What are the universal human rights Benedetta Berti

The idea of human rights
is that each one of us,

no matter who we are
or where we are born,

is entitled to the same
basic rights and freedoms.

Human rights are not privileges,

and they cannot be granted or revoked.

They are inalienable and universal.

That may sound straighforward enough,

but it gets incredibly complicated

as soon as anyone tries
to put the idea into practice.

What exactly are the basic human rights?

Who gets to pick them?

Who enforces them, and how?

The history behind
the concept of human rights is a long one.

Throughout the centuries and across
societies, religions, and cultures

we have struggled with defining notions
of rightfulness, justice, and rights.

But one of the most modern affirmations
of universal human rights

emerged from the ruins of World War II
with the creation of the United Nations.

The treaty that established the UN
gives as one of its purposes

to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights.

And with the same spirit,

in 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This document, written by an international
committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt,

lays the basis for modern
international human rights law.

The declaration is based on the principle

that all human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights.

It lists 30 articles recognizing,
among other things,

the principle of nondiscrimination
and the right to life and liberty.

It refers to negative freedoms,
like the freedom from torture or slavery,

as well as positive freedoms,

such as the freedom
of movement and residence.

It encompasses basic civil
and political rights,

such as freedom of expression, religion,
or peaceful assembly,

as well as social, economic,
and cultural rights,

such as the right to education

and the right to freely
choose one’s occupation

and be paid and treated fairly.

The declaration takes no sides
as to which rights are more important,

insisting on their universality,

indivisibility,

and interdependence.

And in the past decades,
international human rights law has grown,

deepening and expanding our understanding
of what human rights are,

and how to better protect them.

So if these principles
are so well-developed,

then why are human rights abused
and ignored time and time again

all over the world?

The problem in general
is that it is not at all easy

to universally enforce these rights
or to punish transgressors.

The UDHR itself, despite being
highly authoritative and respected,

is a declaration, not a hard law.

So when individual countries violate it,

the mechanisms to address
those violations are weak.

For example, the main bodies within the UN
in charge of protecting human rights

mostly monitor and investigate violations,

but they cannot force states to, say,
change a policy or compensate a victim.

That’s why some critics say it’s naive
to consider human rights a given

in a world where state interests
wield so much power.

Critics also question the universality
of human rights

and emphasize that their development

has been heavily guided by a small number
of mostly Western nations

to the detriment of inclusiveness.

The result?

A general bias in favor
of civil policital liberties

over sociopolitical rights

and of individual
over collective or groups rights.

Others defend universal human rights laws

and point at the positive role they have
on setting international standards

and helping activists in their campaigns.

They also point out

that not all international
human rights instruments are powerless.

For example, the European Convention
on Human Rights establishes a court

where the 47 member countries
and their citizens can bring cases.

The court issues binding decisions
that each member state must comply with.

Human rights law is constantly evolving

as are our views and definitions of what
the basic human rights should be.

For example, how basic or important
is the right to democracy

or to development?

And as our lives are increasingly digital,

should there be a right
to access the Internet?

A right to digital privacy?

What do you think?

人权的理念
是,我们每个人,

无论我们是谁
或出生在哪里,

都有权享有同样的
基本权利和自由。

人权不是特权

,不能被授予或撤销。

它们是不可分割的和普遍的。

这听起来可能很简单,

一旦有人
试图将这个想法付诸实践,它就会变得异常复杂。

基本人权究竟是什么?

谁来挑选他们?

谁执行它们,以及如何执行?

人权概念背后的历史由来已久。

几个世纪以来,跨越
社会、宗教和文化,

我们一直在努力定义
正当性、正义和权利的概念。

但是,随着联合国的成立,对普遍人权的最现代的肯定之一

出现在二战的废墟中

建立联合国的条约

将重申对
基本人权的信念作为其目的之一。

本着同样的精神

,1948年联合国大会通过
了《世界人权宣言》。

这份
由埃莉诺·罗斯福担任主席的国际委员会撰写的文件

为现代
国际人权法奠定了基础。

该宣言基于

人人生而
自由、在尊严和权利上一律平等的原则。

它列出了 30 条承认

不歧视原则
以及生命和自由权等内容的条款。

它指的是消极的自由,
如免于酷刑或奴役的

自由,以及积极的自由,


迁徙和居住的自由。

它包括基本的公民
和政治权利,

例如言论、宗教
或和平集会自由,

以及社会、经济
和文化权利,

例如

受教育权和自由
选择职业

以及获得报酬和待遇的权利 相当。

宣言不
支持哪些权利更重要,

坚持其普遍性、

不可分割性

和相互依存性。

在过去的几十年里,
国际人权法不断发展,

加深和扩大了我们
对什么是人权

以及如何更好地保护人权的理解。

那么,如果这些
原则如此完善,

那么为什么人权在全世界
一次又一次地遭到践踏和忽视

呢?

普遍的问题
是,

普遍执行这些权利
或惩罚违法者根本不容易。

《世界人权宣言》本身尽管具有
高度权威性和尊重,但它

是一种宣言,而不是硬性法律。

因此,当个别国家违反它时,

解决
这些违规行为的机制很薄弱。

例如,联合国内负责保护人权的主要机构

主要监测和调查侵权行为

,但它们不能强迫国家
改变政策或赔偿受害者。

这就是为什么一些批评者说,

在一个国家利益拥有如此大的权力的世界里,认为人权是既定的,是幼稚的

批评者还质疑
人权的普遍性,

并强调人权的发展

受到
少数主要是西方国家的严重指导,

从而损害了包容性。

结果?

支持公民政治自由

高于社会政治权利

和个人
高于集体或群体权利的普遍偏见。

其他人捍卫普遍的人权法,

并指出他们
在制定国际标准

和帮助活动家开展竞选活动方面发挥的积极作用。

他们还指出

,并非所有国际
人权文书都无能为力。

例如,《欧洲
人权公约》设立了一个法院

,47 个成员国
及其公民可以在此提起诉讼。

法院发布具有约束力的决定
,每个成员国都必须遵守。

人权法在不断发展

,我们
对基本人权应该是什么的看法和定义也在不断发展。

例如,
民主权

或发展权有多基本或重要?

随着我们的生活越来越数字化,

是否应该
有权访问互联网?

数字隐私权?

你怎么认为?