On 11th December was celebrated International Human Rights Day. In the minds of people, the term “Human Rights” conjures up images of torture in police cells, abuse of minorities, massacres of civilians, discrimination and even genocide. Are human rights limited to these aspects only?

To have a better idea of the concept of human rights, it is a good idea to go back to its philosophical roots. According to the philosophers (Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau), human rights existed in a state of nature. As such, people had natural rights and they were free. But in view of the predatory nature of human beings, it was the law of the jungle that prevailed. The strong dominated the weak. Fear and suspicion pervaded all the interactions between people. Man was a wolf to man. To prevent a war of all against all in the “state of nature”, Hobbes argued that there should be a system of coercion – “the creation of a strong state with untrammelled authority” to provide “sanctions against the abuse of trust, and create a climate for mutually beneficial co-operation” (Theories of State, P. Duleavy and B. O’Leary). That power would be embodied in the “sovereign” whom Hobbes presents as a giant, superhuman figure, the “Leviathan”. This image is telling in itself.

Since antiquity, it has been the eternal pre-occupation of man to devise ways and means of reining in the “Leviathan”, to prevent it from encroaching onto the lives of people, continuously accaparating the natural rights of citizens, and surreptitiously having recourse to arbitrariness. That is why the first generation of human rights has been concerned exclusively with civil and political rights. They have been the fruits of liberal thought and philosophy under the influence of thinkers like David Locke for whom “the state is supreme but only if it is bound by civil and what he called natural laws like natural and property rights and it is the duty of Government to protect these rights” (Encarta, 2000).

■ Civil and political

The term “human rights” is defined as the rights inherent to a person, simply because he or she is a human being. Central to these inherent rights are the rights to life and security, to family life, to private property, to the possibility of expressing one’s opinions freely, to practicing a religion of one’s choice, etc. The definition also covers the state’s obligation to “articulate its structures in such a way as to guarantee a minimum of respect for the human person, as well as justice in cases of abuse, the right not to be subjected to arbitrary measures by governmental authorities, access to justice and the right to a fair trial (“Human Rights in a Changing World, A. Cassese). All these form part of civil liberties whereas political rights refer to the rights to associate, to form part of political parties, to participate in elections, to be elected to the various offices, etc.

In many countries of the world, the civil and political rights have been inscribed in their constitutions. This is the case with Mauritius too. In fact, Chapter II of the Constitution of Mauritius lists out the various civil and political rights to which the citizens of Mauritius are entitled, for example, the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, protection of the right to life, to personal liberty, protection from inhuman treatment, protection from deprivation of property, protection of freedom of conscience and freedom of movement, etc. Other sections cover the right to a fair public hearing and the presumption of innocence, non-retroactivity of offences and punishments, the right to hold opinions and receive and impart information, and protection of the law and remedies for breach of rights.

■ Economic, social and cultural

But humanity has not contented itself with “negative liberties,” as civil and political rights are known because they are “freedom from, rather than freedoms to” and they call for “acts of omission rather than commission” (The Economist, August 2001). Under the influence of socialism, human rights have come to embrace “positive liberties” as well. These refer to economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to work, the right to health care, to social security, to education, to housing, to an adequate standard of living, the right to cultural identity and the right to participate freely in cultural life, etc. As a result, the international human rights protection system which came into existence after the atrocities of the second world war took on board both types of rights: civil and political on the one hand and economic, social and cultural on the other. This is evident when one goes through the International Bill of Rights which comprises the human rights provisions of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenants on Economic and Social Rights. Apart from these International Human Rights Instruments, there are specific Covenants and Conventions dealing with specific groups of vulnerable people such as women, children, persons with disabilities, elderly persons, migrant workers, refugees, etc. For example, we have the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the ILO Convention No. 97 concerning Migrant Workers, etc.

■ Third-generation

Emerging on the international scene during recent years is a set of rights more commonly known as “Third Generation Rights” or “People’s’ Rights”. These refer to the right to equality, to self-determination, to freedom from domination, to peace and security ,the rights of indigenous people to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources and the rights of people to the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind. From this flows the concept of sustainable development. This means development without jeopardizing resources for future generations, keeping the environment safe for mankind, combating poverty, empowering people, enhancing their “capabilities”, improving their quality of life, promoting good governance, ensuring accountability and eliminating corruption.

For a long time when speaking about human rights, there has been a tendency to give priority only to civil and political aspects and to neglect the others. But today, it is accepted that human rights are indivisible. They are inter-related and interdependent. They touch on every aspect of human life. There is no hierarchy of rights. All are equally important. “Denial of one right invariably impedes enjoyment of others”. (Julia Hausermann). This is the holistic approach.

Azize BANKUR