A new paradigm for defining and promoting human rights 

by Ema Paskevicius

Although the concept of human rights suggests that every individual is entitled to certain basic human rights, how exactly are they upheld in various circumstances? The answers to these questions are often proposed by researchers, scholars, and professionals in various academic disciplines and professional areas of expertise. In this research note, we will consider whether there is an academic discipline of “human rights”, the meaning of “human rights”, and how the systems thinking framework could potentially bridge the gap between the various definitions of human rights proposed by scholars in various disciplines to advance the aims of human rights.

Academic disciplines and human rights

Academic discipline can be best defined as a distinct branch of knowledge that bases its main ideas on a particular area of study. Academic disciplines help us organize the vast range of human knowledge into certain categories, such as humanities, social sciences, and scientific disciplines. Humanities focuses on the study of human culture, which can include subcategories such as language, philosophy, literature, and art. In terms of their applications to human rights standards, philosophers, for example, may analyze and theorize concepts underlying human rights such as justice and equality. They may ask abstract questions that surround their fundamental principles such as – What are the moral obligations to adequately uphold human rights? How do human rights differ from a universal versus a cultural perspective? Philosophers tend to work on a more theoretical level, where they explore political ideologies, ethical guidelines, and legal frameworks and they may contribute their work through scholarly articles and books, rather than direct action and application. Their academic discipline may be explored through various concepts such as philosophy, history, and law. But, given that the humanitarian discipline is not just limited to philosophers, there are other professions that fall within this category that focus on certain ideas that may not be applicable to others. Historians, for example, may investigate and record human rights abuses such as genocides and systematic oppression, but may not work with these ideas in present terms like philosophers do. This does not necessarily devalue the importance of their academic discipline, but instead bridges a gap between the principles they work with and the ideas that philosophers engage in, marking a difference in their frameworks even though both professions fall under the same category. On the other hand, scientific disciplines focus on the study of the natural world through observation, experimentation and analysis. Scientific disciplines may include, but are not limited to, the natural sciences, such as chemistry and biology, and social sciences, such as psychology and sociology. In the nature of their work, doctors, for example, provide hands-on care to their patients, where they focus on diagnosing and treating illnesses. In comparison to the professions that fall under the humanitarian academic discipline, their work is more practical and direct, where they engage in a perspective more centered around clinical and public health, rather than a purely theoretical one. In terms of human rights, doctors may resort to the rights to adequate healthcare, informed consent, and medical ethics. Although their focus in the human rights domain is narrower than those of philosophers for example, they continue to play a crucial role in ensuring specific rights, such as health, are met in real-world scenarios. If we were to “assign” human rights its own academic discipline, one could potentially say that the focus is on the study and development of theoretical frameworks, educational programs, and research methodologies specific to human rights. Subcategories could potentially include social justice, ethics, international law, and other human rights studies. But, given that human rights studies can fit into both the academic discipline categories of both humanities and the sciences, the question that arises is – is there really a true, academic discipline for human rights itself? 

There is not an academic discipline for the knowledge that surrounds human rights. Even though basic human rights are discussed within many academic disciplines, the topic of human rights itself appears to lack some sort of academic “independence,” meaning that it does not have its own specific methodologies or distinct theories. 

Some traditional disciplines can be often defined by their respective research methods, such as the scientific method used in experiments in biology or chemistry. Human rights, on the other hand, focuses more on the interpretation and integration of a variety of theories that come from areas of study such as international law, political science, ethics, etc. This lack of a unique, or widely accepted methodology, shows that human rights aren’t “tied down” to a singular identity that can be taught and incorporated into a specific area of study. The dependence on other disciplines, such as the difference between law, which addresses legal frameworks, and sociology, which explores social dynamics, also proves that without these disciplines to rely on, human rights may lack the foundational tools to explore its certain subject matter. All things considered, compared to more conventional fields, human rights studies lack a unique research approach and theoretical framework, leading to the proposition that human rights cannot be regarded as its own, completely distinct, academic discipline. 

Definitions of human rights

Given this, we are simply just left with a claim, or idea – that by virtue of being human, an individual is entitled to certain basic things. The way this “standard” definition is interpreted varies from person to person, though. As mentioned previously, the lack of a “singular definition” for human rights allows legal scholars versus the average person, for example, to interpret human rights as completely different ideas. Each person defines human rights in a way that reflects their own ethics and professions, making the field of human rights open-ended and diverse. 

For psychologists, human rights are often viewed through the lens of individual and collective well-being. They may focus on rights to autonomy, mental health, emotional development, and freedom of thought as their way of supporting and protecting individuals’ health and growth. In contrast, a lawyer may perceive human rights as a completely different entity. Lawyers may view human rights as legal entitlements that protect individuals’ dignity, equality, and freedom, where their ideas surround rights to justice, political ideologies, and the legal framework. For doctors, their definition of upholding human rights may include rights to healthcare, rights to life, rights to consent, etc. But despite these “basic” rights, some doctors may put themselves in dangerous situations because of their deep commitment to the principles of medical ethics, particularly the duty to care for all patients regardless of circumstances, even in conflict zones. Many doctors who are affiliated with humanitarian groups such as Doctors Without Borders or the Red Cross, which function on the principles revolving humanity, neutrality, and impartiality, serve in crisis zones despite living “good lives” wherever they may reside. Their acts are driven by their ethical commitment to provide care regardless of politics, religion, or race. 

Conclusively, each person, with respect to their profession, ultimately defines their ethics and how they decide to uphold the human rights they believe best reflect their personal interests. Once we begin to unpack the variety of definitions that surround what human rights entail, we discover something that is more complex – Is there a universal right that is upheld in every scenario possible? 

While some may say that the underlying universal right is equality, reality is that we are not born equal and equality cannot be the foundation of what a human right is. The presence of “human rights” in most, if not all, academic disciplines, points to its complexity as a concept, and its importance as a social claim. A complex idea cannot be explained by a simple theory. It follows, then, that a holistic approach must be applied to define, explain, and articulate human rights in ways that account for its complexity and relevance. Such an approach is widely known as the systems thinking framework, a paradigm that is common in some academic disciplines, but rarely used in the humanities and social sciences. 

The Systems Thinking Framework

The systems thinking framework consists of principles that can be applied to specific events to analyze and explain them in ways that are beyond empirical and experimental approaches. It is a way of evaluating complex problems by exploring the relationships, perspectives, and components of an idea as a whole, rather than its specific parts. To be able to understand and apply the framework to real-world problems, it is important to analyze the specific parts that make up the framework, and what role these parts play in solving the standards surrounding human rights under any circumstance. So, what is a system? The system portion of the framework refers to a structure or process that sustains or produces a new idea. To put this definition into a more comprehensive idea, we can visualize the earth as being its own system. The earth consists of many “sub-systems,” such as the air system, plant system, animal system, and human system. To dive deeper, the human system can be broken down into the respiratory system, digestive system, circulatory system, etc. The system portion of the framework is adequately integrated when one begins to understand that systems are connected, and that one cannot occur without the other. For example, we cannot have the human system without having a digestive system, or a circulatory system. But, having just a “system” does not allow for the framework to function, so we move onto the next portion of the framework, where we unpack what is thinking? The thinking portion of the framework refers to having the ability to imagine the systems and how they are connected. This requires a higher level of thought, where one must be able to compute and visualize the interconnectedness of systems and how their roles contribute to the “bigger picture.” This leads us to the first principle of the systems thinking framework which introduces the idea of seeing the “big picture,” understanding the patterns within the system, and ultimately recognizing that solving problems requires addressing the system as a whole rather than its parts. There are 7 core principles that make up the systems thinking framework, which can be discussed in a separate article. 

The systems thinking framework, alongside other analytic frameworks, can be incorporated to help us explain and troubleshoot events. The framework achieves the former, isolated ideas that are typically presented by researchers and scholars, and focuses on identifying the set of principles that apply to a specific event. This bi-directional utility of the systems thinking framework allows for a more holistic examination of the complex subject, human rights, overcoming any shortcomings that may result from a single disciplinary context. 

Applying STF to human rights

The STF is particularly a helpful way of solving the main concern that lies within how human rights are interpreted and applied in all kinds of settings. The systems thinking framework gives way for legal scholars, activists, and policymakers to gain a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of how social, political, cultural, and biological factors have an effect on how human rights are violated. Because issues surrounding poverty, systematic discrimination, and lack of education are usually interconnected with one another, the systems thinking framework can help map out the connections and ultimately provide solutions to these problems in a more holistic manner, benefiting multiple issues rather than just one. The main benefits that arise from using this method include addressing root causes of potential human rights violations, focusing on resources and efforts where they can have the greatest systematic impact, and promoting long-term change by identifying the interdependencies within the system. For example, poverty is a substantial issue that arises as a result of why many human rights violations occur. The systems thinking framework can be applied here as a way to understand poverty as not just an isolated issue, but as a result of interconnected factors within a larger system. The key and core principles that the framework employs for poverty may include identifying interconnectedness, addressing its emergence, and mapping out the systems involved. It is important to understand that poverty does not arise from a single factor, but rather comes from an interplay of multiple factors such as health, housing, education, etc. To visualize this in a real-world scenario, for example, access to poor education can affect employment, which can impact income, which can lead to inadequate healthcare resources, showcasing the cycle of poverty. Understanding and realizing that poverty comes from a mix of factors can help one realize that this issue is one that comes from circumstances that are, more often than not, interconnected with one another. To be able to piece together the experience of poverty, it is also important to explore its emergence, and the root factors of why this is an ongoing issue. If we were to only address individual, visible symptoms of poverty such as hunger, lack of education, or poor health, we may be able to fix the issue, but at the cost of the solution being short-term. The temporary relief, such as providing food aid, is not a viable solution to the issue of poverty. The application of the systems thinking framework here can ensure that interventions are reliable, holistic, and sustainable, empowering individuals and communities to break free from the poverty cycle. Actively mapping out the poverty system is also another component of the STF, where identifying key elements and relationships between economic systems, social systems, and institutional systems can lead to being able to address the issue as a whole, rather than its specific parts. Ultimately, bringing all of these principles together can lead to proper interventions that address root causes of poverty rather than surface level solutions, such as providing housing instead of integrating adequate programs that offer job training. The framework can also allow for the design of policies, such as improving public education, and collaboration, such as bringing together various stakeholders that can address interconnected challenges. While these few components only make up a small percentage of the core principles that the systems thinning framework employs, they are a step towards addressing how human rights violations can be avoided, and how their standards can be better incorporated into any respective field, regardless of profession or ideology.