Human Rights and Development: Complementary or Competing Concerns?

1984 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Donnelly

The conventional wisdom of the sixties and early seventies held that, except in the very long run, rapid development and human rights are competing concerns. Needs satisfaction, income equality, and civil and political rights were regularly held to be luxury goods. An examination of the development experiences of Brazil and South Korea, however, shows much of this conventional wisdom to have been mistaken. Rapid growth and development can be achieved without sacrificing social and economic equity. Furthermore, theoretical considerations suggest that even civil and political rights are more compatible with sustained rapid development than is frequently recognized.

Author(s):  
Bikundo Edwin

This chapter delves into one specific crime—enslavement as a crime against humanity. It argues that the law has drawn heavily on civil and political rights, neglecting economic, social, and cultural ones. The law surrounding slavery furthermore has drawn on some basic contrasts: notably separating the concept of ‘human’ (a human being) from ‘person’ (a bearer of legal personality and rights). Another distinction is between ‘status’ and ‘condition’. The law has tended to focus on status, i.e., legal non-recognition of personhood, which has affinities with civil and political rights. The chapter argues that the law has given much less attention to ‘condition’, which looks at the person’s material conditions in fact, and which has affinities with economic and social rights. A re-imagined law better encompassing economic and social rights would be more ideologically neutral, more in keeping with human rights law, and more in keeping with the lived experiences of African would-be migrants. Thus, this chapter emphasises that recognition in law is not enough; one must also look at the material conditions of life, the deprivation of which enables enslavement.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-375
Author(s):  
Marloes van Noorloos

This article deals with the role of criminal law in dealing with defamatory expressions about religion or belief. Defamation of religion and belief is a form of indirect defamation ‘via identification’ which, as the discussion about the Dutch group defamation law shows, stretches up the notion of ‘group defamation’ — a crime which requires that (groups of) persons are insulted because they belong to a religious group. This contribution investigates whether European states can legitimately criminalise (certain forms of) defamation of religion and belief, in light of the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations framework (particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and legal theoretical considerations. The article shows how problematic it is for the criminal law — in light of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, as well as the ultima ratio principle — to combat such speech.


Author(s):  
Yogesh Tyagi

The golden jubilee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) coincides with the emergence of Asia as a centre of global attention. However, greater attention to Asia has been accompanied by some scepticism over its attitude towards human rights. The chapter provides an overall assessment of the impact of the ICCPR on the major Asian States, with an analysis of the factors affecting such influence. The chapter considers the involvement in, observance of, and compliance with the provisions of the ICCPR by these States. It further delves into the academic and judicial discourse on the ICCPR within these States, recording the domestic disposition towards judgments of foreign courts, the output of the Human Rights Committee, and the work of other international human rights bodies. It makes suggestions for developing mechanisms to improve the effectiveness of the ICCPR and for creating databases to perform further research in the area.


1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro

This paper presents an analysis and critique of the U.S. government's current emphasis on human rights; and (a) its limited focus on only some civil and political components of the original U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and (b) its disregard for economic and social rights such as the rights to work, fair wages, health, education, and social security. The paper discusses the reasons for that limited focus and argues that, contrary to what is widely presented in the media and academe: (1) civil and political rights are highly restricted in the U.S.; (2) those rights are further restricted in the U.S. when analyzed in their social and economic dimensions; (3) civil and political rights are not independent of but rather intrinsically related to and dependent on the existence of socioeconomic rights; (4) the definition of the nature and extension of human rights in their civil, political, social, and economic dimensions is not universal, but rather depends on the pattern of economic and political power relations particular to each society; and (5) the pattern of power relations in the U.S. society and the western system of power, based on the right to individual property and its concomitant class structure and relations, is incompatible with the full realization of human rights in their economic, social, political, and civil dimensions. This paper further indicates that U.S. financial and corporate capital, through its overwhelming influence over the organs of political power in the U.S. and over international bodies and agencies, is primarily responsible for the denial of the human rights of the U.S. population and many populations throughout the world as well.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-132
Author(s):  
Shane Darcy

AbstractInternational law has not traditionally recognised individuals as victims of the crime of aggression. Recent developments may precipitate a departure from this approach. The activation of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression opens the way for the future application of the Court's regime of victim participation and reparation in the context of prosecutions for this crime. The determination by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 that any deprivation of life resulting from an act of aggression violates Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights serves to recognise a previously overlooked class of victims. This article explores these recent developments, by discussing their background, meaning and implications for international law and the rights of victims.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-123
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

Abstract Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides that ‘[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee shows that Committee members have often disagreed on the question of whether the right under Article 12(4) is reserved for citizens only or it can be claimed by non-citizens who consider the countries in which they were born or they have lived for longer periods as their own. In its earlier case law, the Committee held that Article 12(4) is applicable to nationals only. Since 1999, when General Comment No.27 was adopted, the Committee has moved towards extending the right under Article 12(4) to non-nationals. Its latest case law appears to have supported the Committee’s position that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals. Central to both majority and minority decisions in which the Committee has dealt with Article 12(4), is whether the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) support either view. This article relies on the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) to argue that it does not support the view that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-134
Author(s):  
Alexandre Peñalver i Cabré

Human Right to Environment is one the most relevant Third Generation Human Rights which includes new universal needs arisen from the last third of 20th century. These new human rights add as an additional layer to the First Generation Human Rights (civil and political rights from the end of 18th century) and to the Second Generation Human Rights (economic, social and cultural rights from 19th century).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document