Human development and Human Rights

Human development is founded on certain guiding principles that direct daily interactions and the laws that permit people to exercise their rights and responsibilities. (Alkire, 2010 p.1). Human rights have been around for a while as a means to safeguard social identities and cultural practices. They gave people a chance to live in harmony with one another and the community while pursuing their various ideologies, economic interests, and values. Their use within a community is known to promote social cohesion because they serve as symbols of social norms and cultural customs. (Alkire, 2010 p.1). In this manner, they serve as a guide for organizations that deal with people, ensuring that everyone is treated with respect. However, they have also in the recent decades been seen to cause social divisions as they try to mark the boundaries between nations, cultures and even social groups (Donnelly and Whela, 2017 p.2). Consequently, the human rights theorist proposed that civil liberties should not provide a ground for competition and division since they are meant to universal and inalienable, indivisible, independent and interrelated. In this regard, the paper will make a critical assessment of the provision of human rights as universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

Human Rights as Universal

The universality of human rights is defined by its application to all people as long as they are called humans. They should belong to every member of the society despite their age, sex, political opinion, race, socioeconomic group or nationality. The universal declaration of human rights provides for the social economic and political rights that people are entitled to just by the fact that they were born (Whelan, 2010 p.69). In this way, the human rights activists show that the universality of these rights is beyond question. It is the universal declaration document that was created after the Second World War that the protection of all people was acknowledged. Humanity was made its priority without making exceptions based on the states or nationalities. It created an opportunity for all individuals to be treated as fairly and free from adverse judgments in the prevention of similar situations with that of the world war.

However, many debates were made with regard to the document and theorists claiming that a single document could not be a representation of all people across the world. They argued that people had many differences which enabled them to hold on to various cultures and hence the inability of a single document to cause equality amongst them (Whelan, 2010 p.69). In the view of the world and the different cultures, the rights presented in the declaration may, therefore, fail to be universal since judgments are not similar from various cultural perspectives. The actions of some people may be culturally right as compared to that of others from a similar standpoint. Moreover, those that argue against human rights being universal say that the claims are a way of undermining the culture of some people since the view of the world is different according to the societies that people live.

Additionally, the theorists show that all may not universally accept the presence of moral standards that guide the daily lives of people in their society. They show it as the responsibility of each to emphasize values as formed in their cultural upbringing (Nasr, 2016 p.1). In this way, they show the impossibility of values and moral standards to indicate a similar meaning to all people across the world. They critic the failure of the human rights to account for all the values and cultural norms across the world in their attempt to impose values that are only oriented to the western culture. The freedom and rights that they claim t provide to all people equally across to the world, therefore, lead to division and contention across various culture as they attempt to share the conception of the west (Nasr, 2016 p.1). Relatively, the universality of the rights may be supported by the fact that it is compatible with most aspects of cultural diversity. They deal with human beings as individuals and not as a group within the society making it possible for people to fight for the rights globally. As such, human rights are universal since it offers an opportunity for the children, women and those oppressed within a society to speak in one common language as they act against prejudice and discriminations.

Human Rights as Inalienable

The rights indicated in the declaration are merely provided for each as long as they are called people. It is not possible to deny any person the opportunity to exercise these rights despite the fact that they are not liked (Nasr, 2016 p.1). The rights cannot be separated from a person either by giving away or hiring. According to early philosophers, human rights are presented as natural and inherent with the inability to surrender them to other individuals (Nasr, 2016 p.1). There is an opportunity for the person to make choices on whether to participate in some actions or not despite their rights. As such, a person is only seen to have a chance to cooperate or participate in an action without any coercion from outside sources. In agreement with different philosophers and theorist, rights cannot exist independent of an individual, and they cannot be sold or rented even for a particular period.

Humans have to be engaged in the decision-making process for the rights to hold and for action to be justified. A person has to be a citizen in the international human rights system to possess the rights and privileges (Nasr, 2016 p.1).. However, the inalienability of human rights cannot be fully enforced as indicated by some of the critics in the concern of infants and individuals who are mentally retarded. Focusing on the rights as inalienable could fail to consider children or people in a coma making them inhuman. It would strip victims of their personhood and therefore, failed to support the inalienability of the practice of human rights.

Human Rights as Indivisible

Indivisibility is meant to show that human rights are equal n importance and dependent on each other in their effectiveness. The philosophers stated that it could not be possible to pick some of the human rights and leave out others (Nickel, 2008 p.989). For instance, it could not be possible to take up the right of speech and replace it with that of peaceful assembly especially in the political realm. There is a need to ensure that all the rights are made equal in importance by making sure that no set replaces the other in supremacy by anyway (Nasr, 2016 p.1). The theorist indicates that the rights are indivisible as they consider the necessity of instituting all simultaneously for individuals. They make the competition that may be held between different powers to become redundant and provide democracy in the rule of law. Similarly, as shown through the rule of law, whether the rights are political, civic or economic they all depend on each other to be fully utilized and helpful to the citizens (Nickel, 2008 p.987). The advancement of one good is seen to lead to equally affect the utilization of others on a similar measure. Most of the rights are collective, and there is a possibility of applying more than one in a rule of law to ensure that people get justice in the best way.

Moreover, the principle is seen to maintain that there is a need to make a simultaneous implementation of all right to ensure that the system functions adequately and in favor of the actions of all people equally (Nickel, 2008 p.990). It holds to the idea that it is not possible to implement on the right without touching on others either positively or negatively. The need to perform one set leads to the possibility of realizing other rights making them arbitrary without the commitment to indivisibility. Those who support indivisibility have argued that there is a need to make simultaneous implementation if rights as a way of preventing competitions and enforcing acceptance across the world. It is a way to provide for an equitable system that objectively prevents the imposition of any basis in favoring some rights over the others. It is through this principle a fundamental position is created in ensuring that any tensions between different rights are prevented (Nickel, 2008 p.993). It was presented to signify the basis in the unity that various reasons offer as they needed to be taken with the same emphasis and treated equally.

Considering the indivisibility of the human rights, it was indicated that the principle provided a basis for the protection of those that were marginalized. It is through the acceptance of human rights as imperative while used a hand in hand that equality is provided for those that may seem suppressed in one way or the other (Nickel, 2008 p.993). It gives these people an opportunity to fight against discrimination since the rights that apply to them are similar to those that are used by other people holding better positions in the society. It is a platform through which peace and development are realized while ensuring that the implementation of one right leads to the need of another as a compliment. According to declarations made on this principle, indivisibility has been considered for most of the rights that are recognized at the national level together with those that cater to women and the girl child (Nash, 2009 p.1067). In this way, the rights are considered to be indivisible and an integral part of the universal law. The rights cannot be presented in a hierarchy since they do not have a given merit that could be used in identifying them with their level of importance.

Conversely, there are those philosophers who have argued against indivisibility by indicating that there are those rights that are mutually indispensable by functioning independently of the other (Nash, 2009 p.1070). There are those situations humans may need to apply the political rights without having to depend on civil or economic rights for them to function. They argue that though the rights may depend on each other, they are not indivisible, and there is no necessity for all the rights to be achieved so that one is realized (Whelan, 2010 p. 69). There is an opportunity for countries to prioritize some of the rights over the others with the essence of differentiating between interdependence and indivisibility.

Human Rights as Interrelated and Interdependent

Interrelatedness and interdependence are principles used to cut across the law of international human rights. Philosophers have suggested that one could not possibly depend on a set of specific rights without the need to refer to the others (Habermas, 2010 p.452). They indicated that the improvement of one right would lead to the need of advancing the others. For instance, the provision of the right to work is dependent on the right to social security for the various projects. Persons having an opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination mostly use their right to development in one way or the other. As such, it is the basis of one human right that most others are implemented (Habermas, 2010 p.460). Consequently, each of the human rights is known to contribute to the various needs of people by causing satisfaction in one way or the other. They together contribute to the possibility of individuals realizing their dignity through the satisfaction of physical, spiritual, developmental and psychological needs.

It is the wholesomeness of the rights that provide the necessary opportunity for enabling people to grow and make a difference in their situations. Though some of the rights may not fully depend on others, they are partially affected by the implementation of others while ensuring that the dignity of a person is maintained. Subsequently, the respect for the various categories of human rights is shown by the necessity in their stress on development and democracy. The human rights are known to be mutually reinforcing when they are dependent on the fundamental freedoms. They are together seen to promote the international cooperation in the process of integrating protection and promotion of the rights of individuals. They form a basis for the implementation of national policies, and the improvement is social responsibility while protecting the rights of people within a state (Nickel, 2008 p.993). Those in a particular group such as economic rights will depend on the political rights that govern a country so that success is realized.

However, though not all human rights are directly related and rely on each other, theorists indicate that there still exists an indirect relationship that boosts the strength of the other. They serve together to help various countries such as the United States to continually improve their efforts in making sure that various freedoms and rights are considered in making important decisions that affect their citizens (Habermas, 2010 p.460). Similarly, it is through the interrelatedness of the various rights that the positive contribution of different stakeholders in the activities of giving states is necessary. As such, the provision on the right to health is known to be affected in most circumstances by the right to education, information, and development. In this regard, the interrelatedness and interdependence of human rights are shown to exist either partially of full and therefore affect the way decision are made internationally on in different states.

Conclusion

According to the universal declaration of human rights, human rights are guided by various principles in their implementation and as they are implemented in the decision making process. The council of human rights needed to be governed by different principles to protect and promote them within the different domains. In their universality, though critics have been present, human rights require being treated with all equality and fairness while being accorded with a seriousness that befits all. As indicated, they are universal since they deal with humans as individuals and not as a community. In this regard, the rights may be economic, civic, social, political or cultural but they are non-selective hence object and universal to all. On the other hand, they are not alienable since they depend on the presence of an individual for them to be duly exercised. They cannot be separate from the human and are only reaffirmed in the presence of individuals. A person can therefore not choose to lend or offer their rights to others in their absence. Consequently, in their indivisibility, there is no opportunity to take up one other right at the expense of the others. They are all accorded equal status in that denying one may impede the fulfillment of the other. There is no rank of importance for the rights and they ought to be practiced in an equal manner. Lastly, as indicated by various theorists and philosophers, there is interrelation and interdependence between the different rights. The right to life provides a basis for exercising most of the other rights while contributing to the realization of the dignity of a person. In this way, as critically analyzed in the paper, human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

References

Alkire, S., 2010. Human development: Definitions, critiques, and related concepts.

Donnelly, J. and Whelan, D.J., 2017. International human rights. Westview Press.

Habermas, J., 2010. The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights. Metaphilosophy, 41(4), pp.464-480.

Nash, K., 2009. Between citizenship and human rights. sociology, 43(6), pp.1067-1083.

Nasr, L., 2016. Are human rights really 'universal, inalienable, and indivisible'?. LSE Human Rights Blog.

Nickel, J.W., 2008. Rethinking indivisibility: Towards a theory of supporting relations between human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(4), pp.984-1001.

Whelan, D.J., 2010. Indivisible Human Rights. Global Issues Series, p.69.