Human rights encompass nationality rights and civic liberties, whereas civil liberties are not rooted in a shared characteristic of humanity. Citizenship is typically determined by the interconnectedness of personal and political elements, as well as the stipulations governing this connection. Civil rights encompass a range of claims pertaining to individuals' global civil liberties and validate them within the context of international law.
Despite the claims in the declaration, human rights abuses persist globally. The concept of citizen's rights assumes that if human rights exist, they apply to all individuals. Individual rights are closely tied to universality but are separate from it. This distinction arises from criticism that the claim of universal rights relies on abstract notions of natural law and overlooks cultural differences. However, human rights are indisputable as they are absolute and inherent.
Human rig
...hts are intrinsic and cannot be removed or denied by states or political authorities. They do not depend on corresponding obligations and are not invalidated by their absence. It is crucial to recognize that although human rights are undeniable, they can still be superseded by other factors. This means that these rights cannot be temporarily or permanently lost due to misconduct or voluntary surrender. However, it remains uncertain whether all human rights possess this characteristic. For example, those who advocate for both human rights and incarceration as a punishment for serious crimes must believe that an individual's right to freedom of movement can be temporarily or permanently revoked based on valid convictions for grave offenses.
Universality refers to the application of human rights to all individuals, regardless of their characteristics or affiliations. These rights are inherent and personal, determined by factors such as
nationality, agency, and autonomy. Importantly, they are not limited by variables such as age, religion, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, political beliefs or type of government.
The idea of universality includes the belief that human rights exist independently and are inherent to all individuals, regardless of their country or culture's practices, morality, or laws. However, there are limitations to this concept. For example, certain rights such as the right to vote apply only to adult citizens or residents and are limited to voting within one's own country. Additionally, individuals who have been convicted of a serious crime may temporarily lose their human rights related to freedom of movement.
Furthermore, there are specific human rights treaties that focus on marginalized groups such as minorities, indigenous people, women, and children. It is important to acknowledge the subjectivity of human rights and their lack of universal agreement. The concept of universality does not imply that human rights are absolute or beyond debate. While certain fundamental rights apply to everyone, their interpretation and perceived irrefutability can vary.
Challenges Regarding Universality and Incontrovertibility of Human Rights
The challenges associated with the universality and incontrovertibility of human rights revolve around determining which rights are unquestionable, particularly when conflicts arise between two or more rights.
The challenge of devising a hierarchy of rights can be considered a problem (O’Byrne, pp 26-27). Another issue related to this is understanding the reciprocal relationship between rights and duties. However, if failing to fulfill one's duty does not nullify their human rights, then within the context of human rights discourse, this relationship becomes more intricate. The problems associated with universality are linked to the concept of natural law. Human rights are founded
on the belief that all individuals belong to a community that extends beyond their immediate political community and adhere to a superior law compared to the laws of their respective states. Natural law originates from a pre-social universal state of morality, while positive law is based on official binding acts, constitutional guidance, and precedents.
In today's world, cultural difference is a major concern when it comes to the universality of human rights. There is a common criticism questioning the universal applicability of human rights. Both the promotion and protection of human rights from both a universalist and regionalist perspective are closely tied to international human rights laws, which emphasize the concept of universality. Advocates argue that this universality includes cultural diversity and religious particularism (O’Byrne, 37-49).
The Assertion of Indisputability and its Associated Challenges
Political discourse has focused significantly on the divine privileges held by monarchs. O’Byrne (pg26) explains that individuals have an inherent right to security, with states themselves being established based on recognition of this fundamental entitlement.
The legitimacy of the state arises from its ability to guarantee the security of its citizens, as stated by O’Byrne in the White Power USA (2010) documentary. O'Byrne emphasizes that individuals have an inherent right to security from the state. If the state fails to meet this requirement, the people have the authority to rebel against it. O’Byrne's perspective is rooted in his moral dedication to international justice (O’Byrne, pg.).
35). Natural rights, inherent to all humanity, cannot be revoked by any political authority. However, the insistence that rights are indisputable necessitates individuals to establish a hierarchy of rights to resolve conflicts.
It compels individuals to rebut the idea that rights
inevitably necessitate reciprocal duties, giving rise to issues of hierarchical rights. Consequently, very few individuals have argued that the universal declaration of human rights encompasses any truly indisputable basic rights. Thus, the language commonly used to discuss rights continues to be influenced by utilitarianism.
O'Byrne suggests that rights are a means to accomplish particular objectives, particularly the common good, which is ultimately connected to the well-being of the majority. The question of determining absolute rights is essentially insignificant, as O'Byrne contends (O'Byrne, 47). He argues that the difficulties surrounding human rights in contemporary society do not revolve around their justification but rather their practical implementation, which pertains more to politics than philosophy. Instead of seeking universal principles, individuals should aim to understand the various principles that may be relevant in specific circumstances.
The text explores the concept of understanding the relationship between rights and duties in human rights discourse. This connection is often viewed as reciprocal, but it is important to acknowledge that neglecting one's duties does not negate their human rights. Human rights primarily entail refraining from interfering with others' rights, known as negative duties. The only duties that align with human rights involve demonstrating respect for these rights. O'Byrne asserts that honoring these duties is linked to respecting others' rights because our own rights can only be preserved through this action. It is critical to exhibit respect for these duties as it enables us to assign value to human life in general (O'Byrne, 49).
Rights are inherent to each individual and are not held by society. These rights originate from the essence of each person and exist prior to society. The main objective of human rights
is to safeguard personal freedom from the authority of the state. Hence, individualism is intrinsically linked to matters of equality and justice.
Considering the importance of equality and justice in any moral framework, especially one based on human rights as stated in the International Bill of Human Rights (referenced by Butler, 9), it becomes problematic to deviate from an individualistic perspective on human rights.
Conflict of rights
A conflict of rights arises when there is a clash between the right to work as a tree cutter in the forest and the right of people to a healthy environment. Furthermore, individuals may be unable to exercise their freedom of speech if their words endanger their life, security, or happiness. Another scenario where conflicts occur is when someone points a gun at another person, potentially forcing the threatened person to harm the assailant in self-defense. The denial of certain fundamental rights is also evident in everyday situations. Additionally, concerns are raised regarding prisoners who lose their freedom due to committing punishable crimes.
The government's use of surveillance for national security causes discussions about the government's responsibility to safeguard individuals' freedom (The Surveillance State, 2014). Some rights are seen as subjective because they can conflict with other rights, violate the rights of others, or be restricted for the greater good.
Conclusion
To sum up, human rights are not unconditional. This indicates their strong association with the concept of universality.
If something is incontrovertible, it means that it cannot be negated. However, most of the rights are arbitrary as they either conflict with each other or violate the rights of others. These rights apply to all people equally, giving them the ability to prevail in various
forms. The concept of human rights has become foundational in policies and is often implemented in international law, regional institutions, and public states. The aim of this concept is to establish the fundamental elements that control each individual in living a good life. It outlines both the positive and negative aspects necessary for ensuring minimal good lives.
The passage explains that if something is incontrovertible, then it cannot be denied. However, many rights are arbitrary as they clash or infringe upon others' rights. These universal rights empower individuals to prosper in different ways. Human rights have become essential in policies and are frequently enforced through international law, regional institutions, and governments around the world. The objective of this notion is to establish basic principles governing individuals' ability to lead a fulfilling life by encompassing both positive and negative factors crucial for securing a decent quality of life.
The universal rights are the hierarchies of rights that I support. These rights should be applicable to all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, sex, ethnicity, and other factors. Every person should possess these rights and be seen as rational actors with a sense of urgency. In essence, human rights should have a subject.
The issue of subjectivity, particularly as it pertains to agency and rationality, is extensive and this text will only address a portion of the debates it has inspired, specifically pertaining to human rights. Human rights aim to safeguard the security, freedom, and private property of individuals. The concept of human rights should be the main focus. Additionally, I support emphasizing rights that have high priority.
If human rights do not have a high priority, they cannot
compete with other important considerations such as national stability and security, individual and national self-determination, and global prosperity.
Works Cited
- O'Byrne, Darren. Human rights: An introduction. Routledge, 2014
- "White Power USA: The Rise Of Right-Wing Militias In America". Democracy Now!. N.p., 2010. Web. 27 Oct. 2016. Retrieved from http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/11/white_power_usa_the_rise_of
- "The Surveillance State" CBC Player. N.p., 2016. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/ID/2440419644/ on 27 Oct 2016
- Butler, Clark.
"Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. By Jack Donnelly." CLIO 33.1 (2003): 107-114.
