# data[].attributes.body
Prior to beginning my visual diary, I would like to share a brief description of what human rights mean to me. This is a very raw and subjective, with the hopes of trying to be objective, opinion about human rights. Being a white woman born into Western society and living in a country that is civilised and humane, my interactions with human rights or a lack thereof have been thankfully very minimal. However, this is a privilege which I am aware of and very grateful for. As a result, when born into this type of environment, you have this false ideal where everyone is the same. You might go as far to say you believe everyone is treated equally. You believe everyone has access to all basic requirements. Food, water, shelter, education. When you start to grow up and learn about different societies and cultures, you soon understand that this is not the case.

# data[].attributes.body
Before getting into the History of human rights and where they originate from, I just wanted to acknowledge in particular the impacts of women in history and how they have greatly contributed to women’s rights. We know these women. Rosa Parks, who rightfully would not give up her seat. Harriet Tubman, who escaped slavery and in doing so helped rescue 70 enslaved people. Malala Yousafzai, who was shot and still she fought for her right to an education. These women and the hundreds of other women throughout history, and still today, have done so much for so many, and I just wanted to acknowledge them. Without their actions, we would not live in the society in which we live today. Striving for equality.

# data[].attributes.body
The origins of human rights can be dated as far back as Ancient Greece and Babylon when it was spoken in Philosophy. Philosopher Cicero said, “We are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon Nature”. International Human Rights Law, Moeckli et al. Following the breakdown of Ancient Greece, a group of Stoic philosophers created the doctrine of natural rights and said it was something that belonged to all men at all times. These rights were not set aside as a particular privilege for those in certain cities, but something that any person anywhere was entitled to, “in the virtue of the simple fact of being human and rational” Cranston, M. What Are Human Rights?, (1973). With this Stoic ideology, that every human was entitled to rights, why so are we still fighting for these rights all over the world today?

# data[].attributes.body
Before continuing on to the development of Human Rights in the world of the law, I want to look at the role of natural rights. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham of the 19th Century believed that natural rights were in fact beyond the law, and could be seen as an enemy to the law. He believed that these natural rights in fact transcended the law and that they operated outside of the law. Natural rights are that of a universal quality and they are inherent. Inalienable. Jeremy Bentham Anarchial Fallacies: being an examination of the Declaration of Rights issued during the French Revolution” 1816

# data[].attributes.headline
Hobbes & Locke - Leviathan and the Social Contract

# data[].attributes.subject
Hobbes & Locke - Leviathan and the Social Contract

# data[].attributes.body
When discussing that of natural rights, one cannot help but mention Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. These Philosophers are many years after Bentham during the Enlightenment period. Hobbes would be most renowned for his work Leviathan 1651, which would then be followed by Locke's own works, Two Treatises of Government, 1690.

In his Leviathan, Hobbes made the point that in order for people to escape a “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” life, they would need to enter into what he called a “social” contract. The elements of this contract entails relieving the individual of certain freedoms to their government or state in exchange for protection from this “nasty, solitary, brutish, short” life.

# data[].attributes.body
Locke's social contact also takes a natural rights approach. At this time, male property owners are the main subject of Locke’s work as they are the sole people of power. Therefore, the objective of rights was to protect life, liberty and estate. So in contrast to Hobbes, Locke saw that it was the duty of the state to provide this environment where life, liberty and estate were protected. Hobbes saw that it was the people who needed to make sacrifices of freedom in order to gain protection, whereas Locke is saying that this protection is  the responsibility of the State or Government, and it is in fact the individuals who provide the state with the authority to govern us.

# data[].attributes.body
The natural rights ideals then began to spread across the world following the Enlightenment period coming to an end. We see it in the US Declaration of Independence in 1776 and also in the French Declaration on the Rights of Man in 1789. We see that according to these Declarations, these rights of the people are inalienable, imminent and a birth right. They are unenumerated. So when reading the Declarations it is clear to see that natural rights were getting a seat at the table and starting to be taken serious amongst governments globally.

# data[].attributes.body
I want to briefly mention the League of Nations which was formed in 1920 with the specific objective of preventing another World War... Obviously this objective was not met. However, the League of Nations was also founded to protect and promote human rights. So the League of Nations is where we see for the first time in an international document  human rights as one of the key topics of concern. From here, human rights in international law begins to develop and accelerate at a great pace, especially in the aftermath of the Second World War where we saw cases such as the Nuremberg Trials. Twenty- four Nazi war criminals being held accountable at an international level for their crimes against humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the last part about where human rights came from before I get into what they are I promise!!! The Nuremberg Trials do have an extremely significant role here in terms of international law. It is the first time that crimes which were committed within a jurisdiction were tried in an international court. So this had never been done before and it was a huge step in the direction of Human Rights Law being recognised at international level, trials as well as an introduction to international law as a whole. Ultimately the Nuremberg trials was a way to show the world that nobody is above the law and that those who display acts against humanity will have to face the consequences. The prosecuting of the Nazi War Criminals combined with the failure of the League of Nations, gave existence to the United Nations which we know today. And this is where human rights law really began to have an impact globally.

# data[].attributes.body
By definition, according the United Nations home page online, human rights are “rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.” They then go onto say that these rights entail “the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and educations, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.”

# data[].attributes.body
When looking into human rights, there are six main justifications that we are concerned about. Autonomy and rationality, dignity, capabilities, basic interests, obligations and interference. These justifications collectively form the moral, legal, and philosophical basis for the international human rights framework. International human rights law reflects a consensus among nations that protecting these rights is essential for a just and peaceful world order. The specific rights and the emphasis on various justifications may vary, but these principles generally underpin the human rights regime.

# data[].attributes.body
The key point in autonomy and rationality is normative agency theory.  According to James Griffin in his book “On Human Rights”, normative agency is “our capacity to choose and to pursue our conception of a worthwhile life”. Griffins idea of autonomy is “incomplete ideas of what makes life better or worse”. As we know, Griffin does not believe that all humans are entitled to rights. His theory actually excludes whole groups of people from human rights such as infants, the severely disabled and anyone who he considers without agency. I would have to disagree with Griffin and say that those most vulnerable are those most in need of human rights and should not be excluded.

The views of political philosopher Charles Beitz is in stark contrast to that of Griffin. Beitz’s view is that individuals possess the capacity for rational moral reasoning and self-governance. He also is of the belief that human rights can and should be applicable to all individuals regardless of their particular circumstances. In his book Political Theory and International Relations, 1979, Beitz focuses heavily on autonomy in the international system. He strongly believes that state autonomy is not absolute and it must be subject to both moral and ethical restraints. This is done in order to protect the individuals autonomy and dignity.

Griffin places a strong emphasis on personal autonomy as a core value underlying human rights. He believes that human rights are necessary to protect and promote individual autonomy, enabling individuals to lead lives according to their own conception of the good. Beitz's focus on autonomy is more centered on the autonomy of states in international relations. While he acknowledges individual rights, his work often discusses state autonomy in the context of international human rights law.
Although Griffin and Beitz share a commitment to the importance of human rights, their differing emphases regarding the role of autonomy in human rights portray some of the distinctions in their approaches to this important topic. These differences reflect the diversity of perspectives within the field of human rights philosophy.
Personally, I believe that Griffin's view is one that should not be undertaken in the international human rights realm as who is to say one individual deserves rights over another based on agency?

# data[].attributes.body
Another justification of human rights and probably the most established is dignity. In antient times, dignity was a concept that encompassed both an individual's societal status and the differentiation between humans and animals. In the context of human rights, we can define dignity as a core principle that underscores the worth of each and every individual and both the moral and legal obligations to protect and promote that worth.  Furthermore, it informs the recognition of fundamental rights and freedoms and serves as the foundation for an equitable and just society. Not only is dignity one of the most prominent justifications in human rights, its presence in human rights dates back centuries to ancient Greece, the Enlightenment era and both the US Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of man, 1789. We have seen dignity in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, firstly in the preamble where the recognition of the inherent dignity is duly noted, and then also in the UDHR itself.  Much more recently we gave seen dignity evolve to include issues such as gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, disability rights, and environmental rights. Closer to home, the Irish Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, is also based and focused around dignity.

I would define dignity as the intrinsic sense of value and self-worth that an individual holds, influencing their interactions with others and the level of respect they afford to themselves and to those around them.

Jeremy Waldron is a well-known political philosopher who has made significant contributions to the field of human rights and the concept of dignity. Waldron distinguishes two primary uses of the term "dignity." The first pertains to the idea that human rights are rooted in the inherent dignity of individuals, while the second underscores that dignity specifies the particular content of certain rights. His view on dignity in my opinion is very helpful and relevant in understanding dignity in human rights today.

Stephanie Jeanette asserts that the concept of dignity is not limited to individuals but can also extend to encompass communities. Her perspective aligns with that of Hennet, who also maintains that dignity has relevance on a broader, communal scale rather than just for isolated individuals. In today's world, the notion that dignity can be attributed to an entire society is crucial for giving it any meaningful significance. If dignity does not apply to larger groups, there would be little incentive for people to uphold it. In my view, this broader application of dignity fosters a sense of mutual reliance among community members. Nonetheless, the application of dignity within the legal context, as utilised by judges in legal cases, has faced criticism from scholars like Christopher McCrudden. Judges will occasionally employ the concept of dignity with some level of discretion when rendering judgments. McCrudden argues that dignity does not offer a consistent and principled foundation for making legal decisions. To put it succinctly, he contends that judges, when invoking the term "dignity," may exercise a considerable degree of latitude in their judgments. Having said that, I hold the view that, on the whole, dignity has a more positive than negative impact, particularly in the context of fostering broader and more inclusive communities.

# data[].attributes.body
Capabilities is the next justification in human rights. "Capabilities" in the context of human rights are a central concept in the capability approach, which was developed by the economist and philosopher Amartya Sen and further expanded upon by philosopher Martha Nussbaum. The capability approach is a framework for assessing and promoting human well-being, emphasizing people's real freedoms to lead the kinds of lives they value. Capabilities refer to the various opportunities and freedoms that individuals have to pursue their own well-being and life goals. In the context of human rights, the capabilities approach offers a broader perspective on human development and well-being. The capability approach lines up well with that of Griffins view in terms of agency. Here, it emphasises the importance of individual agency and freedom. Human rights, from this perspective, are not just about avoiding harm but also about promoting the freedom to make choices and lead a life that aligns with one’s values and preferences.

Sen and Nussbaum are both autonomy theorists, but their views are much different from that of Griffin and Kant. Sen and Nussbaum look at autonomy with a more realistic approach in a world that is unequal. I think this approach is most effective as it shows how capabilities would function in the real world.

In her book, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Nussbaum identifies ten central capabilities that are essential for human flourishing. These include life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, and control over one's environment. Nussbaum argues that these capabilities are necessary for living a dignified and valuable life.

The ultimate aim for both Sen and Nussbaum is not solely to uphold the dignity of every individual but to take a step further, placing everyone in a position where they can truly live in a humanly manner. While their capabilities approach has faced some scrutiny, Nussbaum defends her theory by explaining the rationale behind her ten capabilities, emphasising that they are not arbitrary but derived from observations about the essential opportunities required for a life characterized by human dignity. Nonetheless, in my view, the primary criticism of this approach is akin to Griffin's perspective, which is that Nussbaum assumes individuals possess a minimum level of agency, asserting that humans require this minimal level of agency to realize their capabilities.

In my opinion, the capabilities approach in the context of human rights underscores the importance of assessing and promoting not just the absence of harm but also the presence of the freedoms and opportunities necessary for individuals to lead lives that are meaningful, fulfilling, and in line with their values and preferences. This broader perspective aligns with the goal of human rights to protect and enhance human dignity and well-being. I think that this is the most important justification of human rights as it puts the wants and needs of the individual first.

# data[].attributes.body
The concept of "basic interests" in the context of human rights justification emphasises that certain fundamental interests and needs are central to human well-being and dignity. These basic interests provide a moral and ethical foundation for the recognition and protection of human rights. According to the scholar Buchanon, the term "human rights" signifies that certain shared interests are universally common to all individuals. These interests hold such significant moral importance that they should be safeguarded by the fundamental structures of our key institutions, such as the state. These fundamental interests are not unique to any specific group; they are collectively held by all individuals. Together, these interests collectively define a life of decency, serving as essential prerequisites for human well-being and development.

The benefit of this approach is that it obviates the need to repeatedly reference a single value such as autonomy or dignity for the validation of a human right. Instead, the basic interests approach empowers us to examine a broader array of interests that can serve as justifications for human rights. Additionally, it is important to note that the basic interests approach does not rely on agency. It is a much more inclusive approach in that it doesn’t exclude those without agency like in autonomy or dignity. A drawback of the basic interests approach attempts to balance universality and cultural diversity, but critics argue that striking this balance can be challenging, and the approach may not fully address the concerns of cultural relativists.

# data[].attributes.body
Obligations in human rights refer to the responsibilities and duties that are imposed on states, institutions, and individuals to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. These obligations are integral to the international human rights framework and serve to ensure that individuals can enjoy their rights and freedoms without discrimination or violation. Human rights obligations can be broadly categorized into three main types: Respect Obligations; Protect Obligations; and, Fulfil Obligations. Human rights obligations serve as the cornerstone of the human rights framework, providing the legal and ethical basis for promoting and protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals. These obligations are subject to international oversight and monitoring, often through the work of human rights bodies and mechanisms. The philosopher Joseph Raz is credited with developing this theory. He argues that the rights of one person can curtail the liberties of others, leading him to emphasize that we should place greater emphasis on why others should bear duties due to rights, rather than exclusively concentrating on the rights of individuals. Ultimately, Raz’s belief is that a right should not be considered a human right.  In my opinion, this theory does not sufficiently account for cultural diversity and varying values across different societies. The utilisation of the obligations theory in my opinion does not adequately address the specific needs of different communities.

# data[].attributes.body
The final justification is interference. In the context of human rights, "interference" refers to actions or measures taken by governments, authorities, or other entities that infringe upon, restrict, or violate the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. Interference can take various forms and can impact a wide range of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. It is examining the circumstances in which one country or state can intervene in the internal affairs of another state with the goal of safeguarding and advancing human rights.

Charles Beitz, a political philosopher has explored the complex issue of interference in international relations, particularly concerning humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. In his article What Human Rights Mean, Beitz explores the concept of human rights and their moral and political significance. Beitz discusses the universality of human rights and the challenges that arise in balancing the principle of state sovereignty with the moral imperative to protect individual rights. He delves into the tension between non-interference in the internal affairs of states and the duty to prevent and address severe human rights abuses.

He justifies his stance on interference by asserting that rights can be discerned through practical application. According to him, there's no need for delving into deeper concepts like autonomy or dignity to fully understand and unveil the entire spectrum of human rights. Instead, he argues that we can simply examine international practice and the discourse on human rights to corroborate and endorse them. The primary advantage of this method lies in its ability to differentiate between how human rights are put into practice on both the international and state levels and what the actual rights encompass. It also permits room for variations in opinions regarding the contents of these rights and the underlying principles that support them. Thus, Beitz's approach allows for a consensus on the fundamental nature of human rights as a matter of global concern, while also accommodating diverse perspectives and debates about the specifics of these rights. However, the challenge associated with this approach is that it may not work effectively in practice and could restrict what is considered within the realm of human rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Universality & Diversity: What's the difference?

# data[].attributes.subject
Universality & Diversity: What's the difference?

# data[].attributes.body
Universality and diversity in human rights law represent two essential and sometimes interrelated principles. Universality underscores the idea that certain fundamental rights and principles apply to all individuals worldwide, regardless of their nationality, culture, or other characteristics. These rights are considered inherent to human dignity and not subject to variation based on local customs or beliefs. In contrast, diversity recognises that different cultures and societies have unique perspectives on human rights and may prioritise particular rights or values differently. While universality sets the core standards, diversity acknowledges that the realisation and protection of rights can take varied forms depending on cultural, social, and historical contexts. The challenge in human rights law lies in striking a balance between upholding the universal principles while respecting and accommodating the legitimate diversity of perspectives and practices across the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Diversity in human rights throughout history has been a recurring theme, reflecting the rich tapestry of cultures, societies, and belief systems that have developed over time. Different cultures and civilisations have contributed to the evolution of human rights in unique ways. Throughout history, diverse philosophical, religious, and ethical traditions have emphasised various aspects of human dignity and well-being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 sought to bridge these differences by establishing a common set of principles that could be embraced globally. However, diversity in human rights continues to be both a challenge and an asset. It challenges us to recognise that while universal standards provide a strong foundation, the application of human rights must be sensitive to cultural and contextual variations. Embracing diversity in human rights means acknowledging that rights can be realised in diverse ways and respecting the richness of global perspectives on what it means to lead a dignified and meaningful life. In contemporary human rights discourse, there is a growing recognition of the need to strike a balance between universality and diversity, fostering dialogue and mutual understanding to ensure that human rights remain relevant and inclusive across different societies and historical contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
Diversity underscores the principle that human rights should be adaptable to the specific needs and perspectives of different societies and individuals. The Bangkok Declaration of 1993 serves as a pivotal example of the acknowledgment of diversity in human rights. This declaration reflected the growing discontent among East and Southeast Asian nations with what they perceived as a purely Western interpretation of human rights. The signatories sought to assert their own cultural and regional perspectives within the human rights discourse. By embracing diversity, we respect the rich tapestry of global cultures and traditions, ensuring that the principles of human rights are not imposed uniformly but are applied with sensitivity to the context in which they are exercised. Embracing diversity promotes inclusivity, fostering cross-cultural dialogue and cooperation to advance the protection of human rights worldwide.

In his work, "Toward a Cross-Cultural Approach to Defining International Standards of Human Rights: The Meaning of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment," Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im addresses the delicate interplay between diversity and universality in the realm of human rights. An-Na'im emphasizes the importance of acknowledging cultural diversity, recognising that different societies possess distinct values and norms that shape their interpretation of human rights. However, he cautions against cultural relativism, highlighting that certain universal minimum standards must be upheld. An-Na'im calls for a nuanced approach that combines these universal principles with cultural diversity, fostering cross-cultural dialogue to reach shared values while allowing for flexibility and contextual adaptation in the application of human rights. His work advocates for a balanced perspective that respects local cultures and traditions while preserving essential human rights principles.

# data[].attributes.body
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im and Bilahari Kausikan have both made significant contributions to the discourse on diversity in human rights through their respective works. An-Na'im's approach underscores the necessity of accommodating cultural diversity while maintaining universal minimum standards, emphasizing the importance of respectful cross-cultural dialogue and adaptability. Kausikan, on the other hand, has shed light on the unique perspectives of Asian nations and their distinct approach to human rights. Together, these scholars have enriched the conversation about the intersection of diversity and universality in human rights, highlighting the need for a balanced and nuanced approach that respects cultural differences while upholding fundamental human rights principles. Their contributions serve as a reminder that recognizing and embracing diversity in the human rights framework is not only crucial for inclusivity but also essential for fostering a more equitable and just global community.

# data[].attributes.body
Using diversity alone, without a concurrent commitment to universalism, in the context of human rights, can be a complex endevor. Moeckli et al.'s work in "What Are Human Rights For?" highlights the intricate relationship between diversity and universality in human rights. While diversity acknowledges the distinct cultural, social, and regional contexts in which human rights are applied, it cannot exist in isolation. An-Na'im's work on cross-cultural approaches to human rights underscores that universality plays a crucial role in establishing a common moral foundation for human rights. Without universality, human rights risk becoming fragmented and losing their broader ethical underpinning. Therefore, while diversity offers an essential perspective, it should be harmonised with universal principles to ensure that human rights remain rooted in a shared commitment to human dignity and are relevant across diverse contexts.

The question of whether we should abandon universality in human rights is a significant one, but it is essential to recognise the enduring importance of this principle. Universality, rooted in the belief that human rights are inherent to all individuals, irrespective of cultural, social, or national differences, is a cornerstone of the human rights framework. While diversity is crucial and should be respected, discarding universality would risk diluting the moral clarity and consistency that is essential for addressing human rights abuses worldwide. Universality serves as a common reference point, providing a shared ethical foundation for the global community to rally around and hold governments accountable for human rights violations. Rather than leaving universality behind, the challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between universal principles and cultural diversity, ensuring that human rights remain relevant and applicable across various contexts without imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. Universality, far from being abandoned, should continue to guide the end goal of justice and dignity for all.

# data[].attributes.body
In today's dynamic world, human rights stand as a guiding light in our pursuit of justice, equality, and human dignity. As we grapple with a myriad of contemporary issues, Beitz's work reminds us of the enduring significance of universal principles, underlining that human rights are inherent to all, transcending the boundaries of culture, nationality, and circumstance. Recent events, such as the global movement for racial justice and the vulnerabilities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, reaffirm the crucial role of human rights. Moeckli's exploration of the interplay between diversity and universality in "What Are Human Rights For?" resonates in these challenges, urging us to harmonise our shared commitment to human dignity with the rich tapestry of cultural perspectives. The struggles for racial and gender equality, the plight of displaced refugees, and the pressing socio-economic disparities underscore the need for human rights in today's context. These real-world issues not only underscore the resilience of human rights principles but also emphasise the ongoing necessity to adapt and apply them to diverse global situations. As we forge ahead, human rights will continue to serve as our compass, guiding us toward a world where justice, equality, and human dignity prevail for people of all backgrounds and walks of life. The path forward requires unceasing dialogue, collaboration, and flexibility, ensuring that the values enshrined in international human rights instruments remain robust and effective in an ever-changing world.