Human Rights

Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] for certain standards of human behaviour and are
regularly protected in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as
inalienable,[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or
he is a human being"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings",[5] regardless of their age,
ethnic origin, location, language, religion, ethnicity, or any other status.[3] They are applicable
everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the
sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of
law[6] and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others,[1][3] and it is
generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based
on specific circumstances.[3]

The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law and global and
regional institutions.[3] Actions by states and non-governmental organisations form a basis of
public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights suggests that "if the public discourse of
peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights".
[7] The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable
scepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day.
The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of continued philosophical
debate;[8] while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety of rights[5]
such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement, prohibition of genocide, free
speech[9] or a right to education, there is disagreement about which of these particular rights
should be included within the general framework of human rights;[1] some thinkers suggest that
human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid the worst-case abuses, while others see
it as a higher standard.[1][10] It has also been argued that human rights are "God-given", although
this notion has been criticized.[11]

Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of
the Second World War and the events of the Holocaust,[6] culminating in the adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
[12] Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights.[13]
The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared
as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European
Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson and Jean-Jacques
Burlamaqui and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution
and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged
over the latter half of the 20th century,[14] possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide and
war crimes,[6] as a realisation of inherent human vulnerability and as being a precondition for the
possibility of a just society.[5] Human rights advocacy has continued into the early 21st century,
centred around achieving greater economic and political freedom.[5]
 History of human rights

This section needs expansion with: More information about human rights prior to the Enlightenment. You
can help by adding to it. (May 2022)

U.S. Declaration of Independence ratified by the Continental Congress on 4 July 1776

The concept of human rights existed in the Ancient and pre-modern eras, although Ancient peoples did not
think of universal human rights in the same way humans do today.[13] The true forerunner of human
rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law
tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment. From this foundation, the modern
human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century.[14]

Magna Carta is an English charter originally issued in 1215 which influenced the development of the
common law and many later constitutional documents related to human rights, such as the 1689 English
Bill of Rights, the 1789 United States Constitution, and the 1791 United States Bill of Rights.[15]

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being
"life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in
the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made a
range of oppressive governmental actions, illegal.[16] Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th
century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the United States Declaration of
Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of
which articulated certain human rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded
into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"It is not a treaty... [In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta."[19] Eleanor
Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a non-binding declaration adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1948,[20] partly in response to the events of World War II. The UDHR urges
member states to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights are
part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The declaration was the first
international legal effort to limit the behavior of states and make sure they did their duties to their citizens
following the model of the rights-duty duality.

...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

— Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as chair, who
began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not
immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The
Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the
priority.[21] Canadian law professor John Humprey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for
much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of
the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured
by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two
articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each
other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final
three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political
order in which they are to be realized.[21] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be
legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[21]

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

Human Rights Treaties

In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United Nations, between them making
the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states.[29] However, they came into force only in 1976,
when they were ratified by a sufficient number of countries (despite achieving the ICCPR, a covenant
including no economic or social rights, the US only ratified the ICCPR in 1992).[30] The ICESCR commits 155
state parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to individuals.

Numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level. They are
generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant are:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 1948, entry into force:
1951) [1]

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force:
1969) [2]

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (entry into force:
1981) [3]

United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)[31]

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [4] Archived 26 April
2019 at the Wayback Machine

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their
Families (ICRMW) (adopted 1990)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (entry into force: 2002)
 Criminal law

Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime. It prescribes conduct perceived as
threatening, harmful, or otherwise endangering to the property, health, safety, and moral welfare
of people inclusive of one's self. Most criminal law is established by statute, which is to say that
the laws are enacted by a legislature. Criminal law includes the punishment and rehabilitation of
people who violate such laws.

Criminal law varies according to jurisdiction, and differs from civil law, where emphasis is more on
dispute resolution and victim compensation, rather than on punishment or rehabilitation.

Criminal procedure is a formalized official activity that authenticates the fact of commission of a
crime and authorizes punitive or rehabilitative treatment of the offender.

History

The first civilizations generally did not distinguish between civil law and criminal law. The first
written codes of law were designed by the Sumerians. Around 2100–2050 BC Ur-Nammu, the Neo-
Sumerian king of Ur, enacted written legal code whose text has been discovered: the Code of Ur-
Nammu[1] although an earlier code of Urukagina of Lagash ( 2380–2360 BC ) is also known to have
existed. Another important early code was the Code of Hammurabi, which formed the core of
Babylonian law.[2] Only fragments of the early criminal laws of Ancient Greece have survived, e.g.
those of Solon and Draco.[3]

The Old Bailey in London (in 1808) was the venue for more than 100,000 criminal trials between
1674 and 1834, including all death penalty cases.

In Roman law, Gaius's Commentaries on the Twelve Tables also conflated the civil and criminal
aspects, treating theft (furtum) as a tort. Assault and violent robbery were analogized to trespass
as to property. Breach of such laws created an obligation of law or vinculum juris discharged by
payment of monetary compensation or damages. The criminal law of imperial Rome is collected in
Books 47–48 of the Digest.[4] After the revival of Roman law in the 12th century, sixth-century
Roman classifications and jurisprudence provided the foundations of the distinction between
criminal and civil law in European law from then until the present time.[5]

The first signs of the modern distinction between crimes and civil matters emerged during the
Norman Invasion of England.[6] The special notion of criminal penalty, at least concerning Europe,
arose in Spanish Late Scholasticism (see Alfonso de Castro), when the theological notion of God's
penalty (poena aeterna) that was inflicted solely for a guilty mind, became transfused into canon
law first and, finally, to secular criminal law.[7] The development of the state dispensing justice in
a court clearly emerged in the eighteenth century when European countries began maintaining
police services. From this point, criminal law formalized the mechanisms for enforcement, which
allowed for its development as a discernible entity.
 Objectives of criminal law

Criminal law is distinctive for the uniquely serious, potential consequences or sanctions for failure
to abide by its rules.[8] Every crime is composed of criminal elements. Capital punishment may be
imposed in some jurisdictions for the most serious crimes. Physical or corporal punishment may be
imposed such as whipping or caning, although these punishments are prohibited in much of the
world. Individuals may be incarcerated in prison or jail in a variety of conditions depending on the
jurisdiction. Confinement may be solitary. Length of incarceration may vary from a day to life.
Government supervision may be imposed, including house arrest, and convicts may be required to
conform to particularized guidelines as part of a parole or probation regimen. Fines also may be
imposed, seizing money or property from a person convicted of a crime.

Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments:
retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. Jurisdictions differ on the
value to be placed on each.

Retribution – Criminals ought to Be Punished in some way. This is the most widely seen goal.
Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and
consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the
scales." People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene
these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be
executed himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."

Deterrence – Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose a
sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at
society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are
discouraged from committing those offenses.

Incapacitation – Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is
protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today. The death
penalty or banishment have served the same purpose.

Rehabilitation – Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary
goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.

Restoration – This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state
authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles
will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined
with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e.,
returning the victim to his or her original position before the injury.