What Are Human Rights?

Question

What are human rights, and why have they become the dominant moral language of global politics? The question arises because human rights are universally invoked but deeply contested in their philosophical foundations, scope, and application.

Quick Answer

Human rights are rights that belong to every human being, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. They are universal, inalienable, and indivisible. The modern human rights system is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which was adopted in response to the atrocities of the Second World War. The Declaration includes both civil and political rights (such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly) and economic, social, and cultural rights (such as the right to education, healthcare, and work). The philosophical question is: what is the foundation of these rights? Are they grounded in human nature, in rational autonomy, in capabilities, or in international agreement?

Historical Wisdom

The human rights tradition has deep roots in the natural rights philosophy of John Locke and Thomas Paine. Locke's theory of natural rights — life, liberty, and property — was the foundation of the American and French Revolutions. Paine's The Rights of Man (1791) defended the French Revolution and argued that human rights are the foundation of democratic government.

The modern human rights movement was born in response to the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was the first international statement of the rights that belong to all human beings. It was followed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), which together form the International Bill of Human Rights.

Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) offered a profound critique of the human rights tradition. Arendt argued that the stateless person — the refugee — is deprived of the 'right to have rights.' The right to belong to a political community, she argued, is more fundamental than any particular right.

Philosophical Perspectives

The philosophical foundations of human rights are contested. The natural law tradition grounds human rights in the nature of human beings as rational and social creatures. The Kantian tradition grounds human rights in the autonomy and dignity of rational agents. The capabilities approach, developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, grounds human rights in the conditions for human flourishing. The political approach, associated with John Rawls, treats human rights as a set of urgent rights that set limits on the internal sovereignty of states.

Critics of human rights include cultural relativists, who argue that human rights are a Western imposition on non-Western cultures; utilitarians, who argue that the language of rights is too rigid; and Marxists, who argue that human rights are bourgeois rights that protect private property.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Locke: human rights are grounded in the natural equality and freedom of all human beings. From Paine: human rights are the foundation of democratic government. From Arendt: the most fundamental right is the right to belong to a political community. From Rawls: human rights set limits on state sovereignty. From Sen and Nussbaum: human rights are the conditions for human flourishing. From the critics: the philosophical foundations of human rights remain contested.

Practical Application

Human rights are central to international law, foreign policy, and global justice. They are invoked to justify humanitarian intervention, to hold governments accountable for their treatment of citizens, and to advocate for the rights of refugees, minorities, and vulnerable populations. The question — what are human rights? — is therefore a practical question about the minimum standards of justice that every government must meet.