Civil Rights versus Human Rights

Human rights are universal, inalienable entitlements that every individual possesses simply by virtue of being human. These rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom from torture, and the right to life, are enshrined in international agreements. In contrast, civil rights are legal protections granted by specific governments to their citizens, ensuring equality and freedom from discrimination within a particular legal system. Civil rights in the United States, for example, stem from laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, gender, or religion.

In the United States, civil rights have historically been used to present the government as a champion of freedom and justice, often deflecting scrutiny over its human rights record. While civil rights laws grant protections within the country, they do not address broader human rights violations, such as the treatment of migrants, the use of torture, or the failure to uphold international legal commitments.

The Trump administration exemplified this approach by withdrawing from international human rights bodies, defunding global justice initiatives, and undermining the enforcement of international human rights treaties. By prioritizing national sovereignty over global accountability, the U.S. has often distanced itself from its human rights obligations while continuing to promote a strong civil rights narrative domestically.

The Trump administration's policies on migration, freedom of speech, and international treaties have highlighted the limitations of relying on civil rights to protect fundamental freedoms. For instance, the administration’s travel bans, asylum restrictions, and refugee admission cuts violated international human rights agreements, such as the Refugee Convention. Moreover, aggressive actions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and UN human rights bodies weakened mechanisms that hold governments accountable for violations.

A clear example of this erosion is the Trump administration’s threat to cut federal research funds to Columbia University. The letter demanded changes to university policies, including revising definitions of antisemitism and curbing academic freedom. This intervention, criticized as a political attack on pro-Palestinian speech, represents a direct assault on freedom of expression— a core human right. As many NGOs have stated, such measures undermine academic autonomy and the role of universities in sustaining democracy.

The word "civil" in civil rights is definitive. The dictionary definition of "civil" is that it is something relating to ordinary citizens and their concern. Therefore, civil rights are rights that attach to people by virtue of their being citizens.

Impliedly, one cannot have a civil right if the state decides not to grant that right. But this is not the concept of human rights. Human rights are rights that accrue to human beings by virtue of their being human—the word "human" is definitive. A stateless person or a hermit living away from society has human rights just by virtue of being human. Thus, it is unnecessary for a state to create human rights although some states like Nigeria have written specific "human rights" into their constitutions.

Granted that from a conceptual standpoint, no state can grant a "human" right because humans are already born with those rights, on a practical level, once a state recognizes "human rights," it cannot or at least should not derogate from or restrict some of the human rights that it does not like. All rights inviolable and natural that a person has by being human, are to be guaranteed. This is the implication that states like the U.S. are trying to avoid by preferring the term "civil rights." Because civil rights take authority and legitimacy in citizenry and the state's apparatus (much like legal positivism), states can deny basic human rights while granting civil rights.

One example is the U.S. denying and excepting itself from the sexual and reproductive rights and the access of family planning granted by the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The U.S. has never ratified the Convention because conservative politicians have blocked the process citing family and Christian values. Therefore, reproductive rights that are justifiable under a framework of human rights are easily derogable under a framework of civil rights. Under a civil rights framework, U.S. women still have the 5th and 14th Amendments under which they can bring a discrimination claim, but broadly, women's rights are restricted to the "right" kind of rights sanctioned by the U.S. political and legal system.

Human rights are derived primarily from natural law, and are those things which we believe should flow to an individual simply because they exist. These are rights that will "trump" in most situations, and there are few circumstances in which they may be justifiably overridden. Civil rights on the other hand are typically determined by the state and they are provided to the citizens of that state. I think one of the biggest things to keep in mind is the idea that the benefits we receive in terms of human rights are based on entitlement. These are things that humans possess through existence, and that give us the ability to act and have the power to do things. This goes to the idea of being free from torture and genocide. Being entitled to these rights allows humans to have the opportunity to function in society and have the ability to act in their lives. Civil rights do not operate with the same scope that human rights do. I'm not sure if the differentiation between the two simply comes from who we want rights to be applicable to. It is clear that human rights are applicable worldwide; these rights will rarely be trumped in any cultural context. It seems like creating civil rights and leaving many decisions about treatment of individuals and groups and people to the state is an effort to allow nations to determine the benefits they will distribute to their citizens. It may be more common for a civil rights claim to be asserted over a human rights claim, for example in the US, because the system has more specific procedures in place for how to handle it, and individuals have a clear idea of how to pursue a claim.

Human rights are inherently social and often present economic implications as well (ex: the right to education is both social and economic). However, human rights are political too. The right to education and the right to health care are often enshrined as positive rights, which present political implications as well. The core of the distinction is simple. Civil rights are specific legal protections granted by a government. Civil rights have generally firm mechanisms in place to protect and safeguard the protections they enshrine on all individuals. In contrast, human rights are those that are considered universal and inherent to us being humans. Human rights are inherent to all regardless of where they were born, what religion they practice, and other unchangeable factors. However, human rights, unlike civil rights, lack strong enforcement mechanisms. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is only as binding to a country as a country wishes to be binded to it. So, while Israel may be found to have violated human rights under the UDHR, they might not be willing to pay any damages as that is not compulsory upon a state. So, to imply that human rights are not political rights is wrong. That is where I disagree with Donnelly in his analysis. Human rights are political rights, especially when they are not binding to even the world’s most technological advanced nations. The reasons behind these distinctions is that human rights is typically broader and more abstract in scope than civil rights. Civil rights may change from country to country based on the historical experiences. For example, in America, we have advanced from once considering enslaved individuals (Black Americans) as three-fifths of a person (this was in 1787 and was an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention between Northern and Southern delegates. Southerners wanted to count enslaved people for representation, but not taxation. Northerners wanted to tax enslaved people but not count for representation) to a country where birthright citizenship is granted is to formerly enslaved people and African Americans, as well as equal legal and civil rights. See https://perspectivesofchange.hms.harvard.edu/node/87#:~:text=The%20Three%2DFifths%20Compromise%20was,in%20the%20House%20of%20Representatives

In a legal sense, I am hesitant to say that human rights are “rights” in fact. In theory, human rights should be rights, but in practice they are merely common sense. And, we do not always see countries following the common sense nature of what it means to be human and to have respect for other humans. These human rights are often grounded in historical development (i.e. World War II and the 1948 UDHR). But, human rights seems to be retroactive, just like civil rights. It will take an atrocity like genocide to occur in order for countries to realize that more awareness surrounding human rights is necessary. I predict that the most timely example today are the implications of climate change on human rights (See generally https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/swedens-top-court-rejects-greta-thunberg-lawsuit-climate-action-rcna192761

'Human rights' are those rights one has because they are human, while civil rights are rights that a person has for being a citizen of a sovereign nation. The reason there is a difference can be found in the relationship between a citizen and the State.

And in the case of the 'life, liberty, and property' these are not considered the duties of the State to provide life, liberty, and property, but the obligation of the State to protect a citizen's life, liberty, and property. In my understanding, this is the foundation of the monopoly of violence given to the State. The State can use violence against one citizen to protect the rights of another citizen. This means that the rights are not absolute, nor universally applied. In order to bring a Human Rights a claim of Human Rights abuses against the State, there would need to be a legal entity that has legal authority over the State. At one time, this could have been the UN, but the UN was constituted in such a way that it has little power over powerful States. There have been times when several nations came together to conduct criminal trials against individuals (Nuremburg, The ICJ) but there is no real way to punish a nation except through economic sanctions or military action.

Rights should be based on the conditions necessary for humans to obtain their necessary functions as humans. The way to achieve those necessary conditions would be expressed differently under different circumstances, but the underlying principle would be universal. The first universal principles would be, for lack of a better term, 'biological'. People universally need to eat, drink, and have shelter. Their bodily integrity must be maintained, as well as the conditions for psychological integrity. Bodily and psychological integrity in some ways are the same, as torture is harm to both the body and psyche. Since people are social beings, there should be rights that cover the ability to be sociable. And lastly, there should be ways to redress violations through political and legal actions.

Since this is based on the conditions and necessities, the rights are relative to the conditions and needs of the community (and not the culture). For instance, if an internet connection is necessary to maintain social bonds, or employment in a community, then it would be the obligation of the State to provide the infrastructure. I have in mind something like the Rural Electrification Act which provided loans to communities to bring needed electricity to rural communities that did not have the necessary tax base to create the electrical grid. These rights could be both based on individual need and community need. The expression of the rights would provide a minimum (but preferably not the minimum) to maintain the biological and psychological needs of individuals and communities.