When reading the declarations of human rights chronologically, one can associate the successive generations in human rights discourse with critical controversies in history. The Magna Carta (1215) intended to delegitimize the king’s appeal for divine rights, proclaims certain civil liberties. (For example, the right to a due process goes back to the Magna Carta - “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed...except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”). The declarations of the 17th and 18th century promote greater political and economic equality. Two major revolutions, in the United States and France, led to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1793). Further, social and cultural rights are identified with the post-war era and anti-imperialist movements in the twentieth-century. Our understanding of the nature of human rights has therefore, been constantly shaped by historical controversies and debates. But does this lead to different visions of human rights? And if so, does this undermine an indivisible and universal conception of human rights? (Criteria that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 argues so strongly for – “a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge”). For example, the hardships suffered by refugees have led to pleas for fairer immigration laws in the developed world (“everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) however; immigration may conflict with the interests of the unemployed in the developed world (“everyone has the right to work” - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). While human rights cannot be legitimately limited by calls of public interest, when human rights come into conflict with each other, which rights take priority over others?
Dear Madison, I thought the question you pose at the end of your article is very interesting. My first response when reading this is that it seems to be that the only way in which human rights could be legally binding in a ‘universal’ way would be for that declaration of rights or text of law to override all other such documents (specifically national bills of rights or declarations).
ReplyDeleteIn the example you give, you utilize two U.N.-declared rights, namely the right to work and the right to leave and return to one’s country. In my opinion these don’t necessarily come into direct conflict with each other, but rather conflict with existing national laws in different countries.The right to exit and come back to your country could be seen as being curbed by countries which present protections against immigration, however, it can be argued that such protectionist countries are not denying anyone the right to leave any country, rather preventing them from entering theirs.
By this same token, everyone’s right to work might be threatened by immigration in certain developed countries, depending on the immigration model that that country utilizes. I would argue that it is not a direct cause-and-effect scenario, as the right to work within a country (even a ‘developed’ country) is also affected by the economy, the
banking rates, internal politics, ability of national companies to ‘go global’, etc.
So I believe that what seems to pit ‘rights’ against each other is rather the existence of different layers of law, and the fact that the national ‘layer’ still has way more binding power than any U.N. universal declarations. If there was no national laws, and both of the rights you mentioned where observed throughout the world, everyone would have the right to leave their country if there was no job, and the right to work, although it may have to be elsewhere.
Great post! Peace!