how do we protect our human rights essay

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  
• Jun 20, 2024

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, 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.

Also Read: Essay on Yoga Day

Also Read: Speech on Yoga 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 — Social Issues — Individual Rights — Protection of Human Rights

Protection of Human Rights

• Categories: Civil Rights Violation Individual Rights

About this sample

Words: 616 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 616 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

International instruments for human rights protection, national mechanisms for human rights protection, regional mechanisms for human rights protection, non-governmental organizations (ngos) and civil society, challenges and limitations in protecting human rights.

• United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
• European Court of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
• African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. Retrieved from https://www.achpr.org/
• Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/
• Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/

Cite this Essay

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

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3247 words

2 pages / 801 words

2 pages / 1085 words

4 pages / 1796 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Individual Rights

Controlling population growth is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires an ethical framework balancing individual rights and community needs. While the needs of the community and the preservation of resources are [...]

The Importance of the Legislative BranchIn the intricate tapestry of any democratic society, the legislative branch emerges as a vital thread, woven with the purpose of representing the will of the people and ensuring the [...]

The politics of gun control legislation are highly polarized, making it challenging to strike a balance between public safety concerns and individual rights. This comprehensive academic piece has explored the historical context, [...]

Seat belts have been the subject of extensive debate since their inception. While some argue that their mandatory use infringes on personal freedom, others contend that they are an essential measure for public safety. With the [...]

The political aspect and amount of acknowledgment of human rights of any country or part of the world is a crucial facet when considering violence, environmental issues, economic issues, education, and much more. The middle east [...]

Advocating, developing international human rights standards, monitoring human rights violations, service delivery and activism on human rights issues are the salient functions of several Non-government organizations (NGOs) [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Michelle Maiese

June 2004  

What are Human Rights?

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent entitlements of the individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities.

Such rights are ascribed "naturally," which means that they are not earned and cannot be denied on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity or gender.[1] These rights are often advanced as legal rights and protected by the rule of law. However, they are distinct from and prior to law, and can be used as standards for formulating or criticizing both local and international law . It is typically thought that the conduct of governments and military forces must comply with these standards.

Various "basic" rights that cannot be violated under any circumstances are set forth in international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights . The rights established by these documents include economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights.[2]

While human rights are not always interpreted similarly across societies, these norms nonetheless form a common human rights vocabulary in which the claims of various cultures can be articulated. The widespread ratification of international human rights agreements such as those listed above is taken as evidence that these are widely shared values.[3] Having human rights norms in place imposes certain requirements on governments and legitimizes the complaints of individuals in those cases where fundamental rights and freedoms are not respected.[4] Such norms constitute a standard for the conduct of government and the administration of force. They can be used as "universal, non-discriminatory standards" for formulating or criticizing law and act as guidelines for proper conduct.[5]

Many conflicts are sparked by a failure to protect human rights, and the trauma that results from severe human rights violations often leads to new human rights violations. As conflict intensifies, hatred accumulates and makes restoration of peace more difficult. In order to stop this cycle of violence, states must institute policies aimed at human rights protection. Many believe that the protection of human rights "is essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace , development and democracy ."[6] Respect for human rights has therefore become an integral part of international law and foreign policy. The specific goal of expanding such rights is to "increase safeguards for the dignity of the person."[7]

Despite what resembles a widespread consensus on the importance of human rights and the expansion of international treaties on such matters, the protection of human rights still often leaves much to be desired. Although international organizations have been created or utilized to embody these values, there is little to enforce the commitments states have made to human rights. Military intervention is a rare occurrence. Sanctions have a spotty track record of effectiveness. Although not to be dismissed as insignificant, often the only consequence for failing to protect human rights is "naming and shaming."

Interventions to Protect Human Rights

To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. Because political systems that protect human rights are thought to reduce the threat of world conflict, all nations have a stake in promoting worldwide respect for human rights.[8] International human rights law, humanitarian intervention law and refugee law all protect the right to life and physical integrity and attempt to limit the unrestrained power of the state. These laws aim to preserve humanity and protect against anything that challenges people's health, economic well-being, social stability and political peace. Underlying such laws is the principle of nondiscrimination, the notion that rights apply universally.[9]

Responsibility to protect human rights resides first and foremost with the states themselves. However, in many cases public authorities and government officials institute policies that violate basic human rights. Such abuses of power by political leaders and state authorities have devastating effects, including genocide , war crimes and crimes against humanity. What can be done to safeguard human rights when those in power are responsible for human rights violations ? Can outside forces intervene in order to protect human rights?

Humanitarian Intervention

In some cases, the perceived need to protect human rights and maintain peace has led to humanitarian intervention. There is evidence that internationally we are moving towards the notion that governments have not only a negative duty to respect human rights, but also a positive duty to safeguard these rights, preserve life and protect people from having their rights violated by others.[10] Many believe that states' duties to intervene should not be determined by proximity, but rather by the severity of the crisis.

There are two kinds of humanitarian intervention involving the military: unilateral interventions by a single state, and collective interventions by a group of states.[11] Because relatively few states have sufficient force and capacity to intervene on their own, most modern interventions are collective. Some also argue that there is a normative consensus that multilateral intervention is the only acceptable form at present.[12]

There is much disagreement about when and to what extent outside countries can engage in such interventions. More specifically, there is debate about the efficacy of using military force to protect the human rights of individuals in other nations. This sort of debate stems largely from a tension between state sovereignty and the rights of individuals.

Some defend the principles of state sovereignty and nonintervention, and argue that other states must be permitted to determine their own course. They point out that the principles of state sovereignty and the non-use of force are enshrined in the charter of the United Nations , which is regarded as an authoritative source on international legal order.[13]

This argument suggests that different states have different conceptions of justice, and international coexistence depends on a pluralist ethic whereby each state can uphold its own conception of the good.[14] Among this group, there is "a profound skepticism about the possibilities of realizing notions of universal justice."[15] States that presume to judge what counts as a violation of human rights in another nation interfere with that nation's right to self-determination. Suspicions are further raised by the inconsistent respect for sovereignty (or human rights for that matter); namely, the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council have tremendous say over application of international principles. In addition, requiring some country to respect human rights is liable to cause friction and can lead to far-reaching disagreements.[16] Thus, acts of intervention may disrupt interstate order and lead to further conflict.[17] Even greater human suffering might thereby result if states set aside the norm of nonintervention.

Others point out that humanitarian intervention does not, in principle, threaten the territorial integrity and political independence of states. Rather than aiming to destabilize a target state and meddle in its affairs, humanitarian intervention aims to restore rule of law and promote humane treatment of individuals.[18]

Furthermore, people who advocate this approach maintain that "only the vigilant eye of the international community can ensure the proper observance of international standards, in the interest not of one state or another but of the individuals themselves."[19] They maintain that massive violations of human rights, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, warrant intervention, even if it causes some tension or disagreement. Certain rights are inalienable and universal, and "taking basic rights seriously means taking responsibility for their protection everywhere."[20]

If, through its atrocious actions, a state destroys the lives and rights of its citizens, it temporarily forfeits its claims to legitimacy and sovereignty.[21] Outside governments then have a positive duty to take steps to protect human rights and preserve lives. In addition, it is thought that political systems that protect human rights reduce the threat of world conflict.[22] Thus, intervention might also be justified on the ground of preserving international security, promoting justice and maintaining international order.

Nevertheless, governments are often reluctant to commit military forces and resources to defend human rights in other states.[23] In addition, the use of violence to end human rights violations poses a moral dilemma insofar as such interventions may lead to further loss of innocent lives.[24] Therefore, it is imperative that the least amount of force necessary to achieve humanitarian objectives be used, and that intervention not do more harm than good. Lastly, there is a need to ensure that intervention is legitimate, and motivated by genuine humanitarian concerns. The purposes of intervention must be apolitical and disinterested. However, if risks and costs of intervention are high, it is unlikely that states will intervene unless their own interests are involved.[25] For this reason, some doubt whether interventions are ever driven by humanitarian concerns rather than self-interest.

Many note that in order to truly address human rights violations, we must strive to understand the underlying causes of these breaches. These causes have to do with underdevelopment, economic pressures, social problems and international conditions.[26] Indeed, the roots of repression, discrimination and other denials of human rights stem from deeper and more complex political, social and economic problems. It is only by understanding and ameliorating these root causes and strengthening both democracy and civil society that we can truly protect human rights.

Restoring Human Rights in the Peacebuilding Phase

In the aftermath of conflict, violence and suspicion often persist. Government institutions and the judiciary, which bear the main responsibility for the observation of human rights, are often severely weakened by the conflict or complicit in it. Yet, a general improvement in the human rights situation is essential for rehabilitation of war-torn societies. Many argue that healing the psychological scars caused by atrocities and reconciliation at the community level cannot take place if the truth about past crimes is not revealed and if human rights are not protected. To preserve political stability, human rights implementation must be managed effectively. Issues of mistrust and betrayal must be addressed, and the rule of law must be restored. In such an environment, the international community can often play an important supporting role in providing at least implicit guarantees that former opponents will not abandon the peace.[27] Because all international norms are subject to cultural interpretation, external agents that assist in the restoration of human rights in post-conflict societies must be careful to find local terms with which to express human rights norms. While human rights are in theory universal, ideas about which basic needs should be guaranteed vary according to cultural, political, economic and religious circumstances. Consequently, policies to promote and protect human rights must be culturally adapted to avoid distrust and perceptions of intrusion into internal affairs.

To promote human rights standards in post-conflict societies, many psychological issues must be addressed. Societies must either introduce new social norms or reestablish old moral standards. They must design programs that will both address past injustice and prevent future human rights violations . Human rights must not become just another compartmentalized aspect of recovery, but must be infused throughout all peacebuilding and reconstruction activities. Democratization implies the restoration of political and social rights. Government officials and members of security and police forces have to be trained to observe basic rights in the execution of their duties. Finally, being able to forgive past violations is central to society's reconciliation .

Rights Protection Methods

Various methods to advance and protect human rights are available:

• During violent conflict, safe havens to protect refugees and war victims from any surrounding violence in their communities can sometimes help to safeguard human lives.
• As violent conflict begins to subside, peacekeeping strategies to physically separate disputants and prevent further violence are crucial. These measures, together with violence prevention mechanisms, can help to safeguard human lives. Limiting the use of violence is crucial to ensuring groups' survival and creating the necessary conditions for a return to peace.
• Education about human rights must become part of general public education. Technical and financial assistance should be provided to increase knowledge about human rights. Members of the police and security forces have to be trained to ensure the observation of human rights standards for law enforcement. Research institutes and universities should be strengthened to train lawyers and judges. To uphold human rights standards in the long-term, their values must permeate all levels of society.
• Dialogue groups that assemble people from various ethnicities should be organized to overcome mistrust, fear and grief in society. Getting to know the feelings of ordinary people of each side might help to change the demonic image of the enemy group. Dialogue also helps parties at the grassroots level to discover the truth about what has happened, and may provide opportunities for apology and forgiveness.
• External specialists can offer legislative assistance and provide guidance in drafting press freedom laws, minority legislation and laws securing gender equality. They can also assist in drafting a constitution, which guarantees fundamental political and economic rights.
• Those who perpetrate human rights violations find it much easier to do so in cases where their activities can remain secret. International witnesses , observers and reporters can exert modest pressure to bring violations of human rights to public notice and discourage further violence. Monitors should not only expose violations, but also make the public aware of any progress made in the realization of human rights. In order to ensure that proper action is taken after the results of investigations have been made public, effective mechanisms to address injustice must be in place.
• Truth commissions are sometimes established after a political transition. To distinguish them from other institutions established to deal with a legacy of human rights abuses, truth commissions can be understood as "bodies set up to investigate a past history of violations of human rights in a particular country -- which can include violations by the military or other government forces or armed opposition forces."[28] They are officially sanctioned temporary bodies that investigate a pattern of abuse in the past. Their goal is to uncover details of past abuses as a symbol of acknowledgment of past wrongs. They typically do not have the powers of courts, nor should they, since they do not have the same standards of evidence and protections for defendants. As such, they usually do not "name names" of those responsible for human rights abuses, but rather point to institutional failings that facilitated the crimes. Finally, they conclude with a report that contains recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the crimes and to provide reparations to victims.
• International war crimes tribunals are established to hold individuals criminally responsible for violations of international human rights law in special courts. The international community rarely has the will to create them. As the experiences with the war tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia indicate, even where they are created, they are imperfect. They cannot hold all perpetrators accountable and typically aim for the top leadership. However, it remains difficult to sentence the top-level decision-makers, who bear the ultimate responsibility for atrocities. They often enjoy political immunity as members of the post-conflict government. Incriminating a popular leader might lead to violent protests and sometimes even to relapse into conflict. Leaders may be necessary to negotiate and implement a peace agreement.
• Various democratization measures can help to restore political and social rights. For sustainability and long-term viability of human rights standards, strong local enforcement mechanisms have to be established. An independent judiciary that provides impartial means and protects individuals against politically influenced persecution must be restored. Election monitors who help to guarantee fair voting procedures can help to ensure stable and peaceful elections. And various social structural changes , including reallocations of resources, increased political participation , and the strengthening of civil society can help to ensure that people's basic needs are met.
• Humanitarian aid and development assistance seeks to ease the impact that violent conflict has on civilians. During conflict, the primary aim is to prevent human casualties and ensure access to basic survival needs. These basics include water, sanitation, food, shelter and health care. Aid can also assist those who have been displaced and support rehabilitation work. Once conflict has ended, development assistance helps to advance reconstruction programs that rebuild infrastructure, institutions and the economy. This assistance helps countries to undergo peaceful development rather than sliding back into conflict.

The expansion of international human rights law has often not been matched by practice. Yet, there is growing consensus that the protection of human rights is important for the resolution of conflict and to the rebuilding process afterward. To achieve these goals, the international community has identified a number of mechanisms both to bring an end to human rights abuses and to establish an environment in which they will be respected in the future. They are not alternatives, but each provides important benefits in dealing with the past and envisioning a brighter future.

[1] Little, David. "Universality of Human Rights," [available at: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/universality.html ] (no longer available as of March 5th 2013)

[2] endnote goes here**

[3] At the same time, some would argue that the hegemonic power of the West, whether through normative pressure or economic, is responsible for widespread ratification.

[4] Antonio Cassese, Human Rights in a Changing World . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), 2.

[5] Little, "The Nature and Basis of Human Rights," United States Institute of Peace.

[available at: http://www.usip.org/research/rehr/natbasis.html ] (no longer available as of March 5th 2013)

[6] "Human Rights Today: A United Nations Priority," The United Nations, 2000. [available at: http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/ ]

[7] Cassese, 3.

[8] Cassese, 58.

[9] Don Hubert and Thomas G. Weiss et al. The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001), 144.

[10] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 147.

[11] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights in Internal Armed Conflicts in Africa: Is There a Right of Humanitarian Intervention?" in Conflict Trends , no. 3, 2001. ACCORD.

[12] Martha Finnemore, The purpose of intervention: changing beliefs about the use of force . (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2003), chapter 3.

[13] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights"

[14] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 132.

[15] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.

[16] Cassese, 58.

z[17] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 133.

[18] Kithure Kindiki, "Gross Violations of Human Rights"

[19] Cassese, 55-6.

[20] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 135.

[21] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.

[22] Cassese, 58.

[23] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 136.

[24] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 137.

[25] Hubert and Weiss, et al., 141.

[26] Cassese, 59.

[27] See for example, Barbara F. Walter, Committing to peace: the successful settlement of civil wars . (Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press: 2002).

[28] Priscilla B. Hayner, (1994). "Fifteen Truth Commissions - 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study." Human Rights Quarterly. 16(4): 604.

Use the following to cite this article: Maiese, Michelle. "Human Rights Protection." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2004 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human-rights-protect >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Updating Our Impartiality Discussions - Part 1 -- The Burgesses update their 2-year old discussion of impartiality, adding to it Martin Carcasson's notion of "principled impartiality" which adds in quality information and "small-d" democracy.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of September 1, 2024 -- More in our regular set of links from readers, about colleague's activities, and from outside news and opinion sources.
• Updating Our Impartiality Discussions - Part 2 -- In part 2 of this 2-part series, we apply Martin Carcasson's notion of "principled impartiality" to the Israel/Gaza/Hezbollah/Iran war, and to the political conflict in the United States.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

What helps protect human rights: human rights theory and evidence.

• Jessica Anderson Jessica Anderson Department of Political Science, University of Missouri
•  and  Amanda Murdie Amanda Murdie Department of International Affairs, University of Georgia
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.513
• Published online: 24 May 2017

Empirical international relations (IR) theory developed three generalized statements regarding why human rights abuses occur. First, human rights abuses are a way for an unrestrained state, especially the executive branch and its agents, to try to control individuals and hold on to power. Second, respect for human rights is an international norm, and international socialization and pressure about this norm can, in certain situations, affect behavior. Third, the codification of human rights norms into international treaties may influence behavior but, similar to our understanding of the effect of other treaties on state behavior, states only bind themselves weakly, and certain conditions are necessary for treaties to affect human rights.

• Human rights
• norm life cycle
• human rights treaties
• international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs)
• empirical international relations theory

Introduction

Amnesty International, a leading organization specializing in advocacy to end human rights abuses, recently released accounts of horrendous abuses to political prisoners in Vietnam (Amnesty International, 2016 ). Peaceful demonstrators and outspoken minorities had been imprisoned, tortured, and “disappeared” for their beliefs and the supposed threat that they posed to the regime. Even though Vietnam ratified the United Nation’s Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2015 , dozens of individuals are still imprisoned and tortured there for the peaceful expression of their political beliefs.

Since the end of World War II, much attention has been paid to stopping abuses like those that occurred in Vietnam. Global and regional human rights treaties have been ratified, and concerns about human rights abuses have sparked many foreign policy actions. A vibrant and connected network of human rights advocates and organizations has fought tirelessly for the abused and have expanded our understanding of what human rights means and what protections should be expected. Despite all of this, most countries in the world still have evidence of abuses within their borders.

This article examines why human rights abuse occurs and what can be done to help protect human rights. In the last 30 years, there has been an explosion of human rights–related scholarship in leading international relations (IR) journals (Murdie, 2015 ). This literature has drawn on many theoretical traditions and paradigms and has enriched both the general IR literature and more human rights–specific scholarship.

We do not attempt to review all the international relations literature on human rights abuses; other scholars have recently produced very thorough reviews of the extant literature (Davenport, 2007 ; Goodman, Jinks, & Woods, 2012 ; Hafner-Burton & Ron, 2009 ; Hafner-Burton, 2012 , 2014 Landman, 2005 ; Morgan, 2009 ; ). Instead, this article attempts to review some of the human rights empirical literature in international relations and situate this literature into a set of general theoretical statements about why human rights abuses occur. We hope that this exercise will help in improving and expanding empirical IR theory related to this topic.

In general, IR scholars have made three large-scale theoretical statements:

Human rights abuses are a way for an unrestrained state, especially the executive branch and its agents, to try to control individuals and hold on to power.

Respect for human rights is an international norm, and international socialization and pressure about this norm can affect behavior in certain situations.

The codification of human rights norms into international treaties may influence behavior but, similar to our understanding of the effect of other treaties on state behavior, states only bind themselves weakly, and certain conditions are necessary for treaties to affect human rights.

After defining human rights in more detail, we outline the empirical literature that supports these theoretical statements. To note, however, human rights research is not confined to IR or political science; rather, it is also examined through the fields of sociology, anthropology, economics, history, psychology, and law (Morgan, 2009 ). Thus, the study of human rights is an interdisciplinary study in a way that most fields within international relations are not. Within political science, human rights research reaches across the boundary between international relations and comparative politics. Full understanding of human rights situations requires understanding the domestic factors and characteristics of bureaucracies more commonly discussed in research within the comparative politics subfield. At the same time, attempts to limit or prevent human rights often involve the international community in the drafting of treaties, the foreign policy between states, and the flow of global norms about human rights practices. Thus, understanding why human rights abuses occur requires understanding the elements of both comparative politics and international relations. We see this as an advantage in the study of human rights. IR scholars can utilize theories from comparative politics and disciplines outside of political science to create a more complete understanding of human rights situations and produce research that speaks to a broad audience of scholars and individuals outside the academic world.

What Are Human Rights?

Much of our current understanding of human rights is based on international law, especially on the conception of rights included within the United Nation’s nonbinding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948 . This document creates a list of what is now commonly accepted as individual rights, including political rights; civil rights; social, economic, and cultural rights; and more broadly conceptualized rights of development and freedom from poverty, which also fit under the umbrella term of human rights (Landman, 2006 ).

The Emphasis on Physical Integrity Rights

The UDHR specifies the rights of individuals in 30 separate articles, addressing a range of rights from the “right to life, liberty, and security of person” (art. 3) to “the right to rest and leisure” (art. 23). Our collective understanding of which rights are included as human rights has expanded over time. Recently, advocacy related to human rights has included rights related to access to the Internet and sexual minority rights [i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) rights], among others.

Although the concept of human rights includes a wide range of rights, much of the research on human rights within IR focuses on a very narrow set of rights, often referred to as physical integrity or bodily integrity rights . In addition, most of the focus within international relations has focused specifically on abuses of these rights on citizens of a specific state by governmental actors from this state. Abuses by fellow citizens or nonstate actors, like corporations or rebel movements, have often been ignored. 1 Similarly, abuses by government actors beyond their own state borders have also received little attention in the IR scholarship, despite horrific accounts of abuses by military interveners and peacekeepers, among others.

Physical integrity rights are conceptualized as “freedom from” rights, and they typically include being free from extrajudicial killing, the use of torture, political imprisonment, and disappearance. To respect these rights, governments need only restrain from violating them; hence, they are sometimes called negative rights . On the other hand, in order to respect positive rights , like the right to education or the right to health, the state must provide resources or services. The study of these positive rights has primarily been done by political economists, often without a human rights frame. It is worth noting, however, that there is a growing number of IR studies on rights beyond physical integrity rights, like women’s rights and labor rights (e.g., Detraz & Peksen, 2016 ; Peksen & Blanton, 2017 ). This expansion of the types of rights examined by IR scholars holds great promise for a more encompassing theory of human rights practices and for additional inquiry into why some states may perform well on certain rights, but not on others.

Many human rights scholars rely on a small number of quantitative measures to capture physical integrity rights practices. One of the most prominent is the CIRI Physical Integrity Rights Index (Cingranelli, Richards, & Clay, 2014 ). This composite measure captures observable state practices regarding the use of torture, extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and political imprisonment during a given year (Cingranelli & Richards, 2010 ). The Political Terror Scale (PTS) is a similar measure that is widely used (Wood & Gibney, 2010 ). Both of these measures are created by using information from yearly reports released by the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. The use of such measures makes it much easier to conduct empirical analyses across a global sample of states for a long period of time. However, it is important to remember that these measures capture only a small range of human rights practices. Although this is a limitation, current research has allowed scholars to understand many of the reasons why states abuse these physical integrity rights and propose solutions to prevent abuses. Similarly, these measures may not account for the changing standard of accountability over time, leading scholars to conclude (erroneously) that there have been no improvements in state practices over time (Fariss, 2014 ). 2

Human Rights Abuses and the State

One of the most common assumptions in international relations and comparative politics concerns the desire of a regime leader to remain in power (Bueno de Mesquita, Smith, Siverson, & Morrow, 2003 ; Chiozza & Goemans, 2004 ). A leader makes calculated decisions to remain in power or to ensure that his or her political party does. Human rights abuses are one “tool” that leaders can use to try to hold on to political power. If a regime is threatened, a leader can use his or her control of security forces to violate the human rights of citizens within the state. Abuses are designed to increase the cost that a possible dissident would face for violently (or even nonviolently) challenging the leader, hopefully cutting off dissent before it occurs (Ritter & Conrad, 2016 ). Davenport ( 2007 , p. 7) calls this the “law of coercive responsiveness.” In general, the law leads us to expect to see repression increase as opposition to the regime leadership increases within a state, and to expect to see repression increase as the regime faces threats to its power from abroad, especially in cases involving international war. States engaged in international war must respond to these external threats and any internal threats at the same time, constraining the resources available to the state. This means that even states that otherwise may have granted concessions to citizens will be more likely to respond to their demands with repression while engaged in international conflict due to the need to commit resources to facing international foes (Rasler, 1986 ). In general, this logic explains why there is such a strong empirical link between international and civil war and repression; when a state is threatened militarily, a government will respond with repression in order to control the population, try to extract information from that population that could help it remain in power, or both (Poe & Tate, 1994 ).

Given that the law of coercive responsiveness would lead us to expect an increase in repression whenever a leader is threatened, perhaps the question is not so much why states abuse human rights as it is why some states abuse the human rights of their citizens more than other states. Abuses are a common response by a threatened leader who has the power to control security forces. It is with this thought in mind that we now turn to a variety of state characteristics that are associated with differences in human rights performance and reflect this underlying theoretical logic.

Regime Type

It has long been suggested that democratic regimes are associated with better human rights, and this suggestion has received a great deal of empirical support. There are a number of explanations for why democracies might have greater respect for human rights. First, democracies allow the peaceful turnover of power. The political institutions of a democratic government are composed of citizens, and they are approved by citizens through the process of voting. Elections provide citizens with a legitimate channel through which to remove leaders from power without resorting to political violence (Davenport, 1999 ). When leaders regularly face the possibility of being removed from power by their constituents, they are more beholden to their constituents’ wishes. This will force leaders to show greater respect for human rights because there is a regular risk of being removed from office if citizens are unhappy with their leadership and their use of repression.

However, not all democratic regimes are equal (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2005 ). Simply holding an election does not necessarily make a state a democracy. If elections are not free and fair, then they fail to hold leaders accountable or to convey the grievances of the population to the regime’s leadership. Only when elections are free and fair with more than one choice do they force leaders to be accountable to their citizens and potentially limit human rights abuses. Further, there is much research questioning whether elections alone are enough to affect human rights practices (Cingranelli & Filippov, 2010 ; Davenport, 1997 ; Richards, 1999 ; ). Richards and Gelleny ( 2007 ), for example, find that national legislative elections improve human rights only in the year following the election. Presidential elections are associated with less respect for human rights, something that Richard and Gelleny ( 2007 , p. 520) claim is linked to the “rigidity and winner-take-all structure of many presidential systems.”

Elections are only one aspect of democracies that has been potentially linked to better human rights practices. Institutional constraints and channels of regularized communication also matter. Democracy is often conceptualized not only by free elections, but also by constraints on an executive’s power. As Hafner-Burton, Hyde, and Jablonski ( 2012 ) show, an unconstrained leader may be more likely to use violence around an election. Judicial constraints have been found to limit the use of torture; although these same constraints may make leaders less likely to ratify the CAT (Powell & Staton, 2009 ). Conrad and Moore ( 2010 ), however, conclude that institutions that constrain executives, such as freedom of expression or institutional checks, may not be enough to stop torture when a regime is threatened. Recent work has highlighted how the creation of national human rights ombudsmen or institutional offices can constrain executives by providing a regularzed way for abuses to be publicized and adjudicated (Smith, 2006 ; Welch, 2017 ).

Democracies have more channels for communication and compromise between regime leaders and the opposition than do autocracies, meaning that there are usually more available alternatives to repression that would still limit the possibility of threat to the leadership (Henderson, 1991 ). Political opposition is theorized to develop through grievances from citizens who feel that they are receiving less than they expect and that the government is responsible for their plight (Gurr, 1968 ). In democracies, citizens have more institutionalized channels through which to get their grievances heard by the regime. Citizens in democracies are also much more likely to have their demands met, as leaders in democracies that do not address such grievances are unlikely to stay in office. Citizens in autocracies may demand greater participation in decision-making, greater freedom in criticizing leadership, or pressure for more transparent government, but these calls for reform are unlikely to be met, as that would require autocratic leaders to relinquish power. Further, autocracies draw their power from a very small group of political elites and must provide private goods to these elites in order to stay in power. Democratic leaders have a greater incentive to pursue policies that benefit large segments of society, as they need the political support of a much larger group (Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2003 ). As demands are less likely to be met though concessions in autocracies, political opposition is more likely to be handled with repression (Davis & Ward, 1990 ).

When opposition threatens the power of autocratic leaders, who may not depend at all on winning the votes of members of the opposition, they will likely use repression in an attempt to silence this opposition; this was part of what Davenport ( 2007 , p. 7) calls the “law of coercive responsiveness.” However, as he continues, there is a “puzzle” (p. 8) about whether the abuse will actually limit dissent: even though leaders utilize repression to coerce political opposition into submission, these actions can paradoxically incite further opposition. This reveals an endogenous relationship between protest and repression that is found in many autocratic states. Political opposition feeds into higher degrees of repression, which increases political opposition, leading the cycle to repeat (Pierskalla, 2010 ; Rasler, 1996 ; Ritter, 2014 ; Thoms & Ron, 2007 ). Repression also increases the grievances formed by citizens, possibly causing them to engage in more violent forms of opposition. When repression against citizens is severe, it can lead to terrorism against the state and even full-fledged civil war (Bell, Cingranelli, Murdie, & Caglayan, 2013 ; Thoms & Ron, 2007 ). In response, the government will utilize more severe forms of repression in an attempt to quash the rebellion, continuing until either the opposition is completely eradicated or the government is forced from power.

Another argument for the empirical connection between democracy and better human rights performance centers on the norms and expectations of behavior in democratic regimes. Democratic regimes have strong norms of nonviolence; these norms could influence how leaders in democratic regimes use violence, both domestically and internationally (Hegre, 2001 ; Maoz & Russett, 1993 ; Risse-Kappen, 1995 ). Research also suggests that better human rights practices domestically may create norms of engagement that limit international conflict (Caprioli & Trumbore, 2003 , 2006 ; Peterson & Graham, 2011 ; Sobek, Abouharb, & Ingram, 2006 ; Tomz & Weeks, 2016 ).

Although there are many empirical theories about the relationship between democracy and human rights practices, extant research suggests a few important caveats. First, this relationship is not necessarily linear. Scholars have noted that complete autocracies—those that we would expect to exercise the most political repression—tend to exercise relatively little repression (Davenport & Armstrong, 2004 ; Fein, 1995 ). Fein ( 1995 , p. 170) argues that there is “more murder in the middle,” in that there is a U-shaped relationship between regime type and repression, suggesting that states that are neither strong democracies nor strong autocracies have the greatest likelihood to use repression. Davenport and Armstrong ( 2004 ) point out, however, that it is more of a threshold relationship, with only consolidated democracies limiting repression.

Second, just as not all democracies are equal in their human rights performance, there also are differences between authoritarian regimes. Vreeland ( 2008 ) finds that dictatorships with multiple political parties, indicative of shared power, are more likely to both commit torture and ratify the CAT. Vreeland ( 2008 ) argues that this is due to how shared power emboldens potential dissidents, creating opportunities for torture, but also likely leading to concessions like treaty ratification. Conrad ( 2011 ) finds, however, that effective judiciaries can constrain dictators in their use of torture.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that democracy and human rights, especially the physical integrity rights most typically studied by IR scholars, are conceptually related. Hill ( 2016 ) argues that some definitions of democracy include freedom from repression as a key component, cautioning scholars to be careful about their definition of democracy and that this definition is conceptually distinct from physical integrity rights performance.

State Wealth

Beyond regime type, one of the most consistent findings within the literature on human rights suggests that wealthy states abuse human rights less often than poor states. 3 However, scholars have disagreed on exactly why economic development is associated with better protection of human rights. First, wealthy states might have less need to use repression. As Henderson ( 1991 ) states, we expect to see fewer grievances in wealthy states, since citizens should be more satisfied with their standard of living. As discussed previously, repression is often used as a response to opposition, making it unnecessary when opposition is lacking. Also, wealthier states have a greater ability to grant concessions to citizens in the form of goods and services rather than resorting to repression (Conrad, 2011 ; Davenport, 2007 ). Thus, wealthier states should see less political opposition and also have means of dealing with opposition other than resorting to repression.

Economic development, especially development tied to globalization, is also linked to changes in the way that society is structured within a state, which can affect human rights practices. Richards, Gelleny, and Sacko ( 2001 ) discuss the two main schools that provide expectations about the relation between globalized economic development and human rights practices, referred to as the liberal neoclassical and dependency schools. The liberal neoclassical school suggests that a globalized economy will lead to enhanced wealth across a society, leading to the creation of a middle class. When the middle class develops greater wealth, they are able to devote more time and resources to their demands against the state. This access to greater resources is necessary for a social opposition movement to succeed (Zald & McCarthy, 1987 ). While this increase in the strength of opposition may initially lead to enhanced use of repression, eventually the government will be unable to effectively quash opposition that is well funded and supported throughout society. Thus, grievances in countries that are amassing wealth are more likely to be addressed by governments, and human rights behavior is more likely to improve.

The second main school that links a globalized economy and human rights practices is the dependency school, which argues that poor states often do not evenly distribute the gains from globalization to the general population, instead concentrating increased wealth in the hands of political elites. This allows these elites to expand their use of repression as a response to political opposition, increasing human rights violations. In addition, by increasing the wealth of only the elites, those living in poverty develop stronger grievances about their deprivation, leading to more low-level opposition as a response, followed by more repression (Davenport, 2007 ).

Dependency theory is a particularly powerful tool in explaining the human rights records of states that draw their wealth from natural resources such as oil (DeMeritt & Young, 2013 ). Oil is extremely expensive to extricate, meaning that the ability to control oilfields is limited to those with substantial economic and human resources. This, coupled with the tremendous wealth that can be gained from the sale of oil, provides a unique opportunity for governments in such states to greatly enhance the wealth of a small group of political elites. Research supports dependency theory in oil-rich states, showing that such states have significantly higher levels of human rights abuses than poor states that do not have oil wealth (DeMeritt & Young, 2013 ).

These two schools may seem contradictory, but they can be understood as being complementary to each other. The liberal neoclassical school holds that economic development leads to the formation of a middle class, but this middle class cannot form in states where wealth is isolated in the hands of the elite. Only when wealth is distributed across society and can lead to the development of a middle class will we see opposition movements that are powerful enough to effectively demand changes in human rights practices.

State Capacity

There are many similarities between theories of state wealth and human rights and those of state capacity and human rights. State capacity can be thought of as the centralized power within a state, and weak states are characterized by a lack of centralized power. Englehart ( 2009 ) describes weak states as those with low ability to collect taxes, high corruption, and/or a lack of law and order. Some scholars have captured state capacity with indicators of economic development, implying that wealthy states are more capable than others (Hendrix, 2010 ).

Many scholars have found that capable states are less likely to abuse physical integrity rights (Englehart, 2009 ; Cole, 2015 ; Young, 2009 ). State capacity is necessary to be able to monitor the behavior of security forces and other government agents. Human rights abuses can occur not because they were authorized by the regime leadership, but because state agents are not trained and/or monitored. Without training and monitoring, human rights abuses often occur as part of control or interrogation tactics (Muñoz, 2009 ). A capable state can limit these unauthorized abuses, limiting the overall levels of human rights abuses within the state.

The relationship between the state and its agents can be understood through principal-agent theory, in which the state acts as the principal and holds the authority to command security agents (Englehart, 2009 ). However, agents do not necessarily follow the commands of the principal. Weak states lack the ability to provide oversight of state agents, making them more independent. This can make it difficult for weak states to change human rights practices, even when they have a desire to do so. As Cole ( 2015 ) explains, many states that sign human rights treaties have the desire to improve practices but lack the ability to enforce new standards among state agents. This highlights the idea that human rights abuses are not always state-sanctioned; in fact, they often directly contradict state policy.

State capacity also affects the perceived need to resort to repression. Strong state capacity can prevent political dissatisfaction from erupting into violent political unrest. Weak states (those with an unstable hold on state power) are inherently more threatened by opposition and will thus resort to more resorting to human rights abuses to control the population (Young, 2009 ). Limited state capacity is also tied to the emergence of violent rebel groups (Fearon & Laitin, 2003 ). This makes weak states more susceptible to civil war, and civil war is linked to increases in human rights violations by the state (Poe & Tate, 1994 ).

Human Rights and International Dynamics

In the previous section, we examined how characteristics of the state (namely, its regime type, its economic wealth, and its capacity) matter for its human rights performance. The basic insight from this research is that human rights abuses occur as a mechanism of population control when a regime or its agents are unrestrained by domestic institutions, an organized and developed domestic opposition, or both. However, human rights concerns are not a wholly domestic matter. The rights outlined in the UDHR were the result of international collaboration and joint advocacy efforts. They fit the classic definition of a norm: a “standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity” (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998 , p. 889). The protection of human rights norms since the UDHR’s crafting has been heavily influenced by international dynamics and actors. Foreign policy actions of states, transnational organizations of all stripes, and the involvement of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) can pressure and socialize states to adopt human rights norms. However, these actions can also backfire, leading to an often-unintended worsening of human rights conditions. We explore these dynamics next.

Norm Entrepreneurs and Advocacy Actors

The adoption of human rights language and the internalization of human rights ideals are the results of a process of normative development and diffusion. Both in the case of now well-accepted norms (like bodily integrity rights) and in the case of newer and developing norms (like sexual minority rights or the right to development), norm entrepreneurs help in articulating and spreading these human rights ideas. According to Finnemore and Sikkink’s ( 1998 ) theory of the norm life cycle, these entrepreneurs work to get sympathetic regime leaders and other key constituents to adopt a norm as a general expectation of behavior. This larger group then helps in codifying and socializing other state actors about the norm. Finnemore and Sikkink ( 1998 , p. 900) see IGOs as important at this stage; the norm is “institutionalized in international rules.” If a critical mass of supporters is reached, often requiring the support of key states, a tipping point occurs, where the norm cascades and additional state and nonstate actors are socialized to adopt the norm.

It is at this stage in the norm socialization process where international actors often use a host of techniques and tactics to try to pressure governments to change their behavior. Advocates can point out that “legitimate” states do not abuse human rights (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998 , p. 902). Material and nonmaterial carrots and sticks can be used to pressure a state to change its behavior. In some situations, this process of socialization can lead to the state “internalizing” the norm, giving it “taken-for-granted” status (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998 , p. 904).

Although Finnemore and Sikkink ( 1998 )’s theory of the norm life cycle is often not explicitly mentioned in current empirical work on how international actors influence domestic human rights practices, it aptly applies. International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, are often critical actors at the early stages of the life cycle. They help in spreading or educating local populations about a norm, as well as being crucial to getting the norm on the international agenda. Once key states have adopted the norm and it has been institutionalized, INGOs work to bring abuses to the attention of sympathetic states and advocates. The media attention that INGOs bring to abusive regimes, often termed “shaming and blaming” or “naming and shaming” by scholars, can be key to getting third-party states and INGOs to start pressuring the country to change their human rights practices.

INGOs can also help heighten domestic pressure on the regime. This combination of domestic and international pressure is what Keck and Sikkink ( 1998 ) term a transnational advocacy network . Later work by Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink ( 1999 , 2013 ) further laid out the iterative process through which advocates work to socialize states about human rights; this process was named the spiral model . In this model, if international pressure is concentrated on an abusive regime, “tactical concessions” can be made by the abusive regime, leading to some limited and short-term improvements in human rights practices and, perhaps, the adoption of human rights laws (Risse & Sikkink 1999 , p. 12). If pressure continues, these concessions can turn into internalized human rights norms, completing the norm life cycle.

In line with these theoretical arguments, human rights INGOs have been linked to changes in human rights opinions and mobilization (Ausderan, 2014 ; Davis, Murdie, & Steinmetz, 2012 ; McEntire, Leiby, & Krain, 2015 ; Murdie & Bhasin, 2011 ). Their “naming and shaming” activities have also been linked to many forms of international pressure and involvement, including humanitarian intervention (Murdie & Peksen, 2013a ), international sanctions (Murdie & Peksen, 2013b ), drops in foreign direct investment (Barry, Clay, & Flynn, 2013 ), trade (Peterson, Murdie, & Asal, 2017 ), and the bypassing of foreign aid (Dietrich & Murdie, 2017 ). Some studies have found direct links between shaming by human rights INGOs and drops in certain human rights abuses (DeMeritt, 2012 ; Krain, 2012 ; Murdie, 2014 ), although this relationship has also been found to be conditional on domestic and/or international mobilization (Murdie & Davis, 2012 ) and domestic regime type (Hendrix & Wong, 2013 ; Murdie, 2014 ).

Worth mentioning, there are concerns that shaming of one type of abuse by human rights INGOs and IGOs could lead states to change their abusive tactics (DeMeritt, Conrad, & Fariss, 2016 ; Hafner-Burton, 2008 ). Further, there is work that is highly critical of certain behaviors of INGOs, highlighting the negative consequences of their often-overlooked, nonprincipled behavior (Clifford, 2005 ; Cooley & Ron, 2002 ; Murdie, 2014 ). Further work is necessary to understand the conditions when INGOs and other advocates are most likely to be successful and when they are likely to be ineffective or counterproductive to human rights goals.

State and IGO Foreign Policy Actions

There is a growing body of empirical work that looks at whether certain foreign policy actions improve human rights in a targeted state. Although this work does occasionally find that international actions can improve certain human rights practices, there is much work that shows that some international pressure tactics are counterproductive to human rights goals. To the extent that these actions are encouraged or influenced by human rights advocates, this could diminish the overall effects of advocates on human rights practices (Allendoerfer & Murdie, 2015 ).

On the positive side, there is some research that finds that certain types of foreign military interventions can improve certain human rights practices. For example, Krain ( 2005 ) finds that foreign military interventions against the perpetrator can help limit the severity of mass killings. DeMeritt ( 2015 ) concludes that interventions in support of the government can limit the onset of mass killings. Murdie and Davis ( 2010 ) find that only peacekeeping interventions with a strong humanitarian focus can improve human rights in countries after civil wars. However, Peksen ( 2012 ) finds that foreign military interventions do not generally improve human rights.

Another potential positive international action for human rights improvement is the support that international actors provide for transitional justice mechanisms, like the use of truth commissions after civil wars or human rights atrocities. Many studies have found that these mechanisms, especially in certain combinations, can improve some human rights outcomes, even after accounting for the factors that led to the implementation of these mechanisms in the first place (Dancy & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2015 ; Kim & Sikkink, 2010 ; Olsen, Payne, & Reiter, 2010 ; Polizzi, 2016 ).

On the negative side, however, there are many international foreign policy actions that are not associated with improved human rights. Foreign aid is not often associated with improved human rights (Barratt, 2007 ) and repressive regimes are rarely punished for poor human rights records (Esarey & DeMeritt, 2016 ; Nielsen, 2013 ). Economic sanctions can exasperate human rights abuses (Peksen, 2009 ; Wood, 2008 ). Actions by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank often harm human rights (Abouharb & Cingranelli, 2007 ). Most of this work explains the negative or null findings as the unintended consequences of international foreign policy action. These actions can limit the general public’s ability or willingness to pressure their leaders and can make abusive leaders feel threatened, heightening their desire to use repressive practices to stay in power. Another important issue in this research concerns the selection of states to receive international action and the geopolitical concerns that can complicate whether these actions are designed with human rights goals.

In short, there is a well-established theoretical lens through which to examine how international actors influence the adoption and internalization of human rights norms. Although much current empirical work has shown that advocacy actors (particularly human rights INGOs) do influence human rights outcomes in the ways outlined in the extant theoretical literature, there is much work to be done to understand the types of international foreign policy pressure that can stop human rights abuses.

Human Rights Treaties

The previous section on how international pressure is associated with human rights practices ignores an important international pressure source: international human rights law. This was intentional; the international human rights treaty regime is a very specific type of international pressure that does not nicely conform to the theoretical and empirical literature concerning many of the international foreign policy actions discussed earlier in this article. Instead, the study of how the international human rights treaty regime influences human rights practices has drawn heavily on earlier theoretical arguments on international cooperation and compliance ( Abbott, Keohane, Moravcsik, Slaughter, & Snidal, 2000 ; Downs, Rocke, & Barsoom, 1996 ; Morrow, 1994 ; von Stein, 2005 ) and the role of domestic institutions in encouraging compliance with international agreements (Dai, 2005 ).

Although much of the work within this area has focused on the human rights treaties drafted within the United Nations (UN) that followed the UDHR, like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the CAT, which we refer to here as UN human rights treaties , there is also a rich literature on regional human rights treaties and courts (Hawkins & Jacoby, 2010 ; Helfer & Voeten, 2014 ; Hillebrecht, 2012 ; Tallberg, 2002 ), as well as a growing literature on the International Criminal Court (Chapman & Chaudoin, 2013 ; Ritter & Wolford, 2012 ). Due to space constraints, the discussion here focuses on the literature concerning UN human rights treaties, where there has recently been a surge of empirical work concerning whether treaty ratification affects human rights practices.

Many early empirical works argued and found that various UN international human rights treaties are not generally associated with unconditional improvements in various human rights practices (Hafner-Burton & Tsutsui, 2005 ; Hathaway, 2002 ; Keith, 1999 ). As such, there was much early evidence that UN human rights treaties alone were not sufficient to lead to greater respect for human rights. In line with general arguments on the limits of international cooperation, the existing treaty system was created with weak enforcement mechanisms and states are unlikely to voluntarily bind themselves in ways that would limit their ability to control their populations. There are tremendous issues of self-selection as well: states may be ratifying treaties after a war or as part of their transition to democracy. As such, it is difficult to ascertain whether any improvements in human rights practices are causally linked to the treaty or are linked to the underlying conditions that led the state to ratify the treaty in the first place.

Much of the scholarship that followed has (a) taken issues of self-selection seriously, (b) examined the domestic conditions that could make treaties more likely to affect human rights practices (Conrad & Ritter, 2013 ; Hill, 2010 ; Lupu, 2013 ; Neumayer, 2005 ; Simmons, 2009 ), or both. As to the first issue, many studies are using advanced statistical treatment effects or “matching” techniques to account for the underlying self-selection issue. Some of these studies have found that certain treaties cause improvements in certain human rights, and explanations have been given for these unique causal effects. For example, Hill ( 2010 ) finds that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) causes better human rights performance on women’s political rights, something Hill ( 2010 ) explains is due to the nonthreatening nature of women’s political rights to the regime leadership. Lupu ( 2013 ) uses a slightly different method to account for self-selection and finds that CEDAW causes improved women’s political, social, and economic rights.

The newer literature has also found that treaties can be effective in some situations. In line with the spiral model outlined previously, Neumayer ( 2005 ) finds, for example, that treaties are associated with improved human rights in democratic regimes and where there are large numbers of INGOs with members present within the state. Similarly, Simmons ( 2009 ) finds that treaties can be a useful tool for dissidents to use to try to get concessions from a repressive regime. And, as mentioned, Powell and Staton ( 2009 ) highlight the utility of an independent judiciary in leading states where the CAT is ratified to lessen their use of torture. Recent work by Conrad and Ritter ( 2013 ) connects the effectiveness of treaties to the characteristics of the judiciary and the security of the leader.

Although these findings provide a small glimmer of hope for the usefulness of the international human rights regime in certain situations, Fariss ( 2014 ) argues that there may be more reasons to be hopeful. As mentioned, Fariss ( 2014 ) contends that there is a changing standard of accountability for physical integrity rights abuses over time. Using his corrected measure, Fariss ( 2014 , 2017a ) shows a general association between treaty ratification and improved human rights practices. Cingranelli and Filippov ( 2017 ), however, question the empirical validity of this finding, arguing that the Fariss ( 2014 ) results are time dependent. Nonetheless, future work should examine how changing standards of accountability (some changing standards perhaps even aided by the human rights regime) affect the relationship between treaty ratification and human rights practices.

Why do state actors abuse human rights? In this article, we outlined three stylized theoretical statements that are supported in the empirical literature:

Respect for human rights is an international norm, and international socialization and pressure about this norm can, in certain situations, affect behavior.

The codification of human rights norms into international treaties may influence behavior but, like our understanding of the effect of other treaties on state behavior, states only bind themselves weakly and certain conditions are necessary for treaties to affect human rights.

This is an especially great juncture in the study of human rights. First, more detailed and rich data are now available; this data will allow future scholars to examine rights beyond the conventional focus on physical integrity violations by state actors and allow much more nuance in the particularities of the abuse and the abuser (e.g., Conrad, Haglund, & Moore, 2014 ; Cornett, Gibney, & Haschke, 2016 ). In addition, automated events data also hold much promise for near real-time analysis and for more nuanced study of the state-society dynamics that exasperate human rights abuses (Boschee et al., 2015 ; Fariss et al., 2015 ; Quinn, Monroe, Colaresi, Crespin, & Radev, 2010 ). The combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques also will continue to contribute to the breadth and depth of our knowledge on why abuses occur (Hafner-Burton & Ron, 2009 ).

Second, advances in empirical techniques now allow scholars to take self-selection seriously and examine more directly the causal process connecting certain interventions and institutions to changes in human rights outcomes (Allendoerfer & Murdie, 2015 ; Hill, 2010 ; Lupu, 2013 ; Murdie & Peksen, 2013b ). These techniques will help us determine how certain actions could mediate the effects of advocacy, or perhaps lead to unintended consequences that could harm human rights.

Third, a growing number of scholars are focusing on public opinion related to human rights (Ausderan, 2014 ; Bracic, 2016 ; Murdie & Purser, 2017 ; Ron, Golden, Crow, & Pandya, 2017 ; Wallace, 2013 ). Although these studies have not yet been extended to focusing on how public opinion relates to human rights outcomes in a cross-national sample of states, work is this area is critical for building our microfoundations for how human rights improvements occur and the potential role of public opinion in this process.

Finally, there have been recent advances in the practice of human rights promotion and the strategies of human rights advocates. Human rights performance within a country could be influenced by current increases in training on nonviolent resistance, a renewed focus on transitional justice and nonstate actors, and the use of technology to aid in the recording of abuses. Future studies should incorporate these advances into our theoretical understanding of the process by which human rights improve. The efficacy of these tactics should also be tested empirically.

In sum, the existing IR literature on why states abuse human rights has highlighted the nuanced relationships between international and domestic factors and human rights practices. There are few laws in human rights theories, but the works discussed in this article do point to a general theory of why states abuse human rights. The literature draws heavily on theories related to domestic constraints on leaders, on how norms diffuse, and on when international agreements affect state behavior. By drawing on this generalized set of knowledge, as well as current advances in the field, future work holds much potential to contribute to both our scholarly understanding of human rights practices and the growing practice of human rights advocacy outside academia.

• Abbott, K. W. , Keohane, R. O. , Moravcsik, A. , Slaughter, A.-M. , & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization , 54 (3), 17–35.
• Abouharb, M. R. , & Cingranelli, D. (2007). Human rights and structural adjustment . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Allendoerfer, M. , & Murdie, A. (2015). The path of the boomerang: Shaming, third party pressure, and human rights . Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, New Orleans.
• Amnesty International . (2016). Viet Nam: Prisons within prisons: Torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of conscience in Viet Nam . ASA 41/4187/2016. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa41/4187/2016/en/ .
• Ausderan, J. (2014). How naming and shaming affects human rights perceptions in the shamed country. Journal of Peace Research , 51 (1), 81–95.
• Barratt, B. (2007). Human rights and foreign aid: for love or money? New York: Routledge.
• Barry, C. M. , Clay, C. K. , & Flynn, M. E. (2013). Avoiding the spotlight: Human rights shaming and foreign direct investment. International Studies Quarterly , 57 (3), 532–544.
• Bell, S. R. , Cingranelli, D. , Murdie, A. , & Caglayan, A. (2013). Coercion, capacity, and coordination: Predictors of political violence. Conflict Management and Peace Science , 30 (3), 240–262.
• Boschee, E. , Lautenschlager, J. , O’Brien, S. , Shellman, S. , Starz, J. , & Ward, M. (2015). ICEWS coded event data . Harvard Dataverse, V17.
• Bracic, A. (2016). Reaching the individual: EU accession, NGOs, and human rights. American Political Science Review , 110 (3), 530–546.
• Bueno de Mesquita, B. , Smith, A. , Siverson, R. M. , & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Bueno de Mesquita, B. , Cherif, F. M. , Downs, G. W. , & Smith, A. (2005). Thinking inside the box: A closer look at democracy and human rights. International Studies Quarterly , 49 (3), 439–458.
• Caprioli, M. , & Trumbore, P. F. (2003). Ethnic discrimination and interstate violence: Testing the international impact of domestic behavior. Journal of Peace Research , 40 (1), 5–23.
• Caprioli, M. , & Trumbore, P. F. (2006). Human rights rogues in interstate disputes, 1980–2001. Journal of Peace Research , 43 (2), 131–148.
• Chapman, T. L. , & Chaudoin, S. (2013). Ratification patterns and the international criminal court. International Studies Quarterly , 57 (2), 400–409.
• Chiozza, G. , & Goemans, H. E. (2004). International conflict and the tenure of leaders: Is war still ex post inefficient? American Journal of Political Science , 48 (3), 604–619.
• Cingranelli, D. , & Filippov, M. (2010). Electoral rules and incentives to protect human rights. Journal of Politics , 72 (1), 243–257.
• Cingranelli, D. , & Filippov, M. (2017). Model misspecification and improper data extrapolation. British Journal of Political Science .
• Cingranelli, D. L. , & Richards, D. L. (2010). The Cingranelli and Richards (CIRI) human rights data project. Human Rights Quarterly , 32 (2), 401–424.
• Cingranelli, D. L. , Richards, D. L. , & Clay, K. C. (2014). The CIRI human rights dataset. http://www.humanrightsdata.com . Version 2014.04.14.
• Clark, A. M. , & Sikkink, K. (2013). Information effects and human rights data: Is the good news about increased human rights information bad news for human rights measures? Human Rights Quarterly , 35 (3), 539–568.
• Clifford, B. (2005). The marketing of rebellion: Insurgents, media, and international activism . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Cole, W. M. (2015). Mind the gap: State capacity and the implementation of human rights treaties. International Organization , 69 (2), 405–441.
• Conrad, C. R. (2011). Constrained concessions: Beneficent dictatorial responses to the domestic political opposition. International Studies Quarterly , 55 (4), 1167–1187.
• Conrad, C. R. , Haglund, J. , & Moore, W. H. (2014). Torture allegations as events data Introducing the ill-treatment and torture (ITT) specific allegation data. Journal of Peace Research , 51 (3), 429–438.
• Conrad, C. R. , & Hencken Ritter, E. (2013). Treaties, tenure, and torture: The conflicting domestic effects of international law. Journal of Politics , 75 (2), 397–409.
• Conrad, C. R. , & Moore, W. H. (2010). What stops the torture? American Journal of Political Science , 54 (2), 459–476.
• Cooley, A. , & Ron, J. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security , 27 (1), 5–39.
• Cornett, L. , Gibney, M. , & Haschke, P. (2016). The Societal Violence Scale: Explained. Retrieved from http://www.politicalterrorscale.org/Data/Documentation-SVS.html .
• Dai, X. (2005). Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanism. International Organization , 59 (2), 363–398.
• Dancy, G. , & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, E. (2015). Timing, sequencing, and transitional justice impact: A qualitative comparative analysis of Latin America. Human Rights Review , 16 (4), 321–342.
• Davenport, C. (1997). From ballots to bullets: National elections and state uses of political repression. Electoral Studies , 16 (4), 517–540.
• Davenport, C. (1999). Human rights and the democratic proposition. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 43 (1), 92–116.
• Davenport, C. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science , 10 (1), 1–23.
• Davenport, C. , & Armstrong, D. A., II . (2004). Democracy and violation of human rights: A statistical analysis from 1976–1996. American Journal of Political Science , 48 (3), 538–554.
• Davis, D. R. , Murdie, A. , & Garnett Steinmetz, C. (2012). Makers and shapers: Human rights INGOs and public opinion. Human Rights Quarterly , 34 (1), 199–224.
• Davis, D. R. , & Ward, M. (1990). They dance alone: Deaths and the disappeared in contemporary Chile. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 34 (3), 449–475.
• DeMeritt, J. H. R. (2012). International organizations and government killing: Does naming and shaming save lives? International Interactions , 38 (5), 597–621.
• DeMeritt, J. H. R. (2015). Delegating death military intervention and government killing. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 59 (3), 428–454.
• DeMeritt, J. H. R. , Conrad, C. R. , & Fariss, C. J. (2016). How international advocacy can worsen state repression. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacqueline_Demeritt/publication/304986271_Unintended_Consequences_The_Effect_of_Advocacy_to_End_Torture_on_Empowerment_Rights_Violations/links/5783184108ae5f367d3b69f1.pdf .
• DeMeritt, J. H. R. , & Young, J. K. (2013). A political economy of human rights: Oil, natural gas, and state incentives to repress. Conflict Management and Peace Science , 30 (2), 99–120.
• Detraz, N. , & Peksen, D. (2016). The effect of IMF programs on women’s economic and political rights. International Interactions , 42 (1), 81–105.
• Dietrich, S. , & Murdie, A. (2017). Human rights shaming through INGOs and foreign aid delivery. Review of International Organizations , 12 (1), 95–120.
• Downs, G. W. , Rocke, D. M. , & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization , 50 (3), 379–406.
• Englehart, N. A. (2009). State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace Research , 46 (2), 163–180.
• Esarey, J. , & DeMeritt, J. H. R. (2016). Political context and the consequences of naming and shaming for human rights abuse. International Interactions , 1-30.
• Fariss, C. J. (2014). Respect for human rights has improved over time: Modeling the changing standard of accountability. American Political Science Review , 108 (2), 297–318.
• Fariss, C. J. (2017a). The changing standard of accountability and the positive relationship between human rights treaty ratification and compliance. British Journal of Political Science .
• Fariss, C. J. (2017b). Are things really getting better? How to validate latent variable models of human rights. British Journal of Political Science .
• Fariss, C. J. , Linder, F. , Jones, Z. M. , Crabtree, C. , Biek, M. A. , Ross, A.-S. M , Tsai, M. (2015). Human rights texts: Converting human rights primary source documents into data. PloS ONE , 10 (9), e0138935.
• Fearon, J. D. , & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review , 97 (1), 75–90.
• Fein, H. (1995). More murder in the middle: Life-integrity violations and democracy in the world, 1987. Human Rights Quarterly , 17 (1), 170–191.
• Finnemore, M. , & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization , 52 (4), 887–917.
• Goodman, R. , Jinks, D , & Woods, A. K. (Eds.). (2012). Understanding social action, promoting human rights . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gurr, T. (1968). A causal model of civil strife: A comparative analysis using new indices. American Political Science Review , 62 (4), 1104–1124.
• Hafner-Burton, E. , & Ron, J. (2009). Seeing double: Human rights impact through qualitative and quantitative eyes. World Politics , 61 (2), 360–401.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2008). Sticks and stones: Naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization , 62 (4), 689–716.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2012). International regimes for human rights. Annual Review of Political Science , 15 , 265–286.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2014). A social science of human rights. Journal of Peace Research , 51 (2), 273–286.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. , & Tsutsui, K. (2005). Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises. American Journal of Sociology , 110 (5), 1373–1411.
• Hafner-Burton, E. M. , Hyde, S. D. , & Jablonski, R. S. (2012). When do governments resort to election violence? British Journal of Political Science , 44 (1), 149–179.
• Hathaway, O. A. (2002). Do human rights treaties make a difference? Yale Law Journal , 111 (8), 1935–2042.
• Hawkins, D. , & Jacoby, W. (2010). Partial compliance: A comparison of the European and inter-American courts of human rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations , 6 (1), 35–86.
• Hegre, H. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review , 95 (1), 33–48.
• Helfer, L. R. , & Voeten, E. (2014), International courts as agents of legal change: Evidence from LGBT rights in Europe. International Organization , 68 (1), 77–110.
• Henderson, C. W. (1991). Conditions affecting the use of political repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 35 (1), 120–142.
• Hendrix, C. S. (2010). Measuring state capacity: Theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research , 47 (3), 273–285.
• Hendrix, C. S. , & Wong, W. H. (2013). When is the pen truly mighty? Regime type and the efficacy of naming and shaming in curbing human rights abuses. British Journal of Political Science , 43 (3), 651–672.
• Hill, D., Jr. (2016). Democracy and the concept of personal integrity rights in empirical research. Available from http://myweb.fsu.edu/dwh06c/pages/documents/democ_pi_17Sept14.pdf .
• Hill, D. W. (2010). Estimating the effects of human rights treaties on state behavior. Journal of Politics , 72 (4), 1161–1174.
• Hillebrecht, C. (2012). The domestic mechanisms of compliance with international human rights law: Case studies from the inter-American human rights system. Human Rights Quarterly , 34 (4), 959–985.
• Keck, M. E. , & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Keith, L. C. (1999). The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does it make a difference in human rights behavior? Journal of Peace Research , 36 (1), 95–118.
• Kim, H. , & Sikkink, K. (2010). Explaining the deterrence effect of human rights prosecutions for transitional countries. International Studies Quarterly , 54 (4), 939–963.
• Krain, M. (2005). International intervention and the severity of genocides and politicides. International Studies Quarterly , 49 (3), 363–388.
• Krain, M. (2012). J’accuse! Does naming and shaming perpetrators reduce the severity of genocides or politicides? International Studies Quarterly , 56 (3), 574–589.
• Landman, T. (2005). The political science of human rights. British Journal of Political Science , 35 (3), 549–572.
• Landman, T. (2006). Studying human rights . New York: Routledge Press.
• Lupu, Y. (2013). The informative power of treaty commitment: Using the spatial model to address selection effects. American Journal of Political Science , 57 (4), 912–925.
• Maoz, Z. , & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review , 87 (3), 624–638.
• McEntire, K. J. , Leiby, M. , & Krain, M. (2015). Human rights organizations as agents of change: An experimental examination of framing and micromobilization. American Political Science Review , 109 (3), 407–426.
• Mitchell, N. J. , & McCormick, J. M. (1988). Economic and political explanations of human rights violations. World Politics , 40 (4), 476–498.
• Morgan, R. (2009). Human rights research and the social sciences. In R. Morgan & B. Turner (Eds.), Interpreting human rights: Social science perspectives (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.
• Morrow, J. D. (1994). Modeling the forms of international cooperation: Distribution versus information. International Organization , 48 (3), 387–423.
• Muñoz, A. A. (2009). Transnational and domestic processes in the definition of human rights policies in Mexico. Human Rights Quarterly , 31 (1), 35–58.
• Murdie, A. (2014) Help or harm: The human security effects of international NGOs . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Murdie, A. (2015). Rights and wrongs: Human rights at the intersection of the IR academy and practice . Paper presented at the Strengthening the Links: TRIP Conference on the Theory-Policy Divide, January 14–16, 2015. Available from https://oscar.itpir.wm.edu/trippub/images/HumanRights.pdf .
• Murdie, A. , & Bhasin, T. (2011). Aiding and abetting: Human rights INGOs and domestic protest. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 55 (2), 163–191.
• Murdie, A. , & Davis, D. R. (2010). Problematic potential: The human rights consequences of peacekeeping interventions in civil wars. Human Rights Quarterly , 32 (1), 49–72.
• Murdie, A. , & Peksen, D. (2013a). The impact of human rights INGO activities on economic sanctions. Review of International Organizations , 8 (1), 33–53.
• Murdie, A. , & Peksen, D. (2013b). The impact of human rights INGO shaming on humanitarian interventions. Journal of Politics , 76 (1), 215–228.
• Murdie, A. , & Purser, C. (2017). How protest affects opinions of peaceful demonstration and expression rights. Journal of Human Rights .
• Murdie, A. M. , & Davis, D. R. (2012). Shaming and blaming: Using events data to assess the impact of human rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly , 56 (1), 1–16.
• Neumayer, E. (2005). Do international human rights treaties improve respect for human rights? Journal of Conflict Resolution , 49 (6), 925–953.
• Nielsen, R. A. (2013). Rewarding human rights? Selective aid sanctions against repressive states. International Studies Quarterly , 57 (4), 791–803.
• Olsen, T. D. , Payne, L. A. , & Reiter, A. G. (2010). The justice balance: When transitional justice improves human rights and democracy. Human Rights Quarterly , 32 (4), 980–1007.
• Peksen, D. (2009). Better or worse? The effect of economic sanctions on human rights. Journal of Peace Research , 46 (1), 59–77.
• Peksen, D. (2012). Does foreign military intervention help human rights? Political Research Quarterly , 65 (3), 558–571.
• Peksen, D. , & Blanton, R. G. (2017). The impact of ILO conventions on worker rights: Are empty promises worse than no promises? Review of International Organizations , 12 (1), 75–94.
• Peterson, T. M. , & Graham, L. (2011). Shared human rights norms and military conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 55 (2), 248–273.
• Peterson, T. M. , Murdie, A. , & Asal, V. (2017). Human rights, NGO shaming, and the exports of abusive states. British Journal of Political Science .
• Pierskalla, J. H. (2010). Protest, deterrence, and escalation: The strategic calculus of government repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 54 (1), 117–145.
• Poe, S. C. , & Tate, C. N. (1994). Repression of human rights to personal integrity in the 1980s: A global analysis. American Political Science Review , 88 (4), 853–872.
• Polizzi, M. (2016). Conditional justice: Determining implementation and effectiveness of transitional justice mechanisms . PhD Diss. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
• Powell, E. J. , & Staton, J. K. (2009). Domestic judicial institutions and human rights treaty violation. International Studies Quarterly , 53 (1), 149–174.
• Quinn, K. M. , Monroe, B. L. , Colaresi, M. , Crespin, M. H. , & Radev, D. R. (2010). How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science , 54 (1), 209–228.
• Rasler, K. (1986). War accommodation and violence in the United States, 1890–1970. American Political Science Review , 80 (3), 921–945.
• Rasler, K. (1996). Concessions, repression, and political protest in the Iranian revolution. American Sociological Review , 61 (1), 132–152.
• Richards, D. (2016). The myth of information effects in human rights data: Response to Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Sikkink. Human Rights Quarterly , 38 (2), 477–492.
• Richards, D. L. (1999). Perilous proxy: Human rights and the presence of national elections. Social Science Quarterly , 80 (4), 648–665.
• Richards, D. L. , & Gelleny, R. D. (2007). Good things to those who wait? National elections and government respect for human rights. Journal of Peace Research , 44 (4), 505–523.
• Richards, D. L. , Gelleny, R. D. , & Sacko, D. H. (2001). Money with a mean streak? Foreign economic penetration and government respect for human rights in developing countries. International Studies Quarterly , 45 (2), 219–239.
• Risse, T. , Ropp, S. C. , & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (1999). The power of human rights: International norms and domestic chang e. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Risse, T. , Ropp, S. C. , & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2013). The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Risse, T. , & Sikkink, K. (1999). The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: Introduction. In T. Risse , S. C. Ropp , & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The power of human rights: International norms and domestic chang e (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Democratic peace—warlike democracies? A social constructivist interpretation of the liberal argument. European Journal of International Relations , 1 (4), 491–517.
• Ritter, E. H. (2014). Policy disputes, political survival, and the onset and severity of state repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 58 (1), 143–168.
• Ritter, E. H. , & Conrad, C. R. (2016). Preventing and responding to dissent: The observational challenges of explaining strategic repression. American Political Science Review , 110 (1), 85–99.
• Ritter, E. H. , & Wolford, S. (2012). Bargaining and the effectiveness of international criminal regimes. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 24 (2), 149–171.
• Ron, J. , Golden, S. , Crow, D. , & Pandya, A. (2017). Taking root: Public opinion and human rights in the Global South . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, A. (2006). The unique position of national human rights institutions: A mixed blessing? Human Rights Quarterly , 28 (4), 904–946.
• Sobek, D. , Abouharb, M. R. , & Ingram, C. G. (2006). The human rights peace: How the respect for human rights at home leads to peace abroad. Journal of Politics , 68 (3), 519–529.
• Tallberg, J. (2002). Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization , 56 (3), 609–643.
• Thoms, O. N. T. , & Ron, J. (2007). Do human rights violations cause internal conflict? Human Rights Quarterly , 29 (3), 674–705.
• Tomz, M. , & Weeks, J. L. (2016). Human rights, democracy, and international conflict. Available from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1a4a/a131560e478733ba6cd15098cc678a5809f2.pdf .
• von Stein, J. (2005). Do treaties constrain or screen? Selection bias and treaty compliance. American Political Science Review , 99 (4), 611–622.
• Vreeland, J. R. (2008). Political institutions and human rights: Why dictatorships enter into the United Nations Convention Against Torture. International Organization , 62 (1), 65–101.
• Wallace, G. P. R. (2013). International law and public attitudes toward torture: An experimental study. International Organization , 67 (1), 105–140.
• Welch, R. M. (2017). National human rights institutions: Domestic implementation of international human rights law. Journal of Human Rights , 16 (1), 96–116.
• Wood, R. M. (2008). A hand upon the throat of the nation: Economic sanctions and state repression, 1976–2001. International Studies Quarterly , 52 (3), 489–513.
• Wood, R. M. , & Gibney, M. (2010). The Political Terror Scale (PTS), A re-introduction and a comparison to CIRI. Human Rights Quarterly , 32 (2), 367–400.
• Young, J. K. (2009) State capacity, democracy, and the violation of personal integrity rights. Journal of Human Rights , 8 (4), 283–300.
• Zald, M. N. , & McCarthy, J. D. (Eds.). (1987). Social movements in an organizational society: Collected essays . Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

1. Recently, principal investigators of the Political Terror Scale (PTS) have introduced a new measure of violence by nonstate actors: the Societal Violence Scale (SVS). As the authors of this scale remark in their explanation of the scale, the role of the state in abuses by nonstate actors is not trivial: “the state is obliged not only to refrain from human rights abuses itself, but also has the duty to prevent abuses by third parties, including private actors, and to take positive measures for the provision of rights to everyone under the state’s jurisdiction” (Cornett, Gibney, & Haschke, 2016 , n.p.).

2. For more discussion about this still controversial idea, see Clark and Sikkink ( 2013 ), Richards ( 2016 ), Fariss ( 2017a , 2017b ), and Cingranelli and Filippov ( 2017 ).

3. It is necessary for economic wealth to be distributed throughout society before we can expect to see a link between economic development and improved human rights practices. As such, a high gross domestic product (GDP), coupled with a low GDP per capita, reflect a society that has not achieved economic advancement throughout the population. When we refer to “wealthy states,” we are discussing states with a high GDP coupled with a relatively high GDP per capita.

Related Articles

• Global Anti-LGBT Politics

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. 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: 04 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

Character limit 500 /500

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

Secretary-general.

• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved

Protect Human Rights

The term “human rights” was mentioned seven times in the UN's founding Charter , making the promotion and protection of human rights a key purpose and guiding principle of the Organization.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lay down the principles that brought human rights into the realm of international law. Since then, the Organization has diligently protected human rights through legal instruments and on-the-ground activities.

How does the UN promote and protect human rights?

Office of the high commissioner for human rights (ohchr).

Headquartered in Geneva, with many regional offices, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has lead responsibility in the UN system for the promotion and protection of human rights .

The office supports the human rights components of peacekeeping missions in several countries, and in addition to its regional offices, has HR Centres, Country/Stand-alone Offices and Human Rights Advisors all over the world .

The High Commissioner for Human Rights regularly comments on situations in the world relating to human rights issues , and has the authority to investigate situations and publish reports on them.

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing Leilani Farha warns of widespread homelessness

OHCHR Regional Offices

• OHCHR has offices in Africa , including four regional office and centres.

The Americas

• OHCHR has a liaison office in New York City .
• OHCHR's South America Regional Office is in Santiago, Chile.
• OHCHR's Regional Office for Central America is in Panama City, Panama.

Asia and the Pacific

• OHCHR has a Pacific Regional Office in Suva, Fiji .
• The OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia is in Bangkok, Thailand .

Europe and Central Asia

• OHCHR has a Regional Office for Europe in Belgium , and a Regional Office for Central Asia in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan .

The Middle East

• OHCHR has a Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa in Beirut, Lebanon .

North Africa

• OHCHR's Regional Office for North Africa is in Tunis .

Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council , which was established in 2006, meets in Geneva. It replaced the 60-year-old UN Commission on Human Rights as the key independent UN intergovernmental body responsible for human rights.

Human Rights Treaty Bodies

The human rights treaty bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties . Each State party to a treaty has an obligation to take steps to ensure that everyone in the State can enjoy the rights set out in the treaty.

The treaty bodies are composed of independent experts of recognized competence in human rights, who are nominated and elected for fixed renewable terms of four years by State parties.

The Human Rights Treaty Body system

Special Procedures

The special procedures of the Human Rights Council are prominent, independent experts working on a voluntary basis, who examine, monitor, publicly report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.

Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect

The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide acts as a catalyst to raise awareness of the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to advocate and mobilize for appropriate action.

The Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect leads the conceptual, political, institutional and operational development of the Responsibility to Protect.

What legal instruments help the UN protect human rights?

More than 75 years ago the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common human rights standard for everyone, everywhere.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and two Covenants

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first legal document protecting universal human rights. It is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law . In 2023 we marked its 75th anniversary .

Together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , the three instruments form the so-called International Bill of Human Rights.

Other instruments

A series of international human rights treaties and other instruments adopted since 1945 have expanded the body of international human rights law .

In 2007, the General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples .

The Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs plays a leading role in the work of the UN to help countries hold credible, transparent and inclusive elections. Since 1992, the UN has assisted more than 100 of its Member States with electoral support.

Democracy , based on the rule of law, is ultimately a means to achieve international peace and security, economic and social progress and development, and respect for human rights – the three pillars of the United Nations mission as set forth in the UN Charter.

At the 2005 World Summit , all the world’s governments reaffirmed “that democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives” and stressed “that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”

Democratic principles are woven throughout the normative fabric of the United Nations. The 2009 Guidance Note on Democracy of the Secretary-General sets out the United Nations framework for democracy based on universal principles, norms and standards and commits the Organization to principled, coherent and consistent action in support of democracy.

What other UN offices and bodies are responsible for protecting human rights?

The Secretary-General appoints special representatives, who advocate against major human rights violations:

• Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict
• Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children

The Highest Aspiration: A Call to Action for Human Rights

On 24 February 2020, Secretary-General António Guterres launched a Call to Action for Human Rights . “Human rights are our ultimate tool to help societies grow in freedom,” he told Member States on the opening day of the UN Human Rights Council ’s 43rd session in Geneva, as he detailed a seven-point blueprint for positive change. Echoing the call for change, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said that although threats to human rights, development and peace were on the rise, so were the practical, actionable solutions to these issues.

• Security Council

The UN Security Council , at times, deals with grave human rights violations, often in conflict areas. The UN Charter gives the Security Council the authority to investigate and mediate, dispatch a mission, appoint special envoys, or request the Secretary-General to use his good offices .

The Security Council may issue a ceasefire directive, dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force. If this is not enough, the Security Council can opt for enforcement measures, such as economic sanctions, arms embargos, financial penalties and restrictions, travel bans, the severance of diplomatic relations, a blockade, or even collective military action.

Third Committee of the General Assembly

The General Assembly’s Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) examines a range of issues, including human rights questions. The Committee also discusses questions relating to the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right to self-determination. The Committee also addresses important social development questions.

Various Other UN Bodies

Different intergovernmental bodies and interdepartmental mechanisms based at the United Nations headquarters in New York, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General , address a range of human rights issues.

The General Assembly , the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and their subsidiary organs make policy decisions and recommendations to Member States , the United Nations system and other actors.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), an advisory body to the Economic and Social Council, has a mandate to discuss indigenous issues, including human rights.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights interacts with and provides advice and support on human rights issues to these bodies and mechanisms. The Office also works to mainstream human rights in all areas of work of the Organization, including development , peacekeeping , women, peace and security , and responding to humanitarian crises . Human rights issues are also addressed in the context of the post-conflict UN peacebuilding support activities

UN Peace Operations

To celebrate International Day of UN Peacekeepers: Meet Nicole Ngoy, a human rights officer, working at the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Many United Nations peacekeeping operations and political and peacebuilding missions also include the human rights-related mandates aimed at contributing to the protection and promotion of human rights through both immediate and long-term action; empowering the population to assert and claim their human rights; and enabling State and other national institutions to implement their human rights obligations and uphold the rule of law.

Human rights teams on the ground work in close cooperation and coordination with other civilian and uniformed components of peace operations, in particular, in relation to the protection of civilians; addressing conflict-related sexual violence and violations against children; and strengthening respect for human rights and the rule of law through legal and judicial reform, security sector reform and prison system reform.

Commission on the Status of Women

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is the principal global intergovernmental body dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the advancement of women.

UN Women , established in 2010, serves as its Secretariat.

• General Assembly
• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• GA High-level week 2024

Key Documents

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• The Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• LGBTIQ+ People
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Information Integrity
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre

"Why Human Rights?": Reflection by Eleni Christou

This post is the first installment from UChicago Law's International Human Rights Law Clinic in a series titled — The Matter of Human Rights. In this 16-part series, law students examine, question and reflect on the historical, ideological, and normative roots of the human rights system, how the system has evolved, its present challenges and future possibilities. Eleni Christou is a third year in the Law School at the University of Chicago.

Why Human Rights?

By: Eleni Christou University of Chicago Law School Class of 2019

When the term “human rights” is used, it conjures up, for some, powerful images of the righteous fight for the inalienable rights that people have just by virtue of being human. It is Martin Luther King Jr. before the Washington monument as hundreds of thousands gather and look on; it is Nelson Mandela’s long walk to freedom; or a 16-year-old Malala telling her story, so others like her may be heard. But what is beyond these archetypes? Does the system work? Can we make it work better? Is it even the right system for our times? In other words, why human rights?

Human rights are rights that every person has from the moment they are born to the moment they die. They are things that everyone is entitled to, such as life, liberty, freedom of expression, and the right to education, just by virtue of being human. People can never lose these rights on the basis of age, sex, nationality, race, or disability. Human rights offer us a principled framework, rooted in normative values meant for all nations and legal orders. In a world order in which states/governments set the rules, the human rights regime is the counterweight, one concerned with and focused on the individual. In other words, we need human rights because it provides us a way of evaluating and challenging national laws and practices as to the treatment of individuals.

The foundational human right text for our modern-day system is the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1948, this document lays out 30 articles which define the rights each human is entitled to. These rights are designed to protect core human values and prohibit institutions and practices that are contrary to the enjoyment of the rights. Rights often complement each other, and at times, can be combined to form new rights. For example, humans have a right to liberty, and also a right to be free from slavery, two rights which complement and reinforce each other. Other times, rights can be in tension, like when a person’s right to freedom of expression infringes upon another’s right to freedom from discrimination.

In this post, I’ll provide an example of how the human rights system has been used to do important work. The international communities’ work to develop the law and organize around human rights principles to challenge and sanction the apartheid regime in South Africa provides a valuable illustration of how the human rights system can be used successfully to alleviate state human rights violations that previously would have been written off as a domestic matter.

From 1948 to 1994, South Africa had a system of racial segregation called ‘ apartheid ,’ literally meaning ‘separateness.’ The minority white population was committing blatant human rights violations to maintain their control over the majority black population, and smaller multiethnic and South Asian communities. This system of apartheid was codified in laws at every level of the country, restricting where non-whites could live, work, and simply be. Non-whites were stripped of  voting rights ,  evicted from their homes  and forced into segregated neighborhoods, and not allowed to travel out of these neighborhoods without  passes . Interracial marriage was forbidden, and transport and civil facilities were all segregated, leading to extremely inferior services for the majority of South Africans. The horrific conditions imposed on non-whites led to  internal resistance movements , which the white ruling class responded to with  extreme violence , leaving thousands dead or imprisoned by the government.

While certain global leaders expressed concern about the Apartheid regime in South Africa, at first, most (including the newly-formed UN) considered it a domestic affair. However, that view changed in 1960 following the  Sharpeville Massacre , where 69 protesters of the travel pass requirement were murdered by South African police. In 1963, the United Nations Security Council passed  Resolution 181 , which called for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, which was later made mandatory. The Security Council condemned South Africa’s apartheid regime and encouraged states not to “indirectly [provide] encouragement . . . [of] South Africa to perpetuate, by force, its policy of apartheid,” by participating in the embargo. During this time, many countries, including the United States, ended their arms trade with South Africa. Additionally, the UN urged an oil embargo, and eventually  suspended South Africa  from the General Assembly in 1974.

In 1973, the UN General Assembly passed the  International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , and it came into force in 1976. This convention made apartheid a crime against humanity. It expanded the prohibition of apartheid and similar policies outside of the South African context, and laid the groundwork for international actions to be taken against any state that engaged in these policies. This also served to further legitimize the international response to South Africa’s apartheid regime.

As the state-sanctioned violence in South Africa intensified, and the global community came to understand the human rights violation being carried out on a massive scale, countries worked domestically to place trade sanctions on South Africa, and many divestment movements gained popular support. International sports teams refused to play in South Africa and cut ties with their sports federations, and many actors engaged in cultural boycotts. These domestic actions worked in tandem with the actions taken by the United Nations, mirroring the increasingly widespread ideology that human rights violations are a global issue that transcend national boundaries, but are an international concern of all peoples.

After years of domestic and international pressure, South African leadership released the resistance leader Nelson Mandela in 1990 and began negotiations for the dismantling of apartheid. In 1994, South Africa’s apartheid officially ended with the first general elections. With universal suffrage, Nelson Mandela was elected president.

In a  speech to the UN General Assembly , newly elected Nelson Mandela recognized the role that the UN and individual countries played in the ending of apartheid, noting these interventions were a success story of the human rights system. The human rights values embodied in the UDHR, the ICSPCA, and numerous UN Security Council resolutions, provided an external normative and legal framework by which the global community could identify unlawful state action and hold South Africa accountable for its system of apartheid. The international pressure applied via the human rights system has been considered a major contributing factor to the end of apartheid. While the country has not fully recovered from the trauma that decades of the apartheid regime had left on its people, the end of the apartheid formal legal system has allowed the country to begin to heal and move towards a government that works for all people, one that has openly embraced international human rights law and principles in its constitutional and legislative framework.

This is what a human rights system can do. When state governments and legal orders fail to protect people within their control, the international system can challenge the national order and demand it uphold a basic standard of good governance. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights system has grown, tackled new challenges, developed institutions for review and enforcement, and built a significant body of law. Numerous tools have been established to help states, groups, and individuals defend and protect human rights.

So why human rights? Because the human rights system has been a powerful force for good in this world, often the only recourse for marginalized and minority populations. We, as the global community, should work to identify shortcomings in the system, and work together to improve and fix them. We should not —  as the US has been doing under the current administration  — selectively withdraw, defund, and disparage one of the only tools available to the world’s most vulnerable peoples. The human rights system is an arena, a language, and a source of power to many around the world fighting for a worthwhile future built on our shared human values.

Related Articles

Pozen center 2022-23 director's report, interracial marriage under attack: thinking the unthinkable, read: "the politics of torture" by kathleen cavanaugh, read "democracies and international law" by tom ginsburg, read "agents of change: political philosophy in practice" by ben laurence.

Join our mailing list to receive a weekly digest of Pozen-related news, opportunities, and events.

© 2023 Pozen Family Center for Human Rights | Accessibility | Colophon

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Origins in ancient Greece and Rome

• Natural law transformed into natural rights
• “Nonsense upon stilts”: the critics of natural rights
• The persistence of the notion
• The nature of human rights: commonly accepted postulates
• Liberté : civil and political rights
• Égalité : economic, social, and cultural rights
• Fraternité : solidarity or group rights
• Liberté versus égalité
• The relevance of custom and tradition: the universalist-relativist debate
• Inherent risks in the debate
• Developments before World War II
• The UN Commission on Human Rights and its instruments
• The UN Human Rights Council and its instruments
• Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Its Optional Protocols
• Other UN human rights conventions and declarations
• Human rights and the Helsinki process
• Human rights in Europe
• Human rights in the Americas
• Human rights in Africa
• Human rights in the Arab world
• Human rights in Asia
• International human rights in domestic courts
• Human rights in the early 21st century

human rights

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• U. S. Department of State - Human Rights
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Human Rights
• The History Learning Site - Human Rights
• Cornell University Law School - Human rights
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Human Rights
• Social Sciences Libretexts - Human Rights
• human rights - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• human rights - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

human rights , rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human, or as a consequence of inherent human vulnerability, or because they are requisite to the possibility of a just society. Whatever their theoretical justification, human rights refer to a wide continuum of values or capabilities thought to enhance human agency or protect human interests and declared to be universal in character, in some sense equally claimed for all human beings, present and future.

It is a common observation that human beings everywhere require the realization of diverse values or capabilities to ensure their individual and collective well-being. It also is a common observation that this requirement—whether conceived or expressed as a moral or a legal demand—is often painfully frustrated by social as well as natural forces, resulting in exploitation, oppression, persecution, and other forms of deprivation. Deeply rooted in these twin observations are the beginnings of what today are called “human rights” and the national and international legal processes associated with them.

Historical development

The expression human rights is relatively new, having come into everyday parlance only since World War II , the founding of the United Nations in 1945, and the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It replaced the phrase natural rights, which fell into disfavour in the 19th century in part because the concept of natural law (to which it was intimately linked) had become controversial with the rise of legal positivism . Legal positivism rejected the theory, long espoused by the Roman Catholic Church , that law must be moral to be law. The term human rights also replaced the later phrase the rights of Man, which was not universally understood to include the rights of women.

Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept of human rights to ancient Greece and Rome , where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics , who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature . A classic example of this view is given in Sophocles ’ play Antigone , in which the title character, upon being reproached by King Creon for defying his command not to bury her slain brother, asserted that she acted in accordance with the immutable laws of the gods.

In part because Stoicism played a key role in its formation and spread, Roman law similarly allowed for the existence of a natural law and with it—pursuant to the jus gentium (“law of nations”)—certain universal rights that extended beyond the rights of citizenship. According to the Roman jurist Ulpian , for example, natural law was that which nature, not the state, assures to all human beings, Roman citizens or not.

It was not until after the Middle Ages , however, that natural law became associated with natural rights. In Greco-Roman and medieval times, doctrines of natural law concerned mainly the duties, rather than the rights, of “Man.” Moreover, as evidenced in the writings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas , these doctrines recognized the legitimacy of slavery and serfdom and, in so doing, excluded perhaps the most important ideas of human rights as they are understood today—freedom (or liberty) and equality .

The conception of human rights as natural rights (as opposed to a classical natural order of obligation) was made possible by certain basic societal changes, which took place gradually beginning with the decline of European feudalism from about the 13th century and continuing through the Renaissance to the Peace of Westphalia (1648). During this period, resistance to religious intolerance and political and economic bondage; the evident failure of rulers to meet their obligations under natural law; and the unprecedented commitment to individual expression and worldly experience that was characteristic of the Renaissance all combined to shift the conception of natural law from duties to rights. The teachings of Aquinas and Hugo Grotius on the European continent, the Magna Carta (1215) and its companion Charter of the Forests (1217), the Petition of Right (1628), and the English Bill of Rights (1689) in England were signs of this change. Each testified to the increasingly popular view that human beings are endowed with certain eternal and inalienable rights that never were renounced when humankind “contracted” to enter the social order from the natural order and never were diminished by the claim of the “ divine right of kings .”

An Introduction to Human Rights

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness.

They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected.

What are 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 to 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 a number of basic rights that people from around the world 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 rights 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 what we believe. This is what makes human rights ‘ universa l’.

Who has a responsibility to protect human rights?

Human rights connect us to each other through a shared set of rights and responsibilities .

A person’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 are able to enjoy their rights. They are required to 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. This means that governments have an obligation to provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. Whether or not governments actually do this, it is generally accepted that this is the government's responsibility and people can call them to account if they fail to respect or protect their basic human rights.

What do human rights cover?

Human rights cover virtually every area of human activity.

They include civil and political rights , which refer to a person’s rights to take part in the civil and political life of their community without discrimination or oppression. These include rights and freedoms such as the right to vote, the right to privacy, freedom of speech and freedom from torture.

The right to vote and take part in choosing a government is a civil and political right.

They also include economic, social and cultural rights , which relate to a person’s rights to prosper and grow and to take part in social and cultural activities. This group includes rights such as the right to health, the right to education and the right to work.

The right to education is an example of an economic, social and cultural right.

One of the main differences between these two groups of rights is that, in the case of civil and political rights, governments must make sure that they, or any other group, are not denying people access to their rights, whereas in relation to economic, social and cultural rights, governments must take active steps to ensure rights are being fulfilled. 

As well as belonging to every individual, there are some rights that also belong to groups of people. This is often in recognition of the fact that these groups have been disadvantaged and marginalised throughout history and consequently need greater protection of their rights. These rights are called collective rights . For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples possess collective rights to their ancestral lands, which are known as native title rights. 

Rights that can only apply to individuals, for example the right to a fair trial, are called individual rights .

Where do human rights come from?

The origins of human rights.

Human rights are not a recent invention. This page offers a brief human rights timeline .

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in the development of human societies. These ideas can be traced back to the ancient civilisations of Babylon, China and India. They contributed to the laws of Greek and Roman society and are central to Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Islamic and Jewish teachings. Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have not left written records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and other indigenous societies elsewhere. 

Ideas about justice were prominent in the thinking of philosophers in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. An important strand in this thinking was that there was a 'natural law' that stood above the law of rulers. This meant that individuals had certain rights simply because they were human beings.

In 1215, the English barons forced the King of England to sign Magna Carta (which is Latin for ‘the Great Charter’). Magna Carta was the first document to place limits on the absolute power of the king and make him accountable to his subjects. It also laid out some basic rights for the protection of citizens, such as the right to a trial.

Significant development in thinking about human rights took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during a time of revolution and emerging national identities. 

The American Declaration of Independence (1776) was based on the understanding that certain rights, such as ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', were fundamental to all people. Similarly, t he French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) challenged the authority of the aristocracy and recognised the ‘liberty, equality and fraternity' of individuals. These values were also echoed in the United States’ Bill of Rights (1791), which recognised freedom of speech, religion and the press, as well as the right to ‘peaceable' assembly, private property and a fair trial.

The development of modern human rights

The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw continuing advances in social progress, for example, in the abolition of slavery, the widespread provision of education and the extension of political rights. Despite these advances, international activity on human rights remained weak. The general attitude was that nations could do what they liked within their borders and that other countries and the broader international community had no basis for intervening or even raising concerns when rights were violated. 

This is expressed in the term ‘ state sovereignty ’, which refers to the idea that whoever has the political authority within a country has the power to rule and pass laws over that territory. Importantly, countries agree to mutually recognise this sovereignty. In doing so, they agree to refrain from interfering in the internal or external affairs of other sovereign states. 

However, the atrocities and human rights violations that occurred during World War II galvanised worldwide opinion and made human rights a universal concern. 

Word War II onwards

During World War II millions of soldiers and civilians were killed or maimed. The Nazi regime in Germany created concentration camps for certain groups - including Jews, communists, homosexuals and political opponents. Some of these people were used as slave labour, others were exterminated in mass executions. The Japanese occupation of China and other Asian countries was marked by frequent and large-scale brutality toward local populations. Japanese forces took thousands of prisoners of war who were used as slave labour, with no medical treatment and inadequate food.

The promotion and protection of human rights became a fundamental objective of the Allied powers. In 1941, U.S. President Roosevelt proclaimed the ' Four Freedoms ' that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy - freedom of speech and belief, and freedom from want and fear. 

The war ended in 1945, but only after the destruction of millions of lives, including through the first and only use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many countries were devastated by the war, and millions of people died or became homeless refugees. 

The United Nations

A new organisation, the United Nations , known as the UN, came into existence in 1945. A s the war drew to a close, the victorious powers decided to establish a world organisation that would prevent further conflict and help build a better world.

The UN was created to fulfil four key aims:

• to ensure peace and security
• to promote economic development
• t o promote the development of international law
• to ensure the observance of human rights.

In the UN Charter – the UN’s founding document – the countries of the United Nations stated that they were determined:

"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small … and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." 

The UN's strong emphasis on human rights made it different from previous international organisations. UN member countries believed that the protection of human rights would help ensure freedom, justice and peace for all in the future. 

Read more about the work of United Nations on The International Human Rights System page .

Why are human rights important?

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can helps us create the kind of society we want to live in. 

In recent decades, there has been a tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas. This 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 in society - in the family, the community, schools, the workplace, in politics and in international relations. It is vital therefore that people everywhere should 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. 

Can my human rights be taken away from me?

A person's human rights cannot be taken away. In its final Article, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no State, group or person 

[has] any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. 

This doesn't mean that abuses and violations of human rights don't occur. On television and in newspapers every day we hear tragic stories of murder, violence, racism, hunger, unemployment, poverty, abuse, homelessness and discrimination. 

However, the Universal Declaration and other human rights treaties are more than just noble aspirations. They are essential legal principles. To meet their international human rights obligations, many nations have incorporated these principles into their own laws. This provides an opportunity for individuals to have a complaint settled by a court in their own country. 

Individuals from some countries may also be able to take a complaint of human rights violations to a United Nations committee of experts, which would then give its opinion. 

In addition, education about human rights is just as important as having laws to protect people. Long term progress can really only be made when people are aware of what human rights are and what standards exist.

Further reading

• Review the latest News from the Australian Human Rights Commission.
• Have Your Say on the current inquiries, projects and conversations about human rights in Australia.
• Face the Facts and learn about the Australian Human Rights Commission's key areas of work.
• Find out more about how the Australian Human Rights Commission was established.

How To Promote Human Rights: 10 Examples

When it comes to respecting and promoting human rights, governments bear the primary responsibility. However, every individual owes it to themselves and their communities to promote human rights. That can seem like a challenging task, but there are many ways you can undertake this mission in both your daily life and as a lifelong goal. Here are ten examples:

Research human rights issues

To promote human rights, you first need to understand the issues . Many people have good intentions, but if they lack accurate information, their efforts can make things worse. Commit to thorough research from credible sources, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and news organizations with good track records. Bear in mind that no source is perfect and even reliable organizations can miss the mark. It’s your responsibility to read widely, listen to people’s stories, and recognize that learning is a continuous process.

Donate to good organizations

Donating money is one of the best ways to promote human rights. Money allows organizations to continue their work whether it’s providing aid to people in crisis, pressuring governments to take action on human rights, or creating programs that empower the disenfranchised. There are millions of NGOs today, but not all use their funds wisely. Before donating, investigate the organization by looking at places like Charity Navigator or GuideStar . All organizations have some problems, but some are worse than others. If you’re wary of large NGOs, look for smaller-scale local organizations and mutual aid funds.

Change your shopping habits

You can promote human rights by considering the human rights impact of your shopping habits. Do the stores and corporations you buy from exploit their workers? Do they pay a fair wage? Where do they source their materials? You most likely won’t be able to shop from exclusively ethical and sustainable businesses because of the financial cost. However, you can choose to eliminate the worst offenders and commit to only buying gifts from ethical places . Also, ethical and sustainable items tend to last longer so you buy less overall.

Connect to human rights movements

It’s much easier to promote human rights within a group. Look for groups doing human rights work in your area or join online communities that connect you to global movements. When people work together, they can raise more awareness and funds for the causes they promote. Good groups will have strong leadership, good accountability systems, and a commitment to listening to the communities they serve.

Vote in every election

If you live in a country with elections, you can promote human rights by voting whenever you can. That includes local elections, school board elections, and more. Pay attention to the candidates running and their platforms. You can also participate in democracy by helping other people vote, including those who face disenfranchisement or who believe voting doesn’t matter.

Put pressure on those responsible for upholding human rights

As we mentioned in the introduction, governments are responsible for protecting human rights. They often fail. You can promote human rights by contacting government officials and urging them to take action on pressing issues . You can contact international entities, as well, if you’re unable to directly contact your government or if they are not responsive.

Protest inequalities

Peaceful protest is one of the most powerful ways to support human rights. Throughout history, protests have sparked major changes surrounding laws, regime changes, and more. The bigger the protest, the more attention an issue gets. Protests can be dangerous and involve the police, so organizers must have ways to stay in communication with everyone and a plan to leave the area safely.

Support mothers and parents

Women and children are two of the most vulnerable groups in the world. Even in wealthy countries like the United States, there are wide disparities and few resources for mothers and parents in need of help. You can promote and protect their rights by supporting aid organizations , advocating for good maternity and paternity leave, and supporting reproductive rights.

Take action when you see discrimination

A person’s rights are disrespected every time they face discrimination. You can promote human rights in your daily life by doing something when you witness things like racism or sexism. Taking action can mean different things depending on the situation. Commit to finding out what best serves the people you want to help as opposed to trying to “play the hero.” As an example, if you see discrimination in a workplace , try to talk to the person who was the target of the discrimination before taking any action. They might have specific ideas about how you can support them.

Support economic rights

Economic rights are at the root of many other human rights. If someone lives in poverty, they are vulnerable to a host of other inequalities like a lack of access to healthcare, education, housing, and more. A lack of economic rights also fuels violence and human trafficking . If you want to promote human rights, you can’t forget about poverty. Advocate for things like equal pay for equal work, education access, free childcare, clean water and sanitation, and more.

You may also like

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

HRC 35: How to protect human rights in the face of rapidly changing technology?

We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Some pages such as the list of publications, news, stories and others are not working. We apologise for the inconvenience and are working on solving this. Please check back later today!

From 6 to 23 June, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) held its 35th session, with debates on the situation of human rights worldwide. From harassment of human rights defenders and civil society activists, to crackdowns on freedom of expression and media freedom, to the threats faced by women and girls under conflict, a diversity of issues were highlighted.

As we pointed out with our pre-session brief "Internet at the Human Rights Council 35th session" , a number of internet-related rights issues are on the agenda at the HRC’s June session. In particular, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, focused his annual HRC report on examining the role of the state and the digital access sector in ensuring freedom of expression online. In addition, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) released its report on bridging the gender digital divide from a human rights perspective, contributing substantively to the global debate on how to empower women through ICTs.

To raise awareness and deepen the debate on these critical issues within the HRC community, APC participated in HRC35, organising several side events. Together with ARTICLE 19, Access Now, Privacy International, and the Permanent Missions of Sweden, Germany, Austria, Brazil, Mexico and Lichtenstein, APC organised and spoke on a panel on "Digital Access, Shutdowns and Surveillance" to discuss Kaye’s report.

Kaye shared key findings from his report, which details how internet shutdowns violate international human rights law and examines the role of the digital access sector more broadly. Last year, with resolution 32/13 , the HRC unequivocally condemned internet shutdowns, but since the resolution, at least 15 states have implemented internet shutdowns, including Kashmir, Cameroon and India (which has undergone 20 in 2017), for reasons that go from preserving public order and national security to “preventing students from copying in exams”, lawyer and APC-IMPACT project coordinator Gayatri Khandadhai highlighted. The panellists discussed how ordinary citizens experience internet shutdowns, and raised the connection between internet shutdowns and the domino effect they have on freedom of assembly, association and on economic, social and cultural rights, especially the rights to health and education, which are severely hit. Julie Owono from Internet Sans Frontières noted that many of the companies that violate users rights in Africa are subsidiaries of companies based outside of Africa (for example, in Europe) and questioned the human rights obligations of the states where those companies are based.

Representatives of the private sector shared some of the initiatives they have taken to deal with government requests for access to user data and orders to interrupt service. They outlined a number of challenges that they face in upholding their responsibility to respect human rights, awareness and understanding within all levels of the company, increasing transparency around their decisions, while respecting the privacy of users, and ensuring the safety of local employees who may face physical intimidation. “The HRC must continue to send out the message that network shutdowns are undesirable and unacceptable,” Khandadhai concluded.

Internet shutdowns, and other crackdowns against freedom of expression and media freedom, continue to increase particularly in regions like South Asia, where APC has a strong focus. APC and FORUM-ASIA organised a side event "Freedom of Expression in South Asia", where participants highlighted the deteriorating situation for freedom of expression in countries like India, Maldives and Pakistan, where a steep rise in nationalist agenda is causing censorship and backlash throughout the region, a crackdown on secular and liberal speech which affect all art and artistic expression, attacks on journalists, and new laws and re-interpretation of old laws that legitimise these unreasonable restrictions. “States in the region end up inspiring one another,” the participants noted. The event also discussed and honoured human rights defenders, journalists and civil society activists such as Yameen Rashid , killed in the Maldives in a context of increasing repression of dissent around the globe.

APC co-organised a second event on freedom of expression and religion in Asia with FORUM-ASIA, titled “ Religion and Expression Online in Asia ”. The event provided a platform for human rights defenders to highlight on-the-ground realities in the exercise of freedom of expression and religion in online spaces and look at the criminalisation of speech termed as “blasphemy” in relation to hate speech, which remains unaddressed. This event also saw the sharing of initial findings by APC and the Centre for Communication Governance on the issues of hate speech and religion-related restrictions on expression. “We operate in an environment of fear and intimidation,” remarked Shahindha Ismail of the Maldives Democracy Network. The Rabat Plan of action was discussed in detail and ideas on how to engage with the process were proposed.

To dive deeper into the conclusions and recommendations of the OHCHR report on bridging the gender digital divide from a human rights perspective, APC, together with OHCHR and the missions of Sweden, Brazil and the United States, organised a side event bringing together experts working on internet access, violence against women, and internet governance, among others. Internet penetration rates remain higher for men than women, but access is more than just penetration rates or infrastructure. It is also about how existing offline power dynamics and cultural norms around gender equality play out in digital spaces. The Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Veronika Bard, noted that the report constitutes a significant contribution to bridging the divide between men and women, and called for creating an enabling environment that empowers women and girls. The panel discussion addressed how the human rights community can better confront the barriers that women face accessing the internet to exercise their human rights. In particular, the threat of gender-based violence and abuse were discussed in detail. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Dubravka Šimonovic, announced that her next report to the HRC will focus on this issue, and called for input from experts and stakeholders. There was consensus about the need for more data, to better understand the types of barriers to using ICTs that women are facing. Otherwise, the policies being developed to bridge the gender digital divide will be supply driven rather than demand driven. Panellists also advocated strongly for the need to increase the participation of women in internet governance discussions, where gender equality and human rights are too often seen as non-issues, and not on the agenda. Finally, there was consensus around the report’s linking of the gender digital divide as part broader gender inequalities and discrimination that women face in society, as well as its framing of overcoming women’s barriers to meaningfully accessing and using ICTs as part of human rights obligations to promote, protect, and fulfil human rights.

Panellists encouraged the HRC to further address this issue through its bi-annual resolution on the promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the internet. The HRC’s June session saw considerable substantive debate on internet rights, which we expect to continue in the coming year with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression’s upcoming report on content regulation and internet platforms, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women’s report on gender-based violence online, among others. We are encouraged to see more states taking an interest in the online dimensions of human rights and will continue to work with others in civil society to build awareness and deepen understanding of the link between human rights and the internet, new threats to human rights that citizens are experiencing online, and how to bridge the normative gap when it comes to protecting human rights in the face of rapidly changing technology.

• Human Rights Council
• human rights and ICTs
• freedom of expression
• gender digital divide