Perspectives on Human Rights

What are rights in general? What are human rights? How is the concept of “rights” different from proposition of “human rights”? Which human rights should be universal? What justifications are there for Human Rights? What conditions must be met for a rights claim to be universally true? What are the rights that can be derived from the UDHR?

This resource archives and updates a compilation of essays defining rights and providing context to meaning and function of concepts and propositions connected to rights. If you would like to contribute your own essay or recommend a resource, please reach out to us.

Human Rights and Knowledge Building #

The foundational idea of human rights is the notion of rights. When the very existence of a being is dependent on other things, such a being may claim that they have the right to these things. For instance, the human being is dependent on breathable air (oxygen), therefore, no power in the world should delay, limit, or enumerate access to air to any human being. This kind of proposition is so universal that it cuts across time and across cultures, and did not need to be made into a negotiated social contract of any jurisdiction. It is taken for granted that humans must share the air they breathe and no one, no matter how powerful they might be, can interfere with every individual’s right to breathe the air. The same can be said about access to drinkable water: every human being, regardless of ability and capacity, have an absolute right to water to the extent that throughout history, and all cultures, access to water was guaranteed even when such access infringed on claims other persons might claim like right over land that has the only spring or stream on which other people depend on for drinking water.

However, even basic and logical claims of rights to air and water can be challenged under certain circumstances and that created a context for competing claims of rights. For example, what should be done if one person undertakes some activity within a space they claim to be theirs, in their farm or residence, for example, that pollutes the air upon which their neighbor depend? Do the neighbors’ right to clean air supersede the one neighbor’s right to make a living through an activity that pollutes the air?

Similarly, can the right to privacy be used by someone on whose land there exist the only natural water spring that the entire village depends on for drinking water to deny them access to the spring? Can such a person leverage the presence of the spring on property to extract other benefits from the community that he is otherwise unentitled to?

It is these kinds of competing claims to resources, spaces, and ideas that made human rights a ubiquitous topic of interest in almost all areas of life and in all discipline of knowledge production. This broad appeal and interest also create competing definitions for human rights, mostly shaped by social groups’ interests, professional biases, and political tendencies.

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. 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, social sciences, such as psychology and sociology, and formal sciences, such as mathematics and computer science. In terms of human rights, an academic discipline could focus 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. Given that each field has its own respective subcategories, professionals in these areas are bound to focus on certain ideas that may not be applicable to others. For example, historians may investigate and record human rights abuses such as genocides and systemic oppression, 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.

The Politics of Human Rights #

The protection and promotion of human rights are central to the functioning of a just and equitable society. They provide a framework for ensuring that individuals are treated with dignity and respect, and that their fundamental freedoms are protected. Human rights law plays a crucial role in holding governments and other actors accountable for their actions, and in advocating for the rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups.

However, the realization of human rights is an ongoing challenge, with numerous violations and abuses occurring around the world. Political scientists study the various factors that contribute to these violations, such as political instability, conflict, poverty, and discrimination. They also analyze the effectiveness of different mechanisms for protecting and promoting human rights, including international law, domestic legal systems, and civil society activism.

The notion of human rights has deep historical roots, evolving through philosophical, religious, and political traditions. Early contributions from Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau emphasized natural rights, positing that individuals possess certain inalienable rights independent of government or societal approval. These ideas laid the groundwork for transformative political documents such as the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).

In the 20th century, human rights gained global prominence with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations in 1948. The UDHR articulated a comprehensive set of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, serving as a universal standard for human rights norms.

The political expressions of human rights identify four principles underlying the adoption and promotion of human rights.

1. Universality: Human rights apply to all individuals, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or socioeconomic status. This universality underscores the shared humanity that binds individuals across borders.
2. Indivisibility: Human rights are interconnected and equally important. Civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to vote, cannot be fully realized without economic and social rights, like access to education and healthcare.
3. Inalienability: Human rights cannot be transferred, surrendered, or revoked, except under extreme and legally justified circumstances, such as imprisonment following a fair trial.
4. Accountability: Governments and other actors are obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, and mechanisms for accountability are essential to ensure compliance.

From the point of view of politics, human rights are not just norms that must be realized in society, they are also political instruments that can be used or relied upon to achieve specifics outcomes including legitimacy, social segmentation, and power enumeration.

Human rights as a legitimizing instrument: Governments often adopt the human rights discourse to be accepted by the people they rule. Respect for human rights is often viewed as a marker of legitimate authority. Democracies, for instance, are generally built upon frameworks that prioritize individual freedoms, the rule of law, and equality.

Social segmentation: By safeguarding freedoms such as speech, assembly, and association, human rights enable citizens to participate actively in political processes while creating “social groups”, based on their priorities and the urgency of their claims.

Enumerating Power: Governing is about legitimizing the use of force and violence. Deciding when and how violence can used is a way of managing power. Human rights act as checks on state authority, preventing abuses such as censorship, arbitrary detention, and discrimination.

Human Rights and Anthropology #

Anthropology is the study of human beings and their cultures. It is a broad field that encompasses many different subfields, including archaeology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and physical anthropology. Anthropologists study human beings from a holistic perspective, taking into account their biology, culture, language, and history.

From an anthropological perspective, human rights are not just a set of abstract principles. They are also a set of practices that are embedded in specific cultural contexts. Anthropologists have studied how human rights are interpreted and applied in different cultures around the world. They have also studied how human rights can be used to promote social justice and human dignity.

Anthropologists have made a number of important contributions to the field of human rights. They have documented how human rights are violated in different parts of the world. They have also developed new ways of thinking about human rights, such as the concept of cultural rights.

Anthropology interrogates the idea that human rights are universal by examining how different societies understand concepts like justice, dignity, and equality. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 enshrines a set of rights deemed applicable to all humans, these principles are rooted in specific historical and cultural contexts—primarily those of Western liberal thought. From an anthropological standpoint, the universality of human rights can be seen as a culturally specific ideal that does not always align with the values and practices of non-Western societies.

For instance, the emphasis on individual rights in Western frameworks often contrasts with collectivist traditions in many Indigenous and non-Western cultures, where community well-being takes precedence over individual autonomy. Anthropologists argue that understanding human rights requires engaging with these diverse worldviews and acknowledging that the concept itself is a product of human culture, shaped by historical forces such as colonialism, globalization, and transnational activism.

Anthropologists often focus on how global human rights discourses are interpreted and implemented in local contexts. This process, sometimes referred to as the “vernacularization” of human rights, highlights how universal principles are adapted to fit specific cultural settings. For example, the right to gender equality might manifest differently in a patriarchal rural community compared to an urban, cosmopolitan one. These adaptations reveal both the flexibility and the limits of human rights as a global framework.

In many cases, local traditions and customs may appear to conflict with international human rights standards. Practices such as female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, or certain forms of punishment are often framed as human rights violations, yet they are deeply embedded in the cultural logics of the communities that practice them. Anthropologists advocate for approaches that respect cultural diversity while engaging in critical dialogue about the harms and benefits of these practices.

Anthropology also underscores the power dynamics inherent in the human rights discourse. Who defines what constitutes a “human right,” and who enforces these standards? The global human rights regime is often critiqued for its top-down structure, where international organizations and powerful states dictate norms that may not resonate with local populations. This imbalance can perpetuate neocolonial dynamics, as Western nations and institutions impose their values on less powerful countries under the guise of promoting human rights.

Moreover, anthropologists highlight the agency of marginalized groups in shaping human rights norms. Grassroots movements, Indigenous communities, and social justice advocates often challenge and redefine the meaning of human rights from the ground up. These efforts underscore that human rights are not merely bestowed by authorities but are actively claimed and negotiated by individuals and communities.

An anthropological perspective calls for a pluralistic understanding of human rights—one that recognizes the interplay between universal ideals and cultural specificities. Rather than assuming that human rights are a one-size-fits-all solution, this approach advocates for dialogue and mutual learning across cultural boundaries. By incorporating diverse voices and experiences, the human rights discourse can become more inclusive and reflective of the rich tapestry of human existence.

In conclusion, anthropology enriches our understanding of human rights by situating them within the broader contexts of culture, history, and power. It challenges us to rethink the universality of these rights and to engage with the complexities of applying them in a diverse world. Ultimately, an anthropological lens reminds us that human rights are not just abstract principles but lived realities shaped by the dynamic and varied experiences of humanity.

Human rights and philosophy #

Philosophers, for instance, given their interest in the ideas of dignity, integrity, emotion, reason, ethics, and morality, will rely on the tools of philosophical thought to articulate a specific vision of what human rights would mean for a philosopher.

Philosophically, the idea of human rights is rooted in natural law theory, which posits that certain rights are intrinsic to human nature and discernible through reason. Pioneered by thinkers such as Aristotle and further developed by Thomas Aquinas, natural law emphasizes a universal moral order underpinning human existence. This perspective suggests that human rights are pre-political and inalienable, grounded in the very essence of what it means to be human.

The Enlightenment era brought a secular dimension to the philosophical discourse on human rights. Philosophers like John Locke argued for the existence of natural rights—life, liberty, and property—as inherent and inalienable. Locke’s social contract theory provided a framework for understanding how individuals consent to governance to protect these rights, thereby linking the concept of rights to the legitimacy of political authority.

Immanuel Kant further enriched the philosophical understanding of human rights by emphasizing the inherent dignity of individuals. For Kant, human beings are ends in themselves, possessing intrinsic worth that demands respect. His deontological ethics underscore the universality and inviolability of human rights, framing them as moral imperatives derived from rational autonomy. Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy emphasizes the importance of respecting human dignity and autonomy. Human rights, from this perspective, are grounded in the inherent value of each individual as a rational and moral being.

A critical philosophical debate surrounding human rights pertains to their universality versus cultural relativity. Universalists argue that human rights are grounded in shared human characteristics and moral principles applicable to all societies. This perspective aligns with the idea that certain rights, such as freedom from torture or the right to education, transcend cultural and historical contexts.

In contrast, relativists contend that human rights are culturally contingent, shaped by specific social, historical, and cultural norms. They caution against imposing a universal standard that may disregard local traditions and values. This tension raises important questions about the balance between respecting cultural diversity and upholding fundamental human rights.

Utilitarianism is another theory that was championed by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The theory holds that human rights are justified based on their ability to maximize overall happiness and well-being. Rights are seen as instrumental in promoting social utility and preventing harm.

Some contemporary philosophers challenge the notion of human rights as natural or pre-existing. Instead, they view human rights as social constructs, products of historical processes and collective agreements. Thinkers like Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty argue that human rights emerge from socio-political struggles and are contingent upon the values and power dynamics of particular societies. This perspective highlights the pragmatic and evolving nature of human rights, emphasizing their role as tools for social justice rather than immutable truths. The social contract perspective, as influenced by philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Rawls, suggests that human rights arise from a hypothetical agreement among individuals in a state of nature. These rights are seen as necessary for creating a just and equitable society.

More recently scholarship on human rights lean on discovery as the foundation for the development of human rights norms, contending that the production of knowledge and the increased awareness among human beings will build from the bottom up the decent society from which the decent governing regimes will spring to create social norms and universal legal systems that enshrine human rights.

At its core, the philosophical discourse on human rights revolves around the ethical imperative to recognize and protect human dignity. Whether viewed as natural entitlements, universal moral claims, or socially negotiated agreements, human rights reflect a commitment to the inherent worth of every individual human being. They challenge societies to confront injustice, advocate for equality, and create systems that uphold the freedoms and well-being of all people.

From a philosophical perspective, human rights encapsulate a dynamic and multifaceted concept that bridges morality, politics, and culture. While debates about their origins, universality, and implementation persist, the enduring idea of human rights serves as a testament to humanity’s aspiration for a just and equitable world. Philosophy’s engagement with this concept invites us to continually reflect on the principles and practices that create progress in the area of human rights in every individual, not through mass adoption that could be driven by political convenience.

The philosophy of human rights, given its disciplinary underpinnings, is not without its challenges. The generalizations philosophers produced to formulate human rights faces limits imposed by methodological imperatives and disciplinary boundaries. For instance, the cultural relativism position suggests that human rights are not universal but rather culturally specific. Critics argue that this perspective can be used to justify human rights abuses. Similarly, the tension between individual and collective rights has proven difficult to manage. Balancing individual rights with the collective good of society is a complex challenge. For example, the right to free speech may sometimes conflict with the need to protect public order and national security. And when human rights are codified into legal systems, the enforcement issue presents a different set of challenges. Ensuring that human rights are respected and protected in practice remains a significant challenge. International human rights law and institutions play a crucial role, but their effectiveness has been limited.

Human Rights and the Law #

Human rights, a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence, embody the inalienable rights and freedoms to which every individual is entitled. From a legal perspective, these rights are codified in international treaties, national constitutions, and judicial precedents, ensuring their recognition and enforcement across different jurisdictions.

Excluding pre-modern human rights expressions in ancient civilizations, we can generalize that the legal foundation of the modern notion of human rights can be traced back to key historical documents and developments. The Magna Carta of 1215, the United States Bill of Rights of 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 all contributed to the articulation of individual liberties. However, it was the atrocities of World War II that spurred the international community to establish a universal framework. The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 marked a pivotal moment, providing a comprehensive blueprint for global human rights standards.

Human rights are codified in binding instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These treaties, together with the UDHR, form the International Bill of Human Rights. Additionally, regional agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights further strengthen the legal landscape.

From a legal standpoint, human rights possess several defining characteristics. First, human rights are legislated with the assumption that human rights are universal. Human rights are inherent to all individuals regardless of nationality, race, gender, or religion. This universality is enshrined in Article 1 of the UDHR, which states that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Second, these rights are not subject to negotiations and are not outcomes of political considerations. In other words, rights cannot be taken away or forfeited, except in specific circumstances prescribed by law, such as the deprivation of liberty following a fair trial.

Third, in a political environment, human rights emerge as being indivisible yet, interdependent on other claims. For instance, civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are interconnected and equally essential for the realization of human dignity. For instance, the right to education (a social right) underpins the effective exercise of the right to vote (a political right).

Lastly, human rights are essentially claims to be granted by the power-holders, making their violation a crime by the State, the government, or any entity that functions as such, which makes accountability a central feature of legal principles that cover human rights. States are legally obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. This includes enacting laws, ensuring access to remedies, and preventing violations.

Human Rights and Applied Ethics #

No matter what vocation one is involved in, one must face the question of how are human rights impacted by what they do or how can they apply what they do to further and foster human rights norms.

From a biological standpoint, human rights could be viewed through the lens of evolutionary biology and the inherent value of human life. A biology scholar might emphasize the unique characteristics that distinguish humans from other species, such as our capacity for complex thought, language, and culture. These traits, they might argue, underscore the inherent worth of human beings and the need to protect their fundamental rights. Additionally, a biology scholar might focus on the biological and genetic similarities that unite all humans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other social categories. This shared humanity, they might contend, forms the basis for universal human rights.

A medical doctor, on the other hand, would likely approach human rights with a focus on the physical and mental well-being of individuals. They might emphasize the right to health, which includes access to quality healthcare, safe drinking water, nutritious food, and a clean environment. A medical doctor might also highlight the importance of bodily autonomy and the right to make informed decisions about one’s own health, including reproductive rights and the right to refuse medical treatment. Furthermore, they might draw attention to the impact of social determinants of health, such as poverty, discrimination, and violence, on individual well-being and human rights.

While the perspectives of biology scholars and medical doctors may differ in their emphasis, they ultimately converge on the common ground of human dignity and the need to protect and promote the well-being of all individuals. Both disciplines can contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on human rights. Biology can provide a scientific foundation for understanding the inherent value of human life and the interconnectedness of all humanity. Medicine can offer practical insights into the physical and mental health implications of human rights violations and the importance of access to quality healthcare.

A physicist might view human rights through the lens of fundamental laws and universal constants. They could argue that certain rights, like the right to life, are inherent to human existence, much like the laws of thermodynamics govern the universe. They might see human rights as a set of principles that ensure the optimal functioning of human society, much like the laws of physics dictate the behavior of matter and energy.

A computer scientist might view human rights through the lens of algorithms and systems. They could see human rights as a set of protocols that ensure the fair and equitable operation of society, much like the protocols that govern the exchange of information on the internet. They might also be interested in the ways that technology can be used to protect and promote human rights, such as through the use of encryption and surveillance technologies.

For a computer scientist who might be interested in developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) systems, human rights considerations are crucial, but their focus may differ slightly:

Prioritizing Safety and Fairness: A primary concern is ensuring that AI systems are developed and deployed in a way that does not harm or discriminate against humans. This involves mitigating biases, preventing unintended consequences, and ensuring transparency and accountability.

Focusing on Practical Implementation: AI developers grapple with the technical challenges of building systems that respect human rights. This includes developing algorithms that are fair, transparent, and free from bias, as well as ensuring that AI systems are used responsibly and ethically.

Considering the Evolving Nature of Technology: As AI technology advances, developers must constantly re-evaluate and adapt their understanding of human rights in the context of new capabilities and applications.

Human Rights and Group Identity #

Ideas on human rights are processed differently not only as an outcome of disciplinary training, which creates divergent and diverse perspectives on rights, but also understood and applied differently due to personal and communal commitments of persons and social groups. A Muslim scholar and a non-believing scholar, for instance, must grapple with might be religious or anti-religious biases that could and often does influence their approach to human rights both as ideas and lived experiences.

For a Muslim scholar, human rights might be rooted in the divine law of Islam, as revealed in the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad. These rights are seen as inalienable and bestowed upon all humans by God, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or social status. Key human rights emphasized in this perspective include:

The right to life and bodily integrity: This includes the prohibition of murder, torture, and other forms of physical harm.

The right to freedom of belief and worship: Individuals are free to practice their religion according to their conscience, as long as it does not harm others.

The right to justice and equality: All individuals are equal before the law and should be treated fairly, regardless of their background.

The right to education and knowledge: Seeking knowledge is considered a religious duty, and access to education is seen as essential for human development.

A non-religious, an atheist, scholar might hold a different perspective on rights, compared to a Muslim scholar.

From an atheist scholar’s perspective, human rights might be based on secular principles of reason, morality, and human dignity. These rights are seen as inherent to all humans simply by virtue of their existence, rather than being derived from divine authority. Key human rights emphasized in this perspective include:

The right to life, liberty, and security of person: This includes the protection of individuals from arbitrary arrest, detention, and violence.

The right to freedom of expression and association: Individuals should be free to express their opinions and beliefs, and to associate with others for peaceful purposes.

The right to equality and non-discrimination: All individuals should be treated equally before the law and free from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or other grounds.

The right to social and economic well-being: This includes the right to food, shelter, healthcare, and education, as essential for human flourishing.

Despite their differing foundations, both perspectives share a common commitment to the protection of human dignity and well-being. Both emphasize the importance of rights such as the right to life, freedom of belief, and equality before the law.

However, there are also significant points of divergence. The Muslim scholar’s perspective often places greater emphasis on the role of religious law and moral obligations in shaping human rights discourse. The atheist scholar, on the other hand, tends to prioritize secular principles and the separation of religion and state. The contrasting perspectives of a religious and non-religious persons, illustrated here by comparing imagined Muslim and atheist scholars, their perspectives on human rights highlight the complex and multifaceted nature of the discourse on human rights.

Human Rights and Remedial Justice #

Human rights abuses are persistent occurrences in all societies regardless of cultural and governance institutions and throughout history. When human rights offenses take place, some individuals and social groups are often harmed, with cross-generational lasting damages. For remedial justice purposes and for preventive or deterrence aims, making the victims whole again and holding the perpetrators accountable can be achieved through the judicial system. However, since, in most cases, human rights abuses often take place because of State action or inaction, governments generally resist any judicial review that may implicate them. Only independent courts, domestically and internationally, can result in meaningful accountability and remedies.

Despite integration of human rights concerns and norms in international agreements and national laws, violations of human rights remain widespread. Issues such as racial discrimination, forced displacement, and economic exploitation highlight persistent gaps between principles and practice. Remedial justice is essential in addressing human rights violations. It refers to mechanisms and processes designed to provide redress to victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and limit future abuses. Remedial justice encompasses various forms, including establishing legal precedent, reparations, institutional reforms, and community-based initiatives.

While remedial justice is indispensable, it faces numerous challenges. First, effective remedies often require significant financial, human, and technical resources that may be lacking, particularly in low-income or conflict-affected settings. Second, governments or powerful entities (like corporations, armed groups, and militias) implicated in violations may resist accountability or obstruct justice processes. Furthermore, in some contexts, traditional norms and practices may conflict with international human rights standards, complicating justice efforts. And the multifaceted nature of human rights violations, particularly in cases of mass atrocities, can make it challenging to identify and address all aspects of harm comprehensively.

Remedial justice as a concept and a process has been gaining more attention and acceptability. While it focuses on providing effective remedies to victims of human rights violations, and as a developing concept, it is building its vocabulary, instruments, and processes. Therefore, remedies, are promoted by activists and articulated by human rights scholars, may take various forms and may applied through a variety of modes.

One of the forms of remedial justice is restitution: This involves restoring victims to the situation they were in before the violation occurred, as far as possible. This may include financial compensation, return of property, or rehabilitation services.

Given the extreme harm and damage human rights offenses inflict on individuals and communities, some human rights scholars came to see rehabilitation as a necessary part of any remedial system. Rehabilitation aims to help victims recover from the physical and mental harm caused by the violation. This may involve medical treatment, counseling, and other forms of support.

Remedial justice must include elements that would prevent repetition of offenses. Such means of prevention may involve addressing the root causes of the problem and ensuring that the perpetrators are held accountable. This may involve legal reforms, institutional changes, and education programs.

Remedial justice is not only about providing individual redress to victims but also about promoting broader social and political systemic change. By addressing the systemic issues that contribute to human rights violations, remedial justice can help to create a more just and equitable society.

Meaningful remedial justice requires judicial review, and that makes the role of courts and tribunals most critical. In the past, adjudicating human rights crimes took place before specially established tribunals. These are courts established for the sole purpose of trying criminals involved in specific instance of human rights violation. One could think of them as “disposable” courts, that are used and then dissolved once the case before them is decided. Examples of these tribunals include the tribunals that adjudicated the perpetrators of the crime of the Holocaust, the Rwanda Genocide, and the crime of ethnic cleansing of Muslim in the former Yugoslavia. The authority of these tribunals were limited and their temporary work gave the impression that human rights crimes are rare when in reality human rights offenses are widespread and persistent. So, in the 1990’s, human rights advocates, scholars, and NGO leaders pressed the global community to create the first permanent criminal court that would adjudicate crimes of human rights. The establishment of such a court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), under the Rome Statute, not only created an independent judicial institution that would hold persons, note States liable for human rights crimes, but importantly, it provided definitive enumeration of human rights offenses–the four categories of crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the Court: The crime of genocide, the war crimes, the crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Through its clearly focus on specific offenses that the Court has determined as its primary area of jurisdiction, the ICC has transformed the 30 claims of human rights, general principles and norms, stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a non-binding document, into authoritatively defined crimes. The UDHR’s 30 claims of rights, though previously codified in subsequent nine treaties and conventions, are now enumerated by the Rome Statute, the convention that created the ICC, as well-defined crimes of more than 66 crimes categorized under the four broad classes of crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has redefined the concept of human rights by establishing a permanent, international legal framework to prosecute individuals for the most serious crimes of international concern. This landmark court has emerged as a powerful instrument for both remedial justice and deterrence, significantly impacting the global understanding of human rights.

The ICC’s primary mandate is to deliver justice to victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Through its investigations and prosecutions, the Court provides a crucial avenue for accountability when national justice systems fail. Victims and their families can seek redress, while the pursuit of justice serves as a powerful symbolic recognition of the gravity of the crimes committed.

The ICC’s existence acts as a significant deterrent against the commission of international crimes. The prospect of facing international prosecution can discourage potential perpetrators, particularly high-ranking officials, from engaging in such heinous acts. The Court’s investigations and prosecutions send a clear message that these crimes will not go unpunished, regardless of the perpetrator’s position or power.

The ICC’s Rome Statute has contributed to the codification and clarification of international criminal law, setting a global standard for accountability. The ICC asserts that certain crimes are so heinous that they transcend national borders, emphasizing the international community’s responsibility to ensure justice. The ICC provides a platform for victims to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged, contributing to a process of healing and reconciliation.

In short, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 marked a transformative moment in the global discourse on human rights and international justice. By creating a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, the ICC has redefined the global commitment to human rights and accountability. It functions not only as an instrument for delivering justice to victims but also as a potent deterrent against future atrocities.

The ICC’s primary role is to provide justice to victims of atrocities. Through its judicial processes, it seeks to address the harm inflicted upon individuals and communities, offering a sense of closure and reparation. By holding perpetrators accountable, the ICC restores faith in the rule of law and human dignity, signaling that justice can prevail even in the direst circumstances.

One of the ICC’s critical contributions to remedial justice is its emphasis on victim participation. The court allows victims to present their views and concerns, ensuring that their voices are heard and their suffering acknowledged. Additionally, the Trust Fund for Victims, established under the ICC’s framework, facilitates reparations and support for victims, contributing to their healing and reintegration into society.

Beyond delivering justice, the ICC serves as a powerful deterrent to potential perpetrators. By demonstrating that international crimes will not go unpunished, the ICC sends a clear message to state and non-state actors alike. Its very existence reshapes the calculus of impunity, compelling leaders and commanders to reconsider actions that may lead to prosecution.

Deterrence is bolstered by the court’s global reach and its principle of complementarity, which encourages national jurisdictions to prosecute crimes themselves. This creates a dual-layered deterrent effect: nations are motivated to strengthen their judicial systems to avoid ICC intervention, and individuals are discouraged from engaging in acts that could lead to international prosecution.

While the ICC has made significant strides, it faces challenges. For instance, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to states that have ratified the Rome Statute or those referred by the UN Security Council. Political interference, especially by powerful states (superpowers) continue to hinder the work of the ICC, especially states that threaten ICC judges and lawyers in the Office of the Prosecutor. The ICC’s investigations and prosecutions can be subject to political pressure from powerful states or accused individuals. This political interference can also take the form of denial of financial support to the Court. The Court’s limited resources can hinder its ability to effectively investigate and prosecute cases.

The limited number of cases the ICC has adjudicated since it came online, and the fact that most of the cases brought before the Court involved countries of the Global South, all point to the challenges the Court must overcome. Accusations of bias, limited jurisdiction, and reliance on state cooperation have sometimes undermined its credibility. Some powerful nations, including the United States, China, and Russia, have not ratified the Rome Statute, limiting the court’s ability to act universally. Additionally, the lengthy and resource-intensive nature of ICC proceedings has drawn criticism.

However, these challenges do not negate the Court’s role as a vital institution for justice and deterrence. Instead, they highlight the need for continued international support and reform to enhance its efficacy.

The establishment of the ICC has redefined the global approach to human rights, transforming abstract principles into enforceable standards. As an instrument of remedial justice, it provides a platform for victims to seek redress and fosters accountability. Simultaneously, its existence serves as a deterrent, warning potential perpetrators that impunity is no longer guaranteed. While the ICC is not without its flaws, its contribution to the advancement of human rights and international justice remains indisputable. As the world continues to grapple with conflicts and atrocities, the ICC stands as a beacon of hope and a testament to the international community’s resolve to uphold justice and human dignity.

Applying the Systems Thinking Framework to Human Rights #

Human rights abuse is a persistent global challenge, often rooted in complex and interconnected systems. While many of the human rights abuses are intentional acts of aggression driven by greed, excess, and supremacy, some human rights abuses are secondary byproducts of systems designed to achieve legitimate and desired outcomes. Scholars and professionals from all areas of life engaged in the discourse on rights to address abuses of human rights that are caused by or connected to so many other events, defining human rights, creating institutions that would promote human rights, and establishing systems that would mitigate and remediate human rights abuses. However, this divergence in approaches and interests created uncertainty about the value and legitimacy of human rights norms. While there is a value in the ideas on human rights proposed by a philosopher or a sociologist, the abstractness associated with such academic discussion may reduce the lived experiences of people whose human rights are violated. Similarly, the establishment of a temporary tribunal to adjudicate crimes that may have been committed during a specific conflict gives the wrong impression that human rights crimes are rare and can be handled by special purpose temporary courts. The widespread and persist violation of human rights and the wide interest in the human rights discourse suggest that the traditional approaches, while valuable, may fall short in addressing these multifaceted issues. The Systems Thinking approach offers a powerful framework for understanding and addressing human rights violations by applying the well-established and settled principles of systems thinking, leading to holistic solutions.

In addition to examining each event in isolation for the purpose of understanding its specific elements at work, the Systems Thinking Framework requires that we view human rights as part of larger integrated systems. Applying systems thinking to human rights involves understanding the complex pathways that lead to abuses and perpetuate inequalities. In the context of human rights, these systems can encompass political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors. For example, poverty, lack of access to education, and discrimination can all contribute to human trafficking. Similarly, the issue of child labor in the global supply chain. Addressing this problem requires examining not only the direct exploitation of children but also the broader system that enables it, including poverty, lack of education, corporate practices, and consumer demand. Systems thinking helps stakeholders identify the interconnected drivers of the issue, enabling targeted interventions at multiple levels. By mapping these interconnected elements, we gain a deeper understanding of the root causes of human rights violations and identify leverage points for intervention.

Traditional approaches to human rights often focus on linear solutions, such as prosecuting individual perpetrators. While these approaches are important, they may not address the underlying systemic issues that contribute to human rights abuses. Systems Thinking, as a framework with established principles, encourages us to consider interventions that address the entire system, rather than focusing solely on individual components or isolated events.

The Systems Thinking Framework is rooted in collaboration. It is not an alternative approach to empirical analysis methods. The collaboration is not limited to scholars in different disciplines; it examines the roles of and requires the involvement of various stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, international organizations, and all social groups. As a holistic framework, effective application of Systems Thinking require a deep understanding of the Principles of Systems Thinking in general and the ability to apply the most appropriate principles to the specific event.

First Draft, May 17, 2024; Ema, Jessica, anonymous, and Prof. Souaiaia contributed to the First Draft
Revision 1, December 29, 2024, Knowledge Base Editors.