Fifty year on, most modern state has ratified the international human right convention, some countries incorporated their rights and remedies into structure of their constitution. The European Court of Human Right established in 1953.
Slowly, the worldwide spread Human Right norms are often seen as moral consequence of economic globalization. This implies the human right is style of moral individualism that have elective affinity with economic individualism of global market and that advance of go hand in hand. The campaigns human rights activist against lab our environment practices of global corporation.
Human right become global because it advanced the interest of powerless and struggle against unjust social practices. The emergence network of Non-Governmental Human Right Organization (NGO). Amnesty International and Human Right watch become the most famous to work of human right and care of human rights violation. The Human Rights advocacy, international politics has been democratized and make struggle against apartheid and other social practices.
Human rights have furthered the growth of the nationalism, since human rights covenant have encouraged, if not endorsed the core claims of nationalist movement to collective self-determination. Those who stand most in need of human rights protection in the modern world-homeless, stateless, minorities at the mercy of other ethnic or religious majorities – tend to make collective self-determination.
Collective self government provides defensible rights, legitimized by the popular sovereignty and enforced by local court, police and punishment. Nationalism solves the human rights problem of the victorious national groups and nationalist tend to protect the human rights of majorities and deny the rights of minorities.
Minorities need the rights to appeal against particularistic and unjust rights ruling by the ethnic majorities they live beside. Even societies that do fully incorporate minorities into national rights that benefits from the remedies provided by international human rights.
The most essential message of human rights is that are no excuses for the inhuman use of the human beings. The rights protection can be suspended in case of ultimate necessity, but this suspension of rights must be justified before legislature and court of law.
Human rights provide nominal’s standard requisite to enjoyment of human rights at all. Human rights activist accept this limit in theory but tend to soften into the vague requirement to display cultural sensitivity in application of moral universal.
The human rights principle exist to validate, individual agency and the collective rights of self rule, then human rights practices is obliged to seek consent for it norms and to abstain from interference when consent is not freely given.
The human rights principles themselves imply that it understood as language, not for the proclamation and enactment of eternal varieties but as discourses for the adjudication of conflict. But thinking in this way means accepting that human rights principle they conflict.
Human right is nothing other than politics, one that must reconcile moral end to concrete situations and must be prepared to make painful comprises not only between means and ends but between ends themselves. The Politics is not just about deliberation.
Human rights language is also there to remind us that there are some abuses that are genuinely intolerable and some excuses for these abuses that are insupportable. Rights talk therefore helps to know when deliberation and comprises have become impossible.
Hence human rights talk is sometimes used to assemble the reason and the constituencies necessary for the use of forces. There are not only practical problems in reconciling value and interest in dealing with state that violate human rights.
There is additional conflict between furthering the human rights of individual and maintaining the stability of that nation-state system. As stable state provides the possibility of national rights regimes and there remain the most important protector of individual, human rights. Human rights activist claims that the best guarantees of state stability have to be democracy, human rights and fairness in the state.
The problem in western human rights policy is that by promoting ethnic self-determination, we may actually endanger the stability that is precondition for protecting human rights. The western policy in order to reconcile democracy and human rights but more emphasizes on democracy and constitutionalism.
The democracy with constitutionalism is simply ethnic majority tyranny. The human rights and military intervention all order in a state has disintegrated and it people have been delivered up to war of against all or where state in engaging in gross, repeated and systematic violence against own citizens, the only effective way to protect human rights is direct intervention, ranging from sanction to use of military forces.
Since 1991, the right of humanitarian intervention has been asserted by government to justify intervention. While UN charter call on state to proclaim human rights, it also prohibits the use of force against other state and prohibited the use of forces against other state and prohibit internal interference.
The three criteria in late 1990s for rationing of intervention (a) The human rights abuses at issue have to be gross, systematic and pervasive (b) they have to be threat to international peace and security in surrounding region (c) military intervention has to stand a real chance of putting stop to the abuses.
Humanitarian intervention amount to moral promise to person in need. If we make promise of this sort, we owe it to ourselves and those we intend to help to devise the military strategy, rules of engagement and chain of command necessary to make good on our promises.
The problem of consistency has consequences for the legitimacy of human rights standards themselves. Non-western cultures look at consistent and partial way we apply and enforce human rights principles and conclude that there is something wrongs with the principle them.
The political failure has cultural consequences. It has led the cultures of non-western world to view human rights as nothing more that the justification of western moral imperialism. The boundaries of state sovereignty have led to cultural challenge to universality of the norms.
Human right implies that everyone ought to have particular protection, privileges and opportunities. Then human rights have universalistic definition, as the entire human should be able to enjoy those rights. It designates the philosophically justifiable claims by people to certain conditions of existence and privileges and amenities.
All these rights claimed as legally guaranteed and ought to be the basis of emerging world order. In many third world countries are under the banners of liberty and equality are run by elites influenced by both western liberal and Marxist tradition.
By the philosophical position of rights, now every country today, whatever the dominated of cultural tradition, struggle over priority to be accorded the rights of person, people and government are more the stuff of domestic politics.
Human rights are mainly relationship between Individual and communities. Many political thoughts, like Ancient Greeks. They gave community the first priority as it reflected in the view of contemporary communication philosophers, hold that human life has no meaning for individual apart from communities to which they belong.
Thus in this sense communities are prior to persons. More of these rights of groups are created by particular communities and mainly these expressions are found in state-glorifying ideologies of fascism and totalitarian socialism.
Many philosophies reject the dichotomy of individual versus states and conceive of person and communities as inseparable part of integrated mosaic of mutual obligations. Many social-democracy liberals who tend to emphasize not only civil liberties and human law enforcement but also intervention in market for reason of social justice to help the economically disadvantage.
Universalism is one of the main principles of human rights. All the people have certain rights simply by virtue of fact that they are human beings and distribution in any society of rights and obligations of persons, peoples and government and product of society culture and unique historical experience.
All these rights have corresponding duty. The relationship between rights and obligation are closely related to moral relationship for act of omission as well as for act of commission. Both rights and duties responsible for social welfare and well being of people.
The human rights issues enter the world politics when people outside countries experiencing major human rights violation attempt to bring international pressure to bear on those alleged to be responsible for the violation. The result of these efforts to mobilize international pressure are affected significantly that how constituencies attentive to human rights issues around the world view the credibility and moral content of the claims and counterclaim of the parties to the human rights disputes.
In world politics of human rights perhaps more than with other issues, “Right make might”. The human rights claims that central issue in world politics are of 4 types: (1) Those concerning charge that individual are being mistreated by government (2) those in private sphere like right and obligation of worker, landlord employees (3) those concerning the demand of ethnic and religious communities for self-determination (4) those revolving around demands by the government for rights and benefit for nation as whole, such as right to protect the country’s resources against the foreign explanation and even right to development.
The vast array of civil and political rights claimed by individual around the world, however are not unconditionally protected against legal suspension in national constitution or international covenant. Although government are obligated to provide compelling justification of the necessity of any such suspension the fact that the state sovereignty regime in international diplomacy, with it deference to national decisions on domestic issues, is still powerful mean that the individual who seeks international remedies for any but most brutal government face an uphill battle.
The most prominent realms of interpersonal behavior, previously considered to be purely domestic issue that has come for centre state in world politics in recent years is that of relationship between men and women. Women rights groups, often organized on a transnational basis, have been demanding universal reform in how the relationship between sexes are regarded to bring about what in their view would be full equalization of privileges, power of women vis-a-vis men.
The main target of women rights groups are not just government and other organization of society that they perceive to be the discriminating against women in promotion, wage and include social cultural pattern prevailing with the communities.
There are wide range of social practices like Sati, rape, prostitution, sexual harassment, exclusion from certain profession and kind of education and allocation of household privileges and responsibilities that are demeaning to the women. The social practices not all of which are universally prohibited. Women right is human rights and many cultural community rights to retain autonomy over its own sexual custom and try to prohibit all these discrimination and differences.
Economic well being of people as a basic prominent part of international human rights. National self-determination was pre-condition for the realization of people civil and political and politically sovereign nation state remain the appropriate instrument for promoting and protecting human rights, so the economic well being of their people need to assure through national collectivity.
As prerequisite to each nation, each person being able to enjoy minimum standard of economic well being, a certain level of economic development need to be obtained by country as whole. Each nation requires managing their economic development and thus it resulted development and self-sustaining economic growth. As every state have inalienable rights to choose its economic system as well as its political, social and cultural system in accordance with the will of people without outside interference.
The right to development is an inalienable right by virtue of which every human person and all the people are entitled to participate, in contribute to and enjoy economic, social cultural and political development in which all human rights and fundamental freedom can be fully realized.
Article 1 of international covenant of human rights. “All the people have right of self-determination. By virtue of that right the freely determine their political status and freely their social and economic development. This universally asserted right of self-determination has become problem for many countries.
There is also apartheid versus the universal affirmation of human rights. The promulgation of racial segregation as official policy by the Union of South Africa in 1948 ironically conceded with the nearly worldwide popular affirmation of human rights ideas as reflected in adoption that year of universal declaration of human rights by UN General Assembly.
The immorality Act of 1950 criminalized sexual act between black, and white. The non white communities in South Africa were able to tap into the international ground swell of support for self determination and human rights. In June 1952, the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and South African Indian congress initiated non violent campaign of defies against the unjust law.
The President of South Africa – “Nelson Mandela” played an important role in fight against apartheid and racism. An amalgamation of western liberal and socialist tenant and provision in universal declaration of human rights the freedom charter outlined a transformed South Africa in which:
Every men and women shall have right to vote for and stand as candidate for all bodies which make law. The preaching and practices of national, race or color discrimination and contempt shall be punishable crime. All apartheid law and practices shall be set aside.
The national wealth of our country, the heritage of all South African, shall be restore to the people and the minerals wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of people as whole. All other industries and trade shall be controlled to assist the well being of the people.
The restriction of ownership of land on racial basis shall be ended, and all other land should be red vided amongst those who work it, to banish famine and land hunger. No one shall be imprisonment, deported on restriction without a fair trial.
The law guarantee to all their right to speak, to organized, to meet together, to publish, to preach, to educate their children and to worship. All men and women of all races shall receive equal pay for equal work. Free medical care and hospitalization shall be provided for all. All the people shall be free to travel without restriction from country side to town, from province to province.
The particular Methodology most effective in human rights, culture for new South Africa. The work of Amnesty International, decade of human rights education united nation human rights centre, Helsinki committees, council of Europe work for human rights promotion and protection and make human for all. Between 1985 and 1994 parallel the growth of democracy.
In 1990 after release of Nelson Mandela, it become possible to reach human rights and as negotiation progressed, this led to idea of “‘democratic education”. This will lead to human for all circulars which asked participant to pretend they were starting new society and also gave “right to vote or right to participate in the government”. South African, after being deprived for so long, clearly thirsted for right to vote and viewed democracy as an essential human rights.