Historical Background

The term human rights came into common use only after World War II. It was made current by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, published in 1948. As a term human rights replaced natural rights, a very old concept, and the related phrase rights of man, which did not necessarily include the rights of women. Most scholars trace the origin of the concept of natural rights to ancient Greek and Roman thought. In the literature and philosophy of both Greece and Rome there are abundant statements acknowledging laws of the gods and of nature, and such laws were understood to take precedence over laws made by the state. The human-rights concept, however, can actually be traced to an earlier period. The Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians) relates the story of ancient Israel, and in it are abundant inferences about human rights. There is no well-developed statement on the issue, but there are significant scattered passages that give clear evidence of a point of view at least as advanced as Greek and Roman philosophy. The Ten Commandments, by the prohibition of murder and theft, give implicit recognition of the right to life and property. This recognition is considerably broadened by later elaboration of the laws and by the passionate discourses on justice by such prophets as Amos. If the concept of human rights is very old, the general recognition of their validity is not. Throughout most of history, governments failed to accept the notion that people have rights independent of the state. This is called statism, and it implies the supremacy of the state in all matters pertaining to the lives of subjects. Statism is still a potent concept in the 20th century. Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union during the rule of Joseph Stalin are prime examples, and there are other equally valid instances that still exist. The modern development of the human-rights concept began during the late Middle Ages in the period called the Renaissance, when resistance to political and economic tyranny began to surface in Europe. It was during the 17th and 18th centuries, a period called the Enlightenment, that specific attention was drawn by scientific discoveries to the workings of natural law. This, in turn, seemed to imply the existence of natural rights with which the state should not be allowed to interfere. By the time of the American and French revolutions, a complete turnaround had taken place in the relationship of governments to human rights. The point of view elaborate d by the American Founding Fathers, as well as by the French revolutionaries, is that government's purpose is to protect and defend rights, not to dispense or exploit them. James Madison went so far as to assert that “as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights.” And further, “Government is institute d to protect property of every sort.” The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (France, 1789) states that, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights,” and “The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and inprescriptible rights of man.” Such advanced views of human rights were not without their critics. From the end of the 18th century through the third decade of the 20th, outspoken and influential theorists attacked the human-rights concept. Edmund Burke in England denounced what he called “the monstrous fiction” of human equality. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated that only imaginary rights can be derived from a law of nature. These thinkers were joined, in the course of 100 years, by Bentham's disciple John Stuart Mill, the French political theorist Joseph de Meistre, the German jurist Friedrich Karl von Svaigny, the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, and others. By 1894 the British writer F.H. Bradley could exalt the concept of statism by saying: “The rights of the individual today are not worth consideration.  . . . The welfare of the community is the end and is the ultimate standard.” The critics, however, were going against the tide of history. In the United States and many parts of Europe, there was distinct progress in the development of human rights. These instances might not have been sufficient without the laboratory of human rights abuse that Nazi Germany provided for all the world to see. The appalling crimes against humanity, most evident in the extermination of millions of people in concentration camps, horrified the civilized world and helped bring human rights to their present level of acceptance. The general acceptance of human rights led to a widespread agreement on certain fundamental assumptions about them:

· If a right is affirmed as a human right rather than a civil right, it is understood to be universal, something that applies to all human beings everywhere.

· Rights are understood to represent individual and group demands for the sharing of political and economic power.

· It is agreed that human rights are not always absolute: they may be limited or restrained for the sake of the common good or to secure the rights of others.

· Human rights is not an umbrella term to cover all personal desires.

· The concept of rights often implies related obligations.

Thomas Jefferson noted that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Therefore, if individuals would maintain their freedom, their duty is to guard against political, religious, and social activities that may restrict their rights and the rights of others. Acceptance of fundamental assumptions has not lessened disagreement on which rights can be classified as human rights. Historically the debate has been carried on about three categories: individual, social, and collective. Individual rights refers to the basic rights to life and liberty mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Social rights broadens this concept to include economic, social, and cultural rights. Collective, or solidarity, rights has come into prominence since the end of World War II, the collapse of old colonial empires, and the emergence of many new nation-states. These particular forms of rights are best described by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Individual rights. These rights were best described by the 17th- and 18th-century political theorists—such men as John Locke in England, Montesquieu in France, and Jefferson and others in the United States. They are the rights to life, liberty, privacy, the security of the individual, freedom of speech and press, freedom of worship, the right to own property, freedom from slavery, freedom from torture and unusual punishment, and similar rights as spelled out in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Basic to individual rights is the concept of government as a shield against encroachment upon the person. Little is demanded from government but the right to be left alone. Government is not asked for anything except vigilance in safeguarding the rights of its citizens.

Social rights. This concept of rights grew out of the socialist and Communist criticisms of capitalism and its perceived economic injustices: low wages, long working hours, unsafe working conditions, and child labor, among others. Social rights make demands on government for such things as quality education, jobs, adequate medical care, social-insurance programs, housing, and other benefits. Basically they call for a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of the individual and the family.

(From: Britannica Student Encyclopedia 2004 Children's Edition. 1994-2003)

Exercises:

1. Translate the words in bold.

2. Explain the underlined grammar phenomena.

3. Render the text.

4. Define the italicized notions.

5. How do you understand the fundamental assumptions, mentioned above?

6. Ask problem questions.

Text 2

Дата добавления: 2015-10-02