human rights movement essay

Making a movement: The history and future of human rights

To mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy asked 90 Harvard faculty and affiliates to offer thoughts on a document that changed the world.

To honor the UDHR, the Carr Center commissioned short essays from 90 scholars, fellows, and affiliates across HKS, Harvard, and beyond to explore the past, present, and future of the human rights movement it inspired. A selection of excerpts follows below. The  complete collection of essays  in their entirety can be found on the Carr Center website.

Archon Fung

Fredrik logevall, desirée cormier smith, iris bohnet, khalil gibran muhammad, julie battilana, maria kuznetsova, stephen walt.

• Brooke Ellison MPP 2004

For rights to be truly secure, they must be ingrained in our hearts as well as guarded by our jurists. This first-best path of rights that are championed by democratic majorities rather than imposed upon them is never easily achieved and sometimes out of reach. But history shows many examples in which the advance of democracy and rights go together: women’s suffrage in 1920, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Perhaps the fundamental contribution of the UDHR was to inscribe those aspirations in the hearts of everyone around the world.

Archon Fung is the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government; Director, Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School

Fredrik Logevall is the Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs

Desirée Cormier Smith is Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice, U.S. Department of State

Iris Bohnet is the Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government; Co-director, Women and Public Policy Program, Harvard Kennedy School

Khalil Gibran Muhammad is the Ford Foundation Professor of History, Race and Public Policy; Director, Institutional Antiracism and Accountability Project, Harvard Kennedy School

“The creation of such a document—its mere existence—must count among the greatest achievements in human history.”

Professor mathias risse, carr center faculty director.

Julie Battilana is the Alan L. Gleitsman Professor of Social Innovation, Harvard Kennedy School; Joseph C. Wilson Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School; Faculty Director, Social Innovation + Change Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School

So, here is what I want to say: violence never stays inside. Violence won’t stay in Donbas, Abkhazia, or the Xinjiang Uygur region; it will spread far beyond “deathworlds” when authoritarian states feel they will go unpunished. I strongly believe that world leaders should stop dividing dictators into “ours” and “theirs” and see authoritarianism as a global threat, especially in a century of rapid technological and economic growth, where new surveillance and control technologies make peaceful regime change even harder. We should closely listen to human rights defenders and support them—they are the litmus test of society, sensing first when society begins to ail.

Maria Kuznetsova is Scholar at Risk, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

  Brooke Ellison MPP 2004

The status of people with disabilities was neither a prescriptive outcome nor an accident. When people are understood to be the evildoers or the cursed, the unwell, contagious, or the vulnerable, policies to marginalize these people are not only likely but seemingly necessary. History has born this idea out, time and time again. The passage and ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in December 1948 was a humanitarian triumph combating this very idea. The UDHR made a resounding statement that atrocities like genocide and systematic annihilation of people ought to be categorically prohibited on an international scale.

Brooke Ellison MPP 2004 was  an associate professor at Stony Brook University and a disability advocate. She died February 4 .

Banner Image: A man walks past an illuminated panel bearing the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Barcelona. Photo by Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, Chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, holding a Declaration of Human Rights poster.

Suffragettes walk along a street wearing sandwich boards demanding that women be given the right to vote. 1912. Photo by Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Getty Images

Afghan girls arrive at a primary school in Kabul, Afghanistan where the government has banned girls from secondary school education. in Afghanistan, by ordering high schools to re-open for boys only. Photo by Oliver Weiken/AP Images

Civil rights march on Washington, D.C. in 1963. Photo by Warren K. Leffler. Library of Congress

A worker sews a piece of camouflage apparel at a sewing factory that produces military uniforms and tactical gear in Kyiv, Ukraine. Photo by Julia Kochetova/Bloomberg

U.S. Capitol Building at dawn, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA.

Faculty portraits by Martha Stewart

More from HKS

The more indigenous nations self govern, the more they succeed, the rising tide no one’s talking about—finding homes for millions of climate crisis migrants, is there a human right to truth.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Human Rights

Human rights are norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses. Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial when charged with a crime, the right not to be tortured, and the right to education. The philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature, universality, justification, and legal status of human rights. The strong claims often made on behalf of human rights (for example, that they are universal, inalienable, or exist independently of legal enactment as justified moral norms) have frequently provoked skeptical doubts and countering philosophical defenses (on these doubts see Lacroix & Pranchère 2016; Mutua 2002; and Waldron 1987). Reflection on these doubts and the responses that can be made to them has become a sub-field of political and legal philosophy with a very substantial literature (see the extensive Bibliography below). This entry addresses the concept of human rights, the existence and grounds of human rights, the question of which rights are human rights, and relativism about human rights.

1. The General Idea of Human Rights

2.1 how can human rights exist, 2.2 justifications for human rights, 3.1 civil and political rights, 3.2 economic and social rights, 3.3 human rights of women, minorities, and groups, 3.4 new human rights, 4. universal human rights in a world of diverse beliefs and practices, a. books and articles in the philosophy of human rights, b. legal declarations, other internet resources, related entries.

This section attempts to explain the general idea of human rights by identifying four defining features. The goal is to answer the question of what human rights are with a description of the concept rather than with a list of specific rights. Two people can have the same general idea of human rights even though they disagree about which rights are really human rights and even about whether universal human rights are a good idea. The four-part explanation just below attempts to cover all kinds of human rights including both moral and legal human rights as well as old and new human rights (e.g., both Lockean natural rights and contemporary human rights). The explanation anticipates, however, that particular kinds of human rights will have additional features. Starting with this general concept does not commit us to treating all kinds of human rights in a single unified theory (see Buchanan 2013 for an argument that we should not attempt to theorize together universal moral rights and international legal human rights).

• Human rights are rights Lest we miss the obvious, human rights are rights (see Cruft 2012 and the entry on rights ). Rights focus on a freedom, protection, status, immunity, or benefit for the rightholders. Most human rights are claim rights that impose duties or responsibilities on their addressees or dutybearers. The duties associated with human rights often require actions involving respect, protection, facilitation, and provision. Although human rights are usually mandatory in the sense of imposing duties on specified parties, some legal human rights seem to do little more than declare high-priority goals and assign responsibility for their progressive realization. One can argue, of course, that goalish rights are not real rights, but it may be better to recognize that they comprise a weak but useful notion of a right. (See Beitz 2009 for a defense of the view that not all human rights are rights in a strong sense. Also, see Feinberg 1973 for the idea of “manifesto rights” and Nickel 2013 for a discussion of “rightslike goals”.)
• Human rights are plural and come in lists If someone accepted that there are human rights but held that there is only one of them, this might make sense if she meant that there is one abstract underlying right that generates a list of specific rights (see Dworkin 2011 for a view of this sort). But if this person meant that there is just one specific right such as the right to peaceful assembly this would be a highly revisionary view. Some philosophers advocate very short lists of human rights but nevertheless accept plurality (see Ignatieff 2004).
• Human rights are universal All living humans—or perhaps we should say all living persons —have human rights. One does not have to be a particular kind of person or a member of some specific nation or religion to have human rights. Included in the idea of universality is some conception of independent existence. People have human rights independently of whether such rights are present in the practices, morality, or law of their country or culture. This idea of universality needs several qualifications, however. First, some rights, such as the right to vote, are held only by adult citizens or residents and apply only to voting in one’s own country. Second, some rights can be suspended. For example, the human right to freedom of movement may be suspended temporarily during a riot or a wildfire. And third, some human rights treaties focus not on the rights of everyone but rather on the rights of specific groups such as minorities, women, indigenous peoples, and children.
• Human rights have high-priority Maurice Cranston held that human rights are matters of “paramount importance” and their violation “a grave affront to justice” (Cranston 1967: 51, 52). If human rights were not very important norms they would not have the ability to compete with other powerful considerations such as national stability and security, individual and national self-determination, and national and global prosperity. High priority does not mean, however, that human rights are absolute. As James Griffin says, human rights should be understood as “resistant to trade-offs, but not too resistant” (Griffin 2008: 77). Further, there seems to be priority variation among human rights. For example, the right to life is generally thought to have greater importance than the right to privacy; when the two conflict the right to privacy will generally be outweighed.

Let’s now consider five other features or functions that might be added to these four.

• Should human rights be defined as inalienable? Inalienability does not mean that rights are absolute or can never be overridden by other considerations. Rather it means that its holder cannot lose it temporarily or permanently by bad conduct or by voluntarily giving it up. It is doubtful that all human rights are inalienable in this sense. One who endorses both human rights and imprisonment as punishment for serious crimes must hold that people’s rights to freedom of movement can be forfeited temporarily or permanently by just convictions of serious crimes. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that human rights are very hard to lose. (For a stronger view of inalienability, see Donnelly 1989 [2020] and Meyers 1985.)
• Should human rights be defined as minimal rights? A number of philosophers have proposed the view that human rights are minimal in the sense of not being too numerous (a few dozen rights rather than hundreds or thousands), and not too demanding (see Joshua Cohen 2004 and Ignatieff 2004). Their views suggest that human rights are—or should be—more concerned with avoiding the worst than with achieving the best. Henry Shue suggests that human rights concern the “lower limits on tolerable human conduct” rather than “great aspirations and exalted ideals” (Shue 1996: ix). When human rights are modest standards they leave most legal and policy matters open to democratic decision-making at the national and local levels. This allows human rights to have high priority, to accommodate a great deal of cultural and institutional variation among countries, and to leave open a large space for democratic decision-making at the national level. Still, there is no contradiction in the idea of an extremely expansive list of human rights and hence minimalism is not a defining feature of human rights (for criticism of the view that human rights are minimal standards see Brems 2009; Etinson forthcoming; and Raz 2010). Minimalism is best seen as a normative prescription for what international human rights should be. Moderate forms of minimalism have considerable appeal as recommendations, but not as part of the definition of human rights.

Should human rights be defined as always being or “mirroring” moral rights? Philosophers coming to human rights theory from moral philosophy sometimes assume that human rights must be, at bottom, moral rather than legal rights. There is no contradiction, however, in people saying that they believe in human rights, but only when they are legal rights at the national or international levels. As Louis Henkin observed,

Political forces have mooted the principal philosophical objections, bridging the chasm between natural and positive law by converting natural human rights into positive legal rights. (Henkin 1978: 19)

It has also been suggested that legal human rights can be justified without directly appealing to any corresponding moral human right (see Buchanan 2013).

• Should human rights be defined in terms of serving some sort of political function? Instead of seeing human rights as grounded in some sort of independently existing moral reality, a theorist might see them as the norms of a highly useful political practice that humans have constructed. Such a view would see the idea of human rights as playing various political roles at the national and international levels and as serving thereby to protect urgent human and national interests. These political roles might include providing standards for international evaluations of how governments treat their people and specifying when use of economic sanctions or military intervention is permissible. This kind of view may be plausible for the very salient international human rights that have emerged in international law and politics in the last fifty years. But human rights can exist and function in contexts not involving international scrutiny and intervention such as a world with only one state. Imagine, for example, that a massive asteroid strike makes New Zealand the only remaining state in existence. Surely the idea of human rights along with many dimensions of human rights practice could continue in New Zealand, even though there would be no international relations, law, or politics (for an argument of this sort see Tasioulas 2012a). And if in the same scenario a few people were discovered to have survived in Iceland and were living without a government or state, New Zealanders would know that human rights governed how these people should be treated even though they were stateless. How deeply the idea of human rights must be rooted in international law and practice should not be settled by definitional fiat. We can allow, however, that the sorts of political functions that Rawls and Beitz describe are typically served by international human rights today.

2 The Existence and Grounds of Human Rights

The most obvious way in which human rights exist is as norms of national and international law. At the international level, human rights norms exist because of treaties that have turned them into international law. For example, the human right not to be held in slavery or servitude in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights exists because these treaties establish it. At the national level, human rights norms exist because they have—through legislative enactment, judicial decision, or custom—become part of a country’s law. For example, the right against slavery exists in the United States because the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits slavery and servitude. When rights are embedded in international law, we are apt to speak of them as human rights; but when they are enacted in national law we more frequently describe them as civil or constitutional rights.

Although enactment in national and international law is one of the ways in which human rights exist, many have suggested that this is not the only way. If human rights exist only because of enactment, their availability is contingent on domestic and international political developments. Many people have looked for a way to support the idea that human rights have roots that are deeper and less subject to human decisions than legal enactment. One version of this idea is that people are born with rights, that human rights are somehow innate or inherent in human beings (see Morsink 2009). One way that a normative status could be inherent in humans is by being god-given. The American Declaration of Independence claims that people are “endowed by their Creator” with natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On this view, god, the supreme lawmaker, enacted some basic human rights.

Rights plausibly attributed to divine decree must be very general and abstract (life, liberty, etc.) so that they can apply across thousands of years of human history, not just to recent centuries. But contemporary human rights are specific and many of them presuppose contemporary institutions (e.g., the right to a fair trial, the right to social security, and the right to education). Even if people are born with god-given natural rights, we need to explain how to get from those general and abstract rights to the specific rights found in contemporary declarations and treaties.

Attributing human rights to god’s commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people today do not believe in the god of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in god, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people to accept a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes.

Human rights could also exist independently of legal enactment by being part of actual human moralities. All human groups seem to have moralities, that is, imperative norms of behavior backed by reasons and values. These moralities contain specific norms (for example, a prohibition on the intentional murder of innocent persons) and specific values (for example, valuing human life). One way in which human rights could exist apart from divine or human enactment is as norms accepted in almost all actual human moralities. If almost all human groups have moralities containing norms that prohibit murder, for example, these norms could constitute the human right to life.

This view is attractive but has serious difficulties. Although worldwide acceptance of human rights has increased in recent decades (see below section 4. Universal Human Rights in a World of Diverse Beliefs and Practices ), worldwide moral unanimity about human rights does not exist. Human rights declarations and treaties are intended to change existing norms, not just describe an existing moral consensus.

Yet another way of explaining the existence of human rights is to say that they exist most basically in true or justified ethical outlooks. On this account, to say that there is a human right against torture is mainly to assert that there are strong reasons for believing that it is always morally wrong to engage in torture and that protections should be provided against its practice. This approach would view the Universal Declaration as attempting to formulate a justified political morality: that is, as not merely trying to identify a preexisting moral consensus, but trying to create a consensus that could be supported by very plausible moral and practical reasons. This approach requires commitment to the objectivity of such reasons. It holds that just as there are reliable ways of finding out how the physical world works, or what makes buildings sturdy and durable, there are reliable ways of finding out what individuals may justifiably demand of each other and of governments. Even if unanimity about human rights is currently lacking, rational agreement is available to humans if they will commit themselves to open-minded and serious moral and political inquiry. If moral reasons exist independently of human construction, they can—when combined with premises about current institutions, problems, and resources—generate moral norms different from those currently accepted or enacted. The Universal Declaration seems to proceed on exactly this assumption (see Morsink 2009).

One problem with this view is that an existence based on good reasons seems a rather thin form of existence for human rights. But perhaps we can view this thinness as a practical rather than a theoretical problem—that is, as something to be remedied by the formulation and enactment of legal norms. The best form of existence for human rights would combine robust legal existence with the sort of moral existence that comes from being supported by strong moral and practical reasons.

Justifications for human rights should identify plausible starting points for defending the key features of human rights and offer an account of the transition from those starting points to a list of specific rights (see Nickel 2007). Further, justifying international human rights is likely to require additional steps (see Buchanan 2013). These requirements make the construction of a good justification a daunting task.

Recent attempts to justify human rights offer a dizzying variety of grounds. These include prudential reasons; linkage arguments (Shue 1996); agency and autonomy (Gewirth 1996; Griffin 2008); basic needs (D. Miller 2012); capabilities and positive freedom (Gould 2004; Nussbaum 2000; and Sen 2004) dignity (Gilabert 2018b; Kateb 2011, Tasioulas 2015); and fairness, status equality, and equal respect (Dworkin 2011; Buchanan 2013).

There is a lot of overlap between these approaches, but also important differences that are likely to make them yield different results. For example, an approach framed in terms of agency and autonomy will be more strongly and directly supportive of fundamental freedoms than one framed in terms of basic human needs. Justifications can be based on just one of these types of reasons or be pluralistic and appeal to several. Seeing so much diversity in philosophical approaches to justification may be discouraging (although great disagreement in approaches is common in philosophy) but its good side is that it suggests that there are at least several plausible ways of justifying human rights.

Philosophical justifications for human rights differ in how much credibility they attribute to contemporary lists of human rights, such as the one found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Some take fidelity to contemporary human rights practice as nearly imperative while others prioritize particular normative frameworks even if they can only justify some of the rights in contemporary lists.

Attempting to discuss all of these approaches would be a task for a large book, not an encyclopedic entry. The discussion here is limited to two approaches: agency/autonomy and dignity.

2.2.1 Agency and Autonomy

Grounding human rights in human agency and autonomy has had strong advocates in recent decades (Griffin 2008; Gould 2004). An important forerunner in this area was Alan Gewirth. In Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Application (1982), Gewirth argued that human rights are indispensable conditions of a life as an agent who survives and acts. Abstractly described, the conditions of such a life are basic freedom and well-being. A prudent rational agent who must have freedom and well-being will assert a “prudential right claim” (1982: 31)to them. But, having demanded that others must respect her freedom and well-being, consistency requires her to recognize and respect the freedom and well-being of all other persons, too. She “logically must accept” (1982: 20) that other people as agents have equal rights to freedom and well-being. These two abstract rights work alone and together to generate a list of more determinate human rights of familiar sorts (Gewirth 1978, 1982, 1996). Gewirth’s argument generated a large critical literature (see Beyleveld 1991 and Boylan 1999).

A more recent attempt to base human rights on agency and autonomy is found in James Griffin’s book, On Human Rights (2008). Griffin does not share Gewirth’s goal of providing a logically inescapable argument for human rights, but his overall view shares key structural features with Gewirth’s. These include basing the justification on the unique value of agency and autonomy, postulating some abstract rights, and making place for a right to well-being within an agency-based approach.

In the current dispute between “moral” (or “orthodox”) and “political” conceptions of human rights, Griffin strongly sides with those who see human rights as fundamentally moral rights (on this debate see Liao & Etinson 2012). Their defining role, in Griffin’s view, is protecting people’s ability to form and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life—a capacity that Griffin variously refers to as “autonomy”, “normative agency”, and “personhood”. This ability to form, revise, and pursue conceptions of a worthwhile life is taken to be of paramount value, the exclusive source of human dignity, and thereby the basis of human rights. Griffin holds that people value this capacity “especially highly, often more highly than even our happiness” (2008: 32 [§2.3])

“Practicalities” also shape human rights in Griffin’s view. He describes practicalities as “a second ground” (2008: 37–39 [§2.5]) of human rights. They prescribe making the boundaries of rights clear by avoiding “too many complicated bends” (2008: 37 [§2.5]), enlarging rights a little to give them safety margins, and consulting facts about human nature and the nature of society. Accordingly, the justifying generic function that Griffin assigns to human rights is protecting normative agency while taking account of practicalities.

Griffin thinks that he can explain the universality of human rights by recognizing that normative agency is a threshold concept—once one is above the threshold one has the same rights as everyone else. One’s degree of agency above the threshold does not matter. There are no “degrees of being a person” (2008: 67 [§3.5]) among competent adults. Treating agency in this way, however, is a normative policy, not just a fact about concepts. An alternative policy is possible, namely proportioning people’s rights to their level of normative agency. This is what we do with children; their rights grow as they develop greater agency and responsibility. To exclude proportional rights, and to explain the egalitarian dimensions of human rights, including their character as universal and equal rights to be enjoyed without discrimination, some additional ground pertaining to fairness and equality seems to be needed.

This last point raises the question of whether agency-based approaches in general can adequately account for the universality, equality, and anti-discriminatory character of human rights. The idea that human rights are to be respected and protected without discrimination seems to be most centrally a matter of fairness rather than one of agency, freedom, or welfare. Discrimination often harms and hinders its victims, but even when it doesn’t it is still deeply unfair. For example, human rights that explicitly refer to fair wages and equal pay for equal work (ICESCR Articles 3 and 7.i) seem to be much more about fairness than about agency, freedom, or welfare—particularly since human rights to a wage that ensures a decent standard of living are often mentioned separately (ICESCR Article 7.ii).

2.2.2 Dignity

Many human rights declarations and treaties invoke human dignity as the ground of human rights. In recent decades numerous books and articles have been published that advocate dignitarian approaches to justifying human rights (for example, Gilabert 2018b; Kateb 2014; McCrudden 2013 and the many essays therein; Tasioulas 2015; Waldron 2012 and 2015). There have also been many critics, including Den Hartogh 2014; Etinson 2020; Green 2010; Macklin 2003; Rosen 2012; and Sangiovanni 2017.

A well-worked out conception of human dignity is likely to have at least three parts. The first describes the nature of human dignity, specifying for example whether it is a kind of value, status, or virtue (see Rosen 2012). The second explains the grounds of human dignity—that is, why, or in virtue of which shared capacities or features we all have the sort of dignity described in the first step. Finally, and third, there is the question of human dignity’s practical requirements, or what is concretely involved in “respecting” it. (See the entry on dignity for a broader discussion.)

Human dignity is often understood as a special worth or status which all human beings share in contrast to other animals (e.g., Kateb 2011). We can call this the “Special Worth Thesis”. Attempts to provide good explanatory grounds for the Special Worth Thesis identify one or more valuable features that all human persons share and that non-human animals mostly do not possess or have at much lower levels. The valuable features identified will presumably once again need to be “threshold concepts”, so that people can vary in how much of the feature or capacity they have without thereby losing, lessening, or increasing their human dignity in comparison to other persons. Human dignity is, after all, supposed to be a strongly egalitarian idea. Plausible candidates for such grounds might include moral abilities (to understand and follow moral values and norms and to reason and act in terms of them); thought, imagination, and rationality; self-consciousness and reflective capacities; and the use of complicated language and technologies, among others.

One worry about the Special Worth Thesis is its self-glorifying character. In claiming special worth we humans seem to excuse our many faults—including a terrible capacity for evil, routinely evidenced in our behavior towards other humans and towards non-human animals (Rosen 2013). Another closely associated and increasingly prominent worry is that the Special Worth Thesis is speciesist, arbitrarily ranking the interests, status, and/or value of human beings above that/those of non-human animals (Kymlicka 2018; Meyer 2001). In the context of these reasonable concerns, it is worth noting that support for, or a belief in, human dignity need not be prejudicial towards non-human animals; one can affirm the dignity of homo sapiens while also affirming the equal dignity of other species and forms of life (Etinson 2020; Gilabert 2018b). The Special Worth Thesis is optional and only defended by some theorists.

What attitudes, actions, policies, and rights follow from the duty or reason to respect human dignity? And are human rights among them? The answer will at least in part depend on what we think human dignity is. If it is a kind of virtue shared or shareable by all persons then its practical requirements will include things like praising and/or admiring those who possess it, and perhaps developing or cultivating “dignitarian” dispositions in one’s own character. If human dignity is, by contrast, a kind of value or worth (as in Immanuel Kant’s famous understanding of dignity as a worth “beyond all price” Kant 1785/1996: 43), then it is something we have reason to protect, promote, preserve, cherish, restore and perhaps even maximize, if possible. The human right to life, and its material conditions, is an intuitive product of human dignity understood in this way. If, on the other hand, we think of human dignity as a kind of legal (Waldron 2012 and 2015), moral (Gilabert 2018b; Lee & George 2008), or social status (Etinson 2020; Killmister 2020), then duties of “respect” more naturally follow.

These options are not mutually exclusive. In principle, human dignity can refer to all of these things: value, status, and virtue. If human dignity yields human rights, however, this is going to depend on exactly how we understand its practical requirements in light of its nature and grounds. This practical elaboration is the workhorse of a conception of human dignity. It normally results in one or more general maxims or guidelines: e.g., not to humiliate or degrade, never to treat persons merely as a means, to treat others in justifiable ways, to avoid severe cruelty, to respect autonomy, etc. The prospect of grounding human rights in human dignity faces critical challenges at this juncture. As we saw in the preceding discussion of agency-based approaches, the more specific and singular one’s dignitarian maxim is, the less plausible it will be as an exhaustive ground for standard lists of human rights in all their variety. On the other hand, a pluralistic set of grounding maxims will make human dignity a better source of human rights, but it is unclear whether in doing so we are simply explaining its implicit content or bringing in other values and norms to fill in its indeterminate scope. This raises the possibility that values and norms such as promoting human welfare; agency/autonomy; and fairness partially constitute the idea of human dignity rather than being derived from it (see Macklin 2003).

3. Which Rights are Human Rights?

This section discusses the question of which rights belong on lists of human rights. The Universal Declaration’s list, which has been very influential, consists of six families:

• Security rights that protect people against murder, torture, and genocide;
• Due process rights that protect people against arbitrary and excessively harsh punishments and require fair and public trials for those accused of crimes;
• Liberty rights that protect people’s fundamental freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, and movement;
• Political rights that protect people’s liberty to participate in politics by assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office;
• Equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and freedom from discrimination; and
• Economic and social rights that require that governments to forbid slavery and forced labor, enforce safe working conditions, ensure to all the availability of work, education, health services, and a standard of living that is adequate.

A seventh category, minority and group rights, has been created by subsequent treaties. These rights protect women, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, children, migrant workers, and the disabled. This list of human rights seems normatively diverse: the issues addressed cover include security, liberty, fairness, equality before the law, access to work and good working conditions, unduly cruel treatment, and political participation.

In spite of the ample list above, not every question of social justice or wise governance is a human rights issue. For example, a country could have too many lawyers or inadequate provision for graduate-level education without violating any human rights. Deciding which norms should be counted as human rights is a matter of considerable difficulty. And there is continuing pressure to expand lists of human rights to include new areas. Many political movements would like to see their main concerns categorized as matters of human rights, since this would publicize, promote, and legitimize their concerns at the international level. A possible result of this is “human rights inflation”, the devaluation of human rights caused by producing too much bad human rights currency (see Cranston 1973; Orend 2002; Wellman 1995; Griffin 2008).

One way to avoid rights inflation is to follow Cranston in insisting that human rights only deal with extremely important goods, protections, and freedoms. A supplementary approach is to impose several justificatory tests for specific human rights. For example, it could be required that a proposed human right not only protect some very important good but also respond to one or more common and serious threats to that good (Dershowitz 2004; Donnelly 1989 [2003]; Shue 1996; Talbott 2005), impose burdens on the addressees that are justifiable and no larger than necessary, and be feasible in most of the world’s countries (on feasibility see Gheaus 2022; Gilabert 2009; Nickel 2007; and Richards 2023). This approach restrains rights inflation with several tests, not just one master test.

In deciding which norms should be considered human rights it is possible to make either too little or too much of international documents such as the Universal Declaration and the European Convention. One makes too little of them by proceeding as if drawing up a list of important rights were a new question, never before addressed, and as if there were no practical wisdom to be found in the choices of rights that went into the historic documents. And one makes too much of them by presuming that those documents tell us everything we need to know about human rights. This approach involves a kind of fundamentalism: it holds that when a right is on the official lists of human rights that settles its status as a human right (“If it’s in the book that’s all I need to know”.) But the process of identifying human rights in the United Nations and elsewhere was a political process with plenty of imperfections. There is little reason to take international diplomats as the most authoritative guides to which human rights there are. Further, even if a treaty’s ratification by most countries can settle the question of whether a certain right is a human right within international law, such a treaty cannot settle its weight. The treaty may suggest that the right is supported by weighty considerations, but it cannot make this so. If an international treaty enacted a right to visit national parks without charge as a human right, the ratification of that treaty would make free access to national parks a human right within international law, but it may well fail to persuade us that national park access is important enough to be a genuine human right.

The least controversial family of human rights is civil and political rights. These rights are familiar from historic bills of rights such as the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791, with subsequent amendments). Contemporary sources include the first 21 Articles of the Universal Declaration , and treaties such as the European Convention , the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , the American Convention on Human Rights , and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights . Some representative formulations follow:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one’s choice. ( American Convention on Human Rights , Article 13.1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. ( European Convention , Article 11) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. (ICCPR Article 17)

Most civil and political rights are not absolute—they can sometimes be overridden by other considerations. For example, the right to freedom of movement can be restricted by public and private property rights, by restraining orders related to domestic violence, and by legal punishments. Further, after a disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake free movement is often appropriately suspended to keep out the curious, permit access of emergency vehicles and equipment, and prevent looting. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits most rights to be suspended during times “of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation” (ICCPR Article 4). But it excludes some rights from suspension including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery, the prohibition of ex post facto criminal laws, and freedom of thought and religion.

The Universal Declaration included economic and social rights (“ESRs”) that address matters such as education, food, health services, and employment. Their inclusion has been the source of much controversy (see Beetham 1995). The European Convention did not include them (although it was later amended to include the right to education). Instead ESRs were put into a separate treaty, the European Social Charter . When the United Nations began the process of putting the rights of the Universal Declaration into international law, it followed the same pattern by placing ESRs in a treaty separate from the one dealing with civil and political rights. This treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), treated these standards as rights—albeit rights to be progressively realized.

The ICESCR includes rights to: freedom from slavery and forced labor; adequate income or services to cover food, water, clothing, and shelter; basic health conditions and services; free public education; freedom to work, choose one's occupation, and have adequate opportunities for remunerative employment; fair pay and safe conditions of work; social security; equality for women in the workplace, including equal pay for equal work; freedom to form trade unions and to strike; special protections for mothers and children; adequate rest and leisure; and nondiscrimination in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling these rights. In terms of underlying values and norms, some of these rights are welfare-oriented, others are fairness-oriented, and still others are freedom-oriented (Nickel 2022b).

Article 2.1 of the ICESCR sets out what each of the parties commits itself to do about this list, namely to

take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation…to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

In contrast, the Civil and Political Covenant commits its signatories to immediate compliance, to

respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory the rights recognized in the present Covenant. (ICCPR Article 2.1)

The contrast between these two levels of commitment has led some people to suspect that ESRs are really just valuable goals. For many countries, noncompliance due to inability would have been certain if these standards had been treated as immediately binding.

ESRs have often been defended with linkage arguments which claim that ESRs provide indispensable support to the realization of civil and political rights. This approach was first developed philosophically by Henry Shue. He argued that security and subsistence are so indispensable to the full realization of other rights that anyone who endorses the realization of any other right must also endorse ESRs (Shue 1980; for analysis and critical assessments of linkage arguments see Nickel 2007, 2016, and 2022a).

Do ESRs protect sufficiently important human interests? Maurice Cranston opposed ESRs by suggesting that they are mainly concerned with matters such as holidays with pay which are not of deep and universal human interest (Cranston 1967, 1973; treatments of objections to ESRs include Beetham 1995; Howard 1983; and Nickel 2007). It is far from the case, however, that most ESRs pertain only to superficial interests. Consider two examples: the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to free public education. The former requires governments to work hard at remedying widespread and serious evils such as severe poverty, starvation and malnutrition, and ignorance. The importance of food and other basic material conditions of life is easy to show. These goods are essential to people’s ability to live, function, and flourish. Without adequate access to these goods, interests in life, health, and liberty are endangered and serious illness and death are probable. The unavailability of educational opportunities typically limits (both absolutely and comparatively) people’s abilities to participate fully and effectively in the political and economic life of their county

Are ESRs too burdensome? Another objection to ESRs is that they are too burdensome on their dutybearers. It is very expensive to guarantee everyone basic education and minimal material conditions. Frequently the claim that ESRs are too burdensome suggests that ESRs are substantially more burdensome or expensive than liberty rights. Suppose, however, that we use as a basis of comparison liberty rights such as freedom of communication, association, and movement. These rights require both respect and protection from governments. And people cannot be adequately protected in their enjoyment of liberties such as these unless they also have security and due process rights. The costs of liberty, as it were, include the costs of law and criminal justice. Once we see this, liberty rights start to look a lot more costly.

Further, we need not generally think of ESRs as simply giving everyone a free supply of the goods they protect. Guarantees of things like food and housing may be intolerably expensive and undermine productivity if everyone simply receives a free supply. A viable system of ESRs can require most people to provide these goods for themselves and their families through work, as long as they are given the necessary opportunities, education, and infrastructure. Government-implemented ESRs provide guarantees of availability (or “secure access”), but under many conditions governments should only have to supply the requisite goods in a small fraction of cases.

Countries that do not accept and implement ESRs must still somehow bear the costs of providing for the needy since these countries are unlikely to find it tolerable to allow sizable parts of the population to starve and be homeless. If government does not supply food, clothing, and shelter to those unable to provide for themselves, then families, friends, and communities will have to shoulder this burden. It is only in the last hundred or so years that government-sponsored ESRs have taken over a substantial part of the burden of providing for the needy. The taxes associated with ESRs are partial replacements for other burdensome duties, namely the duties of families and communities to provide adequate care for the unemployed, sick, disabled, and aged. Deciding whether to implement ESRs is not a matter of deciding whether to bear such burdens, but rather of deciding whether to continue with total reliance on systems of informal provision that distribute assistance in a very spotty way and whose costs fall very unevenly on families, friends, and communities.

Are ESRs feasible worldwide? Another objection to ESRs alleges that they are not feasible in many countries (on feasibility see Gheaus 2013, Gilabert 2009, and Nickel 2007). It is very expensive to provide guarantees of subsistence, measures to protect and restore people’s health, and education. Many governments will be unable to provide these guarantees while meeting other important responsibilities. Rights are not magical sources of supply (Holmes & Sunstein 1999). As we saw earlier, the ESR Covenant dealt with the issue of feasibility by calling for progressive implementation, that is, implementation as financial and other resources permit. Does this view of implementation turn ESRs into high-priority goals? And if so, is that a bad thing?

Standards that outrun the abilities of many of their addressees are good candidates for treatment as goals. Viewing them as largely aspirational rather than as imposing immediate duties avoids problems of inability-based noncompliance. One may worry, however, that this is too much of a demotion for ESRs because goals seem much weaker than rights (see O’Neill 2005 and Tomalty 2014). But goals can be formulated in ways that make them more like rights. They can be assigned addressees (the parties who are to pursue the goal), beneficiaries, scopes that define the objective to be pursued, and a high level of priority (see Langford, Sumner, & Yamin 2013 and Nickel 2013; see also OHCHR and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN ). Strong reasons for the importance of these goals can be provided. And supervisory bodies can monitor levels of progress and pressure low-performing addressees to attend to and work on realizing their goals.

Treating very demanding rights as goals has some advantages. Goals coexist easily with low levels of ability to achieve them. And goals are flexible: addressees with different levels of ability can choose ways of pursuing the goals that suit their circumstances and means. Because of these attractions it may be worth exploring sophisticated ways to transform very demanding human rights into goals. The transformation may be full or partial. It is possible to create right-goal mixtures that contain some mandatory elements (see Brems 2009). A right-goal mixture might include some rights-like goals, some mandatory steps to be taken immediately, and duties to realize the rights-like goals as quickly as possible.

Do ESRs yield a sufficient commitment to equality? Objections to ESRs as human rights have come from both the political right and the political left. A common objection from the left, including liberal egalitarians and socialists, is that ESRs as enumerated in human rights documents and treaties provide too weak of a commitment to material equality (Gilabert 2018a and Moyn 2018). Realizing ESRs requires governments to ensure everyone an adequate minimum of resources in some key areas but does not require strong commitments to equality of opportunity, redistributive taxation, or wealth ceilings (see the entries on equality , distributive justice , and liberal feminism ).

The egalitarian objection cannot be that human rights documents and treaties show no concern for people living in poverty and misery. One of the main purposes of including ESRs in human rights documents and treaties was to promote serious efforts to combat poverty, lack of education, and unhealthy living conditions in countries all around the world (see also Langford, Sumner, & Yamin 2013 on the UN Millennium Development Goals). The objection also cannot be that human rights facilitated the hollowing out of systems of welfare rights in many developed countries that occurred after 1980 (for criticism of this view see Song 2019). Those cuts in welfare programs were often in violation of the requirements of realizing ESRs.

Perhaps it should be conceded that human rights documents and treaties have not said enough about positive measures to promote equal opportunity in education and work. A positive right to equal opportunity, like the one Rawls proposed, would require countries to take serious measures to reduce disparities between the opportunities effectively available to children of high-income and low-income parents (see Rawls 1971 and the entry on equality of opportunity ).

A strongly egalitarian political program is probably best pursued partially within but mostly beyond the human rights framework. One reason for this is that the human rights movement will have better prospects for ongoing acceptance and support if it has widespread political acceptance. To achieve this, the rights it endorses must appeal to people with a variety of political views, ranging from center-left to center-right. Support from the broad political center is less likely to emerge and survive if the human rights platform is perceived as mostly a leftist program.

Equality of rights for historically disadvantaged or subordinated groups is a longstanding concern of the human rights movement. Human rights documents repeatedly emphasize that all people, including women and members of minority ethnic and religious groups, have equal human rights and should be able to enjoy them without discrimination. The right to freedom from discrimination figures prominently in the Universal Declaration and subsequent treaties. The Civil and Political Covenant, for example, commits participating states to respect and protect their people’s rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or social status (ICCPR Article 2.1). On minority and group rights see Kymlicka 1995.

A number of standard civil and political rights are especially important to ethnic and religious minorities, including rights to freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom from discrimination. Human rights documents also include rights that refer to minorities explicitly and give them special protections. For example, the Civil and Political Covenant in Article 27 says that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities

shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. (ICCPR Article 27)

Feminists have often protested that standard lists of human rights do not sufficiently take into account the unique risks faced by women. For example, issues like domestic violence, reproductive choice, and the trafficking of women and girls for sex work did not have a prominent place in early human rights documents and treaties. Lists of human rights have had to be expanded “to include the degradation and violation of women” (Bunch 2006; see also Okin 1998). Violations of women’s human rights often occur in the “private” sphere, i.e., in the home at the hands of other family members. This suggests that governments cannot be seen as the only addressees of human rights and that the right to privacy of home and family needs qualification to allow police to protect women within the home.

The issue of how formulations of human rights should respond to variations in the sorts of risks and dangers that different people face is difficult and arises not just in relation to gender but also in relation to age, race, sexual orientation, profession, political affiliation, religion, and personal interests. Due process rights, for example, are much more useful to young people (and particularly young men) than they are to older people since the latter are far less likely to run afoul of the criminal law.

Since 1964 the United Nations has mainly dealt with the rights of women and minorities through specialized treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007). See also the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Specialized treaties allow international norms to address unique problems of particular groups such as assistance and care during pregnancy and childbearing in the case of women, custody issues in the case of children, and the loss of historic territories by indigenous peoples.

Minority groups are often targets of violence. Human rights norms call upon governments to refrain from such violence and to provide protections against it. This work is partly done by the right to life, which is a standard individual right. It is also done by the right against genocide which protects groups from attempts to destroy or decimate them. The Genocide Convention was one of the first human rights treaties after World War II. The right against genocide is clearly a group right. It is held by both individuals and groups and provides protection to groups as groups. It is largely negative in the sense that it requires governments and other agencies to refrain from destroying groups; but it also requires that legal and other protections against genocide be created at the national level.

As a group right, can the right against genocide be a human right? More generally, can a group right fit the general idea of human rights as rights of individual persons proposed earlier? Perhaps it can if we broaden our conception of who can hold human rights to include important groups that people form and cherish (see the entry on group rights ). This can be made more palatable, perhaps, by recognizing that the beneficiaries of the right against genocide are individual humans who enjoy greater security against attempts to destroy the group to which they belong (Kymlicka 1989).

Although contemporary lists of human rights are already long, there are doubtless norms that should be counted as human rights but are not generally recognized as such. After all, there are lots of areas in which people’s basic welfare, dignity, and fundamental interests are threatened by the actions and omissions of individuals and governments. New technologies create new problems and require us to rethink old solutions. And new political movements emerge and create demands for their goals and norms as human rights.

Prominent recent proposals of new human rights include Kimberley Brownlee’s advocacy of a right against social deprivation that would address severe unwanted loneliness (Brownlee 2020 and 2022), the proposal of a universal right to internet access that was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 2016 (UN Resolution 32/13), and the similar endorsement in 2022 of a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment (UN Resolution 76/300; see also the entry on environmental ethics ).

The right to a healthy environment provides a good example of how new human rights can slowly emerge. After a right of this sort was added to many national bills of rights, environmental NGOs began to promote it within international organizations. In 2000 the European Union’s Bill of Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , included in Article 37 an environmental protection norm:

A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.

In 2012 the UN Human Rights Council created a Special Rapporteur (independent expert) on the Environment, eventually approved the right to “a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment”, and forwarded it to the General Assembly—where 80 percent of the world’s countries voted for it (UN Resolution 76/300). Human rights approaches to climate change have also been developed in recent decades (see Bodansky 2009; Caney 2009; Gardiner 2013; and Vanderheiden 2008).

Worries about the proliferation of human rights have not disappeared. Lawyers and international organizations have proposed standards to limit the introduction of new human rights (for example, Alston 1984 and the UN General Assembly 1986). And human rights treaty-making has slowed. After the approval of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1999, the only human rights treaty approved by the UN is the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In 2007 a declaration (not a treaty) on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was approved by the General Assembly. Prominent philosophers have also advocated smaller lists of human rights (see, for example, Cranston 1967 and 1973; Rawls 1999; and Griffin 2008). Griffin also opposed squeezing new content into existing human rights—which he described as the “ballooning” of rights.

Two familiar philosophical worries about human rights are that they are based on beliefs and attitudes that are culturally relative and that their creation and advocacy involves ethnocentrism. Human rights prescribe universal standards in areas such as security, law enforcement, equality, political participation, and education. The peoples and countries of planet Earth are, however, enormously varied in their practices, traditions, religions, and levels of economic and political development. Putting these two propositions together may be enough to justify the worry that universal human rights do not sufficiently accommodate the diversity of Earth’s peoples. A theoretical expression of this worry is “relativism”, the idea that ethical, political, and legal standards are only true or justified relative to the traditions, beliefs, and conditions of a particular country, culture or region (see the entry on moral relativism ).

During the drafting in 1947 of the Universal Declaration, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association (“AAA”) warned of the danger that the Declaration would be “a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in Western Europe and America”. A central concern of the AAA Board in the period right after World War II was to condemn intolerant colonialist attitudes of the day and to advocate cultural and political self-determination. But the Board also made the stronger assertion that “standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive” and thus “what is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another people” (AAA 1947).

Such assertions have continued to fuel accusations that human rights are instruments of ethnocentrism, arrogance, and cultural imperialism (Renteln 1990). Ethnocentrism is the assumption, usually unconscious, that “one’s own group is the center of everything” and that its beliefs, practices, and norms provide the standards by which other groups are “scaled and rated” (Sumner 1906; see also Etinson 2018a who argues that ethnocentrism is best understood as a kind of cultural bias rather than a belief in cultural superiority). Ethnocentrism can lead to arrogance and intolerance in dealings with other countries, ethical systems, and religions. Finally, cultural imperialism occurs when the economically, technologically, and militarily strongest countries impose their beliefs, values, and institutions on the rest of the world (for a useful discussion of several power-related concerns about human rights, see Gilabert 2018a).

As in the AAA Board’s case, relativists often combine these charges with a prescription, namely that tolerance of varied practices and traditions ought to be instilled and practiced through measures that include extended learning about other cultures. The idea that relativism and exposure to other cultures promote tolerance may be correct from a psychological perspective. People who are sensitive to differences in beliefs, practices, and traditions, and who are suspicious of the grounds for extending norms across borders, may be more inclined to be tolerant of other countries and peoples than those who believe in an objective universal morality. Still, philosophers have been generally critical of attempts to argue from relativism to a prescription of tolerance (see Williams 1972 [1993] and Talbott 2005). If the culture and religion of one country has long fostered intolerant attitudes and practices, and if its citizens and officials act intolerantly towards people from other countries, they are simply following their own traditions and cultural norms. Accordingly, a relativist from a tolerant country will be hard-pressed to find a basis for criticizing the citizens and officials of the intolerant country. To do so the relativist will have to endorse a transcultural principle of tolerance and to advocate as an outsider cultural change in the direction of greater tolerance. Because of this, relativists who are deeply committed to tolerance may find themselves attracted to a qualified commitment to human rights.

Perhaps for these reasons, relativism is not the stance of most anthropologists today. Currently the AAA has a central Committee whose objectives include promoting, protecting, and developing an anthropological perspective on human rights. While still emphasizing the importance of cultural differences, anthropologists now often support the protection of vulnerable cultures, non-discrimination, and the rights and land claims of indigenous peoples (see the AAA’s 2020 Statement on Anthropology and Human Rights).

The conflict between relativists and human rights advocates may be partially based on differences in their underlying philosophical beliefs, particularly in metaethics. Relativists are often subjectivists or noncognitivists and think of morality as entirely socially constructed and transmitted. In contrast, philosophically-inclined human rights advocates are more likely to adhere to or presuppose cognitivism, moral realism, and intuitionism.

As the AAA’s 1947 Statement shows, the accommodation of diversity has been a concern facing the contemporary human rights regime since its inception. As part of a 1946–47 UNESCO inquiry into the theoretical basis of human rights, the French philosopher, Jacques Maritain, famously suggested that universal agreement on human rights was possible so long as questions of underlying justification were ignored: “Yes… we agree about the rights but on condition no one asks us why” (Maritain 1949: 9). The International Bill of Human Rights appears to violate this embargo when it asserts, in the Preamble to both major Covenants, that “these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person”. Nonetheless, Maritain’s idea has strong echoes in contemporary philosophical work (see Taylor 1999), including John Rawls’ idea that human rights can have a minimal public or “political” justification which may be accepted from various “comprehensive” religious, moral, and philosophical points of view (Rawls 1999; Beitz 2009). Indeed, some have argued that international human rights law’s justificatory appeal to human dignity should be understood in precisely this ecumenical way (McCrudden 2008).

Other important methods of accommodating diversity include the abstract formulation of human rights norms, which allows for diverse, context-sensitive modes of social and institutional implementation (see Etinson 2013). As discussed in section 1 , a modest understanding of the aims of human rights would leave more room for democratic decision-making at the domestic level, and for cultural and political variation across countries (see also the European Court of Human Rights’ notion of a “margin of appreciation”, discussed in Letsas 2006). And it is worth noting that, within limits, state parties to international human rights treaties are entitled to submit “reservations” that alter the legal effect of treaty provisions as they pertain to that state. This provides a further avenue for legal variation and accommodation.

In the 1990s, Singapore’s Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and others argued that international human rights as found in United Nations declarations and treaties were insensitive to distinctive “Asian values”, such as prizing families and community (in contrast to strong individualism); putting social harmony over personal freedom; respect for political leaders and institutions; and emphasizing responsibility, hard work, and thriftiness as means of social progress (on the Asian Values debate see Bauer & Bell [eds] 1999; Bell 2000; and Sen 1997). Proponents of the Asian values idea did not wish to abolish all human rights; they rather wanted to deemphasize some families of human rights, particularly the fundamental freedoms and rights of democratic participation (and in some cases the rights of women). They also wanted Western governments and NGOs to stop criticizing them for human rights violations in these areas.

At the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, countries including Singapore, Malaysia, China, and Iran advocated accommodations within human rights practice for cultural and economic differences. Western representatives tended to view the position of these countries as excuses for repression and authoritarianism. The Conference responded by approving the Vienna Declaration . It included in Article 5 the assertion that countries should not pick and choose among human rights:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In recent decades widespread acceptance of human rights has occurred in most parts of the world. Three quarters of the world’s countries have ratified the major human rights treaties, and many countries in Africa, the Americas, and Europe participate in regional human rights regimes that have international courts (see the Georgetown University Human Rights Law Research Guide in the Other Internet Resources below). Ratification does not, of course, guarantee compliance. Further, all of the world’s countries now use similar political institutions (law, courts, legislatures, executives, militaries, bureaucracies, police, prisons, taxation, and public schools) and these institutions carry with them characteristic problems and abuses (Donnelly 1989 [2020]). Finally, globalization has diminished the differences among peoples. Today’s world is not the one that early anthropologists and missionaries found. National and cultural boundaries are breached not just by international trade but also by millions of travelers and migrants, electronic communications, international law covering many areas, and the efforts of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. International influences and organizations are everywhere and countries borrow freely and regularly from each other’s inventions and practices.

• [AAA] American Anthropological Association, 1947, “Statement on Human Rights”, American Anthropologist , 49(4): 539–543. doi:10.1525/aa.1947.49.4.02a00020 [ AAA 1947 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights” [ AAA 1999 available online ].
• Alston, Philip, 1984, “Conjuring Up New Human Rights: A Proposal For Quality Control”, American Journal of International Law , 78(3): 607–621. doi:10.2307/2202599
• Ashford, Elizabeth, 2006, “The Inadequacy of Our Traditional Conception of the Duties Imposed by Human Rights”, The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence , 19(2): 217–235. doi:10.1017/S0841820900004082
• –––, 2014, “Responsibility for Violations of the Human Right to Subsistence”, in Meyers 2014 : 94–118 (ch. 4).
• –––, 2015, “A Moral Inconsistency Argument for a Basic Human Right to Subsistence”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 515–534 (ch. 29). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0030
• Bauer, Joanne R. and Daniel Bell (eds), 1999, The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Beetham, David, 1995, “What Future for Economic and Social Rights?”, Political Studies , 43(1): 41–60. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb01735.x
• Beitz, Charles R., 2009, The Idea of Human Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572458.001.0001
• –––, 2013, “Human Dignity in the Theory of Human Rights: Nothing But a Phrase?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 41(3): 259–290. doi:10.1111/papa.12017
• –––, 2015, “The Force of Subsistence Rights”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 535–552 (ch. 30). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0031
• Besson, Samantha, 2015, “The Bearers of Human Rights’ Duties and Responsibilities for Human Rights: A Quiet (R)evolution?”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 32(1): 244–268. doi:10.1017/S0265052515000151
• Beyleveld, Deryck, 1991, The Dialectical Necessity of Morality: An Analysis and Defense of Alan Gewirth’s Argument to the Principle of Generic Consistency , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bodansky, Daniel, 2009, “Introduction: Climate Change and Human Rights: Unpacking the Issues Symposium: International Human Rights and Climate Change”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law , 38(3): 511–524.
• Boylan, Michael (ed.), 1999, Gewirth: Critical Essays on Action, Rationality, and Community (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy), Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Brake, Elizabeth, 2022, “Rights to Belong and Rights to Be Left Alone?: Claims to Caring Relationships and Their Limits”, in Brownlee, Jenkins, and Neal 2022 : 211–233 (ch. 11). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871194.003.0012
• Brandt, Richard B., 1983, “The Concept of a Moral Right and Its Function”, The Journal of Philosophy , 80(1): 29–45. doi:10.2307/2026285
• Brems, Eva, 2009, “Human Rights: Minimum and Maximum Perspectives”, Human Rights Law Review , 9(3): 349–372. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngp016
• Brock, Gillian, 2020, Justice for People on the Move: Migration in Challenging Times , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108774581
• Brownlee, Kimberley, 2015, “Do We Have a Human Right to the Political Determinants of Health?”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 502–514 (ch. 28). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0029
• –––, 2018, “Dwelling in Possibility: Ideals, Aspirations, and Human Rights”, in Etinson 2018b : 313–326 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198713258.003.0019
• –––, 2020, Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198714064.001.0001
• Brownlee, Kimberley, David Jenkins, and Adam Neal (eds), 2022, Being Social: The Philosophy of Social Human Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871194.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen E., 2010, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and the Use of Force , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
• Bunch, Charlotte, 1990, “Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Revision of Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly 12: 486–498.
• Campbell, Tom and Kylie Bourne (eds), 2017, Political and Legal Approaches to Human Rights , Abingdon/New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315179711
• Caney, Simon, 2009, “Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds”, in Human Rights and Climate Change , Stephen Humphreys (ed.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 69–90. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511770722.004
• Cohen, Joshua, 2004, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 12(2): 190–213. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00197.x
• Collins, Stephanie, 2016, “The Claims and Duties of Socioeconomic Human Rights”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 66(265): 701–722. doi:10.1093/pq/pqw010
• –––, 2022, “A Human Right to Relationships?”, in Brownlee, Jenkins, and Neal 2022 : 31–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871194.003.0003
• Corradetti, Claudio, 2009, Relativism and Human Rights: A Theory of Pluralistic Universalism , Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9986-1
• ––– (ed.), 2012, Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights: Some Contemporary Views , Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2376-4
• Corrigan, Daniel P., 2022, “Political Confucianism and Human Rights”, Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture , 37: 91–116.
• Cranston, Maurice, 1967, “Human Rights, Real and Supposed”, in Political Theory and the Rights of Man , D. D. Raphael (ed.), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 43–51.
• –––, 1973, What Are Human Rights? , London, Bodley Head. A greatly extended version of the 1962 original.
• Crisp, Roger (ed.), 2014, Griffin on Human Rights , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668731.001.0001
• Cruft, Rowan, 2005, “Human Rights, Individualism and Cultural Diversity”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 8(3): 265–287. doi:10.1080/13698230500187151
• –––, 2012, “Human Rights as Rights”, in Ernst and Heilinger 2012 : 129–158. doi:10.1515/9783110263886.129
• –––, 2019, Human Rights, Ownership, and the Individual , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198793366.001.0001
• Cruft, Rowan, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo (eds), 2015, Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights (Philosophical Foundations of Law), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.001.0001
• Darby, Derrick, 2009, Rights, Race, and Recognition , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511626616
• Den Hartogh, Govert, 2014, “Is Human Dignity the Ground of Human Rights?”, in The Cambridge Handbook of Human Dignity , Marcus Düwell, Jens Braarvig, Roger Brownsword, and Dietmar Mieth (eds), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200–207. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511979033.025
• Dershowitz, Alan M., 2004, Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights , New York: Basic Books.
• Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan, 2020, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice , 6th edition, New York: Routledge.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1978, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2011, Justice for Hedgehogs , Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Ernst, Gerhard and Jan-Christoph Heilinger (eds), 2012, The Philosophy of Human Rights: Contemporary Controversies , Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110263886
• Etinson, Adam, 2013, “Human Rights, Claimability and the Uses of Abstraction”, Utilitas , 25(4): 463–486. doi:10.1017/S0953820813000101
• –––, 2018a, “Some Myths about Ethnocentrism”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 96(2): 209–224. doi:10.1080/00048402.2017.1343363
• ––– (ed.), 2018b, Human Rights: Moral or Political? , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198713258.001.0001
• –––, 2020, “What’s So Special About Human Dignity?”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 48(4): 353–381. doi:10.1111/papa.12175
• –––, forthcoming, “The Lure of Minimalism” in Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Human Rights , Jesse Tomalty and Kerri Woods (eds), London: Routledge.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1973, Social Philosophy (Foundations of Philosophy Series), Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
• Fellmeth, Aaron Xavier, 2016, Paradigms of International Human Rights Law , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190611279.001.0001
• Finnis, John, 2011, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Clarendon Law Series), second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Grounding Human Rights in Natural Law”, The American Journal of Jurisprudence , 60(2): 199–225. doi:10.1093/ajj/auv013
• Flikschuh, Katrin, 2011, “On the Cogency of Human Rights”, Jurisprudence , 2(1): 17–36. doi:10.5235/204033211796290335
• –––, 2016, “How Far Human Rights?”, Jurisprudence , 7(1): 85–92. doi:10.1080/20403313.2016.1148425
• Follesdal, Andreas, 2018, “Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation”, in Etinson 2018b : 269–294 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198713258.003.0017
• Forst, Rainer, 2007, Recht auf Rechtfertigung , Frankfurt (am Main): Suhrkamp. Translated as The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice (New Directions in Critical Theory), Jeffrey Flynn (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press.
• Gardiner, Stephen M., 2013, “Human Rights in a Hostile Climate”, in Holder and Reidy 2013 : 211–230 (ch. 11).
• Gewirth, Alan, 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1982, Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1996, The Community of Rights , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gheaus, Anca, 2013, “The Feasibility Constraint on The Concept of Justice”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 63(252): 445–464. doi:10.1111/1467-9213.12058
• –––, 2022, “The Role of Solitude in the Politics of Sociability”, in Brownlee, Jenkins, and Neal 2022 : 234–251 (ch. 12). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871194.003.0013
• Gilabert, Pablo, 2009, “The Feasibility of Basic Socioeconomic Human Rights: A Conceptual Exploration”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 59(237): 659–681. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.590.x
• –––, 2010, “The Importance of Linkage Arguments for the Theory and Practice of Human Rights: A Response to James Nickel”, Human Rights Quarterly , 32(2): 425–438. doi:10.1353/hrq.0.0143
• –––, 2012, From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199639717.001.0001
• –––, 2018a, “Reflections on Human Rights and Power”, in Etinson 2018b : 375–399 (ch. 11). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198713258.003.0023
• –––, 2018b, Human Dignity and Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198827221.001.0001
• Glendon, Mary Ann, 2001, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , New York: Random House.
• Gould, Carol C., 2004, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511617096
• Green, Leslie, 2010, “Two Worries about Respect for Persons”, Ethics , 120(2): 212–231. doi:10.1086/651425
• Griffin, James, 2008, On Human Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238781.001.0001
• Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
• Hassoun, Nicole, 2013, “Human Rights and the Minimally Good Life”, Res Philosophica , 90(3): 413–438. doi:10.11612/resphil.2013.90.3.6
• –––, 2020a, Global Health Impact: Extending Access to Essential Medicines , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197514993.001.0001
• –––, 2020b, “The Human Right to Health: A Defense”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 51(2): 158–179. doi:10.1111/josp.12298
• Hayden, Patrick (ed.), 2001, The Philosophy of Human Rights (Paragon Issues in Philosophy), St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.
• Hayward, Tim, 2005, Constitutional Environmental Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199278687.001.0001
• Henkin, Louis, 1978, The Rights of Man Today (Gottesman Lectures), Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• Holder, Cindy and David Reidy (eds), 2013, Human Rights: The Hard Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Holmes, Stephen and Cass R. Sunstein, 1999, The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty Depends on Taxes , New York: W.W. Norton.
• Hoover, Joe, 2016, Reconstructing Human Rights: A Pragmatist and Pluralist Inquiry into Global Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198782803.001.0001
• Hope, Simon, 2015, “Human Rights Without the Human Good?”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 608–623 (ch. 34). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0035
• Howard, Rhoda, 1983, “The Full-Belly Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority over Civil and Political Rights? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa”, Human Rights Quarterly , 5(4): 467–490. doi:10.2307/762231
• Ignatieff, Michael, 2004, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (The Gifford Lectures), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Jones, Peter, 1994, Rights , Houndmills/Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Kamm, Frances Myrna, 1986, “Harming, Not Aiding, and Positive Rights”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 15(1): 3–32.
• –––, 2001, “Conflicts of Rights: Typology, Methodology, and Nonconsequentialism”, Legal Theory , 7(3): 239–255. doi:10.1017/S1352325201073025
• –––, 2007, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm (Oxford Ethics Series), Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195189698.001.0001
• Kant, Immanuel, 1785 [1996], The Metaphysics of Morals , in Mary J. Gregor, ed., Practical Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–108. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813306.007.
• Kateb, George, 2011, Human Dignity , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Kaufmann, Paulus, Hannes Kuch, Christian Neuhäuser, and Elaine Webster (eds), 2011, Humiliation, Degradation, Dehumanization: Human Dignity Violated (Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy 24), Dordrecht/New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9661-6
• Kennedy, David, 2004, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Killmister, Suzy, 2020, Contours of Dignity , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198844365.001.0001
• –––, 2019, “The Warty Conception of Human Rights”, Journal of Human Rights , 18(5): 564–578. doi:10.1080/14754835.2019.1647099
• King, Jeff, 2012, Judging Social Rights (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139051750
• Kiyama, Kosuke, 2019, “Human Rights Based on Human Dignity: Defence and Elaboration through an Examination of Andrea Sangiovanni’s Critique”, Journal of Global Studies , 9: 1–24.
• Kymlicka, Will, 1989, Liberalism, Community, and Culture , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• ––– (ed.), 1995, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018, “Human Rights without Human Supremacism”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 48(6): 763–792. doi:10.1080/00455091.2017.1386481
• Lacroix, Justine and Jean-Yves Pranchère, 2016, Le procès des droits de l’homme: généalogie du scepticisme démocratique (La couleur des idées), Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Translated as Human Rights on Trial: A Genealogy of the Critique of Human Rights (Human Rights in History), Gabrielle Maas (trans.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018. doi:10.1017/9781108334884
• Lafont, Cristina, 2012, Global Governance and Human Rights , Amsterdam: van Gorcum.
• Langford, Malcolm, Andy Sumner, and Alicia Ely Yamin (eds), 2013, The Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, Present and Future , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139410892
• Langford, Malcolm and Katharine G. Young (eds), 2022, The Oxford Handbook of Economic and Social Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197550021.001.0001
• Lauren, Paul Gordon, 1998 [2003], The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Second edition, 2003.
• Lee, Patrick and Robert P. George, 2008, “The Nature and Basis of Human Dignity”, Ratio Juris , 21(2): 173–193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9337.2008.00386.x
• Letsas, George, 2006, “Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 26(4): 705–732. doi:10.1093/ojls/gql030
• –––, 2014, “Review of Buchanan, The Heart of Human Rights ”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , 2014.05.24. [ Letsas 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015a, “Dworkin on Human Rights”, Jurisprudence , 6(2): 327–340. doi:10.1080/20403313.2015.1044309
• –––, 2015b, “Rescuing Proportionality”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 316–340 (ch. 17). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0018
• Liao, S. Matthew, 2015a, “Human Rights as Fundamental Conditions for a Good Life”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 79–100 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0004
• –––, 2015b, The Right to Be Loved , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190234836.001.0001
• Liao, S. Matthew and Adam Etinson, 2012, “Political and Naturalistic Conceptions of Human Rights: A False Polemic?”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 9(3): 327–352. doi:10.1163/17455243-00903008
• Locke, John, 1689, “The Second Treatise of Government”, in Two Treatises of Government , London. New York: Prometheus Books, 1986.
• Lockwood, Bert B. (ed.), 2006, Women’s Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Luban, David, 2015, “Human Rights Pragmatism and Human Dignity”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 263–278 (ch. 14). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0015
• Macklin, Ruth, 2003, “Dignity is a Useless Concept,” BMJ 327(7429): 1419–1420.
• Maliks, Reidar and Johan Karlsson Schaffer (eds), 2017, Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights: Implications for Theory and Practice , Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316650134
• Maritain, Jacques, 1948, “Introduction” to Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations , Paris: UNESCO.
• McCrudden, Christopher, 2008, “Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law , 19(4): 655–724. doi:10.1093/ejil/chn043
• ––– (ed.), 2013, Understanding Human Dignity (Proceedings of the British Academy 192), Oxford: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press. doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197265642.001.0001
• Meckled-Garcia, Saladin, 2013, “Giving Up the Goods: Rethinking the Human Right to Subsistence, Institutional Justice, and Imperfect Duties”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 30(1): 73–87. doi:10.1111/japp.12005
• –––, 2015, “Specifying Human Rights”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 300–315 (ch. 16). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0017
• Metz, Thaddeus, 2012, “African Conceptions of Human Dignity: Vitality and Community as the Ground of Human Rights”, Human Rights Review , 13(1): 19–37. doi:10.1007/s12142-011-0200-4
• –––, 2010, “Human Dignity, Capital Punishment, and an African Moral Theory: Toward a New Philosophy of Human Rights”, Journal of Human Rights , 9(1): 81–99. doi:10.1080/14754830903530300
• Meyer, Michael J., 1989, “Dignity, Rights, and Self-Control”, Ethics , 99(3): 520–534. doi:10.1086/293095
• –––, 2001, “The Simple Dignity of Sentient Life: Speciesism and Human Dignity”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 32(2): 115–126. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00083
• Meyers, Diana T., 1985, Inalienable Rights: A Defense , New York: Columbia University Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2014, Poverty, Agency, and Human Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199975877.001.0001
• –––, 2016, Victims’ Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Miller, David, 2012, “Grounding Human Rights”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 15(4): 407–427. doi:10.1080/13698230.2012.699396
• Miller, Richard, 2010, Global Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• Morsink, Johannes, 1999, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• –––, 2009, Inherent Human Rights: Philosophical Roots of the Universal Declaration (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Moyn, Samuel, 2010, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2018, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World , Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Mutua, Makau, 2002, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Nickel, James W., 2007, Making Sense of Human Rights , second edition, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Revised and extended version of the 1987 first edition, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• –––, 2008, “Rethinking Indivisibility: Towards A Theory of Supporting Relations between Human Rights”, Human Rights Quarterly , 30(4): 984–1001. doi:10.1353/hrq.0.0046
• –––, 2013, “Goals and Rights--Working Together?”, in Malcolm Langford, Andy Sumner, andd Alicia Ely Yamin, eds., The Millenium Development Goals: Past, Present, and Future , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–48. doi:10.1017/CB09781139410892
• –––, 2016, “Can a Right to Health Care Be Justified by Linkage Arguments?”, Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics , 37(4): 293–306. doi:10.1007/s11017-016-9369-5
• –––, 2022a, “Linkage Arguments For and Against Rights”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 42(1): 27–47. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqab020
• –––, 2022b, “Moral Grounds for Economic and Social Rights”, in Langford and Young 2022 . doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197550021.013.83
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., 1997, “Capabilities and Human Rights”, Fordham Law Review , 66(2): 273–300.
• –––, 2000, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (The John Robert Seeley Lectures), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511841286
• –––, 2006, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values), Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press : Harvard University Press.
• O’Neill, Onora, 1986, Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty, Justice, and Development (Studies in Applied Philosophy), London/Boston: G. Allen & Unwin.
• –––, 2005, “The Dark Side of Human Rights”, International Affairs , 81(2): 427–439. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00459.x
• Okin, Susan Moller, 1998, “Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences”, Hypatia , 13(2): 32–52. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01224.x
• Orend, Brian, 2002, Human Rights: Concept and Context , Peterborough, Ont./Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.
• Pogge, Thomas, 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Rathore, Aakash Singh and Alex Cistelecan (eds), 2012, Wronging Rights? Philosophical Challenges for Human Rights (Ethics, Human Rights and Global Political Thought), Abingdon/New Delhi: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203814031
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1999, The Law of Peoples: with, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 2010, “Human Rights Without Foundations”, in The Philosophy of International Law , Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas (eds), Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 321–338 (ch. 15).
• Reidy, David A., 2010, “Human Rights and Liberal Toleration”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 23(2): 287–317. doi:10.1017/S084182090000494X
• –––, 2012, “On the Human Right to Democracy: Searching for Sense without Stilts”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 43(2): 177–203. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2012.01557.x
• –––, 2013, “Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights”, in The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy , Gerald F. Gaus and Fred D’Agostino (eds), New York: Routledge, 494–504.
• Reinbold, Jenna, 2017, Seeing the Myth in Human Rights (Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Renteln, Alison Dundes, 1990, International Human Rights: Universalism versus Relativism (Frontiers of Anthropology 6), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Renzo, Massimo, 2012, “Crimes Against Humanity and the Limits of International Criminal Law”, Law and Philosophy , 31(4): 443–476. doi:10.1007/s10982-012-9127-4
• –––, 2015a, “Human Needs, Human Rights*”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 570–587 (ch. 32). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0033
• –––, 2015b, “Human Rights and the Priority of the Moral”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 32(1): 127–148. doi:10.1017/S0265052515000102
• Richards, Charlie, 2023, “Feasibility and Social Rights”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics , 22(4): 470–494. doi:10.1177/1470594X231163280
• Rosen, Michael, 2012, Dignity: Its History and Meaning , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674065512
• –––, 2013, “Dignity: The Case Against”, in McCrudden 2013 : 143–154.
• Rorty, Richard, 1993 [1998], “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality”, in On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993 , Stephen Shute and Susan L. Hurley (eds), New York: Basic Books, 111–134. Collected in his Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, volume 3 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 167–185.
• Sangiovanni, Andrea, 2016, “Are Moral Rights Necessary for the Justification of International Legal Human Rights?”, Ethics & International Affairs , 30(4): 471–481. doi:10.1017/S0892679416000447
• –––, 2017, Humanity without Dignity: Moral Equality, Respect, and Human Rights , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sen, Amartya, 1997, Human Rights and Asian Values (Sixteenth Morgenthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics & Foreign Policy), New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. [ Sen 1997 available online ]
• –––, 2004, “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 32(4): 315–356. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x
• –––, 2005, “Human Rights and Capabilities”, Journal of Human Development , 6(2): 151–166. doi:10.1080/14649880500120491
• Shue, Henry, 1980, Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; second edition, 1996; 40th anniversary edition, 2020.
• –––, 2022, “Interlocking Rights, Layered Protections: Varieties of Justifications for Social Rights”, in Brownlee, Jenkins, and Neal 2022 : 18–30 (ch. 1). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198871194.003.0002
• Sim, May, 2013, “Confucian Values and Human Rights”, The Review of Metaphysics , 67(1): 3–27.
• Simmons, Beth A., 2009, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Song, Jiewuh, 2019, “Human Rights and Inequality”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(4): 347–377. doi:10.1111/papa.12152
• Sreenivasan, Gopal, 2005, “A Hybrid Theory of Claim-Rights”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 25(2): 257–274. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqi013
• Stemplowska, Zofia, 2009, “On the Real World Duties Imposed on Us by Human Rights”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 40(4): 466–487. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01466.x
• –––, 2022, “Is Humanity under a Duty to Deliver Socioeconomic Human Rights?”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 39(2): 202–211. doi:10.1111/japp.12521
• Sumner, L. W., 1987, The Moral Foundation of Rights , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Sumner, William Graham, 1906, Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals , Boston: Ginn and Co.
• Talbott, W. J., 2005, Which Rights Should Be Universal? , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780195331349.001.0001
• –––, 2010, Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford Political Philosophy), Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195173482.001.0001
• Tasioulas, John, 2010, “Taking Rights out of Human Rights” (review of Griffin 2008 ), Ethics , 120(4): 647–678. doi:10.1086/653432
• –––, 2012a, “On the Nature of Human Rights”, in Ernst and Heilinger 2012 : 17–60. doi:10.1515/9783110263886.17
• –––, 2012b, “Towards a Philosophy of Human Rights”, Current Legal Problems , 65(1): 1–30. doi:10.1093/clp/cus013
• –––, 2015, “On the Foundations of Human Rights”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 45–70 (ch. 1). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0002
• –––, 2019, “Saving Human Rights from Human Rights Law”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law , 52(5): 1167–1207 (article 5).
• Taylor, Charles, 1999, “Conditions of an Unforced Consensus on Human Rights”, in Bauer and Bell 1999 : 124–146 (ch. 6).
• Tesón, Fernando R., 1988 [2005], Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality , Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers. 3rd edition, fully revised and updated, Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2005.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1990, The Realm of Rights , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Tierney, Brian, 1997, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150–1625 (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion 5), Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
• Tomalty, Jesse, 2014, “The Force of the Claimability Objection to the Human Right to Subsistence”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 44(1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/00455091.2014.900211
• –––, 2016, “Justifying International Legal Human Rights”, Ethics & International Affairs , 30(4): 483–490. doi:10.1017/S0892679416000459
• –––, 2020, “The Link between Subsistence and Human Rights”, in The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice , Thom Brooks (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 182–198. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198714354.013.9
• Tomasi, John, 2012, Free Market Fairness , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Tuck, Richard, 1979, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139163569
• Valentini, Laura, 2017, “Dignity and Human Rights: A Reconceptualisation”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 37(4): 862–885. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqx011
• Vanderheiden, Steve, 2008, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195334609.001.0001
• Waldron, Jeremy (ed.), 1987, ‘Nonsense upon Stilts’: Bentham, Burke, and Marx on the Rights of Man (University Paperbacks), London/New York: Methuen.
• –––, 2012, Dignity, Rank, and Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Is Dignity the Foundation of Human Rights?”, in Cruft, Liao, and Renzo 2015 : 117–137 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688623.003.0006
• –––, 2018, “Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/Rawls Approach”, in Etinson 2018b : 117–138 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198713258.003.0007
• –––, 2020, “Rights and Human Rights”, in The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law , John Tasioulas (ed.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 152–170. doi:10.1017/9781316104439.009
• Wellman, Carl, 1995, Real Rights , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780195095005.001.0001
• –––, 1998, The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric? , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• –––, 2010, The Moral Dimensions of Human Rights , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744787.001.0001
• Wellman, Christopher Heath, 2012, “Debate: Taking Human Rights Seriously*”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 20(1): 119–130. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00407.x
• Wenar, Leif, 2005, “The Nature of Rights”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 33(3): 223–252. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00032.x
• –––, 2013, “Rights and What We Owe to Each Other”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 10(4): 375–399. doi:10.1163/174552412X628968
• –––, 2015, Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules That Run the World , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Williams, Bernard, 1972 [1993], Morality: An Introduction to Ethics (Harper Torchbooks, TB 1632), New York: Harper & Row. New edtion, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107325869
• Wolff, Jonathan, 2012, The Human Right to Health (Amnesty International Global Ethics Series), New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 2008, Justice: Rights and Wrongs , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), adopted 1950, came into force 3 September 1953. ECHR available online (PDF) ]
• European Social Charter, came into force 26 February 1965 [ European Social Charter available online (pdf) ]
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR), adopted 7 December 2007, came into force 1 December 2009. [ Fundamental Rights available online ]
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed 10 December 1948. [ UDHR available online ]
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted 21 December 1965. [ available online ]
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted 16 December 1966. ICCPR available online ]
• International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), adopted 16 December 1966. [ ICESCR available online ]
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted 1979. [ CEDAW available online ]
• Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted 20 November 1989. [ CRC available online ]
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted 13 December 2006, opened for signing 2007. [ CRPD available online ]
• Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP), adopted 13 September 2007. [ DRIP available online ]
• A/RES/76/300 The human right to a clean, healthy and substainable environment, adopted 28 July 2022. [ A/RES/76/300 available online (pdf) ]
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted 17 July 1998, came into force 1 July 2002. [ Rome Statute available online ]
• Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted 25 June 1993, World Conference of Human Rights in Vienna. [ Vienna Declaration 1993 available online ]
• United States Constitution
• Declaration of Independence (United States), July 1776. US Declaration of Independence available online
• American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José), adopted 22 November 1969, came into force 18 July 1978. [ American Convention on Human Rights available online ]
• African (Banjul) Charter on Human and People’s Rights, adopted 27 June 1981, came into force 21 October 1986. [ African Charter available online (pdf) ]

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• The International (UN) Human Rights System , Georgetown Law Library Human Rights Law Research Guide
• International Human Rights Law , United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
• Human Rights entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .

democracy | dignity | equality | equality: of opportunity | ethics: environmental | feminist philosophy, interventions: liberal feminism | globalization | justice: distributive | Kant, Immanuel | Locke, John: political philosophy | moral relativism | moral status, grounds of | Pufendorf, Samuel Freiherr von: moral and political philosophy | Rawls, John | respect | rights | rights: group | rights: of children | social minimum [basic income] | well-being

Acknowledgments

For the 2024 update, Adam Etinson has joined James Nickel in authoring and revising this entry.

Copyright © 2024 by James Nickel < nickel @ law . miami . edu > Adam Etinson < ae45 @ st-andrews . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 8

Introduction to the civil rights movement.

• African American veterans and the Civil Rights Movement
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
• Emmett Till
• The Montgomery Bus Boycott
• "Massive Resistance" and the Little Rock Nine
• The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965
• SNCC and CORE

Black Power

• The Civil Rights Movement

• The Civil Rights Movement is an umbrella term for the many varieties of activism that sought to secure full political, social, and economic rights for African Americans in the period from 1946 to 1968.
• Civil rights activism involved a diversity of approaches, from bringing lawsuits in court, to lobbying the federal government, to mass direct action, to black power.
• The efforts of civil rights activists resulted in many substantial victories, but also met with the fierce opposition of white supremacists .

The emergence of the Civil Rights Movement

Civil rights and the supreme court, nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, the unfinished business of the civil rights movement, what do you think.

• See Richard S. Newman, The Transformation of American Abolitionism: Fighting Slavery in the Early Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002).
• See C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York: Oxford University Press, 1955).
• See Edward L. Ayers, The Promise of the New South: Life After Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
• See Daniel Kryder, Divided Arsenal: Race and the American State during World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000); and Stephen Tuck,  Fog of War: The Second World War and the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
• See Michael J. Klarman, Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).
• See Peniel E. Joseph, Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America (New York: Henry Holt, 2006).
• See Michael Eric Dyson, The Black Presidency: Barack Obama and the Politics of Race in America (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016).
• See Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010).
• See Tavis Smiley, ed., The Covenant with Black America: Ten Years Later (Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc., 2016).

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Feminist perspectives on human rights.

• Laura Parisi Laura Parisi Department of Women's Studies, University of Victoria
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.48
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 30 November 2017

Feminism has provided some new perspectives to the discourse on human rights over the years. Contemporary feminist scholarship has sought to critique the liberalism on which the conception of formal “equality” in the international human rights laws has been derived on a number of grounds. Two of the most pertinent critiques for this discussion are: the androcentric construction of human rights; and the perpetuation of the false dichotomy between the public and private spheres. This exploration of the relationship between liberalism and women’s human rights constitutes a significant shift in which many feminists had realized that the emphasis on “sameness” with men was limited in its utility. This shift rejected the “sameness” principle of the liberal feminists and brought gender-specific abuses into the mainstream of human rights theory and practice. By gender mainstreaming international institutions and future human rights treaties, specific women’s rights could be defined as human rights more generally. Feminists have since extended their critique of androcentrism and the public–private dichotomy to the study of gender inequalities and economic globalization, which is an important systemic component of structural indivisibility. In particular, the broader women’s human rights movement has come to realize that civil-political liberties and socioeconomic rights are inextricable, though there is disagreement over the exact nature of this relationship.

• human rights
• women’s rights
• international human rights laws
• androcentrism
• public–private dichotomy
• economic globalization
• civil-political liberties
• democratization

Introduction

Feminist critiques of human rights seek to dismantle several hierarchies present in the human rights regime. By critiquing the basic assumptions of human rights as they were formulated in 1945–8 , feminists have revealed that these definitions are inadequate, that men and women have different relationships with the state, and that rights are not fixed and immutable. Rather, they are historically, socially, culturally, and economically contingent. This essay explores feminist contributions to the human rights discourse in several ways. The first half of the essay chronicles and analyzes the evolution of the “women’s rights are human rights” discourse as well as the development of the notion of the indivisibility of rights. The second half of the essay looks the feminist debates with regards to women’s human rights in three issue areas or contexts: globalization, democratization, and culture. The essay concludes with a discussion of the current challenges with regards to data collection in measuring the achievement of women’s human rights.

Although there are multiple feminisms, the terms feminist and feminism are used in a broad sense in this essay to connote a shared goal of seeking to re-articulate human rights in an effort to achieve gender equality, even though theoretical entry points into the discourse and resulting strategies may vary widely among feminists (Tong 2008 ). Similarly, the concept of human rights has been contested in many ways, but it is beyond the scope of this essay to delve into these debates. Rather, the focus will be on what feminists have understood human rights to be in theory and in practice.

Women’s Rights Are Human Rights: Evolution of the Discourse

During the “first wave” of feminism (loosely defined as late nineteenth century to early twentieth century ), theorists and activists paid particular attention to the gendered construction of citizenship that was employed to deny civil and political liberties to women and other minority groups. Writings by theorists and activists such as Mary Wollstonecraft , John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor , Lucretia Mott , Elizabeth Cady Stanton , and Susan B. Anthony dominated early feminism. However, many of the debates that took place during the first wave also spilled over to the immediate post–World War II era, particularly during the process of creating the United Nations (UN) as well as the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The central liberal feminist tenet that carried over to the post–World War II period is that men and women are the same in rational ability and capacity for individual autonomy and self-determination and therefore should be afforded full citizenship and its attendant rights, protections, and opportunities.

Yet, there were others who argued that women should be conceptualized as a group marked by sexual difference and that special protection was needed to “level the playing field”; only in this way could women advance individual self-determination and self-governance (Rupp 1997 :105; Lake 2001 :255). For many first wave liberal feminists, the primary way to achieve sexual equality (or parity) was through legislative means, i.e., suffrage, education, labor rights, etc. The liberal feminist ideal of “sameness” laid the groundwork for the future of women’s international human rights in the institutional arrangements in the United Nations as well as the drafting of the UDHR in 1948 . However, as we shall see, the theoretical tension between the competing feminist agendas of nondiscrimination and special protections had long-lasting effects in the women’s human rights movement.

The UDHR does not specifically address women’s rights but it does briefly address the idea of sexual equality in Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Those who insisted on the inclusion of “sex” in Article 2 hoped that it would address the inequality of women by putting them on an “equal footing” with men (Johnson 1998 :61). There were, of course, others who felt the inclusion of the word “sex” was unnecessary given that the UDHR explicitly states the rights delineated in the document apply to “everyone.”

Although these may seem like minor occurrences and debates, they laid the theoretical groundwork for policy making within the UN Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (UNHCHR) for many decades. In the years that followed the creation of CSW and the ratification of the International Bill of Rights, liberal feminists paid particular attention to securing civil and political liberties for women. It is important to note that the emphasis on civil and political liberties was pervasive throughout the UN system, particularly by Western powers and those countries allied with the United States during the Cold War. Consequently, given the power of the United States in the international system during the 1950s and 1960s, it is not surprising that several other human rights conventions which specifically addressed the status of women, such as the Convention on the Political Rights of Women ( 1952 ), emphasized civil and political liberties as the way to achieve sexual equality. Like the UDHR, these covenants emphasized “sameness” and did not take into account men’s and women’s qualitatively different experiences in the public sphere nor did they tackle structures that perpetuated gender hierarchies.

Contemporary feminist scholarship has sought to critique the liberalism on which the conception of formal “equality” in the UDHR and other international human rights laws has been derived on a number of grounds. Two of the most pertinent critiques for this discussion are: the androcentric construction of human rights; and the perpetuation of the false dichotomy between the public and private spheres. The public–private split “refers to the (artificial) distinction between home (private or reproductive sphere) to which women are assigned, and the workplace (the public or productive sphere) to which men are assigned” (Peterson and Runyan 1999 :259). These concepts are connected with both the radical feminism and the socialist feminism of the 1970s that was a response to the perceived inadequacies of liberal feminism. The issue of the relationship between gender and the public and private spheres is briefly touched upon in the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was developed during the UN Decade for Women ( 1975–85 ) in order to have a “single, comprehensive and internationally binding instrument to eliminate discrimination against women” (UNDAW n.d. ). However, it was not until the late 1980s that this relationship was fully theorized in terms of women’s human rights, development, and international law. The end result has been a major theoretical shift in both theory and practice.

Both androcentrism and the public–private split are embedded in patriarchy (another core theoretical concept of radical and socialist feminisms), understood here to mean the degree to which society is “male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centered” (Johnson 1997 :5). Many contemporary feminist analyses of human rights laws, institutions and practice are grounded in critiques of the broader construct of patriarchy. Since rights themselves are socially constructed in that they reflect a “distinctive, historically unusual set of social values and practices,” the context in which human rights were/are developed is an important analytical tool (Donnelly 1999 :81). For example, Charlesworth ( 1995 :103) suggests that

because the law-making institutions of the international legal order have always been, and continue to be, dominated by men, international human rights law has developed to reflect the experiences of men and largely to exclude those of women, rendering suspect the claim of objectivity and universality in human rights law.

The claim of androcentrism in the development of human rights is predicated on two issues that are raised by Charlesworth. The first surrounds the issue of the position of the speaker; it is important to evaluate who is making rights claims and on whose behalf (Rao 1995 ). In the case of human rights discourse, the historical record reflects that mainstream human rights has largely been influenced by masculinist liberal ideology, which reflects what is desirable or ideal, such as individual autonomy, in the social construction of human rights. Hence, the claim of objectivity must be questioned.

The second issue revolves around the liberal ideological foundations of human rights, inalienability and universality. These concepts are largely derived from John Locke ’s Second Treatise on Government ( 1690 ), in which he argues for the natural and inalienable rights of human beings – rights one has simply by virtue of being human. Cast in this light, rights of individual humans appear to be universal and should take precedence above all else (Locke 1980 ). State governance should not be guided by the “greater good” principle because it encroaches upon individual “opportunity to make fundamental choices about what constitutes the good life (for them), who they associate with, and how” (Donnelly 1999 :80). Embedded in this notion of the individual is the idea that individuals are rational enough to exercise these rights. During Locke’s era the “criteria” for rationality was ownership of private property, which excluded women, low-wage workers, and slaves from exercising rights, thereby severely undermining the notion of universality. Furthermore, since the principles of inalienability and universality were theorized in the context of elite male experience, the current traditional construction of human rights excludes the experiences of women and other marginalized groups. The male experience with, and definition of, human rights came to be accepted as the “norm,” and it is this social construction of human rights that feminists have sought to challenge and rearticulate.

The individualism and egalitarianism that are crucial to Locke’s liberalism may at first seem contradictory to patriarchy, which is predicated on gender hierarchies that presume that the subordination of women to men is based on “natural” characteristics. However, as Pateman ( 1989 :33–57) observes, Locke also provides a theoretical basis for the exclusion of women from individualist arguments. Locke makes a distinction between the political power of the public sphere and paternal power in the private sphere of the family. This move is grounded in his view that women’s subordination to their husbands in the private sphere is natural and non-political, and perhaps also “pre-political” (Rao 1996 :445). This “natural” subordination of women, which is condoned and supported by the state, suggests that they cannot at the same time be free and equal individuals. Therefore, Locke’s separation between public and paternal power effectively relegates women to the private sphere (Pateman 1989 :33–57), where they have little ability to claim rights in the public sphere (Romany 1994 ). In this way, the state is able to protect both the public and private interests of men (Peterson and Parisi 1998 :147).

The public–private distinction also rests on fundamentally different conceptions of citizenship for men and women that date back to the time of the ancient Greek polis and continue to be firmly embedded in liberal thought (Grant 1991 :12–13). As a result, “human rights law was gendered male: it protected a male subject, who experienced violations primarily directed at men, in largely male spaces” (Friedman 2006 :480–1). Since the public sphere is associated with masculinity, “the duties and activities of citizenship have strongly depended on manliness” (Voet 1998 :7). As citizens, men are/were accorded certain rights that women, relegated to the private sphere, are/were not. The association of the feminine with the private sphere has historically identified and still continues to identify women as non-citizens, and, hence, as less than fully autonomous beings. For example, laws governing the nationality of children in countries such as Kenya, which deem that the citizenship of children is determined by the father’s citizenship (and not the mother’s), reinforce the concept of citizen as male. The association of the feminine with the private sphere identifies women as non-citizens, and hence, as less than fully autonomous beings unable to make claims to rights (Romany 1994 ).

The emphasis on the public sphere as the proper realm of human rights depoliticizes women’s experiences in the private and reinforces androcentric constructions of human rights. The artificial distinction between the public and the private spheres also allows for the appearance of the state as non-gendered, and masks how formal legal equality in the public sphere contributes to states’ complicity in facilitating gender hierarchies in the private sphere. In general, states are discouraged by international law from intervening in the private sphere given the primacy placed on the sanctity of the family and the right to privacy (Sullivan 1995 :127). The result is that states are held accountable only for the human rights abuses they perpetrate and not for the conduct of individuals in the private sphere, where most gender-based violence occurs. Hence, gender-based violence in the home, until recently, was not considered to be a human rights abuse (Bunch 1990 ).

For example, marital rape has historically often not been considered a criminal act by the state, and this idea is still prevalent in many countries, such as the Bahamas and Zambia, where marital rape has yet to be criminalized. Although the International Bill of Rights guarantees the right of everyone to be free from torture and enslavement by the state, and explicitly prohibits rape of and assault against women in times of conflict, it does not guarantee women freedom from domestic abuse, which for many women is a form of torture and/or enslavement (Copelon 1994 ). The subordination of women in the private sphere is justified and naturalized as the patriarchal state, in accordance with the liberal maxim of individual freedom and the protection of private property, protects the private, individual interests of men. Under international human rights laws, states have often not been held accountable for their inaction (or inadequate action) that has enabled gender-based violence in the private sphere.

Due to feminist activism and scholarship in this area, gender-specific violence is now considered a legitimate human rights issue (Bunch 1990 ; Copelon 1994 ; Keck and Sikkink 1998 ; Joachim 2003 ; Merry 2006 ). As a result, there is now the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women ( 1993 ), a UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, and the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has further codified violence against women as a punishable offense. Although these are all very positive developments, many feminists, such as Ratna Kapur ( 2005 ), worry about the implications of the framing of women as primarily victims of violence. Kapur ( 2005 :99) argues that while “the victim subject […] provides a shared location from which women from different cultural and social contexts can speak” and also “provides women with a subject that repudiates the atomized, decontextualized and ahistorical subject of liberal rights discourse, while at the same time furnishing a unitary subject that enables women to makes claims based on a commonality of experience,” the end result is a conceptualization of “women” that falls prey to gender essentialism, producing another type of “universal” subject that “resembles the uncomplicated subject of the liberal discourse, which cannot account for multi-layered existences and experiences” (Kapur 2005 :99). Kapur, and others such as Mohanty ( 1991 ) and Narayan ( 1997 ), also argue that the focus on the victim subject results in cultural essentialism, which will be explored in more detail at the end of this essay.

Another implication of the feminist critique of the public–private dichotomy is the presumed heterosexuality of the family unit in the private sphere (Rao 1996 ; Peterson and Parisi 1998 ). The UDHR’s Article 16 protects the right of adult men and women to freely and consensually marry, and the right to found a family, “without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion” (UDHR 1948 ). Article 16.3 locates the family as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and [it] is entitled to protection by society and the state.” Although the UDHR does not specify that marriage must be between a man and a woman or that families must be heterosexual units, Article 16 specifies nondiscrimination only on the basis of race, nationality, and religion and excludes sexuality. The exclusion of sexuality as the basis for nondiscrimination in marriage reveals a hidden (or presumed) heterosexist bias, and also raises the question of what types of families should be protected. However, the Western, liberal construction of the heterosexual family has prevailed as the dominant interpretation of Article 16 because it maps neatly onto the gendered dichotomy of the public–private split, and the “family is viewed normatively as an arena for something other than rights” since it is “pre-political,” “sentimental,” and “noncontractual” (Rao 1996 :245). As a result, heterosexism has become naturalized and normalized in many mainstream international human rights documents, and this interpretation precludes protection of any other sexual identities by rendering them outside the “fundamental group unit of society” (Peterson and Parisi 1998 ). This positioning outside the protection of the human rights framework, as is well known, has had deleterious effects on sexual minorities in not only asserting their right to sexualities, but also in making claims to other individual and group rights (LaViolette and Whitworth 1994 ; Dorf and Perez 1995 ; Peterson and Parisi 1998 ).

At the Beijing conference, the issues of gender, sexual orientation, and the definition of family were hotly contested. The use of gender came under fire by conservative groups and states who rejected a social constructivist approach to the term in order to exclude sexual orientation from being read into the definition (Chappell 2007 :515). Instead, “gender” in the Platform For Action (PFA), and other international documents since then, is now understood to mean “the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society” (ibid.). While there are numerous problems with this definition of gender, for the purposes of this discussion, it is important to highlight that the intense wrangling had two significant and related impacts on the PFA. First, all explicit references to sexual orientation in the document were dropped. Second, the use of the term family, rather than families, stayed intact. Thus, the naturalized, patriarchal, heterosexual family delineated in the UDHR is preserved. It was feared that the inclusion of specific rights for sexual minorities would result in not passing the PFA at all. Although the PFA claims the right of women to freely determine their sexuality and recognizes the family in “various forms,” for many this wording is too ambiguous and hollow given that it also acknowledges that cultural, religious, national, and regional particularities must be considered in the implementation of these rights (Steans and Ahmadi 2005 :241). By invisibilizing sexualities, the PFA precluded the delineation of more explicit rights for sexual minorities with regards to property rights, children, and so forth.

Yet, at the same time, there has been considerable discussion about whether or not advancing of the agenda of sexual minorities in a rights based framework is useful and desirable (LaViolette and Whitworth 1994 ; Morgan 2001 ; Mertus 2007 ). Mertus ( 2007 ), in her study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocacy in the US, demonstrates the reluctance of many groups to adopt a rights based approach since it may require them to accept set identity categories. LaViolette and Whitworth ( 1994 ) identify a similar tension more globally. Finally, Morgan ( 2001 ) also asks whether or not it is at all desirable to fight for inclusion in a decidedly heteronormative system in the first place. This response parallels the concerns of radical feminists working to achieve women’s rights in a system that is inherently patriarchal and not worthy of being retained in their point of view (Brems 1997 ). Instead, it might be more productive to disrupt patriarchal and heteronormative systems rather than focusing on inclusion in them (Morgan 2001 ).

Ultimately, however, the exploration of the relationship between liberalism and women’s human rights constituted a significant shift in which many feminists (especially cultural feminists) realized that the emphasis on “sameness” with men was limited in its utility. The shift entailed focusing on gender relations as a category of analysis, a valuing of difference, and delineating gender-specific experiences (Brems 1997 ). This tactic rejected the “sameness” principle of the liberal feminists and brought gender-specific abuses into the mainstream of human rights theory and practice. By gender mainstreaming international institutions and future human rights treaties, specific women’s rights could be defined as human rights more generally (Bunch 1990 ).

The Structural Indivisibility of Rights

By the 1970s the limitations of the emphasis on civil and political liberties for women became increasingly clear as the UN struggled with the issues of poverty, malnutrition, and population as it began its preparations for the World Food Conference ( 1974 ) and the World Population Conference ( 1974 ). The failure of the liberal feminist assumption that the achievement of political and civil liberties would translate into economic opportunity for women prompted a re-articulation of the relationship between civil and political liberties and socioeconomic rights for women. The argument shifted to the idea that women who lack food, shelter, education, property, health services, etc. cannot fully enjoy and exercise their civil and political liberties (Parisi 2002 ). In addition, the publication of Ester Boserup’s ( 1970 ) Woman’s Role in Economic Development , in which she documented the negative consequences of modernization programs on women’s lives, influenced liberal feminists to expand their focus on rights to include economic and labor issues. This approach eventually became known as “Women in Development” (WID) and it marked the beginning of the UN Decade for Women ( 1975–85 ).

Yet, the WID approach was roundly criticized by socialist-Marxist feminists and third world feminists for its adherence to the liberal framework of “sameness” discussed earlier by promoting an “add women and stir” model of development aimed at achieving gender equality. This approach fails to examine the structures that caused and perpetuated this inequality in the first place. In response to this critique and to the lack of a more cohesive vision for women’s rights and well-being, the fledgling “global” women’s movement began to develop an explicit vision of the indivisibility of human rights. This vision was ultimately reflected in the theme of the UN Decade for Women: “Equality – Development – Peace” (FLS 1985 : paragraphs 11–13). The three objectives formed a more sophisticated basis for women’s human rights and were, and still are, viewed as “internally interrelated and mutually reinforcing, so that the advancement of one contributes to the advancement of the others” (Pietilä and Vickers 1996 :49). The first attempt at encapsulating these ideals resulted in the World Plan of Action (WPA) that in turn provided an impetus and basis for the drafting of CEDAW, which passed in the UN in 1979 , and entered into force in 1981 . (For a comprehensive history of the events leading up to the UN Decade for Women and of the drafting of CEDAW, see Fraser 1999 .)

CEDAW extends women’s rights provisions in the International Bill of Human Rights in that it created an “international bill of women’s rights” that defines and addresses all forms of discrimination against women and is guided by the principle of what Otto ( 2001 :54) calls “structural indivisibility.” Structural indivisibility stresses “interconnections between the political, economic, environmental, and security priorities of the international order and violations of human rights” (ibid.). This vision is somewhat different than Bunch’s ( 1990 ) emphasis on the necessary interconnectedness between political, civil, socioeconomic and cultural rights in that it takes into account the systemic factors which link and influence the achievement of these rights.

The majority of the 30 articles of CEDAW are concerned with social, economic, and cultural rights embedded in the liberal feminist WID and non-discrimination framework that relies heavily on the principle of equality before the law; only four articles deal explicitly with the political and civil liberties of women. However, the preamble and some of the articles of CEDAW address additional concerns important to third world feminists, Marxist feminists, and radical feminists. For example, it reiterates the call for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) to tackle global economic inequality and demands the right to cultural self-determination and the end of imperialism, colonization, and racism. CEDAW also affirms the right of women to space their children – a victory for radical feminists involved in reproductive rights movements. Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it acknowledges the contributions to society that women make in the home, thus breaking down the distinction between the public and private spheres (the personal is political) and highlighting how traditional gender roles can be a source of women’s oppression.

The mission behind CEDAW is to recast women as subjects rather than objects of development, recognizing them as fully autonomous beings entitled to human rights widely enjoyed by men, yet at the same time recognizing that there are indeed differences between men and women, such as the ability to bear children, that have historically served as justification for discrimination against women. CEDAW is thus cast in a seemingly paradoxical framework that uses both the “measure of man” as a benchmark for equal rights and correctives to move the discourse from being gender-neutral to being gender-specific (Kaufman and Lindquist 1995 ; Friedman 2006 ; Arat 2008 ). As a result, feminists challenged the patriarchal and androcentric way in which mainstream human rights treaties had been conceptualized, which largely ignored the experiences of women and other marginalized groups, but also reaffirmed some of the androcentric conceptualizations of human rights. However, in acknowledging the contributions to society that women make in the home, CEDAW breaks down the artificial distinction between the public and private spheres (the personal is political) and highlights how traditional gender roles can be a source of women’s oppression. This important claim in CEDAW has been crucial in the CEDAW committee’s ability to identify and broaden the scope of violations of women’s human rights and to redress them through their general recommendations (Arat 2008 )

Gender and Human Rights in the Context of Globalization

One important systemic component of structural indivisibility is economic globalization. Feminists have extended their critique of androcentrism and the public–private dichotomy so pervasive in the human rights discourse to the study of gender inequalities and economic globalization (Youngs 2000 ). Although there are many issues that fall under this area of study, this section will focus exclusively on the topic of the relationship between gender inequality in socioeconomic rights and economic globalization. The next section deals with democratization and will make the link between socioeconomic and civil and political rights. Feminist human rights scholars have been concerned with how the deepening of capitalism affects the state and the state’s ability to fulfill its human rights obligations. However, the crucial point of departure in this literature is its explicit focus on how this transformation is gendered and has gendered consequences (Lothian 1996 ; Sen 1997 ; Sassen 1998 ; Peratis et al. 1999 ; Bayes et al. 2001 ; Rittich 2001 ; Elson 2002 ). More explicitly, economic globalization not only produces gender inequalities, but also maintains and relies upon these inequalities in a variety of contexts in order to deepen capitalism, as well as to rearticulate the state.

As Rittich ( 2001 :96–7) notes, there are several concerns to address when assessing the relationship between the state and the achievement of women’s human rights. One issue is the recognition that the women’s rights discourse and movement was and still is deeply embedded in and reliant upon the state-centered model of human rights. Even though feminist critiques of both the human rights regime and the state have revealed both their androcentrism and their complicity in preserving the public–private split which is profoundly gendered, the solutions posed by many feminists depend on the state to change its perspective, and consequently its behavior. As such, Chappell ( 2000 :245) suggests that feminists have moved to a middle ground with regards to the state, viewing it neither as “inherently patriarchal and oppressive” nor as “gender neutral,” but rather the emphasis is now on the “interaction between the state and gender,” in which each shapes the other. For example, Weldon’s ( 2002 ) research on cross-national variations of state policy responsiveness with regards to violence against women issues shows that strong, autonomous women’s movements have significant influence on state policy change.

Regardless, the state becomes the primary agent in promoting and implementing effective strategies to eradicate gender inequalities. Yet, implicit in this design is the assumption of an economically prosperous, democratic state or, at the very least, an effectual one that subscribes to a neoliberal economic agenda. Although the international covenants on human rights allow for “progressive realization” of human rights, this concept also hinges on the notion that states will consistently and persistently search for ways to reallocate resources to further the enjoyment of human rights. For feminists, this means taking seriously the ways in which the state contributes to gender inequality through its social policies, and relying on the state to correct itself.

This perspective, of course, is not unproblematic. As Sassen ( 1998 :94) suggests, the state is still viewed as the legitimate representative of the population in the international law arena, diminishing the contributions and limiting the participation of other nonstate actors. Furthermore, access to and influence over state policies is not uniform among women’s rights and human rights groups, and states are also subject to lobbying from other special interest groups, which may or may not be supportive of human rights based initiatives (Rittich 2001 :97). In addition to these problems, as Chappell ( 2000 :246–7) notes, there is a historic disjuncture among women’s rights activists in the first and third worlds, who have quite different views regarding the utility of achieving rights through the state, given the wide variation of states with regards to resources, effectiveness, and openness/repressiveness. However, given that the Beijing PFA ( 1995 ), which now operates as the dominant referent in international women’s rights law, places responsibility with states to realize and protect women’s rights in the face of potential negative consequences of globalization (rather than challenging globalization itself), and the increasingly “economistic turn” in the gender and development literature that conceptualizes “empowerment” as economic empowerment (Marchand 1996 :580), it appears that the “national-management framework” (Bergeron 2001 :993) is the primary one in place in both the first and third worlds, as an interactive site of resource allocation and resistance.

It is important to note, however, the framework utilized by the PFA has been challenged on many fronts, most notably by indigenous women, who, in their response to the PFA, roundly criticized globalization as recolonization and responsible for environmental degradation and continued poverty in indigenous lands and nations (Vinding 1998 ). They are explicit in their rejection of the strategy of trying to mitigate the negative effects of globalization, which is embedded in the interlocking systems of oppression of capitalism, patriarchy, and colonization (Kuokkanen 2008 ). Rather, for many indigenous women, there needs to be not only recognition of the structural violence that globalization perpetuates and sustains, but also a recognition of how the PFA and the contemporary discourses on women’s rights are complicit in maintaining this system.

A second, highly interrelated issue is markets. As Elson ( 2002 :80–1) suggests, the traditional neoliberal orthodoxy that began in the 1970s and prevailed in the 1980s, “presumes that the best way to give substance to human rights is to reduce the role of the state, liberate entrepreneurial energy, achieve economic efficiency, and promote faster economic growth.” The neoliberal emphasis on the retrenchment of the state as the best way to ensure the fulfillment of human rights seems contradictory to the human rights regime’s insistence of proactive state involvement in meeting its human rights obligations. Yet, as Bayes et al. ( 2001 :3) note, both economics and politics are linked through the rhetoric if not the practice of neoliberalism, which defines the current period. They argue that in theory, neoliberal economics assumes a separation between states and markets, in which markets operate with little intervention from the state. Brodie ( 1996 :384) suggests further that this theoretical relationship between states and markets is actually one of the public and private, in which the private is made up of two realms that are presumed to be out of the “natural” purview of the state: the capitalist economy and the patriarchal family.

However, as discussed earlier, the notion of a rigid public–private divide in the human rights regime has largely been deconstructed by feminists, and in using a similar line of reasoning, feminists suggest that the globalizing neoliberal capitalist world economy rests not on a division between the state (public) and the markets (private) but rather that economic globalization, in its current form, requires an interconnection between states and markets to further its goals. That is, economic globalization requires governments to “provide for the free movement of capital, the free movement of goods, unrestricted labor markets, responsible banking systems, stable monetary policies, limited fiscal policies, attractive investment opportunities, and political stability” (Bayes et al. 2001 :3). Through these practices, the “family and other aspects of private life [are subjected to] new forms of state scrutiny, regulation, and assistance” (Brodie 1996 :385). Thus, the “boundaries” of the public–private are renegotiated, rearticulated, and blurred through the interaction of states (especially liberal democratic ones) and markets.

Although state entrenchment with regards to the economy may be a conscious and pro/re-active strategy on the part of governments as a route to economic prosperity that in theory promotes the progressive realization of socioeconomic rights through more resource allocation, the neoliberal ideology effectively shifts the responsibility away from states to markets as the guarantors of rights. Markets have little accountability and regulation in the human rights regime, insofar as multinational corporations, a major force behind globalization, have little oversight in international law and, in many cases, national law. This development poses particular challenges for feminists, who argue that the neoliberal democratic state, coupled with international human rights law, represents the best hope for the redistribution of resources guided by prioritizing the goal of gender equality. This is not to imply that feminists view the neoliberal democratic state as “gender neutral” or unproblematic. Rather, as the earlier discussion of the human rights discourse reveals, many feminists find the liberal democratic state profoundly gendered.

Another major point of feminist theorizing about globalization is that economic globalization not only produces gender inequality but also requires gender inequality to flourish and to sustain itself. Indeed, there appears to be a general consensus that globalization exacerbates gender inequality, and thus the fulfillment of women’s socioeconomic rights in relation to men’s, in important ways. There are numerous other areas in which feminists have examined globalization’s impact on gender inequality and rights, such as household relations (Kromhout 2000 ; Gonzalez 2001 ; Sircar and Kelly 2001 ; Soni-Sinha 2001 ), migrants/migration (Anderson 2000 ; Chang and Ling 2000 ; Kofman 2000 ), sex work/trafficking (Pettman 1996 ; Hanochi 2001 ), informal labor (Prügl 1999 ; Benería 2003 ), resistance (Runyan 1996 ; Karam 2000 ; Lind 2000 ; Rowbotham and Linkogle 2001 ; Naples and Desai 2002 ) and identity (Peterson 1996 ; Kuokkanen 2008 ). However, these topics are beyond the scope of this project and, as such, will not be discussed in depth here.

As noted earlier, in order for states to remain economically competitive, they adopt strategies that increase the power of the private sector at the expense of the public sector. The result is the weakening of “many institutions that in the past have assumed responsibility for human welfare – while passing on to others burdens they cannot be expected to bear” (UNRISD 1995 :128). For many women, this situation is especially problematic because in order for states to uphold their obligations under CEDAW and the Beijing PFA, they must allocate resources for social welfare programs.

There have been two major responses by states facing the choice of economic competitiveness or guaranteeing socioeconomic rights. Industrialized countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have deregulated the labor market and wages and cut social welfare programs in order to stimulate economic growth and employment (UNRISD 1995 :131). Developing countries have often adopted structural adjustment programs that implement severe economic austerity measures with the aim of jump-starting the economy at the expense of “non-profitable” public service programs. Feminist economists have shown that structural adjustment programs (SAP) have a differential impact on men and women in that women tend to absorb most of the shock of SAPs by increasing their domestic labor (through caregiving, altering the household consumption habits, subsistence farming, informal economic activities) and by entering the labor force to provide more income for the family (Elson 1991 ; Bakker 1994 ; Benería 2003 ; Çagatay 2003 ). As a result, there has been an increase in women’s poverty and economic inequality, and this constitutes a violation of women’s socioeconomic rights (Sadasivam 1997 ).

A second, interrelated issue is how economic globalization depends on a gendered sexual division of labor. The international sexual division of labor is predicated on the public–private split in which men’s work is considered to be “human” or real work, and women’s work is determined by their “nature” (Mies 1999 :46). Work is defined as a public masculine activity and women’s work (or non-work) is defined as a private sphere activity. However, women’s work in the private sphere is extremely important to the functioning of the capitalist system, yet despite this important role, women are undervalued in both the public and private spheres because of their identification as housewives, rather than as “workers” (Mies 1999 :116). Indeed, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) estimates that “the non-monetized invisible contribution of women is $11 trillion a year” (UNDP 1995 :6). This identification with the home as a site of “non-work” for women is also complicit in the violation of the rights of women who do work in the home for monetary gain, such as piecework. Because it is conducted in the “private sphere,” there is little international labor regulation around home based work, with the exception of the 1996 International Labor Organization Convention on Homework (Prügl 1999 ). However, only five countries have ratified it, which underscores the pervasiveness of the masculinized ideal of real, productive work that takes place only in the public sphere.

The sexual division of labor and its resulting sexism also helps maintain capitalism as system (Wichterich 2000 ; Campillo 2003 ). This has important consequences for women, because even when they do work outside the home they are usually cast in unequal terms. The implication is that capitalism necessarily depends on a certain amount of low-wage and unpaid labor to keep it functioning (Peterson 2003 ), as the “labor input in non-wage work ‘compensates’ the lowness of the wage-income and therefore in fact represents an indirect subsidy to the employers of wage laborers in those households” (Wallerstein 1988 :8). The identification of women with the private sphere helps keep capitalism’s costs low and at the same time provides a justification for this strategy.

The end result is limited economic opportunity for women since their labor is in the form of underpaid or unpaid labor in the capitalist system of profits and capital accumulation. Many labor sectors have become feminized, particularly the garment and electronics industries. Women are the preferred “workers” because they do not have to be paid as much as men. This is due in part to the devaluation of women’s labor (or the seeing of their paid labor as a natural extension of the private sphere) and the assumption that their wages are used for “extras” rather than to support the family (Mies 1999 :116). The state is complicit in perpetuating this sexism because of its need to stay competitive in global markets. Many women have their basic economic rights, such as the right to safe labor conditions and pay equity, denied because states would find it too costly to provide these opportunities to women. If the cost of production of goods increases, products would be less competitive on the international market. States are reluctant to hold multinational corporations accountable for their labor practices because the pressure for revenue is too great and the threat of relocation by multinational corporations (MNC) is real (Sen 1997 ).

The bottom line for many feminists is that economic globalization, operating within a neoliberal frame, both produces and exacerbates some forms of gender inequality. States are responding to globalization by shifting the burden onto women (and other marginalized sectors of society) to create their own social safety net. However, because women’s work is usually undervalued or unpaid given their identification with the private sphere, meeting basic needs requirements of food, shelter, health care, and clothing becomes especially challenging. In light of these gendered inequities, some feminist scholars, such as Elson ( 2006 :3) have suggested applying a gendered and rights based approach to the analysis of government budgets in order to “identify gender inequalities in budget processes, allocations and outcomes; and assess what States are obliged to do to address these inequalities” as a way to keep states accountable and responsive to women in the context of globalization.

Democratization

While the broader women’s human rights movement is in tacit agreement that civil-political liberties and socioeconomic rights are inextricable, there is disagreement over the exact nature of this relationship. Furthermore, if one takes the notion of structural indivisibility seriously, a rather complex picture of the relationship between the liberal democratic state, democratization processes, globalization, socioeconomic rights, and gender emerges. Utilizing Huntington ( 1991 ), some feminist analyses of democracies and democratization reveal that one important factor to consider with regards to gender equality is whether or not the state in question is in a period of democratic transition or of democratic consolidation (Jaquette and Wolchik 1998 ; Bystydzienski and Sekhon 1999 ; Hawkesworth 2001 ; Yoon 2001 ; Goetz and Hassim 2002 ). Many, but not all, of these studies show that women fare better in the transition phase (shifting from a nondemocratic type of government to a democratic one) than in the consolidation phase, which involves the establishment of rules, institutions, and political culture. However, there are also cases, such as in the post-communist states, where women have lost considerable economic and political power during the democratic transition phase (see, for example, Wolchik 1998 ).

Hawkesworth ( 2001 :223–6) suggests that the democratic consolidation phase in conjunction with liberal capitalist development has deleterious effects on gender equality, and thus the achievement of women’s rights, for two main reasons. First, developing countries, through modernization programs, are pressured to adopt a neoliberal capitalist model of development. This connects to the earlier discussion of economic development in the sense that modernization theory presumes that the adoption of capitalism will in turn produce a liberal democratic state, partially because liberal democracies are necessary to guarantee the private property rights that are crucial to global capitalism. A further assumption is that the combination of the deepening of capitalism and the consolidation of a liberal democracy will in fact elevate human rights fulfillment for the citizenry.

However, and this is Hawkesworth’s second point, the dominant model of Western liberal democracy that many countries seek to emulate has a weak record in achieving gender equality. With the exception of the Scandinavian countries, which Hawkesworth argues are more properly thought of as “social” democracies rather than liberal, women in advanced industrialized countries are still vastly underrepresented in the upper echelons of the public sphere. Although the advanced industrialized democracies guarantee equal rights for women and minorities, in reality the consolidation process has worked to produce and institutionalize a patriarchal elite class that undermines the principle of government for the people by the people. As the democratic consolidation process is coupled with the deepening of capitalism, political participation becomes the privilege of those who are economically empowered.

In her analysis, Hawkesworth ( 2001 :224) concludes that “democratization produces gendered redistribution of resources and responsibilities that make women worse off.” Given this scenario, it is not surprising that some feminists have linked the twin processes of globalization and democratization as detrimental to the achievement of human rights for women. Although one consequence of globalization is that more women are in the paid labor force, women have not been able to translate this into political empowerment because these economic “opportunities” are the result of having to make up for states’ inabilities to provide for basic needs. And, as noted earlier, gendered notions around work preclude the idea that more women in the labor force is a sign of increasing gender equality (Elson 2002 ). In short, globalization disempowers women economically, which in turn disempowers them politically by leaving little time, money, or energy to fully exercise civil and political rights.

Why, then, the insistence by the broader women’s human rights regime that the liberal democratic state remains the best hope for the achievement of gender equality in human rights? There are several answers to this conundrum that shed light on the further complexity of globalization, democratization, and women’s human rights achievement. First, no country has completed the process of democratic consolidation, and given that many of the countries do in fact guarantee civil and political rights, there are potential avenues to reshape the consolidation process to demand accountability. For example, feminist scholars have tracked the global diffusion of two notable policies: (1) the adoption of gender quotas in electoral processes, which more than fifty countries have done as a way to increase women’s participation in public life (Bauer 2008 ; Dahlerup 2008 ; Krook 2008 ; Sacchet 2008 ); and (2) the development of women’s policy agencies within the state (also known as “state feminism”) in over 165 countries (True and Mintrom 2001 ; Lovenduski 2005 ). While there are significant disagreements among feminists about the quality of women’s representation in these spheres as well as about the utility of both of these developments for the achievement of gender equality and women’s rights, they are cautiously viewed as positive developments nonetheless.

Second, and closely related to the first point, although globalization has had negative consequences, it also opens up spaces for women’s informal and formal political empowerment (Sassen 1998 ; Moghadam 1999 ; Bayes et al. 2001 ). Sassen ( 1998 :94) suggests that “globalization is creating new operational and formal openings for the participation of non-state actors and subjects,” which in turn provides for the possibility of reshaping ideas about representation, power, and authority. Third, although the role of the state appears to be diminishing or transforming in the wake of globalization, the unevenness of globalization has also ensured that human rights are a part of the permanent global agenda, and thus states are still crucial actors in this regard.

Fourth, and finally, as Rittich ( 2001 :96) observes, “human rights are now often mentioned in the same breath as market reform and development.” Some feminists have recognized this linking of human rights and markets as an opportunity to press for a refined state-management approach coupled with collective global governance to mitigate the negative effects of the global economy. However, others, such as Bergeron ( 2001 ), are skeptical of this approach because of the way feminist appeals to the state for “protection” frame the subjectivities and agency of women. Bergeron ( 2001 :995) suggests that when women are depicted as victims of globalization, an unintended consequence can be that the state will move to adopt “the traditional masculine role of protecting women and families.” This result is ultimately contrary to many feminist goals in achieving rights, and further points out the limitations of “victimization” rhetoric, as mentioned earlier, in accomplishing such goals.

Feminists have utilized the idea of indivisibility to challenge embedded gender hierarchies in the human rights regime to greatly expand the inclusiveness and, therefore, universality of rights (Otto 2001 :54–5). In particular, feminists have shown how the private and public spheres are interconnected, suggesting that economic, social, and political rights are necessarily linked – each one is key to the enjoyment of the other. Feminists have also identified international structures, such as security regimes and the global economy, as key variables to be examined, understood, and accounted for in relation to gender inequality in human rights. The “structural indivisibility” framework easily extends to all contemporary human rights regimes in that it provides an analytic tool for evaluating the impacts of globalization on gender inequality and socioeconomic rights.

The Question of Culture

The topic of cultural practice, traditions, and customary laws has occupied a central place of importance in feminist critiques and understandings of human rights. A central, well-known tension is between universal and cultural relativist positions on human rights. The universal position decrees human rights as inalienable and held by all members of the “human family,” whereas the cultural relativist position argues that “members of one society may not legitimately condemn the practices of societies with different traditions, denying that there can be valid external critiques of culturally-based practices and that no legitimate cross-cultural standards for the evaluating the treatment of rights exist” (Mayer 1995 :176). Many justifications for the denial of women’s human rights are framed in cultural relativist terms, and often positioned as an anti-Western, anti-imperialist response (Rao 1995 ; Brems 1997 ; Narayan 1998 ; Shacher 2001 ; Kapur 2005 ; Winter 2006 ; Bovarnick 2007 ). This paradoxical position frequently results in conflict between women’s individual rights and group cultural rights. Women may agree with the right of their cultural group to practice their culture, while at the same time disagreeing with how these cultural practices affect their personal autonomy and agency. Winter ( 2006 :385) notes that cultural relativist arguments are disproportionately deployed on the question of women’s rights, in that “those articles in UN treaties in favor of religious and cultural rights and the elimination of race discrimination do not appear to be as problematically ‘Western’ as those which defend women’s rights.” The literature on the topic of culture is vast and complex, and due to space constraints, there will be only a cursory and oversimplified overview of it here.

An important contribution of the feminist literature in this area is a deconstruction of the term “culture” itself. Rao ( 1995 :173) argues that culture is “a series of constantly contested and negotiated social practices whose meanings are influenced by the power and status of their interpreters and participants.” By identifying culture as a dynamic, political practice, it allows for a move away from cultural essentialism, or the idea that culture is somehow a homogeneous, static, internally consistent, natural, prediscursive given. Cultural essentialism, as such, is a form of cultural relativism in that it often positions itself as “traditional” and “authentic” and therefore not subject to critical examination. Furthermore, cultural essentialism can also mask “synecdochic substitutions” in which “‘parts’ of a practice come to come to stand in for a whole” and obscure the harmful nature of these “traditional” practices (Narayan 1998 :95). By defining culture as an ongoing process, feminist human rights scholars have revealed the gendered power dynamics embedded in the construction and perpetuation of cultural and religious practices. As Rao ( 1995 :168) notes, by understanding culture in this way, one can ask to what degree members of a cultural group are able to participate in the defining of culture as well as who benefits from a particular version of culture.

There is also considerable emphasis on the tension between universalism and cultural relativism (Brems 1997 ; Okin 1998 ; Bovarnick 2007 ; Freedman 2007 ; Steans 2007 ). Some feminist scholars suggest that the application of universal human rights has had little applicability in non-Western contexts. Bovarnick’s ( 2007 ) study of rape in Mexico and Pakistan reveals important insights into the question of cultural context and particularity when assessing whether or not universal human rights are useful in addressing violence against women. Positioning Mexico and Pakistan as non-Western countries in this study, her analysis reveals that while discourses around violence against women in both of these countries are in fact quite particularized, there are transcultural connections that can be made through the commonalities of “how traditional social mechanisms legitimize and reproduce violence against women” (Bovarnick 2007 :61). Despite their vast cultural differences, the two countries appropriate and regulate women’s bodies and sexuality in a similar fashion, highlighting the importance of addressing the global mechanism of which these different manifestations of violence against women are a part (Bovarnick 2007 ). Bovarnick seems to be suggesting that there are other transcultural universals emerging out of non-Western contexts that need to be taken into account in order to render a potentially different understanding and potential acceptance of universal rights.

Narayan ( 1998 ), however, suggests that for feminists to even use categories such as “Western” and “non-Western” is a culturally essentialist move in itself that can play right into the hands of third world fundamentalists, who often use cultural relativist and anti-imperialist justifications to deny women’s human rights, as well as of “Western cultural supremacists,” who support the idea that the West is morally and politically superior to all “Others” (Narayan 1998 :97). Furthermore, she takes issue with the notion that “equality” and “human rights” are inherently “Western values” to begin with. Narayan (ibid.) argues that “as a result of political struggles by […] various excluded groups in both Western and non-Western contexts […] doctrines of equality and rights have slowly come to be perceived as applicable to them, too.” For Narayan (ibid.), conceptualizations of rights and equality are not just products of Western imperialism but can be considered as products of struggles against internal and external forms of Western imperialism.

Many other feminist scholars are also currently engaged with trying to reconcile universalism with cultural particularism as a way to move past this polarizing dichotomy and to advance the goals of women’s human rights and gender equality. Nussbaum ( 2000 :100) argues for the capabilities approach which focuses on “what people are actually able to do and to be” rather than on what rights or resources individuals have, as one way to traverse this dichotomy. She builds a very complex argument that is oversimplified here due to space constraints, but at the crux of her work is development of the capabilities model, which is informed by the work of Amartya Sen , Marx , and Aristotle and others. Nussbaum argues that her list of basic human functional capabilities (life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; control over one’s environment) are cross-culturally recognizable and desirable as well as necessary to the flourishing of human life ( 2000 :78–80). She suggests that by using capabilities, rather than rights, as the goals to be achieved, we will have the tools for developing a cross-cultural consensus for “determining a decent social minimum in a variety of areas” (Nussbaum 2000 :75). In her view, the capabilities approach is universal but not ethnocentric, for “ideas about activity and ability are everywhere, and there is no culture in which people do not ask themselves what they are able to do, what opportunities they have for functioning” ( 2000 :100). She further buttresses her claims by applying the capabilities criteria to the lives of two Indian women, and concludes they are already thinking, speaking, and acting in accordance with the language of capabilities ( 2000 :106–10). She also argues that capabilities can be realized in multiple ways according to context, etc., and that by positioning capabilities as the goal, the choice is left open whether or not to pursue the accompanying function ( 2000 :105). Nussbaum does not reject human rights discourse altogether, which she also suggests is not exclusively Western, even though it is often thought to be. Rather, she sees human rights frameworks as an important way to achieve capabilities because rights discourses can recognize and justify human capabilities, make claims of entitlement vis-à-vis the democratic state, and emphasize individual choice and autonomy.

To be sure, there have been many critiques of Nussbaum’s work, and I will address only a few critiques in cursory way here. Phillips ( 2001 ) worries that the capabilities approach takes us too far from an agenda of equality, which has been a central preoccupation for many feminists working in the human rights arena. Phillips warns that the capability approach is too focused on the question of freedom of choice, and this can result in unequal outcomes between the sexes. Phillips concludes as well that that there would be little redress for gendered inequalities that the capabilities approach might produce, if in fact a minimum standard of capabilities was in place for everyone. This does not imply equal capabilities but rather relational ones that could be fundamentally premised on sustaining gender inequalities.

Others, such as Quillen ( 2001 ) and Charusheela ( 2008 ), trouble Nussbaum’s attempts at developing a non-ethnocentric universal ethic by which to conceptualize the “human” in the capabilities model. Quillen ( 2001 :89) argues that Nussbaum’s adherence to liberal humanism actually undermines her project because it is an inadequate framework for understanding the intersections and sources of structural oppressions as well as for analyzing the self (see Nussbaum 2001 for her response to Quillen’s critiques). Charusheela ( 2008 ) argues that Nussbaum’s arguments for universality are in fact ethnocentric, due to their location in modernism, which posits a normative ideal based on Western liberal conceptualizations of the democratic state and capitalist system, and their attendant institutions, as the best way to deliver on capabilities. For Charusheela ( 2008 :13) the capabilities approach therefore rests on “an underlying set of assumptions about human nature that masquerades as universal – cognition expressed in particular ways, decisions made in specific ways, reason and voice deployed in ways appropriate to these institutions ” (emphasis in the original). Both Charusheela and Quillen suggest that we should be utilizing postcolonial feminist theories as the way to build a more collective response to social inequalities.

Some feminist human rights theorists are looking to social activism as a way to resolve the tensions between the particular and the universal. Ackerly ( 2001 ) argues that women’s human rights activists generate a cross-cultural theory of human rights that both invokes and contributes to the universal human rights project while at the same time being able to advocate these ideals in locally appropriate ways. Steans ( 2007 ) makes a similar point in her analysis, highlighting the role that conflict, contestation, and reflection play in feminist transnational advocacy networks in forging new understandings about the basis of collective identities and “shared” interests. She suggests that rather than challenging the notion of universal human rights for women, the conflict generated over cultural differences in feminist transnational advocacy networks serves to buttress universality as these conflicts potentially lead to resolutions that are “both more inclusive and better reflect the actual diversity of women” (Steans 2007 :17).

Reilly ( 2007 ) approaches this question through the lens of cosmopolitan feminism and argues that this theoretical perspective rejects the notion that women are united by a common identity or common experience, and can serve as a transformative political framework. Offering up the ICC NGO Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice and PeaceWomen Project focused on the passage and implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (which gender mainstreams security issues) as examples, Reilly suggests that cosmopolitan feminism is a “process-oriented framework wherein the direction and content of feminist practice is determined in cross-boundaries dialogue within and across women’s movements” ( 2007 :182). Reilly suggests that through this framework, a global feminist consciousness can be developed that challenges “false universalisms” predicated on false, but powerful, binaries that construct and maintain gender, race, and class inequalities ( 2007 :187). In challenging these binaries through an intersectional framework, cosmopolitan feminism can “critically [reinterpret] universal values such as the rule of law, human rights, and secular democratic politics” ( 2007 :193).

The feminist cosmopolitan approach is not without its critics, however. Both Kaplan ( 2001 ) and Grewal ( 2005 ) argue that the global feminism envisioned by feminist cosmopolitanism produces a new type of Orientalism that is heavily predicated on rescue discourses, which serve to maintain, rather than transform, existing power inequalities. For example, Kaplan ( 2000 :222) suggests that the “cross-cultural dialogues” central to feminist cosmopolitanism are predicated on the view that “patriarchy and other forms of oppression are […] largely overcome in the metropolitan centers of the West,” necessitating a shift “to the spaces of ‘tradition’ and ‘barbarism’ in the margins – the ‘orient’ or the Third World.” Using Hillary Rodham Clinton ’s appearance at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women as a focal point of her analysis, Kaplan illustrates how cosmopolitan feminism and its attendant discourses on human rights (which Kaplan argues are still primarily liberal in theoretical orientation) “travel” (literally and figuratively) to “other” parts of the world to facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, which ultimately feminizes and positions the third world as space that needs to be saved, or rescued (Grewal 2005 ).

As a result, “the ‘West’ is uncritically assumed to embody ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, and ‘freedom’ despite its serious involvement and investments in […] systems of oppression and power” (Russo 2006 :573). These critiques are amply demonstrated in two case studies of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s (FMF) work in relation to Afghani women’s rights, in which the FMF relied on rescuing and saving discourses while simultaneously highlighting its work with the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) as a project of global (cosmopolitan) feminism throughout its Campaign to End Gender Apartheid (Farrell and McDermott 2005 ; Russo 2006 ).

Grewal’s ( 2005 ) and Kaplan’s ( 2001 ) contention that the cosmopolitan feminist women’s human rights framework constructs difference and produces particular discourses of power and subjects in ways that exempt the West from critical interrogation of their roots in creating and maintaining interlocking systems of oppression are important points to consider in light of Reilly’s arguments, above, in terms of intersectional frameworks. How is difference in terms of intersecting identities as well as agency understood? And, does this approach enable the transcendence of binaries, or recast them, (re)producing both old and new inequalities? Finally, assuming these binaries are contested and transformed, whose “universal” values will be reinterpreted, by whom, and for what ends?

Feminist Futures: Measuring the Achievement of Women’s Human Rights

This essay points to a number of controversies, such as issues regarding culture, sexuality, and neo-imperialism, which need further consideration by feminists. However, the essay has not addressed methodological issues, which are also important for the study and achievement of women’s human rights. Data collection is an important component for a variety of methodological approaches and, as such, deserves further scrutiny here.

During the UN Decade for Women, feminist transnational networks argued for the need to collect sex-disaggregated data. Although heralded by many feminists at the time as a major breakthrough, this has increasingly come under scrutiny. First, there are many provisions in both women’s rights and human rights documents that guarantee a wide range of civil and political liberties and socioeconomic rights but there are actually few data to measure these particular rights. As argued in this essay, feminists conceptualize human rights as something far more complex than the equitable distribution of the presumed benefits and resources of economic development, globalization, and democratization, such as individual empowerment and capacity building, which are difficult to quantify.

Second, because human rights data are often outcomes based and reflect the performance of states, they are actually defined by the public sphere (as are data focused on legally based indicators). As noted earlier in this essay, one of the key insights of feminist human rights scholarship on gender inequality has been its insistence on the interaction of the public and private spheres, and the rejection of this binary as mutually exclusive. That is to say, what happens in the public sphere has ramifications for gender ideology and roles in the private sphere. As such, these measures simply cannot capture the gendered dynamics of the private sphere, which have ideological, physical, and material consequences for the achievement of rights. Because of their inability to capture gendered interactions between the public and private spheres as well as gendered relations within those spheres, the data are at best capturing sex discrimination within the confines of the neoliberal global order rather than the structural feature of gender oppression. In this case, sex is operationalized as an empirical category and gender is an analytical one; yet the sex-disaggregated data are being used as a substitute for “gender.”

Many human rights indicators (though not all) use male experience as the norm, and the achievement of women’s human rights is seen as relative to the rights that men have already achieved. Thus, the typical human rights data show that women are discriminated against in so far as they have not achieved the same rights as men, despite the efforts put forth by many feminists to expand and reframe notions of rights that take into account the difference of women’s and men’s lived realities. Barriteau ( 2006 ), in her study of the Commonwealth Caribbean, argues that composite human rights indicators, such as the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), place too much emphasis on the material relations of power (and empowerment) to the exclusion of the social and ideological relations of power. Thus, the high score of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries on both the GDI and GEM masks the daily realities of gender based oppression in many women’s lives. Because of this, it looks as if women’s human rights have been achieved, and therefore it is very difficult to mount a critical challenge against the indicators. Many feminists are concerned that this type of outcome creates “an impression that women no longer require assistance and that men are now much more needy beneficiaries” and as a result, there will be a “re-masculinization” of both the development and human rights discourses (McIlwaine and Datta 2003 :375).

Adding to these concerns about the type of data used to measure the success or failure of gender mainstreaming human rights, Wood ( 2005 ) raises the important point that the overall ideology of gender mainstreaming human rights in fact homogenizes both men and women and that this homogenization is often mistaken for commonality. Wood argues that the cost of the homogenization of gender in the policy process, even though it is an efficient and expedient way to gender mainstream human rights and development, is the neglect of “difference” within these homogenized categories of men and women. This is a crucial point because the rationale around gender mainstreaming is to understand how certain social and economic policies impact men and women differently, and the data constructed to evaluate this difference reflect this focus. Wood argues that in order for gender mainstreaming to be more effective, more attention must be paid to the differences among women (and by extension among men) in terms of class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. By this logic, data collection would have to be transformed. For example, it is not enough to point to the increased numbers of women in parliaments and call it gender mainstreaming human rights success. Additional data need to be known about which women are in these positions, which women are not, and why. This would also tell us something about how patriarchal systems can accommodate a certain amount or type of women seeking power while excluding others (hooks 2000 ).

Gender inequality is not separate from class, race, ethnicity, age, and sexual inequalities. Yet, given the current construction of data, we are forced to construct and evaluate gender equality and the achievement of human rights in very narrow and rigid ways. Though this is already happening to some degree, a future task for feminist scholars and activists is to conceptualize and advocate for human rights data that can capture gender inequality in multidimensional and intersectional ways.

• Ackerly, B. (2001) Women’s Human Rights Activists as Cross-cultural Theorists. International Journal of Feminist Politics 3 (3), 311–46.
• Anderson, B. (2000) Doing the Dirty Work? The Global Politics of Domestic Labor . London: Zed Books.
• Arat, Z.F.K. (2008) Women’s Rights as Human Rights. UN Chronicle 45 (2/3) (Special double issue), 9–13.
• Bakker, I. (1994) Introduction: Engendering Macro-economic Policy Reform in the Era of Global Restructuring and Adjustment. In I. Bakker (ed.) The Strategic Silence: Gender and Economic Policy . London: Zed Books, pp. 1–29.
• Barriteau, V.E. (2006) Engendering Development or Gender Mainstreaming? A Critical Assessment from the Commonwealth Caribbean. In E. Kuiper and D.K. Barker (eds.) Feminist Economics and the World Bank: History, Theory, and Policy . London: Routledge, pp. 176–98.
• Bauer, G. (2008) Fifty/Fifty by 2020: Electoral Gender Quotas for Parliament in East and Southern Africa. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 348–68.
• Bayes, J.H. , Hawkesworth, M.E. , and Kelly, R.M. (2001) Globalization, Democratization, and Gender Regimes. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1–14.
• Benería, L. (2003) Gender, Development, and Globalization: Economics as if All People Mattered . New York: Routledge.
• Bergeron, S. (2001) Political Economy Discourses of Globalization and Feminist Politics. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture in Society 26 (42), 983–1006.
• Boserup, E. (1970) Woman’s Role in Economic Development . London: Allen and Unwin.
• Bovarnick, S. (2007) Universal Human Rights and Non-Western Normative Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Violence against Women in Mexico and Pakistan. Review of International Studies 33, 59–74.
• Brems, E. (1997) Enemies or Allies? Feminism and Cultural Relativism as Dissident Voices in Human Rights Discourse. Human Rights Quarterly 19 (1), 136–64.
• Brodie, J. (1996) New State Forms, New Political Spaces. In R. Boyer and D. Drache (eds.) States against Markets: The Limits of Globalization . London: Routledge, pp. 383–98.
• Bunch, C. (1990) Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Revision of Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 12, 486–500.
• Bystydzienski, J.M. , and Sekhon, J. (1999) Introduction. In J.M. Bystydzienski and J. Sekhon (eds.) Democratization and Women’s Grassroots Movements . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–24.
• Çagatay, N. (2003) Engendering Macro-Economics. In M. Gutiérrez (ed.) Macro-Economics: Making Gender Matter . London: Zed Books, pp. 22–41.
• Campillo, F. (2003) Unpaid Household Labor: A Conceptual Approach. In M. Gutiérrez (ed.) Macro-Economics: Making Gender Matter . London: Zed Books, pp. 106–21.
• Chang, K.A. , and Ling, L.H.M. (2000) Globalization and Its Intimate Other: Filipina Domestic Workers in Hong Kong. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 27–43.
• Chappell, L. (2000) Interacting with the State: Feminist Strategies and Political Opportunities. International Feminist Journal of Politics 2 (2), 244–75.
• Chappell, L. (2007) Contesting Women’s Rights: Charting the Emergence of a Transnational Conservative Counter-Network. Global Society 20 (4), 491–520.
• Charlesworth, H. (1995) Human Rights as Men’s Rights. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 103–13.
• Charusheela, S. (2008) Social Analysis and the Capabilities Approach: A Limit to Martha Nussbaum’s Universalist Ethics. Cambridge Journal of Economics (Sep.), 1–18.
• Copelon, R. (1994) Intimate Terror: Understanding Domestic Violence as Torture. In R. Cook (ed.) Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 116–54.
• Dahlerup, D. (2008) Gender Quotas – Controversial but Trendy. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 322–8.
• Donnelly, J. (1999) The Social Construction of International Human Rights. In T. Dunne and N. Wheeler (eds.) Human Rights in Global Politics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–102.
• Dorf, J. , and Perez, G.C. (1995) Discrimination and the Tolerance of Difference: International Lesbian Human Rights. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 324–34.
• Elson, D. (1991) Male Bias in the Development Process: The Case of Structural Adjustment. In D. Elson (ed.) Male Bias in the Development Process . Manchester: University of Manchester Press, pp. 1–28.
• Elson, D. (2002) Gender Justice, Human Rights, and Neo-liberal Economic Policies. In M. Molyneux and S. Razavi (eds.) Gender Justice, Development, and Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78–114.
• Elson, D. (2006) Budgeting for Women’s Rights: Monitoring Government Budgets for Compliance with CEDAW . New York: UNIFEM.
• Farrell, A. , and McDermottt, P. (2005) Claiming Afghan Women: The Challenge of Human Rights Discourse for Transnational Feminism. In W.S. Hesford and W. Kozol (eds.) Just Advocacy? Women’s Human Rights, Transnational Feminisms, and the Politics of Representation . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 33–55.
• Forward Looking Strategies (FLS) (1985) Website at www.un.org/womenwatch/confer/nfls/Nairobi1985report.txt , accessed Sep. 2008.
• Fraser, A. (1999) Becoming Human: The Origins and Development of Women’s Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 21, 853–906.
• Freedman, J. (2007) Women, Islam and Rights in Europe: Beyond a Universalist/Culturalist Dichotomy. Review of International Studies 33, 29–44.
• Friedman, E. (2006) Bringing Women to International Human Rights. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice 18, 479–84.
• Goetz, A.M. , and Hassim, S. (2002) In and Against the Party: Women’s Representation and Constituency-building in Uganda and South Africa. In M. Molyneux and S. Razavi (eds.) Gender Justice, Development, and Rights . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 306–46.
• Gonzalez, L. (2001) Mexico/U.S. Migration and Gender Relations: The Guanajuatense Community in Mexico and the United States. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 75–94.
• Grant, R. (1991) Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory. In R. Grant and K. Newland (eds.) Gender and International Relations . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 8–26.
• Grewal, I. (2005) Transnational America: Feminism, Diasporas, Neoliberalisms . Durham: Duke University Press.
• Hanochi, S. (2001) Japan and the Global Sex Industry. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 137–48.
• Hawkesworth, M.E. (2001) Democratization: Reflections on Gendered Dislocations in the Public Sphere. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 223–36.
• hooks, b. (2000) Feminist Theory from Margin to Center , 2nd edn. Cambridge: South End.
• Huntington, S. (1991) The Third Wave . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Jaquette, J.S. , and Wolchik, S.L. (1998) Women and Democratization in Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe: A Comparative Introduction. In J.S. Jaquette and S.L. Wolchik (eds.) Women and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–28.
• Joachim, J. (2003) Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women’s Rights. International Studies Quarterly 47 (2), 247–74.
• Johnson, A. (1997) The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Johnson, M. (1998) A Magna Carta for Mankind: Writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In M. Johnson and J. Symonides (eds.) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A History of its Creation and Implementation, 1948–1998 . Paris: UNESCO, pp. 19–75.
• Kaplan, C. (2001) Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Orient: Cosmopolitan Travel and Global Feminist Subjects. Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 2 (1), 219–40.
• Kapur, R. (2005) Erotic Justice: Law and the Politics of Postcolonialism . London: Glasshouse.
• Karam, A.K. (2000) Feminisms and Islamisms in Egypt: Between Globalization and Postmodernism in Egypt. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 194–208.
• Kaufman, N.H. , and Lindquist, S. (1995) Critiquing Gender Neutral Language: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 114–25.
• Keck, M.E. , and Sikkink, K. (1998) Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Kofman, E. (2000) Beyond a Reductionist Analysis of Female Migrants in Global European Cities: The Unskilled, the Deskilled, and Professional. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 129–39.
• Kromhout, M. (2000) Women and Livelihood Strategies: A Case Study of Coping with Economic Crisis through Household Management in Paramaribo, Suriname. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 140–56.
• Krook, M.L. (2008) Quota Laws for Women in Politics: Implications for Feminist Practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 15, 345–68.
• Kuokkanen, R. (2008) Globalization as Racialized, Sexualized Violence: The Case of Indigenous Women. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (2), 216–33.
• Lake, M. (2001) From Self-Determination via Protection to Equality via Non-Discrimination: Defining Women’s Rights at the League of Nations and the United Nations. In P. Grimshaw , K. Holmes , and M. Lake (eds.) Women’s Rights and Human Rights: International Historical Perspectives . New York: Palgrave, pp. 254–71.
• LaViolette, N. , and Whitworth, S. (1994) No Safe Haven: Sexuality as a Universal Human Right and Gay and Lesbian Activism in International Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 23, 563–88.
• Lind, A. (2000) Negotiating Boundaries: Women’s Organizations and the Politics of Restructuring in Ecuador. In M.H. Marchand and A. Sisson Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 161–75.
• Locke, J. (1980) Second Treatise of Government , ed. C.B. Macpherson . Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Lothian, T. (1996) Women’s Rights and Political Economy. Connecticut Journal of International Law 12 (1), 67–75.
• Lovenduski, J. (ed.) (2005) State Feminism and Political Representation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McIlwaine, C. , and Datta, K. (2003) From Feminising to Engendering Development. Gender, Place, and Culture 10 (4), 369–82.
• Marchand, M. (1996) Reconceptualising “Gender and Development” in an Era of “Globalisation.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25 (3), 577–603.
• Mayer, A.E. (1995) Cultural Particularism as a Bar to Women’s Rights: Reflections on the Middle Eastern Experience. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 176–88.
• Merry, S.E. (2006) Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Mertus, J. (2007) The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US. Human Rights Quarterly 29, 1036–64.
• Mies, M. (1999) Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale , 2nd edn. London: Zed Books.
• Moghadam, V.M. (1999) Gender and the Global Economy. In M. Max Ferree , J. Lorber , and B. Hess (eds.) Revisioning Gender . Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 128–60.
• Mohanty, C. (1991) Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. In C. Mohanty , A. Russo , and L. Torres (eds.) Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism . Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, pp. 51–80.
• Morgan, W. (2001) Queering International Human Rights Law. In C. Stychin and D. Herman (eds.) Law and Sexuality: The Global Arena . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 208–25.
• Naples, N.A. , and Desai, M. (eds.) (2002) Women’s Activism and Globalization: Linking Local Struggles and Transnational Politics . New York: Routledge.
• Narayan, U. (1997) Dislocating Cultures: Identities, Traditions, and Third World Feminism . New York: Routledge.
• Narayan, U. (1998) Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique of Cultural Essentialism. Hypatia 13 (2), 86–106.
• Nussbaum, M.C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbuam, M.C. (2001) Comment on Quillen’s “Feminist Theory, Justice, and the Lure of the Human.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 27 (1), 123–34.
• Okin, S.M. (1998) Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences. Hypatia 13 (2), 32–51.
• Otto, D. (2001) Defending Women’s Economic and Social Rights: Some Thoughts on Indivisibility and a New Standard of Equality. In I. Merali and V. Oosterveld (eds.) Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 52–70.
• Parisi, L. (2002) Feminist Praxis and Human Rights. Journal of Human Rights 1 (4), 571–85.
• Pateman, C. (1989) The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Peratis, K. , Kerr, J. , Schneider, E.M. , and Vandenberg, M. (1999) Markets and Women’s International Human Rights. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 25 (1), 141–60.
• Peterson, V.S. (1996) The Politics of Identification in the Context of Globalization. Women’s Studies International Forum 19 (1/2), 5–15.
• Peterson, V.S. (2003) A Critical Rewriting of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive, and Virtual Economies . New York: Routledge.
• Peterson, V.S. , and Parisi, L. (1998) Are Women Human? It’s Not an Academic Question. In T. Evans (ed.) Human Rights Fifty Years On: A Reappraisal . Manchester: University of Manchester Press, pp. 132–60.
• Peterson, V.S. , and Runyan, A.S. (1999) Global Gender Issues , 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview.
• Pettman, J.J. (1996) An International Political Economy of Sex? In E. Kofman and G. Youngs (eds.) Globalization: Theory and Practice . London: Pinter, pp. 191–208.
• Phillips, A. (2001) Feminism and Liberalism Revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum Got It Right? Constellations 8 (2), 249–66.
• Pietilä, H. , and Vickers, J. (1996) Making Women Matter: The Role of the United Nations , 3rd edn. London: Zed Books.
• Prügl, E. (1999) What Is a Worker? Gender, Global Restructuring, and the ILO Convention on Homework. In M.K. Meyer and E. Prügl (eds.) Gender Politics in Global Governance . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 197–209.
• Quillen, C. (2001) Feminist Theory, Justice, and the Lure of the Human. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 27 (1), 87–122.
• Rao, A. (1995) The Politics of Gender and Culture in International Human Rights Discourse. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 167–75.
• Rao, A. (1996) Home-Word Bound; Women’s Place in the Family of International Human Rights. Global Governance 2, 241–60.
• Reilly, N. (2007) Cosmopolitan Feminism and Human Rights. Hypatia 22 (4), 180–98.
• Rittich, K. (2001) Feminism after the State: The Rise of the Market and the Future of Women’s Rights. In I. Merali and V. Oosterveld (eds.) Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 95–108.
• Romany, C. (1994) State Responsibility Goes Private: A Feminist Critique of the Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law. In R. Cook (ed.) Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 85–115.
• Rowbotham, S. , and Linkogle, S. (eds.) (2001) Women Resist Globalization: Mobilizing for Livelihood and Rights . London: Zed Books.
• Runyan, A.S. (1996) The Places of Women in Trading Places: Gendered Global/Regional Regimes and Internationalized Resistance. In E. Kofman and G. Youngs (eds.) Globalization: Theory and Practice . London: Pinter, pp. 139–56.
• Rupp, L. (1997) Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women’s Movement . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russo, A. (2006) The Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid. International Feminist Journal of Politics 8 (4), 557–80.
• Sacchet, T. (2008) Beyond Numbers: The Impact of Gender Quotas in Latin America. International Feminist Journal of Politics 10 (3), 369–86.
• Sadasivam, B. (1997) The Impact of Structural Adjustment on Women: A Governance and Human Rights Agenda. Human Rights Quarterly 19 (3), 630–65.
• Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents . New York: New Press.
• Sen, G. (1997) Globalization, Justice and Equity: A Gender Perspective. Development 40 (2), 21–6.
• Shacher, A. (2001) Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women’s Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sircar, A. , and Kelly, R.M. (2001) Globalization and Asian Indian Immigrant Women in the United States. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 95–120.
• Soni-Sinha, U. (2001) Income Control and Household Work-sharing. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 121–36.
• Steans, J. (2007) Debating Women’s Human Rights as a Universal Feminist Project: Defending Women’s Human Rights as a Political Tool. Review of International Studies 33, 11–27.
• Steans, J. , and Ahmadi, V. (2005) Negotiating the Politics of Gender and Rights: Some Reflections on the Status of Women’s Human Rights at “Beijing Plus Ten.” Global Society 19 (3), 227–45.
• Sullivan, D. (1995) The Public/Private Distinction in International Human Rights Law. In J. Peters and A. Wolper (eds.) Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives . London: Routledge, pp. 126–34.
• Tong, R.P. (2008) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction , 3rd edn. Boulder: Westview.
• True, J. , and Mintrom, M. (2001) Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45, 27–57.
• UNDAW (n.d.) Short History of CEDAW. At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/history.htm , accessed Feb. 2009.
• UDHR (1948) United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At www.un.org/Overview/rights.html , accessed Mar. 2009.
• UNDP (1995) Human Development Report . New York: Oxford University Press.
• UNRISD (1995) States of Disarray: The Social Effects of Globalization . London: UNRISD.
• Vinding, D. (1998) Indigenous Women: The Right to a Voice , IWGIA Document no. 88. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
• Voet, R. (1998) Feminism and Citizenship . London: Sage.
• Wallerstein, I. (1988) The Ideological Tensions of Capitalism: Universalism Versus Racism and Sexism. In J. Smith , J. Collins , T.K. Hopkins , and A. Muhammed (eds.) Racism, Sexism, and the World-System . New York: Greenwood, pp. 3–10.
• Weldon, S.L. (2002) Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence against Women: A Cross-National Comparison . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
• Winter, B. (2006) Religion, Culture and Women’s Human Rights: Some General Political and Theoretical Considerations. Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (4), 381–93.
• Wichterich, C. (2000) The Globalized Woman: Reports from a Future of Inequality , trans. P. Camiller . London: Zed Books.
• Wolchik, S.L. (1998) Gender and the Politics of Transition in Czech Republic and Slovakia. In J.S. Jaquette and S.L. Wolchik (eds.) Women and Democracy: Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 153–84.
• Wood, C. (2005) Different Commonalities: Gender Mainstreaming and the Marginalization of Difference in Economic Development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 26, 593–603.
• Yoon, B.L. (2001) Democratization and Gender Politics in South Korea. In R.M. Kelly , J.H. Bayes , M.E. Hawkesworth , and B. Young (eds.) Gender, Globalization, and Democratization . Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 171–95.
• Youngs, G. (2000) Breaking Patriarchal Bonds: Demythologizing the Public/Private. In M.H. Marchand and A.S. Runyan (eds.) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites, and Resistances . London: Routledge, pp. 44–58.

Links to Digital Materials

Association for Women’s Rights in Development. At www.awid.org , accessed May 11, 2009. Women’s Rights NGO which provides up-to-date news about women’s human rights worldwide, resources, research reports and analysis, and job listings in the field.

Center for Reproductive Law. At www.reproductiverights.org/ , accessed May 11, 2009. A non-profit legal advocacy organization for the protection of reproductive rights worldwide. Provides information on current events related to reproductive rights laws globally, in-depth analyses by region, country, and issue information about litigation, and assessments of the UN and other international organizations.

Human Rights Watch, Women’s Rights page. At www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women%E2%80%99s-rights , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides news updates and in-depth reports on a range of women’s human rights issues, such as domestic and sexual violence, HIV/AIDS, labor, security, and migration.

MADRE. At www.madre.org , accessed May 11, 2009. A women’s human rights NGO. Provides resource information and information on current campaigns.

UN Beijing Platform for Action (1995). At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides the full text to the PFA. Includes links to information about the Beijing Conference on Women, country statements, Beijing +5, and Beijing +10.

UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). At www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm , accessed May 11, 2009. Provides the full text of the convention in all of the official UN languages. Includes a list of states, parties, and reservations to the convention, and country reports. Access to the text of the CEDAW Optional Protocol.

UN GenderInfo Database. At www.devinfo.info/genderinfo/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Searchable database of sex disaggregated statistics related to the following sectors: education, families, health and nutrition, population, public life, and work.

UN Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women Gender Mainstreaming Page. At www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/gendermainstreaming.htm , accessed May 11, 2009. This page provides information on the concepts and definitions used to guide the practice of gender mainstreaming of women’s human rights in the UN system. Provides examples of good practices.

UN WomenWatch. At www.un.org/womenwatch/ , accessed May 11, 2009. Inter-agency information center on all women’s issues at the UN. Provides links to news and highlights, events, current campaigns, publications, websites and videos, statistical data, and all agencies working on issues related to women’s rights, development, and gender mainstreaming.

Women, Environment, and Development Organization (WEDO). At www.wedo.org/ , accessed May 11, 2009. A women’s human rights and development NGO which features an extensive online library on a variety of topics ranging from climate change to trade and their impact on achieving gender equality. Also provides in-depth reports and fact-sheets.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to: Brooke Ackerly , the editor of the FTGS section’s contribution to the compendium, and Andrea Gerlak , Managing Editor of the ISA compendium, for their encouragement and support; Zehra Arat, for her helpful suggestions and coordination of the reviewers’ comments; the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments helped sharpen and deepen this essay; Shannon Mcleod , for her editorial and research assistance; and Mindy McGarrah Sharp , for her administrative assistance. All remaining errors and inaccuracies are, of course, attributable solely to the author.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 01 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples

Whether you’re interested in exploring enduring issues, social justice, or democracy, see the ideas below. Along with human rights topics for essays and other papers, our experts have prepared writing tips for you.

• ✅ Tips for Writing Essays on Human Rights

🏆 Best Human Rights Topic Ideas & Essay Examples

🥇 most interesting human rights topics for essays, 🎓 simple & easy human rights essay topics, 💡 great human rights research topics, 🔎 interesting topics to write about human rights, ❓ essay questions on human rights.

If you’re starting a discussion on human rights, essay examples on the subject can really help you with argumentation. And if you’re assigned to come up with a research paper or speech on it, a good idea is a must for an excellent grade. Good thing you’ve found this list of human rights essay topics!

✅ 9 Tips for Writing Essays on Human Rights

The recognition of people’s rights through proper laws preserves human dignity. This broadness means that human rights essay topics range in scope drastically, requiring you to bring together different kinds of ideas in a single paper.

Thus, you may need to keep in mind particular tips, from structural advice to correct terminology, to write an excellent human rights essay.

Do your research before you start working on your outline. Searching for book and journal titles beforehand will not only help you understand your topic better but also help you structure your thoughts, affecting your structure for the better.

Compiling a bibliography early will also save you from the mess, which comes from ordering and standardizing your sources as you go.

After you have your reference page ready, draft a human rights essay outline.

Make it as detailed or as simple as you need, because what is essential is that you divide your topics evenly between your paragraphs or subheadings.

Doing so will ensure that you have a comprehensive essay that helps advance academic knowledge on a particular subject, rather than an overpowered paper aimed at a single problem.

Write your thesis statement as your final prewriting step. Excellent thesis examples should state the theme explicitly and leave your reader with an accurate understanding of what you are trying to achieve in your paper.

Skipping or ignoring this phase may leave your work disoriented and without a definite purpose.

Keep in mind your chosen human rights essay questions when writing. Going off theme will never get you good marks with your instructor.

If you are writing from a cultural relativism point of view, then do you have the word-count to argue about moral relativism? Do not forget that everything you write should advance your central thesis and never undermine it!

Get a good grasp on the relevant terminology. Confusing human nature with the human condition is never a good start to a paper that aspires to shed light on one subject or the other.

You can start writing down the terms that you find useful or intriguing during your research phase to help you gain a better understanding of their meaning.

Understand the correct time and place to qualify or refute certain statements. Arguing against the children’s right to basic needs may never be appropriate in an academic setting. Acknowledge the arguable cases, and subvert these to your benefit, as an essayist.

Interest your audience with essay hooks and exciting facts. Academia is not a dull place, and your readers may find themselves more willing to engage with your work if they find it enjoyable, rather than dry and formalistic. Doing so will also demonstrate your good grasp on the subject!

Remain respectful of your chosen case, and remember that you are writing about a subject that experiences hundreds of daily violations.

Recognizing the dangerous nature of your paper will not only help you separate beneficial facts from superficial ones but may also allow you to hone your academic integrity.

Read sample essays online to gain a better understanding of what essay mechanics will work and which you can leave unused. This extra reading may also give you good human rights essay ideas to begin writing your paper!

However, remember that plagiarism is a punishable offense, unlike the simple act of becoming inspired by others’ work. Want to see some samples? Head over to IvyPanda and jump-start your paper!

• Three Generations of Human Rights Development The current legal recognition of human rights attainment originated from various declarations and the most pronounced included the Magna Carta declaration in the thirteenth century that curtailed the royal powers, the American declaration of independence […]
• How Nike Sweatshops in Asia Violate Human Rights Factors that facilitated the emergence and development of Nike sweatshops included the availability of cheap labor, lower costs of production, lower wages, the restriction on the labor movements by the local authorities, and the poor […]
• The Origin of the Human Rights Concept This point out to the fact that there were rights in the document that are common to different parts of the world and that they were not only obtained from the western nations’ practices of […]
• Torture and Human Rights Violation The researcher notes that the government never provided a clear explanation of the events and their position on the possibility of resorting to torture.
• Basic Human Rights Violation The Human Rights Watch was formed in the year 1978 following the creation of the Helsinki Watch. The issue of terrorism has posed the greatest challenge in the operations of the Human Rights Watch.
• Human Rights and the United Nations Charter The most significant resemblance of the New Laws of The Indies and Human Rights Law of the United Nations is the obligation to consider human rights as the primary basis for establishing the local regulations.
• Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for Human Rights Established in 1919 as the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the organization has been very instrumental in championing the improvement of human rights and the reduction of human suffering.
• Effects of War on Humanity in Terms of Human Rights The effects not only affect the coalition governments in war, but also members of the attacked countries for instance, Iraq people recorded the greatest number of fatalities and casualties during the Iraq war.
• Social Media: A Force for Political and Human Rights Changes Worldwide In this essay, I will discuss the effectiveness of traditional media and social media, and how social media has a better participation in changing the world in terms of politics and human rights.
• Immigrants and Human Rights In order to solve the problem of violation of the human rights of the immigrants, some recommended policies include: The detention of immigrants should be reviewed on a regular basis, and if a person is […]
• The Case of Malala: Is Education a Basic Human Right? Additionally, understanding the social and cultural dimensions of gender inequality in education allows one to determine the policy issues that cause the problem and thus establish a mechanism for preventing its reoccurrence in the future.
• The European Human Rights System Despite the efforts of the European human rights system to establish a common system of legislation to guide the implementation of the human rights in all the member states, the specific laws of the states […]
• Current Human Rights Issues Social rights go hand in hand with human rights since most of them are defined in declarations and treaties of human rights.
• Human Rights and Social Transformation Skeptics challenges the origin, contribution of globalization to the advancement of human rights, tension posed on security due to strict adherence to codes of human rights, human rights contribution to universality evaluated in relation to […]
• Prisoners’ Human Rights Denial Human rights watch is required to create a standardized list of rights and guarantees that should affect both domestic and international institutions in order to ensure the application of basic human rights, such as the […]
• Impact of Human Rights on Society Democratic space is an indication of tolerance and consideration of the people on the part of the government, since it shows that the voice of the people has a preference over any single person.
• How Corruption Violates Fundamental Human Rights of Citizens This essay seeks to establish how corruption leads to breach of fundamental human rights of citizens and determine which rights in particular are mostly risky due to corruption.
• United States and UAE Human Rights Comparison The nation’s denial of freedom of expression and religion, as well as its discrimination against women and the punishment of same-sex intercourse with the death penalty, are among the most prominent issues.
• Culture and Religion in Human Rights Universality Fagan asserts that a commitment to the universal legitimacy of human rights is not consistent with the dedication to the principle of respecting cultural diversity.
• The Universality of Human Rights In contrast to the other institutions that suggest a single form of the notion existing in the given society, the area of human rights allows to switch the shapes of the very notion of human […]
• McDonald’s: Human Rights and Environmental Sustainability Core values of the company One of the core values of the company is the respect for the fundamental rights of human beings.
• The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity It is however true that the existence of universal human rights is compromised by cultural relativism. In addition, it is wrong to assume that cultural relativism would interfere with the efficacy of these universal human […]
• The Evolution of Human Rights: France vs. America The Age of Enlightenment made human rights one of the major concerns of the world community, which led to the American and French Revolutions the turning points in the struggle for justice.
• “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” by Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton’s speech about women’s rights effectively convinces her audience that women rights are an indispensable part of human rights through the use of logical argument, repetition, historical facts, and emotional stories.
• Child Labor Issue According to the Human Rights The International Labor Organization defines child labor as “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development”1 Being a United Nations agency, ILO […]
• Human Rights in 21st Century: China Although there have been cases of human rights violations in China, recent events and efforts depict the country as working towards promoting individual rights.
• International Human Rights Law The civil and political rights preceded the origins of the economic, social, and cultural rights, and thus they are deemed as second-generation rights.
• Human Rights in the Movie Escape From Sobibor As a result of the escape, the Nazi Authorities were made to shutdown the camp and planted trees The Second World War was a period during which a lot of violations of the human rights […]
• Compare Two Movies Related With Human Rights In the Name of the Father is a movie that portrays an innocent arrest of Gerry Colon and subsequent torture for him to confess the terrorist’s crimes he did not commit and enduring long legal […]
• Saddam Hussein Human Rights Abuse This paper focuses on the activities that took place under the authority of Saddam Hussein which led to the abuse of human rights.
• The Role of Non-state Actors in the Implementation and Monitoring of Human Rights Various human rights international and local organizations have come up with strategies that aid in the implementation of human rights laws and monitoring and evaluation of the standards.
• Human Rights History and Approaches Further development of the concept of human rights was reflected in the European Middle Ages, the eras of renaissance and enlightenment, and the idea of empowering all people, based on the concept of “natural law”.
• Human Rights Violations by Police: Accountable in Discharging Their Duties Corey in his study and reflection on two mass exonerations, that is, the Rampart and Tulia exonerations, identified police misconduct, and in particular perjury as the primary cause for wrongful convictions.
• Human Rights Violations in Today’s World This paper addresses questions regarding human rights, including the United Nations’ involvement in enforcing those rights violations and the role of non-governmental organizations in addressing the issue.
• Human Rights, Education and Awareness But the progress is underway, and while there is still much to be done in terms of securing even the basic human rights, the strategies and the general principles of achieving equality can be outlined.
• Thomas Jefferson as a Defender of Human Rights In conclusion, Thomas Jefferson was a steadfast defender of human rights, but most importantly, he fought for the rights of black people.
• Strategic Planning: Human Rights Watch The company’s competitive position represents the largest coverage of countries in various areas: monitoring military conflicts, protecting access to medicine, addressing and the rights of vulnerable segments of the population.
• Human Rights and Justice Sector: Article Review The central problem is the complex of new African American control institutions made up of the carceral system and the ruins of the dark ghetto.
• The Native Human Rights: Intergenerational Trauma Following are some strategies for addressing Indian citizens’ unique status, ways in which the fundamental right of Indians adheres, the practice of civil rights, the right to ownership of water, the right to be allowed […]
• Human Rights Reforms in the Arab World In modern history, the theme of human rights reformations in the Arab World has been influenced by the French and America Revolutions.
• Freedom of Speech as a Basic Human Right Restricting or penalizing freedom of expression is thus a negative issue because it confines the population of truth, as well as rationality, questioning, and the ability of people to think independently and express their thoughts.
• Violation of Human Rights: Tuskegee Syphilis Study The authors of the study and the authorities tried to justify human rights violations by saying that they were analyzing the effects of fully developing syphilis on Black males.
• Human Rights Violation in US Sports Despite the advancement in human rights in the most significant part of society, sports in various parts of the globe continue to cultivate actions of human rights violation.
• The Natural Human Right to Life: A Case Analysis One of such laws is the right to life, which an unknown shooter violated in a train carriage. The principle of justice is also violated since the identity of the murderer has not yet been […]
• Cultural Heritage and Human Rights in France For example, the imagination of the inhabitants of this region manifested itself vividly in many ways during the development and construction of the famous Notre Dame Cathedral.
• Retirement Options: Putting Human Rights to Work The employers consider terminating the old employees for their personal safety and the company’s economic stability. Therefore, public awareness stimulates action against discrimination and allows the employees to support the older people at work.
• Environmental, Social, and Governance Relating to Human Rights It is impossible to ignore the fact that the ESG trend can significantly affect the sphere of human rights in the energy sector.
• Biomedical Research Ethics and Human Rights This paper aims to discuss the impact of the history of research ethics on modern approaches and the protection of the rights of human subjects.
• The Absolute Human Right Not to Be Tortured The case against the prohibition of absoluteness contrary to torment and associated types of cruelty in universal law queries the ethical and legal conventions that form the foundation of the event of terrorism.
• Human Rights Issues: Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans Hurricane Katrina is considered one of the worst calamities in the history of the United States. The law of the United States gives the government the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens.
• Rhetoric and Reality of Human Rights Protection For example, the prohibition of homosexuality in many countries of Africa and the Middle East, the restriction of China and Russia’s citizen’s freedoms, and the dictatorship of Africa and Latin America.
• Why Do Good? Human Rights Violations in Afghanistan To be more specific, this is because the main essence of Bentham’s philosophical standpoint is that only those actions which bring happiness and pleasure to others are morally right.
• Understanding Human Rights in Australia Needless to say, the key objective of this Act has been to improve the standards of legislation processes in the region.
• Understanding of Human Rights This provides us with a clue, as to what should account for the line of legal reasoning, regarding the illegality of the ‘burqa ban’, on the part of French Muslims in the European Court of […]
• Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Protest as a Violation of Human Rights Standing Rock claims that the pipeline would damage the sacred sites of their ancestors and is potentially harmful to the local environment and the economic situation of the tribe.
• Bridging the Line Between a Human Right and a Worker’s Choice Workers’ rights, in that sense, constitute one of the most important aspects of the human rights issue because many workers are willing to face peril if the market is able to pay a sufficient price.
• The UN Declaration of Human Rights & The UN Millennium Project Human rights are “international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses”.
• Social Media and Human Rights Memorandum Considering a recent scandal with Facebook’s failure to protect people’s data in the Cambridge Analytica breach, it is feasible to dwell on the topic of human rights protection within the Internet.
• Definition of Human Rights Human rights are freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations.
• Labor and Monopoly. Human Rights Simultaneously, the laborers do not enjoy any control on design and production over the work, thus, the staff are uncomfortable with their work. However, in the case of flight attendants, the profession is different in […]
• Reaction Paper about Treaty Bodies of Human Rights 2020 Therefore, it is important to evaluate the prospects of budget issues due to COVID-19, communication challenges due to reduced human contacts and pandemic concerns affecting human right defense as well as the general secretary’s rejection […]
• Human Rights in Islam and West Instead, it would stick to drafting standards and stay out of the actual developments and problems of the Stalinist Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and its colonies, and the segregationist United States and other powers […]
• African Human Rights Protection Many human rights activists have come forward to champion the rights of the minorities and in some instances agitate for democratic governance.
• Joseph Kony’s Violations of Human Rights Even so, conflicts in the 21st century are unique in that the warring parties are obliged to follow some rules of engagement and to respect human rights.
• Human Rights: Violated Historical and Ethical Principles The people in most of the research did not have a choice. The people in the experiments did not have the right to beneficence.
• Public International Law of Human Rights The present paper examines three important decisions issued by the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of state responsibility, human rights, and rights and duties of international […]
• US & UK Human Rights While Countering Terrorism The threat of terror and the further legal reactions of the nations to the problem were considered as challenging, and it is necessary to examine differences and similarities associated with the promotion of human rights […]
• Dignity: Is It a Basic Human Right and How to Protect of Self-Worth and Self-Determination? The problem has raised the issue of assisted suicide to end a life of suffering and the role of such a patient in deciding when and how they will die rather than waiting for the […]
• International Human Rights Opinion and Removing a Constitutionally Elected Government in Fiji It is believed that the gross overreaction of the military in the internal affairs of the Methodist church in Fiji has paved the way for international focus to be centered in this island, especially in […]
• Human Rights Act 1998 in British Legal System The safeguard of British liberty is in the good sense of the people and in the system of representative and responsible government which has been evolved”.[The Business of Judging] Such an approach isolated British constitutional […]
• Human Rights in Russia: A 2020 Report Concentrating on the Last Changes Overall, expert opinion on the outcomes of human rights in Russia in the future shows a lack of certainty the country’s record of infringements is going to improve. It is imperative to support the promotion […]
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Daily Briefs UN experts and ambassadors of foreign countries, including the US and the EU, responded to this violation, calling not to use weapons and allow the people to express their will.
• Will the Development of Artificial Intelligence Endanger Global Human Rights? The contradiction between the advantages of AI and the limitation of human rights manifests in the field of personal privacy to a larger extent.
• St. Johns Agency and Human Rights: Universal Policies to Support Human Rights The right to health as an inclusive right is one of the elements which states that the right is not only associated with access to health care facilities and services. The company incorporates various aspects […]
• History II, Early Human Rights Debates: The Truth About Pirates and the Social Justification The reading by Mark Roth describes the hidden historical truth behind pirates and their deceptive view by the modern society. This historical document depicts one of the earliest accounts of the mistreatment of Native Americans […]
• Universal Human Rights on The Case of MV Tampa On the other hand, the country was enforcing its own right to protect the citizens from the perceived danger a justified precaution in light of numerous cases of illegal immigration and terrorist attacks.
• Human Rights Obligations of Multinational Corporations The argument of whether it is valid to impose obligations on violation of human rights on MNCs calls to reason the minimum caliber MNCs should maintain in their obligations towards human rights.
• Human Rights Issues in Australia: Bullying Among School-Going Age and Young People The focus of the topic of the day is on bullying. It is used to prevent or avoid the occurrence of a bullying experience.
• Tortures as the Form of Human Rights Abuse The law of the country must allow persons tortured in any form to be permitted to make an official complaint and investigation to be started on the credibility of the person.
• Human Rights and Global Democracy by Michael Goodhart Considering that the current human rights bodies focus mostly on rights of individuals, there is needs for translating the rights in a global context.
• Is FGM a Human Rights Issue in the Development of Humanism and Equality? Among the problems faced by developed states that receive migrants from third-world countries, the protection of women’s and girls’ rights in the field of reproductive health stands out.
• Shirin Ebadi’s Perspective on Women’s Human Rights Activism and Islam It is worth noting that Shirin Ebadi’s self-identity as an Iranian woman and a Muslim empowers her experience and perspective in women’s rights activism.
• Cultural Values vs. the UN Declaration of Human Rights With the rise in diversity and the focus on the cross-cultural dialogue, the importance of acknowledging cultural values has risen.
• United States Role in Support of Universal Human Rights The first thing is to put an end to extrajudicial killings and detentions which will be in a bid to end intrusion to the freedom and the right to truth and justice.
• Universal Jurisdiction for Human Rights One of the most prominent roles in this process was played by the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, by the development of the national and intercultural awareness of various […]
• Human Rights: Humanitarian Intervention Some of these are the right to liberty, the right to life, the right of the freedom to think and express oneself, and finally the right to receive equal handling as regards issues relating to […]
• A “Human Rights” Approach to Imprisonment In Europe human rights in prisons are overseen by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• Social Factors in the US History: Respect for Human Rights, Racial Equality, and Religious Freedom The very first years of the existence of the country were marked by the initiatives of people to provide as much freedom in all aspects of social life as possible.
• South Africa: Human Rights in the Constitution The Bill of Rights serves as the foundation upon which the democratic character of the Republic of South Africa is built.
• Human Rights in the Disaster Capitalism Context By the word human rights, it is generally meant to be the protection of individual rights against the encroachment by the state and it also means the basic rights and freedom of individuals.
• Human Rights: Development, Commission, Listening, Monitoring The final draft of the Declaration was handed to the Commission being held in Geneva, therefore, the draft declaration that was sent to all UN member states for commentary is known as the Geneva draft.
• Human Rights in China, Tibet and Dafur In spite of the progress, achieved in the process of regulating the situation, and the ongoing process of peaceful settlement, the atmosphere of intensity is preserved in the country, and scale military attacks on innocent […]
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be analyzed within the context of the political, cultural, and religious situation, emerging in the middle of the twentieth century.
• Vehicle Impoundment “HOON” Laws Are an Infringement of People’s Human Rights The other dimension presents the argument that the laws are meant for the well being of the pepole articulating that the legislation is in fact designed for the protection of the civil rights of the […]
• Global Human Rights: The European Court of Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights, or officially called Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms became one of the most significant documents accepted by the Council of Europe.
• Human Rights and International Business The article deals with the crisis in Burma and the role of India and China in this crisis. Even though it might appear that the major theme of discussion is international politics, from the first […]
• Human Rights Violation in Kosovo The paper has discussed the massive violation of Human Rights in Kosovo, The International Community’s reaction and actions to the Kosovo crisis, and i have given my suggestions to the community on regard to Kosovo […]
• How Has Globalization Impacted on Issues of Human Rights? William Adler closely examines the disrupted lives of the three women who occupy an assembly-line job as the job and its company moves from New Jersey to rural Mississippi and to Matamoros, Mexico, across the […]
• Protecting America: Security and Human Rights 2007) After the 9/11 bombings of the World Trade Center, the US government under President Bush executed and implemented a series of actions that catapulted the country to a period of war.
• Basic Technology and Human Rights If some people are able to enjoy the facilities being introduced as a result of technological improvisations, and it reaches to a chosen few, with no chance in sight of reaching out to large number […]
• Refugee Women and Their Human Rights According to the researches have been made by UNHCR, 1998, found that 80% of the refugees immigrating to the United States and other countries of second asylum are women or children.
• Human Systems. Technology as a Human Right Since most of the world bodies continue to use the basic technology to communicate with the world e.g.about health and safety, access to these amodern’ basic technology should be regarded as a human right and […]
• Human Rights: Fredin v. Sweden Legal Case In this situation, the court considered a case that affected the protection of nature and the human right to own property and sentenced in favor of the state.
• Human Rights and Security in Post-Soviet Russia The collapse of the Soviet Union marked the end of the Cold War and the polarization of the world. On the one hand, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the rapid acceleration of […]
• Global and Regional Human Rights Institutions Overall, the topic of human rights and their protection through economic sanctions and other strategies requires additional attention from the states and international institutions.
• Prisoners’ Basic Human Rights and Their Violation In the report, McKelvie et al.highlight the important contradictions behind the blanket ban, namely the lack of understanding behind the purpose of the prison, the influence of the media and the public press, as well […]
• Human Rights of Migrants by Francois Crepeau The report by Francois Crepeau addresses the deaths of migrants in the central Mediterranean Sea and evaluates the European Union border control analysis, migration policy, and the application of values and human rights in the […]
• The U.S. and the UAE Human Rights Comparison A detailed analysis of the two nations can reveal significant and noteworthy differences between the overall attitudes of the U.S.and UAE.
• Monsanto: Profits, Laws, and Human Rights Although the majority of multinational giants have affirmed their conviction in upholding the letter of the law and professional ethics, in practice, a good portion of them has issues with either the ethical or the […]
• Malala Yousafzai – Pakistani Human Rights Activist The world learned about the girl after a gunman burst into a school bus and shot the girl in the head, thereby avenging her criticism of the Taliban and neglecting the prohibition to attend school.
• Human Rights and Laws on the International Level Zewei provides a characterization of the Tributary System and the concept of the Celestial Order of China, the impact of international law on China’s Confucianism worldview, and the process of integration of international law into […]
• Human Rights and Dignity: Non-Western Conceptions It has been accepted that human rights are the notion which was developed in the West, however, some scientists tried to contradict this idea presenting the arguments that many nations battled for human rights many […]
• Human Rights Issues During the Holiday Season Should we stick to the habitual “Merry Christmas” and stay loyal to the traditions of the majority or embrace a more neutral “Happy Holidays” and show respect to the cultural diversity?
• R. Lemkin and E. Roosevelt as Human Rights Activists He devoted all his time and energy to trying to persuade the new delegates of the United Nations of the importance of the fight against genocide.
• Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice It is essential to highlight the contributions of Ghonim because he was one of the first to leverage the use of social media.
• Human Rights Poster Design and Analysis First, I realised that placing the title or theme of the poster at a strategic point goes a long way to draw the attention of the target audience.
• Human Rights of Poor in Developing Countries Their interactions with those in authority and the decision makers in the society have been marred with many obstacles and denied the rights to freedom of speech and expression that is being enjoyed by the […]
• Communication as a Human Right and Its Violations According to the international laws, every person has a range of rights which should be met in the society completely, and the right to communicate is one of the most significant ways for a person […]
• Human Rights and Relations in Education and Career The information is located on the left and above and is easy to navigate. This is useful to the employees as it makes them aware of the key needs to the job and the benefits.
• China’s Land Grabs and Human Rights Violation What interested you about the article and how is the content of the article related to aspects of global citizenship? Upon reading the news article from Amnesty International’s website about Chinese officials’ land grabbing […]
• The Human Rights and Its Basic Principles There is a perspective that the initiation of the given process can be justified by the need to protect citizens and the state.
• Human Rights in Naturalistic and Political Conceptions Conferring to one venerable explanation, the Naturalistic Conception of Human rights, human rights are the privileges and rights that we enjoy by the mere fact that we are humans.
• Chile’s Human Rights Violations in 1973-90 After the death of the president, the military took office and a state of civil unrest engulfed the country. Human rights violations experienced in Chile have been highlighted and the actions are taken to address […]
• Islamic Culture, Its History and Human Rights The Christian and Jewish cultures gradually reshaped the Arabian Peninsula; people of Arabia became more accustomed to the concept of Abrahamic religion, while paganism was on the decline. Various forms of arts flourished in the […]
• Theocratic Government’s Census and Human Rights The primary idea of the paper is to disclose moral opacities of the issue, conduct stakeholder impact analysis, and speculate on the collision of values of the theocratic governments and people.
• History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Things did not look too bright at the time: the condition of Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings; the divided Koreas; the beginning of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.
• Equality, Diversity and Human Rights in Healthcare Equity can be achieved in a health system that acknowledges the diversity of the population respecting the expectations and needs of the patients, the staff and the services as a whole.
• Syrian Crisis and Human Rights Instruments However, the increase in the number of migrants triggers a range of concerns for the states that they choose as the target location.
• Consequentialism and Human Rights Ethics is a moral code that governs the behavior or conduct of an activity.”Ethics is thus said to be the science of conduct”.
• Ethical Reasoning Theories and Human Rights Utilitarianism involves the assessment of the consequences of any action taken by the business since it involves a common good for the majority.
• Human Rights and Resistance of South Asia To get an in-depth understanding of the question and discuss it appropriately, we will refer to the status of women in South Asia where women’s rights are still discriminated in the light of social and […]
• Domestic Legal Traditions vs. Human Rights: A Global Perspective It is the obligation of every state to adhere to the human rights standard. One of the greatest similarities is that most of the countries have almost the same laws.
• The Issues of Human Rights The scope of this review starts from the history of Labour Human Rights and examines how various authors have presented their case studies regarding the effectiveness or lack of it of the policies that govern […]
• International Justice for Human Rights Violation In order to understand the status of these amendments, it is important to appreciate the relevance of the definition given in reference to acts and the crime of aggression.
• Human Rights and Climate Change Policy-Making Advocates of the inclusion of human rights feel that there is an important link between climate impacts and human rights and as such, integrating the two would promote the formulation of the best policies. Specifically, […]
• Just War in Human Rights Perspective When a war is about to begin, people, who start the war, have to understand the role of human rights in the process of making decisions and clearly identify the peculiarities of the just war.
• The Human Right to Privacy: Microsoft and the NSA Microsoft had started to collaborate with the NSA to help it to offer services to its customers, but as they progressed, the NSA began to access all the programs of the Microsoft that made private […]
• Economics and Human Rights: Intersecting Theories Theories allied to the two disciplines play a critical role in explaining development because human rights theories give economists an opportunity to employ legal and political concepts in the process of drafting policies aimed at […]
• Human Rights Abuses and Death Penalty in the UAE There are many explanations of why a number of Arab people remain to be vulnerable to abuses and violations of human rights. Besides, many people are still challenged by the inability to participate in the […]
• Human Rights and Legal Framework in Poor Countries In this article, Benton traces the origin of international order to the 17th century. Moreover, Benton claims that the two approaches have been utilized to explain effect of imperial administration on trends in international law.
• Women’s Fight for Equal Human Rights According to the readings assigned, the term feminist could be used to refer to people who fought for the rights of women.
• Immigrants’ Human Rights in America: The Issue of Immigration as Old as the Country In order to make the constitution a living document, America should introduce effective measures in ensuring that the rights of all immigrants are fully recognized, secured and protected.
• The Human Right to Water: History, Meaning and Controversy The utilitarianism theory of ethics relates to the welfare rights and the libertarianism theory of ethics relates to the liberty rights.
• The Evolution of Human Rights in Canada In addition, the movements aided the treaties to champion for the acquisition of rights of associations and political developments among the indigenous communities living in Canada.
• Human Rights and Their Role in Public Opinion Making The quest for human rights create a mental picture that draws the audience’s assumed knowledge of the need to end the restrictions of human beings in their endeavor to reach out to greatness in life.
• Human Rights and Intervention in Public Opinion Making According to Bloomer, human rights demonstrate the public ideas that are used in the media and politics to ensure that they reflect the true meaning of the intended actions.
• Gender Studies: Queer Politics and Human Rights As earlier stated, the idea of queer politics came about to confront injustice and to ensure that the rights of the minority groups in the society are respected.
• Human Rights Issues in the Bahrain Members of the Sunni minority are the rulers of the monarchy; the present king is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, and he has held the office since 1999.
• Conflict Over Human Rights The following discussion is a description concerning the conflicts between Iran and the United States in the promotion of human rights some violations of human rights by Iran, such as abuse of the captives.
• Human Rights in Relation to Catholic Theology The church declared the acts of slavery as infamy and conjured to discourage slavery since it was dishonored God and destroyed the lived of many people.
• The Ontario Human Rights Commission Application forms for job seekers and the process of interviewing applicants are usually subjected to all the mentioned elements of prejudice and discrimination.
• Torture and Human Rights However, the full state of affairs in Abu Ghraib prison came to the knowledge of the public when a report by the military into the first pictures leaked to an online magazine.
• Why Migration Cannot Be a Basic Human Right but Always Been a Part of Human Culture The United Nations has acknowledged the individual right of movement with Article 13-2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return […]
• Human Rights Violations in Chile In order to confront past abuses and human rights violations, both civilian collaborators and the past military officers who took part in the violations have been taken through the prosecution process owing to the torture […]
• Faith, Justice, War – and Human Rights in the Realm of the Present-Day World Quran: The Most Ancient and Sacred Islamic Book as the Basis for the Laws on Human Rights Considering the Issue from a Different Perspective: The Fifteen Postulates Security of life and property: bi-al haqq and […]
• Ethical Relativism in Human Rights To support this point of view, the nature of human society, the standardization of human rights and the progress of human rights will be analyzed.
• Human Rights and NGOs In the world today, there are numerous international human rights treaties which stipulate the obligations of states, and the rights of the citizens in these states and beyond2.
• Human Rights Issues in Guantanamo Bay It is expressed in the article that although the detainees are international criminals, the move by the US to detain them at the Guantanamo Bay is an abuse of international laws on the human rights.
• The Human Rights Violation in the Republic of Korea The human rights situation under President Kim Jong-Un in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has remained dire due to the government’s unwillingness to yield to the recommendations by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s […]
• Gender and Human Rights The concept of a Human of Rights introduced by Foucault in 1950s, and also referred to as humanity is traditionally defined as a “floating signifier” and is related directly to the idea of human rights.
• The Politics of International Human Rights Law
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Turkey, Media and Human Rights
• Paul Farmer about the Human Rights
• “Feminism, Peace, Human Rights and Human Security” by Charlotte Bunch
• Impacts of the ‘War on Terror’ on Human Rights
• The Objectives of Women in the International Community
• Human Rights Violations in Turkey
• Human Rights of People With Intellectual Disabilities
• The Effect of Terrorism on Human Rights: The Clash Between the Human Rights Advocates and Victims of Terrorism
• Human Rights Interventions
• Fighting for Human Rights: Somalia Humanitarian Crisis
• The concept of Human Rights
• The UN Human Rights System
• The European System of Human Rights
• What Are Human Rights?
• Human Rights: Universalism, Marxism, Communitarianism
• Environmental Groups’ and Human Rights Organization Strategies
• Human Rights in History Teaching
• Is Universal Healthcare a Human Right?
• Confucianism and its Effects on Human Rights Development
• Debate Between John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant Theories on the Sources of Human Rights
• United Nations Human Rights Council
• Critique of the U.S & the U.N Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Definition of Human Rights and Trafficking
• Challenges for Universal Human Rights
• Human Rights in Asia
• Human rights and freedoms
• The human rights in the USA and around the world
• International Law & Protection of Human Rights: Syria and Libya
• On What Grounds is the Idea of Universal Human Rights Challenged?
• Human Rights Non-Governmental Organizations and the United Nations
• Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right and the UN Declaration of Human Rights
• Advancement of Human Rights from 1865 to Present
• Disabled Babies Have Human Rights Which We Must Let Them Enjoy
• The Impact of Human Right on Globalization
• Concerning the Human Rights of Immigrants: Policies, Approaches and Stereotypes
• Protection of Human Rights of Immigrants
• What is the UN Human Rights Council?
• The Taliban and Human Rights
• New “Act on Democracy and Human Rights in Belarus” Passed by the US Congress
• Human Rights in Serial ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’
• Through the Prism of Culture: Human Rights as They Are
• Global Community and Human Rights
• Human Rights: Analysis of Ludlow Massacre and the “Valour and the Horror”
• Ang Lee’s Attempts to Develop an Idea of Human Rights in Hulk, Brokeback Mountain, and Sense and Sensibility
• The Cold War: Global Prosperity and Human Rights
• Human Rights in Catholic Teachings
• Abusing Human Rights: Violence Against Women
• What if Environmental Rights Are More Important Than Human Rights?
• How Did the Development of Human Rights Affect the Caste System in India?
• Should Men and Women Have Equal Human Rights?
• How Are Human Rights Observed During Early Childhood?
• What Are the Barriers to Human Rights Being Recognized as Truly Universal in Application?
• How Does Criminal Justice in the United Kingdom Respect Human Rights?
• What Is the Role of the National Human Rights Commission?
• How Are Human Rights Abused in India?
• What Is the Relationship Between Human Rights and State Sovereignty?
• How Are Human Rights Observed in Islamic Countries?
• What Are Human Rights and From Where Do They Originate?
• How Were Human Rights Violated During the French Revolution?
• How Human Rights Affect Administrative Law?
• What Human Rights Dilemmas Do Social Workers Face?
• How Does Political Corruption Violate Human Rights?
• Who Practices Rights-based Development?
• When Religious Beliefs Overpower Human Rights?
• Why Does China Have Such a Poor Record of Human Rights?
• How Does Human Rights Affect Multi-national Companies on Their Marketing Strategies?
• What Is the History of the Spread of Human Rights in the World and the Obstacles in Its Way?
• What Are the Human Rights for Persons With Mental Disorders?
• How Are Human Rights Abused in the Absence of Oversight?
• What Is the Economic Impact on Human Rights in China?
• Why Have Many Human Rights Issues Remained Unaddressed?
• What Are the Concepts and Meaning of Human Rights in Society?
• What Effect Has the Human Rights Act 1998 Had on UK Law?
• How Do Self-determination Issues Affect Human Rights?
• Impact of Economic Liberalization on Human Rights?
• How Does Global Politics Affect Human Rights?
• Should Nature Have Constitutionally Protected Rights Equal to Human Rights?
• Activist Essay Titles
• Constitution Research Ideas
• Discrimination Essay Titles
• Equality Topics
• Criminal Justice Essay Topics
• Police Brutality Questions
• Corruption Ideas
• Libertarianism Research Topics
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/human-rights-essay-examples/

"240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/human-rights-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/human-rights-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/human-rights-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "240 Human Rights Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/human-rights-essay-examples/.

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

• Updated on  
• Dec 9, 2023

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf.

Also Read: Essay on Labour Day

Also Read: 1-Minute Speech on Human Rights for Students

What are Human Rights

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Did you know that the 10th of December is celebrated as Human Rights Day ?

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

Also Read: What are Human Rights?

Also Read: 7 Impactful Human Rights Movies Everyone Must Watch!

Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights.

Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour. Protected by law , these rights are applicable everywhere and at any time. Basic human rights include the right to life, right to a fair trial, right to remedy by a competent tribunal, right to liberty and personal security, right to own property, right to education, right of peaceful assembly and association, right to marriage and family, right to nationality and freedom to change it, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from slavery, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of movement, right of opinion and information, right to adequate living standard and freedom from interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence.

Also Read: Law Courses

Check out this 500-word long essay on Human Rights.

Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights. Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our lives and develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.

Human rights can broadly be defined as the basic rights that people worldwide have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to health, education and an adequate standard of living. These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or believe. This basic property is what makes human rights’ universal’.

Human rights connect us all through a shared set of rights and responsibilities. People’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community. Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.

Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people can enjoy their rights. They must establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in which their rights are respected and protected. For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. Therefore, governments must provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. If the government fails to respect or protect their basic human rights, people can take it into account.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can help us create the kind of society we want to live in. There has been tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas in recent decades. This growth has had many positive results – knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.

Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels of society – in the family, the community, school, workplace, politics and international relations. Therefore, people everywhere must strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society. 

Also Read: Important Articles in Indian Constitution

Here is a human rights essay focused on India.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It has been rightly proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Created with certain unalienable rights….” Similarly, the Indian Constitution has ensured and enshrined Fundamental rights for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, colour, sex or nationality. These basic rights, commonly known as human rights, are recognised the world over as basic rights with which every individual is born.

In recognition of human rights, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made on the 10th of December, 1948. This declaration is the basic instrument of human rights. Even though this declaration has no legal bindings and authority, it forms the basis of all laws on human rights. The necessity of formulating laws to protect human rights is now being felt all over the world. According to social thinkers, the issue of human rights became very important after World War II concluded. It is important for social stability both at the national and international levels. Wherever there is a breach of human rights, there is conflict at one level or the other.

Given the increasing importance of the subject, it becomes necessary that educational institutions recognise the subject of human rights as an independent discipline. The course contents and curriculum of the discipline of human rights may vary according to the nature and circumstances of a particular institution. Still, generally, it should include the rights of a child, rights of minorities, rights of the needy and the disabled, right to live, convention on women, trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation etc.

Since the formation of the United Nations , the promotion and protection of human rights have been its main focus. The United Nations has created a wide range of mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations. The conventional mechanisms include treaties and organisations, U.N. special reporters, representatives and experts and working groups. Asian countries like China argue in favour of collective rights. According to Chinese thinkers, European countries lay stress upon individual rights and values while Asian countries esteem collective rights and obligations to the family and society as a whole.

With the freedom movement the world over after World War II, the end of colonisation also ended the policy of apartheid and thereby the most aggressive violation of human rights. With the spread of education, women are asserting their rights. Women’s movements play an important role in spreading the message of human rights. They are fighting for their rights and supporting the struggle for human rights of other weaker and deprived sections like bonded labour, child labour, landless labour, unemployed persons, Dalits and elderly people.

Unfortunately, violation of human rights continues in most parts of the world. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can still be seen in several parts of the world. Large sections of the world population are deprived of the necessities of life i.e. food, shelter and security of life. Right to minimum basic needs viz. Work, health care, education and shelter are denied to them. These deprivations amount to the negation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also Read: Human Rights Courses

Check out this detailed 1500-word essay on human rights.

The human right to live and exist, the right to equality, including equality before the law, non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, the right to practice any profession or occupation, the right against exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and trafficking in human beings, the right to freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion and the right to legal remedies for enforcement of the above are basic human rights. These rights and freedoms are the very foundations of democracy.

Obviously, in a democracy, the people enjoy the maximum number of freedoms and rights. Besides these are political rights, which include the right to contest an election and vote freely for a candidate of one’s choice. Human rights are a benchmark of a developed and civilised society. But rights cannot exist in a vacuum. They have their corresponding duties. Rights and duties are the two aspects of the same coin.

Liberty never means license. Rights presuppose the rule of law, where everyone in the society follows a code of conduct and behaviour for the good of all. It is the sense of duty and tolerance that gives meaning to rights. Rights have their basis in the ‘live and let live’ principle. For example, my right to speech and expression involves my duty to allow others to enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression. Rights and duties are inextricably interlinked and interdependent. A perfect balance is to be maintained between the two. Whenever there is an imbalance, there is chaos.

A sense of tolerance, propriety and adjustment is a must to enjoy rights and freedom. Human life sans basic freedom and rights is meaningless. Freedom is the most precious possession without which life would become intolerable, a mere abject and slavish existence. In this context, Milton’s famous and oft-quoted lines from his Paradise Lost come to mind: “To reign is worth ambition though in hell/Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

However, liberty cannot survive without its corresponding obligations and duties. An individual is a part of society in which he enjoys certain rights and freedom only because of the fulfilment of certain duties and obligations towards others. Thus, freedom is based on mutual respect’s rights. A fine balance must be maintained between the two, or there will be anarchy and bloodshed. Therefore, human rights can best be preserved and protected in a society steeped in morality, discipline and social order.

Violation of human rights is most common in totalitarian and despotic states. In the theocratic states, there is much persecution, and violation in the name of religion and the minorities suffer the most. Even in democracies, there is widespread violation and infringement of human rights and freedom. The women, children and the weaker sections of society are victims of these transgressions and violence.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights’ main concern is to protect and promote human rights and freedom in the world’s nations. In its various sessions held from time to time in Geneva, it adopts various measures to encourage worldwide observations of these basic human rights and freedom. It calls on its member states to furnish information regarding measures that comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever there is a complaint of a violation of these rights. In addition, it reviews human rights situations in various countries and initiates remedial measures when required.

The U.N. Commission was much concerned and dismayed at the apartheid being practised in South Africa till recently. The Secretary-General then declared, “The United Nations cannot tolerate apartheid. It is a legalised system of racial discrimination, violating the most basic human rights in South Africa. It contradicts the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. That is why over the last forty years, my predecessors and I have urged the Government of South Africa to dismantle it.”

Now, although apartheid is no longer practised in that country, other forms of apartheid are being blatantly practised worldwide. For example, sex apartheid is most rampant. Women are subject to abuse and exploitation. They are not treated equally and get less pay than their male counterparts for the same jobs. In employment, promotions, possession of property etc., they are most discriminated against. Similarly, the rights of children are not observed properly. They are forced to work hard in very dangerous situations, sexually assaulted and exploited, sold and bonded for labour.

The Commission found that religious persecution, torture, summary executions without judicial trials, intolerance, slavery-like practices, kidnapping, political disappearance, etc., are being practised even in the so-called advanced countries and societies. The continued acts of extreme violence, terrorism and extremism in various parts of the world like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Somalia, Algeria, Lebanon, Chile, China, and Myanmar, etc., by the governments, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and mafia outfits, etc., is a matter of grave concern for the entire human race.

Violation of freedom and rights by terrorist groups backed by states is one of the most difficult problems society faces. For example, Pakistan has been openly collaborating with various terrorist groups, indulging in extreme violence in India and other countries. In this regard the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva adopted a significant resolution, which was co-sponsored by India, focusing on gross violation of human rights perpetrated by state-backed terrorist groups.

The resolution expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and proposed that a U.N. Fund for victims of terrorism be established soon. The Indian delegation recalled that according to the Vienna Declaration, terrorism is nothing but the destruction of human rights. It shows total disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. The delegation further argued that terrorism cannot be treated as a mere crime because it is systematic and widespread in its killing of civilians.

Violation of human rights, whether by states, terrorists, separatist groups, armed fundamentalists or extremists, is condemnable. Regardless of the motivation, such acts should be condemned categorically in all forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever they are committed, as acts of aggression aimed at destroying human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. The Indian delegation also underlined concerns about the growing connection between terrorist groups and the consequent commission of serious crimes. These include rape, torture, arson, looting, murder, kidnappings, blasts, and extortion, etc.

Violation of human rights and freedom gives rise to alienation, dissatisfaction, frustration and acts of terrorism. Governments run by ambitious and self-seeking people often use repressive measures and find violence and terror an effective means of control. However, state terrorism, violence, and human freedom transgressions are very dangerous strategies. This has been the background of all revolutions in the world. Whenever there is systematic and widespread state persecution and violation of human rights, rebellion and revolution have taken place. The French, American, Russian and Chinese Revolutions are glowing examples of human history.

The first war of India’s Independence in 1857 resulted from long and systematic oppression of the Indian masses. The rapidly increasing discontent, frustration and alienation with British rule gave rise to strong national feelings and demand for political privileges and rights. Ultimately the Indian people, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, made the British leave India, setting the country free and independent.

Human rights and freedom ought to be preserved at all costs. Their curtailment degrades human life. The political needs of a country may reshape Human rights, but they should not be completely distorted. Tyranny, regimentation, etc., are inimical of humanity and should be resisted effectively and united. The sanctity of human values, freedom and rights must be preserved and protected. Human Rights Commissions should be established in all countries to take care of human freedom and rights. In cases of violation of human rights, affected individuals should be properly compensated, and it should be ensured that these do not take place in future.

These commissions can become effective instruments in percolating the sensitivity to human rights down to the lowest levels of governments and administrations. The formation of the National Human Rights Commission in October 1993 in India is commendable and should be followed by other countries.

Also Read: Law Courses in India

Human rights are of utmost importance to seek basic equality and human dignity. Human rights ensure that the basic needs of every human are met. They protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and abuse, allow people to stand up for themselves, and follow any religion without fear and give them the freedom to express their thoughts freely. In addition, they grant people access to basic education and equal work opportunities. Thus implementing these rights is crucial to ensure freedom, peace and safety.

Human Rights Day is annually celebrated on the 10th of December.

Human Rights Day is celebrated to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UNGA in 1948.

Some of the common Human Rights are the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from slavery and torture and the right to work and education.

Popular Essay Topics

We hope our sample essays on Human Rights have given you some great ideas. For more information on such interesting blogs, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — Civil Rights Movement

Essays on Civil Rights Movement

Hook examples for civil rights movement essays, anecdotal hook.

Imagine standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, listening to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech. This moment in history epitomized the Civil Rights Movement's power and importance.

Question Hook

What does it mean to fight for civil rights? Explore the complex history, key figures, and lasting impact of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

Quotation Hook

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How did civil rights activists like King refuse to stay silent and ignite change?

Statistical or Factual Hook

Did you know that in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? Dive into the facts and milestones of the Civil Rights Movement.

Definition Hook

What defines a civil rights movement? Explore the principles, goals, and strategies that distinguish civil rights movements from other social justice movements.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Was the Civil Rights Movement solely about racial equality, or did it pave the way for broader social change and justice? Examine the movement's multifaceted impact.

Historical Hook

Travel back in time to the mid-20th century and uncover the roots of the Civil Rights Movement, from the Jim Crow era to the landmark Supreme Court decisions.

Contrast Hook

Contrast the injustices and systemic racism faced by African Americans prior to the Civil Rights Movement with the progress made through protests, legislation, and activism.

Narrative Hook

Meet Rosa Parks, a seamstress who refused to give up her bus seat, sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Follow her courageous journey and the ripple effect it had on the Civil Rights Movement.

Controversial Statement Hook

Prepare to explore the controversies within the Civil Rights Movement, such as differing strategies among activists and debates over nonviolence versus militancy.

Ruby Bridges: a Trailblazing Figure in Civil Rights History

Coretta scott kings accomplishments, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Essay on Black History Month

The history of the civil rights movement in the united states of america, the civil rights movement: a struggle for equality, history of the civil rights movement in america, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Civil Rights Movement and The Struggles of African Americans During Those Times

The impact of martin luther king on civil rights movements, the contradicting outcome of the civil rights movement in america, the role of martin luther king jr. and malcolm x in civil rights movement, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

How The Civil Rights Movement Helped African Americans Achieve Their Rights

Martin luther king jr: influential figure in the civil rights movement, how martin luther king jr, rosa parks and malcolm x organized the civil rights movement, the role of the media in ushering the civil rights movement, development of racial tendencies in the united states, the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, a deeper look at the civil rights movement in america, generation of the civil rights movement, black lives matter in the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement about african american people, the civil rights movement and african american discriminations, a report on the events that helped martin luther king jr.'s prominence in america to push the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement about national indentify, the influence of jazz musicians on the civil rights movement, rosa parks and the civil rights movement, the contribution of local grass-roots activists to the civil rights movement, rosa parks: the lady of the civil rights, brown vs board of education, the way rosa parks leadership style changed the history, rosa parks: how one bold decision made a world leader.

United States

Racism, segregation, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow laws, socioeconomic inequality

W.E.B. Du Bois, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Henry MacNeal Turner, John Oliver Killens

Civil rights movement was a struggle of African Americans and their like-minded allies for social justice in United States that came to national prominence during the mid-1950s. The purpose was to end legalized racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and racial segregation in the United States.

“Jim Crow” laws were established in the South beginning in the late 19th century with a purpose to separate Black people from white people. Black people couldn’t use the same public facilities as white people or go to the same schools. Although, Jim Crow laws weren’t adopted in northern states, Black people still experienced discrimination.

Forms of protest and civil disobedience included boycotts, such as the most successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) that lasted for 381 days in Alabama; mass marches, such as the Children's Crusade in Birmingham in 1963 and Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina and Nashville sit-ins (1960) in Tennessee.

The Great March on Washington was held in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. The purpose was to advocate for the civil and economic rights of African Americans. It was organized and attended by civil rights leaders such as A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King, Jr., who delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech.

On July 2, 1964, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

The civil rights movement had tragic consequences for two of its leaders. On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated at a rally and Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on his hotel room’s balcony on April 4, 1968.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots. It prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, and national origin.

The 20th-century civil rights movement produced an enduring transformation of the legal status of African Americans and other victims of discrimination.

Relevant topics

• Manifest Destiny
• Great Depression
• Pearl Harbor
• Westward Expansion
• Industrial Revolution
• American Revolution
• Imperialism
• Frederick Douglass

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Civil Rights Movement

By: History.com Editors

Updated: May 14, 2024 | Original: October 27, 2009

The civil rights movement was a struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for Black Americans to gain equal rights under the law in the United States. The Civil War officially abolished slavery , but it didn’t end discrimination against Black people—they continued to endure the devastating effects of racism, especially in the South. By the mid-20th century, Black Americans, along with many other Americans, mobilized and began an unprecedented fight for equality that spanned two decades.

Jim Crow Laws

During Reconstruction , Black people took on leadership roles like never before. They held public office and sought legislative changes for equality and the right to vote.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave Black people equal protection under the law. In 1870, the 15th Amendment granted Black American men the right to vote. Still, many white Americans, especially those in the South, were unhappy that people they’d once enslaved were now on a more-or-less equal playing field.

To marginalize Black people, keep them separate from white people and erase the progress they’d made during Reconstruction, “ Jim Crow ” laws were established in the South beginning in the late 19th century. Black people couldn’t use the same public facilities as white people, live in many of the same towns or go to the same schools. Interracial marriage was illegal, and most Black people couldn’t vote because they were unable to pass voter literacy tests.

Jim Crow laws weren’t adopted in northern states; however, Black people still experienced discrimination at their jobs or when they tried to buy a house or get an education. To make matters worse, laws were passed in some states to limit voting rights for Black Americans.

Moreover, southern segregation gained ground in 1896 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Plessy v. Ferguson that facilities for Black and white people could be “separate but equal."

World War II and Civil Rights

Prior to World War II , most Black people worked as low-wage farmers, factory workers, domestics or servants. By the early 1940s, war-related work was booming, but most Black Americans weren’t given better-paying jobs. They were also discouraged from joining the military.

After thousands of Black people threatened to march on Washington to demand equal employment rights, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941. It opened national defense jobs and other government jobs to all Americans regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

Black men and women served heroically in World War II, despite suffering segregation and discrimination during their deployment. The Tuskegee Airmen broke the racial barrier to become the first Black military aviators in the U.S. Army Air Corps and earned more than 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses. Yet many Black veterans were met with prejudice and scorn upon returning home. This was a stark contrast to why America had entered the war to begin with—to defend freedom and democracy in the world.

As the Cold War began, President Harry Truman initiated a civil rights agenda, and in 1948 issued Executive Order 9981 to end discrimination in the military. These events helped set the stage for grass-roots initiatives to enact racial equality legislation and incite the civil rights movement.

On December 1, 1955, a 42-year-old woman named Rosa Parks found a seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus after work. Segregation laws at the time stated Black passengers must sit in designated seats at the back of the bus, and Parks complied.

When a white man got on the bus and couldn’t find a seat in the white section at the front of the bus, the bus driver instructed Parks and three other Black passengers to give up their seats. Parks refused and was arrested.

As word of her arrest ignited outrage and support, Parks unwittingly became the “mother of the modern-day civil rights movement.” Black community leaders formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) led by Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr ., a role which would place him front and center in the fight for civil rights.

Parks’ courage incited the MIA to stage a boycott of the Montgomery bus system . The Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted 381 days. On November 14, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled segregated seating was unconstitutional. 

Little Rock Nine

In 1954, the civil rights movement gained momentum when the United States Supreme Court made segregation illegal in public schools in the case of Brown v. Board of Education . In 1957, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas asked for volunteers from all-Black high schools to attend the formerly segregated school.

On September 4, 1957, nine Black students, known as the Little Rock Nine , arrived at Central High School to begin classes but were instead met by the Arkansas National Guard (on order of Governor Orval Faubus) and a screaming, threatening mob. The Little Rock Nine tried again a couple of weeks later and made it inside, but had to be removed for their safety when violence ensued.

Finally, President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened and ordered federal troops to escort the Little Rock Nine to and from classes at Central High. Still, the students faced continual harassment and prejudice.

Their efforts, however, brought much-needed attention to the issue of desegregation and fueled protests on both sides of the issue.

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Even though all Americans had gained the right to vote, many southern states made it difficult for Black citizens. They often required prospective voters of color to take literacy tests that were confusing, misleading and nearly impossible to pass.

Wanting to show a commitment to the civil rights movement and minimize racial tensions in the South, the Eisenhower administration pressured Congress to consider new civil rights legislation.

On September 9, 1957, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law, the first major civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. It allowed federal prosecution of anyone who tried to prevent someone from voting. It also created a commission to investigate voter fraud.

Sit-In at Woolworth's Lunch Counter

Despite making some gains, Black Americans still experienced blatant prejudice in their daily lives. On February 1, 1960, four college students took a stand against segregation in Greensboro, North Carolina when they refused to leave a Woolworth’s lunch counter without being served.

Over the next several days, hundreds of people joined their cause in what became known as the Greensboro sit-ins. After some were arrested and charged with trespassing, protesters launched a boycott of all segregated lunch counters until the owners caved and the original four students were finally served at the Woolworth’s lunch counter where they’d first stood their ground.

Their efforts spearheaded peaceful sit-ins and demonstrations in dozens of cities and helped launch the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to encourage all students to get involved in the civil rights movement. It also caught the eye of young college graduate Stokely Carmichael , who joined the SNCC during the Freedom Summer of 1964 to register Black voters in Mississippi. In 1966, Carmichael became the chair of the SNCC, giving his famous speech in which he originated the phrase "Black power.”

Freedom Riders

On May 4, 1961, 13 “ Freedom Riders ”—seven Black and six white activists–mounted a Greyhound bus in Washington, D.C. , embarking on a bus tour of the American south to protest segregated bus terminals. They were testing the 1960 decision by the Supreme Court in Boynton v. Virginia that declared the segregation of interstate transportation facilities unconstitutional.

Facing violence from both police officers and white protesters, the Freedom Rides drew international attention. On Mother’s Day 1961, the bus reached Anniston, Alabama, where a mob mounted the bus and threw a bomb into it. The Freedom Riders escaped the burning bus but were badly beaten. Photos of the bus engulfed in flames were widely circulated, and the group could not find a bus driver to take them further. U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (brother to President John F. Kennedy ) negotiated with Alabama Governor John Patterson to find a suitable driver, and the Freedom Riders resumed their journey under police escort on May 20. But the officers left the group once they reached Montgomery, where a white mob brutally attacked the bus. Attorney General Kennedy responded to the riders—and a call from Martin Luther King Jr.—by sending federal marshals to Montgomery.

On May 24, 1961, a group of Freedom Riders reached Jackson, Mississippi. Though met with hundreds of supporters, the group was arrested for trespassing in a “whites-only” facility and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Attorneys for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) brought the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the convictions. Hundreds of new Freedom Riders were drawn to the cause, and the rides continued.

In the fall of 1961, under pressure from the Kennedy administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued regulations prohibiting segregation in interstate transit terminals

March on Washington

Arguably one of the most famous events of the civil rights movement took place on August 28, 1963: the March on Washington . It was organized and attended by civil rights leaders such as A. Philip Randolph , Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr.

More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone. The highlight of the march was King’s speech in which he continually stated, “I have a dream…”

King’s “ I Have a Dream” speech galvanized the national civil rights movement and became a slogan for equality and freedom.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 —legislation initiated by President John F. Kennedy before his assassination —into law on July 2 of that year.

King and other civil rights activists witnessed the signing. The law guaranteed equal employment for all, limited the use of voter literacy tests and allowed federal authorities to ensure public facilities were integrated.

Bloody Sunday

On March 7, 1965, the civil rights movement in Alabama took an especially violent turn as 600 peaceful demonstrators participated in the Selma to Montgomery march to protest the killing of Black civil rights activist Jimmie Lee Jackson by a white police officer and to encourage legislation to enforce the 15th amendment.

As the protesters neared the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were blocked by Alabama state and local police sent by Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, a vocal opponent of desegregation. Refusing to stand down, protesters moved forward and were viciously beaten and teargassed by police and dozens of protesters were hospitalized.

The entire incident was televised and became known as “ Bloody Sunday .” Some activists wanted to retaliate with violence, but King pushed for nonviolent protests and eventually gained federal protection for another march.

Voting Rights Act of 1965

When President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965, he took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 several steps further. The new law banned all voter literacy tests and provided federal examiners in certain voting jurisdictions. 

It also allowed the attorney general to contest state and local poll taxes. As a result, poll taxes were later declared unconstitutional in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections in 1966.

Part of the Act was walked back decades later, in 2013, when a Supreme Court decision ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, holding that the constraints placed on certain states and federal review of states' voting procedures were outdated.

Civil Rights Leaders Assassinated

The civil rights movement had tragic consequences for two of its leaders in the late 1960s. On February 21, 1965, former Nation of Islam leader and Organization of Afro-American Unity founder Malcolm X was assassinated at a rally.

On April 4, 1968, civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on his hotel room's balcony. Emotionally-charged looting and riots followed, putting even more pressure on the Johnson administration to push through additional civil rights laws.

Fair Housing Act of 1968

The Fair Housing Act became law on April 11, 1968, just days after King’s assassination. It prevented housing discrimination based on race, sex, national origin and religion. It was also the last legislation enacted during the civil rights era.

The civil rights movement was an empowering yet precarious time for Black Americans. The efforts of civil rights activists and countless protesters of all races brought about legislation to end segregation, Black voter suppression and discriminatory employment and housing practices.

A Brief History of Jim Crow. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Civil Rights Act of 1957. Civil Rights Digital Library. Document for June 25th: Executive Order 8802: Prohibition of Discrimination in the Defense Industry. National Archives. Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-In. African American Odyssey. Little Rock School Desegregation (1957).  The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute Stanford . Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute Stanford . Rosa Marie Parks Biography. Rosa and Raymond Parks. Selma, Alabama, (Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965). BlackPast.org. The Civil Rights Movement (1919-1960s). National Humanities Center. The Little Rock Nine. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior: Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. Turning Point: World War II. Virginia Historical Society.

Photo Galleries

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Human Rights as a Way of Life

About the author, shulamith koenig.

September 2012, No. 3 Vol. XLIX 2012, Dialogue among Civilizations

I n 2008, alongside the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights group known as the Elders, founded and led by Nelson Mandela, sent out a clarion call proclaiming that "every human has rights." This statement recalls Voltaire, who when asked, "what should we do about human rights?" answered "Let the people know them". Having facilitated for the last 25 years the learning and integration of human rights as a way of life in more than 60 countries, I sent the Elders a note saying "But do the 'humans' know them? Most do not!" It is therefore, imperative to add to the Elders' call, loud and clear, that every human must learn, know them and own them as a way of life. It is not enough to have human rights, it is essential that everyone owns them and are guided in their daily lives by the holistic human rights framework, enabling women and men to participate as equals in the decision making process towards meaningful, sustainable economic and social transformation. There is no other option.

Having met face to face with people in hundreds of communities around the world, facilitating dialogue about human rights as a way of life, I choose not to engage in the discourse about diversity and/or intercultural dialogue, or even peace. I believe that such discussions distract us from holding the essential conversations that can lead to the planning of meaningful ways and means to facilitate the learning of human rights as a way of life throughout the world. Such efforts, when implemented, will evoke a sense of ownership of human rights and put in the hands of the learner a powerful tool for positive action, thereby enriching people's ability to live within diverse cultures in trust and respect of the humanity of the other. This is not mere Utopia. As people pursue equal participation in the political decision making process, women and men alike, they join in weaving a new foundation of equality for all and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, which is basically what human rights are all about.

The awareness that all human rights concerns and the effective move towards the realization of human rights—be it political, civil, economic, social or cultural—are indivisible, interconnected and interrelated, with a gender perspective, endows communities with a holistic insight of how we are all different from one another yet yearn to belong in community in dignity with others. We all have different and diverse cultural affiliations and several personal identities, yet we all belong to the same humanity bound by the vision and mission of human rights as a way of life. We may all have a different interpretation of belonging and how we relate to subjective historic memories that frame our pride and uniqueness within our families, villages, towns and cities, not to mention religious and national identities, yet, we must all be bound and guided by the fully comprehensive human rights framework. We can all overcome these diversities and break through the vicious cycle of humiliation by learning to recognize the humanity of the other and stop exchanging our equality for survival.

To move from theory to practice, schoolchildren in Thies, Senegal, who had learned that education is a human right, discovered that some of their friends who were not registered at birth had been unable to get an education. They teamed up spontaneously, in a community of 250,000 inhabitants, and in three years registered 4,312 children so that they could attend school and simultaneously lobbied with the authorities to expand the capacity of their schools. Similarly, in the village of Malikunda, Senegal, as a result of ongoing conversations about the meaning of human rights, men and women declared an end to female genital cutting, naming the first girl who was not cut Sensen, meaning human rights. Learning about human rights as relevant to one's life creates a powerful tool to overcome oppression of all kinds. Whatever their genetic makeup, the children and villagers in Thies and Malikunda overcame what some may call "inevitability of nature" and started creating a new future for their community knowing that there is no other option but human rights as a way of life.

In 1991, in Nairobi, Kenya, an important event gave a more succinct direction to our work. A policeman was sent to observe a learning session of 25 diverse development organizations that were being introduced to Economic Social and Cultural Human Rights related to their issues and concerns. As discussions and interrogation were going on, the policeman called out emphatically at the bewildered participants: "Stop it! Stop it! If this is human rights, come and teach it in my village." We at People's Movement for Human Rights Learning (PDHRE), have been answering this policeman's request in many villages around the world. We continue to facilitate learning with local community leaders to have them become mentors of human rights. We carry with us the vision of Eleanor Roosevelt who said: "Where do, after all, universal human rights begin? In small places...."

In the introduction of the learning process, I recently launched a discussion about human rights as a "home". When you are a child, home is where you feel safe out of the rain, protected from the burning sun and often loved. As you grow older, home can be the memory of a lullaby, the stories you were told or overheard, the clothes you wear, the earth you toil, a book you read, the yearning for dignity, and the good or painful memories that instruct our daily lives; in short, the world we live in and wish to be able to claim as our own. In learning about equal choices of decency and acceptance, which is provided in the human rights framework, we learn how to walk towards a new horizon, to restore or build a new home as we internalize the human rights language as a path of freedom. The word "home" holds a whole universe of meanings. Basically it is a space where people can be free from fear and want, and often a refuge from persecution. It is a place, a mindset, an insight to wisdom, paving the road for walking securely with the human rights language for our hopes to become a reality, sometimes even a transcendence. Some of us hold on to painful memories of being evicted and violated and/or evicting our enemies from their homes to secure our path to a false sense of freedom. Human rights are a home where the dignity of all people is being celebrated, the ultimate habitat of and for humanity.

This may be seen as utopic in a world—a home—that in 60 years (from 1950 to 2010), grew from two to seven billion people, where 50 per cent of the population is under 25, and all need a home of their own. In addition, this is a world where social networking undermines value systems, spreads contradictory definition and leads many people aimlessly in many directions.

These often conflicting observations leave me embracing a truth for which we have no other—all people must learn, know and own human rights as a way of life and join in building a political movement that will carve a new future for humanity. In a Dalit village, after sharing with women that food, education, health, housing and work at livable wages are inalienable human rights, they clapped their hands, danced and repeated these five human rights imperatives as a mantra.

Many speak of a human rights culture. I choose to quote Nelson Mandela who spoke of "developing a political culture based on human rights!"—which encompasses it all. Such a political culture is an ever evolving phenomenon of being in community with others, of belonging, of defining the other as being fully human; of choosing or being born into a specific culture and/or religion; and most important of creating human rights political movements. It is worth noting that a human rights political culture views the patriarchal system as a system that must be done away with to be able to fulfil the holistic mission of human rights. Women, as well as men, must fully recognize that patriarchy is a system where injustice is considered justice and where women exchange their equality for survival, a system that allows female genital cutting, imposed marriage and trafficking.

Is it overreaching or too ambitious to call on every civil society organization, local authorities and the private sector to integrate an ongoing, never-ending process of learning about human rights as a way of life, to have women, men, youth and children empower themselves, to move from slavery to freedom, from self-righteousness to justice, and from charity to dignity?

Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all other forms. Democracy became a structure rather than a living organism that allows the participation of all, in equality and without discrimination. As a result of touching the lives of so many people, and with all humility, I came to see the simple truth: a real democracy is a comprehensive delivery system of human rights that can be realized through a never-ending, ongoing process of learning and integration, at all levels of society, of human rights as a way of life.

Human rights learning should not be understood as human rights education. These are two very different categories and approaches. Even though I was the person who almost single-handedly created the United Nations Decade of Human Rights Education, PDHRE moved forcefully to bring human rights learning to grassroots communities. Human rights education is time bound, mostly in academic institutions and schools and does not reach 95 per cent of the world community. In 5 to 10 years we hope to evolve into a movement that will have all people in the world learn, know and own human rights as relevant to their daily lives. They will be able to use human rights as a powerful tool for change, as a strategy to economic, societal and human development.

Our mantra describes human rights as the banks of the river where life flows freely. And when the floods arrive, people who know and own human rights strengthen the bank to revert the floods and maintain freedom. Knowledge is power, and learning about human rights as a way of life moves power to human rights.

For more information visit www.pdhre.org or write to [email protected]

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Cultural Diversity in the Digital Age: A Pillar for Sustainable Development

Two important issues affecting the protection and promotion of cultural diversity deserve our attention: the question of discoverability of local and national content, and the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

“Bee Engaged with Youth” to Safeguard Bees and Other Pollinators

As we celebrate World Bee Day on 20 May, let us remember how crucial it is to prioritize efforts to protect bees and other pollinators. FAO is committed to supporting youth, who have a key role to play in fostering the transformative changes and future initiatives and activities needed to save our bees and other pollinators.  

Digital Innovation—Key to Unlocking Sustainable Development 

Digital tools have the potential to accelerate human progress, but those who are not online are most at risk of being left behind.

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers