As the US electoral cycle heats up, we are hearing more discussion of human rights among candidates, political pundits, think tanks, journalists, and ordinary people. Needless to say, the term "human rights" like its counterpart, the term "democracy"can be mobilized for many purposes.

For example, some observers legitimize the war in the name of Iraq"s "right to democracy," while others criticize the war in the name of Iraq"s "right to national self-determination."

U.S. foreign policy has spawned considerable debate on the legitimacy of �humanitarian intervention". Under what circumstances is it permissible for the U.S. to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation? What are the limits of such interventions? What about the rights of people on the ground? These questions point to the need for further reflection on the nature and scope of human rights.

By custom, we tend to think of human rights as noble principles built into the major documents of the United Nations Organization (UN)�including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1976).

Fittingly, we tend to characterize such documents as reflections of the unrealized�or even utopian�aspirations of humankind. In the face of the turmoil that has accompanied globalization, we can�t be faulted for doubting the possibility of a universal regime of rights. We can�t be blamed for being skeptical about the prospects for a more just and peaceful global system. But we should not give up on the idea of human rights altogether.

• An appeal to a universal human substance�a common humanity�that transcends differences of economics, politics, culture, and religion
• An emphasis on the self-actualization of individuals, communities, and cultures
• A set of constraints on the powers of governments
• A set of social entitlements (health care, education, housing, employment, etc.)
• A collection of norms that inspire community groups, social movements, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to push for a more egalitarian and inclusive world

This list attests to the inextricability of individual and social rights. Spurred by poverty, political instability, social inequality, cultural exclusion, and environmental degradation across the global landscape, movements and NGOs are extending the concept of rights to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Groups of indigenous peoples, peasants, workers, women, lesbian and gay activists, immigrants, peace activists, environmentalists, and anti-corporate activists have piqued the interest of NGOs. As major players in the public sphere, these organizations cooperate and compete in the quest for new rights.

For example, some entities have argued that all human beings have the right to clean water, arable land, livelihood, lifeways, cultural identity, and even peace. Hence the question arises: What kinds of institutions do we need to ensure the realization of both individual and social rights on a global scale? This is the debate we ought to be having.

Dr. Mark Frezzo is Assistant Professor of Sociology and Associate Director of Peace Studies (undergraduate program) at Florida Atlantic University. He publishes and teaches in the areas of social movements, political economy, development sociology, and the sociology of human rights. He is a member of the Executive Board of the scholarly NGO Sociologists without Borders (http://www.sociologistswithoutborders.org/).

---

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.25 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."