Human rights

Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was the world's first document containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights

Human rights refers to "the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law." The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

The idea of human rights descended from the philosophical idea of natural rights which are considered to exist even when trampled by governments or society; some recognize virtually no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are rights of the individual, and are considered beyond the authority of a future government or international body to dismiss. John Locke is perhaps the most prominent philosopher that developed this theory.

Human rights sources

The United Nations

Main articles: United Nations; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The UN General Assembly

The United Nations is the only international entity with jurisdiction for universal human rights legislation. All UN organs have advisory roles to the United Nations Security Council. Article 1-3 of the United Nations Charter states "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

The United Nations Human Rights Council is involved with the investigation into violations of human rights. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principle judicial organ of the United Nations.

History of human rights

Human Rights in the ancient world

Ur-Nammu, king of Ur in ca. 2050 BC created the Code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest legal codex that survives today. Several other sets of laws were created in Mesopotamia including the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1780 BC), one of the best preserved examples of this type of document. It shows rules, and punishments if those rules are broken, on a variety of matters including women's rights, children's rights and slave rights.

The prefaces of these codes invoked the Mesopotamian gods for divine sanction. Societies have often derived the origins of human rights in religious documents. The Vedas, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Analects of Confucius are some of the oldest written sources that address questions of people's duties, rights, and responsibilities.

Persian Empire

See also: Persian Empire

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg

The Cyrus cylinder of Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Persian Empire

The Achaemenid Persian Empire of ancient Iran established unprecedented principles of human rights in the 6th century BC under Cyrus the Great. After his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC, the king issued the Cyrus cylinder, discovered in 1879 and recognized by many today as the first human rights document. The cylinder declared that citizens of the empire would be allowed to practice their religious beliefs freely. It also abolished slavery, so all the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era where slaves typically did such work. These two reforms were reflected in the biblical books of Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezra, which state that Cyrus released the followers of Judaism from slavery and allowed them to migrate back to their land. The cylinder now lies in the British Museum, and a replica is kept at the United Nations Headquarters.

In the Persian Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were also given the same rights, while women had the same rights as men. The Cyrus cylinder also documents the protection of the rights to liberty and security, freedom of movement, the right of property, and economic and social rights.

Maurya Empire

See also: Maurya Empire

The Maurya Empire of ancient India established unprecedented principles of civil rights in the 3rd century BC under Ashoka the Great. After his brutal conquest of Kalinga in circa 265 BC, he felt remorse for what he had done, and as a result, adopted Buddhism. From then, Ashoka, who had been described as "the cruel Ashoka" eventually came to be known as "the pious Ashoka". During his reign, he pursued an official policy of nonviolence (ahimsa) and the protection of human rights, as his chief concern was the happiness of his subjects. The unnecessary slaughter or mutilation of animals was immediately abolished, such as sport hunting and branding. Ashoka also showed mercy to those imprisoned, allowing them outside one day each year, and offered common citizens free education at universities. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics or caste, and constructed free hospitals for both humans and animals. Ashoka defined the main principles of nonviolence, tolerance of all sects and opinions, obedience to parents, respect for teachers and priests, being liberal towards friends, humane treatment of servants, and generosity towards all. These reforms are described in the Edicts of Ashoka.

In the Maurya Empire, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups also had rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war was also condemned by Ashoka. Slavery was also non-existent in ancient India.

Early Islamic Caliphate

Main article: Early reforms under Islam

Many reforms in human rights took place under Islam between 610 and 661, including the period of Muhammad's mission and the rule of the four immediate successors who established the Rashidain Caliphate. Historians generally agree that Muhammad preached against what he saw as the social evils of his day, and that Islamic social reforms in areas such as social security, family structure, slavery, and the rights of women and ethnic minorities improved on what was present in existing Arab society at the time. For example, according to Bernard Lewis, Islam "from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents." John Esposito sees Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) as a reformer who condemned practices of the pagan Arabs such as female infanticide, exploitation of the poor, usury, murder, false contracts, and theft. Bernard Lewis believes that the egalitarian nature of Islam "represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Persian world."

Muhammad made it the responsibility of the Islamic government to provide food and clothing, on a reasonable basis, to captives, regardless of their religion. If the prisoners were in the custody of a person, then the responsibility was on the individual. Lewis states that Islam brought two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching consequences. "One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances," Lewis continues. The position of the Arabian slave was "enormously improved": the Arabian slave "was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights."

Esposito states that reforms in women's rights affected marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Women were not accorded with such legal status in other cultures, including the West, until centuries later. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam states that the general improvement of the status of Arab women included prohibition of female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood. "The dowry, previously regarded as a bride-price paid to the father, became a nuptial gift retained by the wife as part of her personal property." Under Islamic law, marriage was no longer viewed as a "status" but rather as a "contract", in which the woman's consent was imperative. "Women were given inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives." Annemarie Schimmel states that "compared to the pre-Islamic position of women, Islamic legislation meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work." William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad, in the historical context of his time, can be seen as a figure who testified on behalf of women’s rights and improved things considerably. Watt explains: "At the time Islam began, the conditions of women were terrible - they had no right to own property, were supposed to be the property of the man, and if the man died everything went to his sons." Muhammad, however, by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce, gave women certain basic safeguards." Haddad and Esposito state that "Muhammad granted women rights and privileges in the sphere of family life, marriage, education, and economic endeavors, rights that help improve women's status in society."

Sociologist Robert Bellah (Beyond belief) argues that Islam in its seventh-century origins was, for its time and place, "remarkably modern...in the high degree of commitment, involvement, and participation expected from the rank-and-file members of the community." This because, he argues, that Islam emphasized on the equality of all Muslims, where leadership positions were open to all. Dale Eickelman writes that Bellah suggests "the early Islamic community placed a particular value on individuals, as opposed to collective or group responsibility."

Human rights in early modern era

U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776

The conquest of the Americas in the 16th century by the Spanish resulted in vigorous debate about human rights in Spain. The debate from 1550-51 between Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda at Valladolid was probably the first on the topic of human rights in European history. Several 17th and 18th century European philosophers, most notably John Locke, developed the concept of natural rights, the notion that people possess certain rights by virtue of being human. Though Locke believed natural rights were derived from divinity since humans were creations of God, his ideas were important in the development of the modern notion of rights. Lockean natural rights did not rely on citizenship nor any law of the state, nor were they necessarily limited to one particular ethnic, cultural or religious group.

Two major revolutions occurred that century in the United States (1776) and in France (1789). The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 sets up a number of fundamental rights and freedoms. The later United States Declaration of Independence includes concepts of natural rights and famously states "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Similarly, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen defines a set of individual and collective rights of the people. These are held to be universal - not only to French citizens but to all men without exception.

Modern Era

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

Philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and Hegel expanded on the theme of universality during the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1831 William Lloyd Garrison wrote in a newspaper called The Liberator that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights" so the term human rights probably came into use sometime between Paine's The Rights of Man and Garrison's publication. In 1849 a contemporary, Henry David Thoreau, wrote about human rights in his treatise On the Duty of Civil Disobedience [2] which was later influential on human rights and civil rights thinkers. United States Supreme Court Justice David Davis, in his 1867 opinion for Ex Parte Milligan, wrote "By the protection of the law, human rights are secured; withdraw that protection and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers or the clamor of an excited people."

Many groups and movements have managed to achieve profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labour. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the civil rights movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States.

After World War II

"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta." Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949

Appalled by the barbarism of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. While not legally binding, it urged member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

Many states wanted to go beyond the declaration of rights and create legal covenants which would put greater pressure on states to follow human rights norms. Because some states disagreed over whether this international covenant should contain economic and social rights (which usually require a greater effort to fulfill on the part of individual states), two treaties were prepared.

In 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the United Nations. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights came into force in 1976. It commits 155 state parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (abbreviated UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (A/RES/217, 1948-12-10 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris).

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

— Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Since then several other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level:

• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (entry into force: 1951) [3]
• United Nations Convention Against Torture (entry into force: 1984) [4]
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entry into force: 1969) [5]
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (entry into force: 1981) [6]
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (entry into force: 1989) [7]
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (entry into force: 2002)

With the exception of the non-deformable human rights (the four most important are the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws), the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency - although "the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure". [8] Conduct in war is governed by international humanitarian law.

International bodies

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights created an agency, the Human Rights Committee to promote participation with its standards. The eighteen members of the committee express opinions as to whether a particular practice is a human rights violation, although these reports are not legally binding.

A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was made in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The degree of unanimity over these conventions, in terms of how many and which countries have ratified them varies, as does the degree to which they are respected by various states. The UN has set up a number of bodies to monitor and study human rights, under the leadership of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR).

Regional legislation

There are also many regional agreements and organisations governing human rights including the European Court of Human Rights, which is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (rather than states); the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam; Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and Iran's Defenders of Human Rights Center.

Philosophy of human rights

Theory of value and property

See also: Property

Henry of Ghent articulated the theory that every person has a property interest in their own body. John Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour." In addition, property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily." To deny valid property rights according to Locke is to deny human rights. The British philosopher had significant impacts upon the development of the Government of the UK and was central to the fundamental founding philosophy of the United States of America. Karl Marx later critiqued Locke's theory of property in his social theory.

Types

A few groups conceptually divide rights into negative and positive rights. By this distinction, "negative" human rights, which follow mainly from the Anglo-American legal tradition of natural rights, are rights that a government and/or private entities may never take action to remove. For example, right to life and security of person; freedom from slavery; equality before the law and due process under the rule of law; freedom of movement; freedoms of speech, religion, assembly; the right to bear arms. These have been codified in documents including the Scottish Claim of Right, the English Bill of Rights the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United States Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment.

This distinction holds that "Positive" human rights mainly follow from the Rousseauian Continental European legal tradition and denote human rights and entitlements that the state is obliged to protect and provide. Examples of such rights include: the rights to education, to health care, to a livelihood. Such 'positive rights' have been codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 22-28) and in many 20th-century constitutions.

Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. Some theorists discredit these divisions by claiming that rights are interconnected. Arguably, for example, basic education is necessary for the right to political participation.

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights." The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."

Justification of human rights

Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how human rights become part of social expectations. The biological theory considers the comparative reproductive advantage of human social behavior based on empathy and altruism in the context of natural selection. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior, which is a human, social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume) or as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber). This approach includes the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls).

On the other hand, natural law theories base human rights on the “natural” moral order that derives from religious precepts such as common understandings of justice and the belief that moral behavior is a set of objectively valid prescriptions. Some have used religious texts such as the Bible and Qur'an to support human rights arguments. However, there are also more secular forms of natural law theory that understand human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity.

Yet others have attempted to construct an "interests theory" defence of human rights. For example the philosopher John Finnis argues that human rights are justifiable on the grounds of their instrumental value in creating the necessary conditions for human well-being. Some interest-theorists also justify the duty to respect the rights of other individuals on grounds of self-interest (rather than altruism or benevolence). Reciprocal recognition and respect of rights ensures that one's own will be protected.

Ultimately, the term "human rights" is often itself an appeal to a transcendent principle, not based on existing legal concepts. The term "humanism" refers to the developing doctrine of such universally applicable values. The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence.

Criticism of human rights

One of the arguments made against the concept of human rights is that it suffers from cultural imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human rights thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves. The cultural imperialism argument achieves even greater potency when it is made on the basis of religion. Some histories of human rights emphasise the Christian influence on the agenda and then question whether this is in keeping with the tenets of other world religions. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.

Another set of debating points revolves around the question of who has the duty to uphold human rights. Human rights have historically arisen from the need to protect citizens from abuse by the state or by groups within the state and this might suggest that all mankind has a duty to intervene and protect people wherever they are. Divisive national loyalties, which emphasise differences between people rather than their similarities, can thus be seen as a destructive influence on the human rights movement because they deny people's innately similar human qualities. But others argue that state sovereignty is paramount, not least because it is often the state that has signed up to human rights treaties in the first place. Commentators' positions in the argument for and against intervention and the use of force by states are influenced by whether they believe human rights are largely a legal or moral duty and whether they are of more cosmopolitan or nationalist persuasion.

An additional deconstructionist critique has been levied at the discourse of human rights by many scholars of critical legal studies. They argue that the logic of liberal human rights discourse is often circular and internally inconsistent, allowing for it to be easily manipulable. Moreover, they argue that human rights discourse often limits actors capacity to conceptualize radical, non-juridical, change. As Harvard Law Professor Duncan Kennedy has pointed out:

Legal thought can generate equally plausible rights justifications for almost any result... Rights are by their nature "formal," meaning that they secure to individuals legal protection for arbitrariness--to speak of rights is precisely to not speak of justice between social classes, races, or sexes. . . This framework in, in itself, part of the problem rather than the solution. It makes it difficult to even conceptualize radical proposals.

Human rights violations

Human rights violations are abuses of people in ways that abuse any fundamental human rights. It is a term used when a government violates national or international law related to the protection of human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fundamental human rights are violated when, among other things:

• A certain race, creed, or group is denied recognition as a "person". (Articles 2 & 6)
• Men and women are not treated as equal. (Article 2)
• Different racial or religious groups are not treated as equal. (Article 2)
• Life, liberty or security of person is threatened. (Article 3)
• A person is sold as or used as a slave. (Article 4)
• Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment is used on a person (such as torture). (Article 5) (See also Prisoners' rights)
• Victims of abuse are denied an effective judicial remedy. (Article 8)

| class="col-break " |

• Punishments are dealt arbitrarily or unilaterally, without a proper and fair trial. (Article 11)
• Arbitrary interference into personal, or private lives by agents of the state. (Article 12)
• Citizens are forbidden to leave or return to their country. (Article 13)
• Freedom of speech or religion is denied. (Articles 18 & 19)
• The right to join a trade union is denied. (Article 23)
• Education is denied. (Article 26)

Human rights violations and abuses include those alleged by non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International that collect evidence and documentation. Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003) the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not violate at least some human rights significantly.

Some people believe human rights abuses are more common in dictatorships or theocracies than in democracies because freedom of speech and freedom of the press tend to uncover state orchestrated abuse and expose it. Nonetheless human rights abuses do also occur in democracies.

Many suggest the basic problem in dealing with Human Rights is the lack of understanding of the basic laws of fiduciary control. International equity expert Professor Paul Finn has underlined, “the most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and officials. "

In equity a politician's fiduciary obligations not only comprise duties of good faith and loyalty, but also include duties of skill and competence in managing a country and it's people.

It is widely agreed Government is a 'trust structure' created by people to manage the needs of society. The relationship between government and the governed is clearly a fiduciary one. Yet rules such as Sovereign Immunity or Crown and Judicial Immunity are now being targeted as the very the tools of oppression that are preventing those being abused from taking action against the person controlling the laws of a country. Originating from within the Courts of Equity, the fiduciary concept was partly designed to prevent those holding positions of power from abusing their authority.

Modern arguments suggest anyone accepting any judicial, political or government control over the interests of people requires moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. The fiduciary relationship arises from the governments ability to control people with the exercise of that power. In effect, if a government staff have the power to abolish any rights they are burdened with the fiduciary duty to protect such an interest because the government would benefit from the exercise of its own discretion to extinguish rights which it alone had the power to dispose of.

National human rights institutions

In over 110 countries National human rights institutions (NHRIs) have been set up to protect, promote or monitor human rights in a given country. There are now over 110 such bodies. Not all of them are compliant with the United Nations advisory standards as set out in the 1993 Paris Principles, but the number and effect of these institutions is increasing.

See also

• Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
• Cyrus Cylinder
• Anti-terrorism legislation
• The Golden Rule
• Global governance
• Human Responsibilities
• Human rights and the United States
• Human rights portal
• Human rights in the Soviet Union

| class="col-break " |

• Freedom of thought
• Police Brutality
• Prisoner rights in Islam
• Social rights in Islam
• Teaching for social justice
• United Nations Human Rights Council
• United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Multilateral organisations

• Duke University's library list
• Youth for Human Rights International
• International Human rights Association
• Peace WorldWide
• Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN)
• Amnesty International
• Ansar Burney Trust
• Bahrain Centre for Human Rights
• Carter Center
• DEMIRA Deutsche Minenräumer - German Mine Clearer
• Forum 18
• Freedom House
• Human Rights Foundation
• Human Rights Watch
• Imagine-Life
• International Freedom of Expression Exchange
• International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
• International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net)
• International Progress Organization
• International Service for Human Rights

| class="col-break " |

• Journalists for Human Rights
• Defenders of Human Rights Center
• Liberty (pressure group)
• Memorial
• Montagnard Foundation, Inc.
• Network Against Prohibition
• International Human Rights Association
• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Peace Brigades International
• Southern Poverty Law Center
• US Human Rights Network
• World Organisation Against Torture
• Speak Truth to Power
• Robert F. Kennedy Memorial
• WITNESS

References

• Pro.Dr.Tahir-ul-Qadri, Huquq al Insania fil Islam (Human Rights in Islam),Minhaj Publishers (2005) 365-M-Model Town Lahore,Pakistan
• Steiner, J. & Alston, Philip. (1996). International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 019825427X
• Barzilai, Gad. (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Davenport, Christian (2007). State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Davenport, Christian (2007). State Repression and Political Order. Annual Review of Political Science.
• Donnelly, Jack. (2003). Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice. 2nd ed. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
• Ellerman, David (2005). Helping People Help Themselves: From the World Bank to an Alternative Philosophy of Development Assistance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Forsythe, David P. (2000). Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Köchler, Hans. (1981). The Principles of International Law and Human Rights
• Köchler, Hans. (1990). Democracy and Human Rights. (Studies in International Relations, XV.) Vienna: International Progress Organization. ISBN 3-900704-08-2
• Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Landman, Todd (2006) Studying Human Rights, Oxford and London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-32605-2
• Shute, Stephen & Hurley, Susan (eds.). (1993). On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. New York: BasicBooks.
• Hans-Georg Möller, How to Distinguish Friends from Enemies: Human Rights Rhetoric and Western Mass Media. In Peter D. Hershock, R.T. Ames and M. Stepaniants (eds.), Technology and Cultural Values on the Edge of the Third Millennium. (Selected papers from the 8 th East-West Philosophers Conference) Honolulu: U of Hawai’i Press, 2003. 209-221.
• Sunga, Lyal S. (1992) Individual Responsibility in International Law for Serious Human Rights Violations, Nijhoff Publishers.
• Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 2003.
• McLagan, Meg Principles, Publicity, and Politics: Notes on Human Rights Media American Anthropologist September 2003, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 605-612

External links

• OneworldTV has a section of documentaries devoted to human rights.
• National Human Rights Institutions Forum - Official Portal for the Global network of National Human Rights Institutions.
• United Nations- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• United Nations- Human Rights
• Council of Europe - Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
• Soka Univeristy of America
• University of Minnesota Human Rights Library - Over 23,000 documents and 4,000 links
• University of Minnesota Human Rights Resource Center - Creating and distributing Human Rights Education (HRE) resources, training activists, professionals, and students & building advocacy networks
• Human Rights Education Associates (HREA) - Over 3,000 downloadable training materials and on-line courses for human rights defenders, development workers and educators

| class="col-break " |

• Adam Sneyd, "The Right to Development", in Globalization and Autonomy Online Compendium, edited by William D. Coleman and Nancy Johnson
• The Universal Human Rights Index of United Nations documents
• "Valuing Human Rights" from Project Worldview
• Duncan Kennedy, "The Critique of Rights in Critical Legal Studies"
• Centre for Applied Human Rights, University of York

Human rights organizations

• International Human Rights Association
• The International Council on Human Rights Policy
• Mental Disability Rights International
• Human Rights in the world: Articles and news (Spanish)