During the Cold War period, the rights of the “first generation” were prioritized in Western democracies, while the rights of the second generation were rejected as socialist notions. In developing countries, economic growth and development were often seen as objectives that could take precedence over “civil and political” rights. The gap between the two rights groups was also highlighted: “civil and political” rights were directly apprehensive, while “second generation” rights were only supposed to be implemented in the long term or gradually. Another dividing line was the alleged idea that “first generation” rights impose negative obligations on States, while “second generation” rights impose positive obligations on States. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, it became widely accepted that such a dichotomy does not do justice as these rights are interconnected and interdependent. The dichotomy of positive/negative commitments is no longer valid. It seems much more useful to consider all rights as interdependent and indivisible, and as potentially involving a multitude of obligations for the State. These obligations can be classified as obligations of respect, protection, promotion and enforcement. The Council of Europe also adopted the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Human Beings for Protection against Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Exploitation in May 2005, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse in October 2007 and the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence in May 2011. United Nations human rights bodies have quasi-legal enforcement mechanisms.
These include the treaty bodies attached to the seven treaties currently in force and the complaint procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council with Universal Periodic Review and United Nations Special Rapporteurs (known as mechanisms 1235 and 1503 respectively). [39] National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are independent bodies created to defend defenders of those in need of protection and to hold governments accountable for their human rights obligations. They also help shape laws, policies and attitudes that create stronger and more just societies. NHRIs must adhere to a set of minimum international standards known as the Paris Principles to demonstrate that they can fulfill this role and demonstrate their independence from government. This principle is supported by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations who believe that certain crimes pose a threat to the international community as a whole and that it has a moral obligation to act. In 2006, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was replaced by the United Nations Human Rights Council for the Application of International Human Rights Law. The changes predicted a more structured organization as well as the obligation to review human rights cases every 4 years. The United Nations` Sustainable Development Goal 10 also aims to promote laws and policies to reduce inequalities.
[4] The heterogeneous Asian region, which overlaps to some extent with the Muslim world, stretches from Indonesia to Japan and includes a diverse group of nations. Despite some United Nations efforts, no supranational human rights convention or organization has been established in the Asia-Pacific region. In the absence of an intergovernmental organization that serves as a regional umbrella and brings together all the different States in the region, a regional human rights system remains unlikely. The traditional categorization of three generations of human rights, used in national and international discourse on human rights, traces the chronological evolution of human rights as an echo of the call of the French Revolution: Liberty (rights, “civil and political” or “first generation” rights), Equality (equality, “socio-economic” or “second generation” rights) and Fraternity (solidarity rights, “collective” or “third generation”). Generation rights). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the struggle for rights focused on liberation from authoritarian oppression and the corresponding rights to freedom of expression, association and religion, as well as the right to vote. With the changing view of the role of the state in an industrialized world and in the context of growing inequalities, the importance of socio-economic rights has become clearer. With increasing globalization and increased awareness of overlapping global concerns, particularly due to extreme poverty in some parts of the world, the rights of the “third generation”, such as the right to a healthy environment, self-determination and development, have been adopted. Others, such as Henry Kissinger,[47] argue that “the widespread consensus that human rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the appropriate role of international tribunals. Universal jurisdiction risks creating a universal tyranny – that of judges. [48] However, when governments are responsible for human rights violations, these safeguards are often inadequate.
In these cases, international institutions such as the United Nations Human Rights Council or the Committee against Torture have limited opportunities to enforce the protection of human rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is an autonomous body of the Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Together with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San José, Costa Rica, it is one of the organs that make up the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights. [22] The IACHR is a standing body that meets several times a year in ordinary extraordinary sessions to investigate allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Their human rights obligations derive from three documents[23] International human rights law affects states through treaties. Documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the ideals of nations that strive to respect the human rights of the peoples of all nations. Legally, however, these documents are not binding on countries. Rather, treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provide the international legal framework for the protection of human rights. Under these treaties, nations undertake to respect certain restrictions on their behaviour and to defend certain fundamental freedoms and needs of citizens. The implementation of human rights treaties requires, of course, that nations abide by the terms of their agreements, and different approaches are used to enforce the agreements. Specially appointed commissions and other bodies monitor compliance.
In addition, multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe may impose sanctions or other measures on recalcitrant States. International tribunals provide an additional means of ensuring compliance. Individuals can also be held responsible for human rights violations if they are brought before such a court and convicted. A notable example is the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which was established to indict Serbian military officers who allegedly committed war crimes during the break-up of Yugoslavia. It set precedents on the part of the Nuremberg Tribunals. Human rights law is therefore an international legal structure of treaties and decisions of international tribunals, although many individual States may also have adopted national laws that protect what is traditionally considered human rights. After the First World War, timid attempts were made to establish a human rights system under the League of Nations.
