Part 1 The historical development of human rights

General questions Why do we have a human rights movement? Why does the language of human rights dominate the language of contemporary political life? Do ‘human rights’ embody universal human values, or are they specific to certain – western – cultures and certain historical epochs, for example the rise of liberal democracies?

What is a human right? Confusion between moral and legal/political understandings of ‘rights’ A moral claim would suggest that human beings have certain natural inalienable rights that accrue to them simply as a result of their being human Legal rights are entitlements supportable by legal systems of rules – and enforceable by state power, while moral rights are entitlements supportable by moral systems of rules. Moral rights and legal rights do not always coincide. Morality is often used as a basis for criticising law

Human rights and natural law ‘Human rights’ came into usage after Second World War Antecedents in the idea of ‘natural rights’ developed in 17 th and 18 th centuries In turn, ‘natural rights’ emerge from the idea of ‘natural law’

Natural law Deepening faith in science in the 17 th and 18 th centuries: ‘Age of Enlightenment’ John Locke ( ) Treatises of Civil Government (1690) Powerful justification of limited government and political liberalism Critique of political absolutism – relevant to 20 th century totalitarianism

Locke’s position There are natural rights which derive from a law of nature implanted by God in all reasoning beings – ‘natural order’? They exist independently of any social order Principal among them are the rights to life, limb and freedom of action These rights limit the sphere of government Legitimacy of government depends upon consent – social contract theory

Criticisms of natural rights Problem of internal conflict between various rights Destructive of traditional forms of human solidarity and political association – Burke (Communitarianism?) Unreality of their metaphysical base – reliance upon religious ideas Preference for substantive legal rights – Bentham

From “natural rights to human rights” 20 th Century saw the emergence and consolidation of new forms of political absolutism referred to as totalitarianism – Nazism & Communism Particular horrors of technological and medico/scientific approaches to human subjugation Involvement of doctors in torture and orchestrated killing provoke revulsion Need to establish in the political and legal fields a fundamental conception of the human person and human dignity

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood

The International Bill of Rights (1966) In 1966 the UN General Assembly strengthened the UDHR with two treaties The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) These two and the UDHR are referred to as the International Bill of Rights

Politics of the Universal Declaration Political compromise reflecting post-war realpolitik Attempts to reconcile liberal and socialist insights Stand-offs between USA and Soviet Union

Negative and positive rights Negative rights are classical defences of political freedoms Classic defence of negative rights by John Stuart Mill: the state is only justified in intervening to limit a person’s liberty where that person is a harm to others

Positive rights Positive rights are seen as entitlements Not ‘freedoms from’ but ‘freedom to’ The ‘right to work’ as negative is the right to work unimpeded The ‘right to work’ as a positive is the right to a job

Part 2 Health as a human right

International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights Article 12 reads: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

What does a “right to health” mean? Right to health does not mean right to be healthy States cannot ensure health Genetic and lifestyle factors Not just a right to medical care Two factors that can conflict: a right to health care and a right to healthy conditions

What would a “right to health” entail? A right to adequate, accessible, acceptable and affordable health care A right to basic immunisations A right to reproductive health information and services A right to the preconditions for health (public health) A right to health-related information

A few problems? Although ‘public health’ measures are often seen as negative entitlements, a ‘right to health care’ entails positive state commitments A right to health care is a redistributive right A right to health care therefore conflicts with rights to freedom and to enjoy property Is it useful to use the language of ‘rights’, which are prescriptive, to discuss political ideas of this complexity?