconcentration on means found in other theories of justice. Hence, it can help us see that someone with the same means like income doesn’t mean they have the same substantial opportunities. For example a person if someone with similar background income, to you has a disability they may face different challenges in seeking similar opportunities. Differences in capabilities function may also arise in a person with the same set of means in situations such as variation in non personal resources like healthcare or climate conditions like living in area with higher crime rates.

Sen finds further benefit in understanding freedom as rights. It is used to describe the extent to which a person is free to choose particular levels of functioning's. For example, one could refuse the opportunity to eat and go on hunger strike in a protest but this would differ from someone not having the resources to eat due to famine or poverty. He describes poverty as not having the capability to realize your potential as a human. This shows his support of a positive right as this would require state action to give money, food supports for those who don't have it. Therefore we see how this fits with the idea of interference.

# data[].attributes.body
Martha Nussbaum

# data[].attributes.body
Nussbaum goes deeper Sen's conceptions of capabilities and freedom. She finds the connection of autonomy and dignity. The Core idea being that we are dignified and free beings that have the abilities to shape our own life in cooperation and reciprocity with others.

Her work adds contrast to some traditional autonomous arguments as she finds we are not autonomous beings isolated by others, but rather act existing as social beings dependent on one another.

The authors have parallel in many regards, notably that society needs to be able people to be in a position were they are capable of living a fulfilling life.

ten essential capabilities:
Marta proposes that in order to give people this fulfilling life that the authors vouch for there are ten essential capabilities;

1. Life
2. Bodily Integrity
3. Bodily Health
4. development of senses of thought, imagination and expression
5. Emotional Health
6. Practical Reason
7. Affiliation
8.Relationships with other species and the world
9. Play
10. Control over one's Environment

# data[].attributes.body
With capabilities comes positive rights in accordance with Nussbuam's studies. She rejects distinguishing positive and negative rights from each other. She believes the states must always work to provide such rights. However, this has been seen to be a controversial point among human rights commentators. They argue such state intervention would be far to costly, costs that not all states have to available and if state provided such material it would actually reduce freedom of choice. Contrary to this, I would argue such state intervention would in fact help people realize there freedoms. A State might make a child go to school and fund education. However long term that would only increase the child's freedom, as they would learn more skills giving them more choice on what they want to do as a profession in future, or whether they want to keep studying. If a state struggles to afford encouraging such capabilities there is the option of interference which will be explained further through Beitz and Universalism.

# data[].attributes.headline
"While Human Rights are Universal in Nature the need to be considered in a dynamic and evolving process of international norm setting bearing in mind the significance national and regional  particularities and different historical, cultural and religious backgrounds"

# data[].attributes.subject
"While Human Rights are Universal in Nature the need to be considered in a dynamic and evolving process of international norm setting bearing in mind the significance national and regional  particularities and different historical, cultural and religious backgrounds"

# data[].attributes.body
This was adopted by Asian States that were preparing for the first ever World Conference on Human Rights. They prepared there position on human rights in Bangkok. It affirmed Asian States commitment to Human Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The above quoted statement significantly arose from this treaties adding to the conversation of cultural relativism in universality of human rights. It shows us the stance of Asian nations and how they feel that cultural norms must be taking into account.
-Declaration also included right of non-interference in affairs of the State. Among the rights the strived for in this were;
-Not using human rights as an instrument of political pressure.
It arguably shows that it has been felt that these norms have not previously been taking into account by western states.

Commentary:
Sen-
Sen earlier discussed author Sen gives an interesting commentary on this. Sen finds while Europe may be the home of individual liberty and individual rights, Asian values relate more to discipline and order. Individualism can actually be seen as alien to many cultures. Furthermore critics the wests advocacy of human rights could be seen as an ideological compliment to western domination. Therefore he critics the west on dominating defining of human rights and imposing them on the rest of the world.

Similarly, it has been found instead of this individualism community may be more important. With human rights being individualistic in international doctrines for countries that value communities more this can be seen as destructive to the social fabric of these nations.

# data[].attributes.body
The declaration brought criticism as it showed the view from Asian nations that human rights were a domestic measure an imposing them on such nations could therefore be seen as a modern form of colonialism. Although a harsh criticism I believe this is a very understandable view giving the history of the west through colonialism but also through the way they have dealt with imposing international human rights instruments. The exclusion in drafting the UDHR and their approach in the Vienna conference demonstrates a history of reluctance to include other cultures or ethnocentric views from the west while also insisting on gathering these other nations.

# data[].attributes.headline
"What is interesting are the parallels between Christianity’s violent conquest of Africa and the modern human rights crusade. The same methods are at work and similar cultural dispossessions are taking place, without dialogue or conversation. 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.subject
"What is interesting are the parallels between Christianity’s violent conquest of Africa and the modern human rights crusade. The same methods are at work and similar cultural dispossessions are taking place, without dialogue or conversation. 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
Mutua highlights these fears of neo-colonialism. Showing it to be a western 'civilizing mission'.

# data[].attributes.headline
"the sooner secular nations learn to allow people of faith to live their lives in peace, the sooner peace will flourish"

# data[].attributes.subject
"the sooner secular nations learn to allow people of faith to live their lives in peace, the sooner peace will flourish"

# data[].attributes.body
We see how cultural divisions can play out nationally through the French Burka ban. Hamza Yosef provides commentary on this. It demonstrates a divide in values stemming from culture and religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
"unquestioned upholders of human rights"

# data[].attributes.subject
"unquestioned upholders of human rights"

# data[].attributes.body
Dotty adds to the modern colonialism topic finding that the south west divide highlights greater social divisions. A so called 'us' vs 'them' mentality.

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural homogeneity is the idea that culture can be stable and unchanging.  However culture can progress throughout time and values can change. I will give the example of Ireland we see values have shifted to become more liberal. Married family's have had a lot more rights in the passed the single parents due Irelands traditional views stemming partial from religious traditions. In recent years we have seen much more rights more in the interest non nuclear family units. Therefore if some justifications are found to be correct that does not necessarily mean they will be a great basis in rights in years to come. A great example is dignity, as it has changed in definition overtime. Originally being used associated with status now seen more often as a basis to treat all in global treaties. Cultural homogeneity is essential when thinking of the meaning of rights as in order to maintain a universal element, which is important for global peace and stability, the must be some understanding of cultural diversity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Do Human Rights Reflect Western or World Values?

# data[].attributes.body
Despite Western States drawing up many doctrines this does not necessarily mean they only reflect western values. Sen finds that liberal values are supported as frequently in Asia as Europe. As evidence to this the  Asian states still asserted commitment to UDHR.

# data[].attributes.body
An alternative theory of dealing with a cultural relativism is the theory of Tolerance. The idea meaning states should not impose what they regard right or good or good on others and should be neutral characters. Therefore different ideas of human rights should all just be accepted. This would promote respect between nations and avoid tensions such as western divide. Therefore, this could be seen as very positive for promoting peace and good relations internationally.

Although there are key issues with that must be addressed. Holding this as a universal value goes against cultural relativist point of view. The issue here would fall where two cultures have views that would go against each other. Therefore there views may be fault into being intolerant of each other. The UK has dealt with this issue on a national level in Hall and Preddy v Bull and Bull. The Supreme Court found that B and B owners had to give a room to same sex couple despite their views and said that if the situation was the other way round the other couple would have had to do the same. Although the outcome can be seen as a positive example of tolerance promoting inclusivity it could also be argued that it failed to delve deep into the social disagreement. Without creating such deeper discussions domestically or internationally we may see a lack in development in promoting justices. That being said tolerance can be seen to help to a certain extent especially around discrimination matters caused by different values. This argument could be put forward for the burka ban in France.

# data[].attributes.body
"the appreciation of our own ethnocentricity should lead us to respect the ethnocentricity of others."

In order to find solution to these issues I will turn to the work of An'Nim. An’Nim suggests human rights scholars and advocates could work towards cross cultural legitimacies in order for people from diverse cultural backgrounds to implement and agree on the methodology. She proposes deepening this through internal reinterpretation of cross cultural dialogue of the meaning and implication of human rights. This effort should aim to broaden and deepen international discourse. This is defined as a struggle to establish enlightened perceptions and interpreceptions of cultural values and norms. The aim of the dialogue should be to broaden international consensus. This may include enlightening perceptions and interpretation inside culture. Furthermore she notes that this ought to be handled with a great level of sensitivity to the internal nature of the struggle, aiming to emphasize internal rather than external norms and values.

Issues

He also notes that internal discourse is of great importance. This is due to the fact that powerful people can monopolize and manipulate the interpretation of cultural norms. However I believe it should be noted that those in such a position may not be in a great position to challenge such manipulation for many factors including fear and possibly safety in doing so. This therefore, would in my opinion prompt challenge in such his proposed international dialogue. In some countries representatives may not speak with the less privileged of there societies in mind.

# data[].attributes.body
This idea to look at in relation to this is moral relativism. A moral relativist would argue that moral truths come out of the society we live in and therefore reflect our society. They would argue that morality is not merely about subjective feeling. Morality can in fact apply to a larger group without there being moral truths. These could be different but commentary grounding morals. Although morality those not work as a great grounding for law its a good way to put in perspective reasoning of other cultures. It could be argued that understanding this view would help create understanding of other nations when in negotiations which can help to open up a greater dialogue and decrease division. More positively this idea could be seen to be commentary to jus cogen rules and the margen of appreciation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bounded Pluralism and Inclusive Universality

# data[].attributes.subject
Bounded Pluralism and Inclusive Universality

# data[].attributes.body
Similarly to An'im, Brad Roth finds that we need to be aware even when well intentioned when trying to imposing universal standards. In order to have universal standards he finds they must be limited.

As previously discussed in sources jus cogens norms furthermore provide evidence that some areas of laws are so commonly excepted as universal international legal values. However, there is still debate on some things classifying as these norms such as right to housing.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to form a clear understanding of Human Rights and where they come from it is important to look at the historical context first. Similar to all the scholars that follow.

# data[].attributes.body
Some scholars wish to limit human rights in fear of having them devalued. The idea of obligations limits human rights as its says we should only consider something a human right if it imposes a duty on you to fulfill another's right.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 25 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 25 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

# data[].attributes.body
We can look for example of Nuassbuam's idea through this voting right, taking part in public affairs, accessing public service. This has been seen as a negative right. Yet enjoying such a rights would require a functioning political architecture with governments, opposing partis and a legislature. So this supports Nuassbuam's argument. It could also be said this type of right is equally as expensive to fulfill as those that our traditionally otherwise considered positive rights. This could be seen to defeat the cost argument stated above as it demonstrates that States there our always costs involved with any rights. Thus such an argument cannot be used as it would destroy to many valuable human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I would agree with Sen on her idea of positive rights I feel there is issue within her idea of agency. This approach notes a minimum level of agency is required in order to enjoy these human rights. However as previously noted agency can excluded some individuals without justifiable means.

# data[].attributes.body
Some academics find that human rights stems from an idea of basic interest. Unlike many the other approaches it doesn't emphasize a specific value. It finds that everyone has a core set of interests.

# data[].attributes.body
Bauchanin finds there are some things that our of such moral concern that institutions ought to give them special protections. This could include right to education being in our interest to participate in social life.

The greatest benefit of this is that it would not exclude people. Although it shares ideas with capabilities you do not need to have an autonomous foundation to seek this right. If you can not seek one interest you can still seek another. A notable example is if you were a prisoner you may not be allowed to the right to vote but you may still have the right not to be treated to torture or degrading treatment.

It also rights to develop in contrast to obligations. Our interests may change as society progresses in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
One problem this idea of basic interest has is limitations. Since is based on the fact that rights our universal, it would restrict rights. As will be discussed more in-depth with culturalism it can be hard to find universal ideas for human rights. Some states may value economic rights while others value civil ones. This can narrow down the scope of human rights

However, some scholars would argue that human rights need to be limited. They argue that if they over grow they will undermine fundamental principles of these rights and intrude other areas such as public policy.

# data[].attributes.body
We find the foundations of customs of law in ancient times with the emergent around rules in social order in areas such as Babylon. Babylon established a set list of principles including protection of property and assumption of innocence. These same principles can be seen in modern human rights law, from right to property to right to a fair trial.

# data[].attributes.headline
"we are born for justice and that right is based not on opinions but upon nature"

# data[].attributes.subject
"we are born for justice and that right is based not on opinions but upon nature"

# data[].attributes.body
Stoics in Ancient Greece's argued for natural equality of common humanity.

Circero in the Roman world speaks above of the idea of natural rights. Hence rights should emerge from our natural humanity or natural capacity to be humane individuals and societies. Many have argued such right as being basis of human rights. Although as rights have developed there has been scrutiny in how natural rights fit in modern conceptions by scholars like Baitz. Jeremy Bentham also finds them to be the 'enemy' of law. His idea is the right holds the law to account and that it can be above the law. However, this definition distinguish it from human rights. Although there is a difference of human rights and human rights law in order for human rights law to work it couldn't be a so called enemy. It would have some agreements with law and the rule of law in order to be implemented that way.

# data[].attributes.body
James Griffin delves back in history to find meaning behind Human Rights terminology. He states that ‘rights’ emerged in the late middle ages. Between the thirteenth and seventeenth century the word ‘ius’ shifted from meaning ‘law defining what is fair’ to a more modern sense of power, to possess control or  that someone can claim something. He also says that equality despite being seen from Christianity and Stoicism, only started to play a political role in the middle ages and with it came the concept of rights. I will argue that the concept of rights is evident earlier on and can see being used politically with writing sets of rules in Babylon. Still he highlights a different period in history that demonstrates a surge in thoughts of rights in another civilization.

Status:

Status played an important role in the interpretation of rights political movements in the last four centuries. Status was traditionally viewed as positions such as citizen or lord but began to also consider human status. We see Renaissance philosopher, Pico Della Mirandola ponder the importance of such consideration. Mirandola contemplates god's intention for man. He finds that god ‘left man to determine his own nature’. This is extracted from ‘dignity of man’ displaying thought to link dignity and freedom which later on became central themes of key Authors of the Enlightenment Rousseau and Kant.

Griffin draws upon this historical content in order to find meaning and basis of Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This period of history has been clearly influential in finding human rights. Some of the most recognizable ideas have come from Hobbs and Locke.

# data[].attributes.headline
"life in the state of nature is solitary, brutish and short"

# data[].attributes.subject
"life in the state of nature is solitary, brutish and short"

# data[].attributes.body
In order to escape what he finds nature would be we need to advance ourselves forming political opinions and communities. Thomas Hobbs finds we need a leviathan, sovereign or leader for protection and to subject ourselves to. This meant coming under the obedience of the sovereign. Hence subjecting ourselves to a social contract.

# data[].attributes.headline
"ones right to life liberty and estate depends on the outcome of no election"

# data[].attributes.subject
"ones right to life liberty and estate depends on the outcome of no election"

# data[].attributes.body
Argues that humans are naturally equal. The above statement shows contrary to Hobbs idea of us needing to obey government to progress. He argues in fact the opposite, that it is the governments duty to seek our consent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Quote by Maurice McCranston- A contrasting quotation from another author, De Waal's side of the debate will be reflected on in the next section.

# data[].attributes.headline
"It would be a mistake to think of this notion [of human rights] as the child of the Enlightenment; it is much more ancient. Citizens of certain Greek cities enjoyed such rights asisogoria, or equal freedom of speech, and isonomia, or equality before the law, which are prominent among the rights claimed in the modern world. In the Hellenistic period which followed the break down of the Greek city-states, the Stoic philosophers formulated the doctrine of natural rights as something which belonged to all men at all times; these rights were not the particular privileges of citizens of particular cities, but something to which every human being everywhere was entitled, in virtue of the simple fact of being human and rational"

# data[].attributes.subject
"It would be a mistake to think of this notion [of human rights] as the child of the Enlightenment; it is much more ancient. Citizens of certain Greek cities enjoyed such rights asisogoria, or equal freedom of speech, and isonomia, or equality before the law, which are prominent among the rights claimed in the modern world. In the Hellenistic period which followed the break down of the Greek city-states, the Stoic philosophers formulated the doctrine of natural rights as something which belonged to all men at all times; these rights were not the particular privileges of citizens of particular cities, but something to which every human being everywhere was entitled, in virtue of the simple fact of being human and rational"

# data[].attributes.body
The examples of ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome support this authors ideas. Yet some still suggest the Enlightenment birthed this idea of rights. Even though rights have grown since ancient times the thoughts of right to property , presumption of innocence be seen as extremely relevant in both sovereign and international human rights. The values of the enlightenment may also be viewed as more inline with European values given the Lockean ideas of liberty. Other parts of the world may value order and discipline and security in other parts of the world. Contrastingly, right to a fair trial stemming from much earlier on can more universally or even as a jus cogen norm. Given this reasoning, foundations of human rights before the human rights are equally if not more important when considering what human rights are and where they come from.

# data[].attributes.body
Also holds ideas of natural rights with mentioning of inalienable rights. It finds the government has a duty to the people similar to Locks ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
French Declaration on the Rights of Man 1789

# data[].attributes.headline
"the aim of every political association is the prevention of natural and imprescriptible rights of man"

# data[].attributes.subject
"the aim of every political association is the prevention of natural and imprescriptible rights of man"

# data[].attributes.headline
International Human Rights Law in the 19th Century

# data[].attributes.subject
International Human Rights Law in the 19th Century

# data[].attributes.body
Through the above periods we see very early on ideas of rights emerging. However human rights law had not been developed on an international level at this point in time. The above examples show rights developed solely in domestic law.

However public international law was starting to develop and from 1800s the effect of human rights was becoming stronger. Traditional ideas of non interference began to be challenge based on the interest of common humanity. In 1807 Britain outlawed the slave trade which meant action in other nations like using navel force in the atlantic. Further interference could be seen in 1827 by Britain, Russia and France in preventing Christian mascaras in the Ottoman Empire.

# data[].attributes.headline
International Human Rights Law in the 20th Century

# data[].attributes.subject
International Human Rights Law in the 20th Century

# data[].attributes.body
The early 20th century showed many example of rights becoming global concerns. The commencement of the suffragette movement showed women's rights becoming of international concern in 1915. In 1919 an International labor organization emerged. State responsibility for Injury to Aliens came into place in 1924.

Post first World War
Following much tragedy of World War border change. the League of Nations was developed after world war one. It protected minorities such as freedom to practice religion. Permanent Court of International Justice in place. Despite the ambition the League was a failure as it aimed to prevent a second World War.

# data[].attributes.body
The Nuremburg trials following World War 2 showed significant development in International Human Rights Law. It showed individuals being tried for crimes against humanity for the first time and that one state could trial another state for something done in another states country.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Crimes against international law are committed by men, not abstract entities"

# data[].attributes.body
Captures the reasoning of the trials. The crimes were found to be universally so great that there was seen to be a global obligation to trial these men. They were not crimes just against individual but against civilization itself. Hence Jackson raises the point of international responsibility in as a purpose for dealing with international law and international human rights law.

# data[].attributes.body
The United Nations charter was formed after World War 2 in hopes to sustain peace and prevent future generations from dealing with the "scourge of war". Article 1(3) mentions there ideal of promoting human rights. A clear concept of human rights law can be seen from this. It created bodies and courts to help us understand human rights law at this level. However, there ideas of an international concepts could be undermined by there idea of non inference. With influence from scholars like Beitz I will go on to describe the importance of Interference in a functioning International human rights system. Following the Nuremburg trials and the lift against solid sovereignty in this area, this could be seen to set universal ideologies of human rights back.

# data[].attributes.body
A genuine assembly was put into place. It was not legally binding however this allowed 48 states to go in favor of the assembly. Most states also still feel obliged to follow the doctrine.  It set out a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.

Codification
Rights were divided into two different treaties. One which reflected positive rights such as economic, social and cultural rights. The latter reflected negative rights including civil and political. They came into force in 1976. Together they our often referred to the international bill of rights. The negative protections must come into force straight away although the positive rights are only needed to be realized progressively overtime to the best of there resources. I will look into the argument further on regarding issues in distinguishing these rights through capabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Following from the previously mentioned developments in modern history we find a series of sources of rights which have developed. There is no clear list. As the last section demonstrated human rights is ever evolving and developing.

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights can be seen greatly through law. International Human Rights Law can be seen to share sources with Public International Law. The International Court of Justice gives the most concrete range of areas. The 4 distinct sources it sets our our;

1. International Conventions
2. International Customs
3. General principles of laws set by civilized nations.
4. Judicial Decisions

# data[].attributes.body
Customary law can be defined as the way in which states react towards each other. It is an unwritten form of behavior. There our two criteria in public international law practice;

1. It must be practiced uniformly and consistently over time.
2. Known as 'opinio juris', states must believe the have a legal obligation to a custom.

# data[].attributes.body
These are rules that must obligatory and cannot be ignored. They are universally applicable legal norms like rules against torture and genocide.

# data[].attributes.body
This can be seen predominantly in unilateral treaties like the UN Charter. Since then many more human rights treaties have evolved such as the following;

-International Convention on the Elimination of Racial
-Discrimination 1965
-Convention Against Torture
-Convention on the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
-Convention on the Rights of the Child

These are merely a few examples that show how much and how constantly human rights is growing. As further evidence the ongoing evolution of human rights, these treaties have the opportunity to change them by adding optional protocols.

Treaty bodies
Theses bodies also provide a source of human rights law as they provide reports into how well nations are implementing these treaties.

Regional
Treaties bodies can also be implemented regionally such as the ECHR since 1953. There is also the African Charter on Human Right's and People's and American Convention on Human Rights.

# data[].attributes.body
These rarely comes up as in International Law Courts as they can be unclear. Include prohibition of murder ..

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial decisions may be a more obvious principle however, the issue comes as there is there is no hierarchy of courts that make human rights decisions. Therefore there is no doctrine of precedence. Later on we could see that this may actually be positive as it allows to take into account cultural relativism. The Courts are still influenced by each other although not clear on how much influence it should have.

# data[].attributes.body
However Article 38 does not give an exhaustive list of the amount of sources. We see there is a great deal of people in the human rights from NGO's, scholars, students trying to push the boundary of what human rights our. For this reason it is of great value trying to understand the following justifications I will give.

# data[].attributes.body
Human Rights can be said to have special character. Hence they differ from other aspects of public international law.

Its the only area of public international law where rights and duties are owed to individuals. Duties are owed to states and by states. This supports the justification of obligations for human rights.

The nature of their treaties also differ as they are not contractual. Human Rights treaties tend to be unilateral rather then reciprocal. They also benefit the individual or third parties which is not likely to be the case in public international law.

Furthermore it is humanitarian in nature in contrary to other public areas. ICJ rights about how human rights treaty try to reach for higher standard in this regard.

Human Rights Law set about 'supernational' standards of behavior. As the ECHR stated human rights have an objective rather then subjective character.

Finally Human Rights obligations are said to have a high normative worth. Hence it tries to set standards of behavior for future conduct rather then simply positive character. This may show understanding to the thoughts of... saying it is beyond law.

# data[].attributes.body
Raz suggest instead of focusing on the individual rights holder and there entitlements we should focus on our obligations towards others. He says there must be a strong justification on why this duty should be imposed.

Another interesting point by this author is that it should only be a human right if it can be enforced through reliable, efficient and fair institutions.

Issues:
Raz succeeds in limiting the scope of human rights however it could be argued that he goes to far in doing so. An example is one Sen's listed rights of bodily health. The rights is also seen listed in the ICESCR. Although you can never guarantee the right to health it can be helped by investing in research and institutions. This approach could also prohibit the progression of rights. Years ago you would not have the same right to health as you do now as there would not have been the research and health infrastructure there is now. For this reason human rights should have a sense of ambition, they should be something to strive for. If there are not currently the institutions to enforce a right it does not mean we shouldn't strive to develop current institutions or build new ones. This can be new government boards focusing on regulating health care or new NGOs striving to help prevent malnutrition through food banks.

Therefore although there is legitimacy in wanting to limit rights, this needs to be pursued in a way that doesn't prevent the development of rights as our values and knowledge as societies change. For these reasons I find basic interest a much more appropriate idea to achieve limitations.

# data[].attributes.body
Reservations allow states to exclude or modify human rights. It aims to limit a states obligations. This option allows more states sign up as they may have national constitutional law, religious law that may not fit with a certain obligation of a treaty. They may think a certain aspect may not fit into a cultural understanding. This therefore allows for cultural relativism.

Some may also take issue with this. Its been argued this could water down the meaning and weaken universality. It can also create legal uncertainty. Treaties bodies have criticized this as it make implementation more difficult.

# data[].attributes.body
Another source is how states actually implement their obligation. Traditionally human rights law has had no instruction  on how to enforce obligations. Similarly to reservations it has the benefit of flexibility allowing more nations to agree to treaties. However, it also shares the same issues regarding vagueness which makes human rights implementation a bit more uncertain.

Overtime a formula of respect, protect, fulfill has developed.

# data[].attributes.body
The duty to respect means that the states should not violate your rights deliberately. It gives a negative obligation.

# data[].attributes.body
Contrastingly to respect this give a more positive obligation. The state has to work to proactively ensure peoples rights our not violated. This is extensive, it can include natural phenomenon like right to good health, protecting us from pandemic or police aiming to protect people against murder.

# data[].attributes.body
This means that States must take positive rights to fulfill their obligations. This can be seen further in the argument of Capacity laid out by Sen. We see the need for this such as states insuring the implementation for the right to vote.

This means remedies must be fulfilled if rights are breached.

# data[].attributes.body
As mentioned previously this is one of the most significant doctrines in human rights. Human Rights ought to be Universal and this doctrine has help show some universal agreements on human rights 192 members signing it. This shows that dignity as a basis has been widely agreed upon as a basis stemming from the Doctrines Preamble;

"Whereas recognition of inherent dignity and of equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

This also demonstrates how the understanding of dignity has changed in modern times. Since ancient times dignity was seen to have a sense of rank. Although the US Declaration of rights finds all men equal of dignity

# data[].attributes.headline
"We acknowledge dignity is important as we diminish it as they come through our system" 

# data[].attributes.subject
"We acknowledge dignity is important as we diminish it as they come through our system" 

# data[].attributes.body
Pratt J takes about importance of dignity bringing legitimacy to the Justice System by procedural justice. Need to acknowledge when creating legislation it effects some more then others from race, poverty and by not caring about this you are diminishing their dignity. Studies find treating people with dignity increases their compliance with the law. Basically her work shows the importance of the right of dignity for justice to work correctly. It allows processes to run fairly. With this basis of fairness we can argue that dignity could work well as a good fundamental basis for human rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
"dignity provides a convenient language for the adoptions of substantive human rights"

# data[].attributes.subject
"dignity provides a convenient language for the adoptions of substantive human rights"

# data[].attributes.body
McCrudden argues for a more realist view of dignity. He argues they should not be opposes on judicial decisions relying to heavily on dignity as there is not a great deal of consensus of dignity beyond the minimum core from passed decisions. Furthermore he finds the state provide the individual dignity and not vice versa.

# data[].attributes.body
Waldron also finds that human rights derived from dignity of the person and gives us the content of rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Dignitas- idea that dignity requiring all individuals upholding larger sense of dignity or dignity of a society

# data[].attributes.body
Stephanie finds that traditionally dignity was used as a way to limit freedoms such as the case of Manuel Wackenheim v France were the dwarf was thrown in a competition. He argued that not allowing him to compete in these competitions would limit his rights of work but was banned due to issues regarding dignity of participants. She also find gives examples of cases of protestation, right to refuse medical treatment and certain sexual conduct.

She says these cases have little barring on post world war 2 ideas of dignity. However she finds both the traditionally view and the modern conception share the same purpose of moral duties and obligations. She finds in dignity gives an obligation not only to a third party but to oneself.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The individual, as a bearer of the right to dignity, should not be understood as an isolated and unencumbered being. Dignity contains individualistic as well as collective impulses"

# data[].attributes.subject
"The individual, as a bearer of the right to dignity, should not be understood as an isolated and unencumbered being. Dignity contains individualistic as well as collective impulses"

# data[].attributes.body
Gives us the idea that as social beings, we are socially embedded and therefore must uphold the standard of dignity in our community.

# data[].attributes.body
Given these arguments I find dignity is an essential source of human rights. However I agree with McCrudden that it is not a foundational. This is due to the level of vagueness that has continued to be seen with different debates. We cannot rely on it to heavily for this reason. There is also the issue with it conflicting with freedoms like in the dwarf tossing case. However it is clear it should not be regarded altogether. It is still an important factor for consideration due to the evidential universalism understanding of its importance in rights from International bodies, treaties, case law and scholars.

# data[].attributes.body
Another possible was of cultural relativism is margin of appreciation. This would mean that the ways things are done in certain country may be deem more appropriate in that country due to cultural relativism. This has been used by the European Court of Human Rights stemming from the case Lawless v Ireland 1961.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The juridical and philosophical framework of human rights originated in the European Enlightenment, but as a practice it owes everything to the second half of the 20th century in Europe and the US. In the official version, virtue has(nearly) triumphed... An alternative narrative would have to tell of the co-option of dissent by liberal governance: human rights work has long ceased to be a marginal, dissenting activity... In its basic structure, [it] is like many global businesses, [with] headquarters in a handful of Western centres."

# data[].attributes.subject
"The juridical and philosophical framework of human rights originated in the European Enlightenment, but as a practice it owes everything to the second half of the 20th century in Europe and the US. In the official version, virtue has(nearly) triumphed... An alternative narrative would have to tell of the co-option of dissent by liberal governance: human rights work has long ceased to be a marginal, dissenting activity... In its basic structure, [it] is like many global businesses, [with] headquarters in a handful of Western centres."

# data[].attributes.body
This quote shows contrast to the ideas of Maurice Cranston.  I  would similarly disagree with the De Waal's suggestion of human rights orientating in this period given much earlier evidence from ancient civilizations. Nevertheless  it is also evident that there has been drastic change in the middle 20th century. I agree with De Waal that this is important to note especially as I continue to look at the meaning of Human Rights in the next sections. This is because this vast change could contribute to dispute in finding meaning of human rights as justifications may have changed since human rights has done. This will be seen with the change in understanding of dignity. The US and Europe were large voices in this sudden change and development as seen with International Doctrines like the UDHR. Still Waal fails to recognize other modern treaties in other regions like the African Charter of Human Rights which have also developed in this time. So despite correctly suggesting a rapid growth in rights to say it triumphed due to these western countries based on evidence of other nations signing up and creating treaties could be seen as an ethnocentric. When answering were rights come from it is essential to look at all parts of the globe in order to get a clear universal understanding of there meaning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Eleanor Roosevelt- founder of Universal Declaration of Human Rights  

# data[].attributes.headline
"Were after all, do universal rights begin?.. in small places close to home."

# data[].attributes.subject
"Were after all, do universal rights begin?.. in small places close to home."

# data[].attributes.body
I find this commentary valuable in reflecting on where human rights come from. It in helpful in reflecting how human rights have grown and flourished from many small places, local campaigns, lobbying. Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner reflects on it being essential today to start 'sowing the seeds' in international partnership to help prevent human rights violations. I wanted to end this section with this as it shows how human rights today come from a product of growth over time from many different places as seen in it's history.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Kenneth Roth-Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

# data[].attributes.headline
"International Human Rights Law sets about the core obligations of governments towards there people"

# data[].attributes.subject
"International Human Rights Law sets about the core obligations of governments towards there people"