Content
- Introduction
- The concept of human rights
- Linking human rights and the capability approach
- Human rights approach to poverty reduction
- Taking a Human Rights Approach to Social Protection
- Incorporating welfare rights in the human rights debate
Introduction
The concept of human rights
Human rights can be regarded as being just as significant as civil and political liberties since they have both civil and political elements. A country must acknowledge the social components of human rights, which include advancing equality and freedom as well as respect, dignity, and autonomy.
Human rights are generally understood to be a claim to fundamental rights that everyone should have access to under the guiding principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Some of the widely accepted ideas that underlie human rights in this context are universal, meaning that they apply to everyone merely by virtue of their humanity.
All economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to social security and the right to health, must at the very least be satisfied to the basic minimal standards for all members of society. These minimal standards are necessary to provide an appropriate standard of life for all members of society through basic sustenance, vital primary healthcare, basic shelter and housing, and fundamental kinds of education. This is true even in cases of severe resource shortages since the state is still required to make use of all resources at its disposal in order to safeguard the most vulnerable and marginalised members of society. This goal should be accomplished as soon as possible by low-cost focused programmes. The advantages of human rights should be enjoyed on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, which remains a fundamental value. Every human being is entitled to all rights and freedoms, according to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." According to international human rights law, States are required to end direct and indirect discrimination in law and practise when it has the intention or effect of eradicating or impairing the equal enjoyment of rights based on race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, health status (including HIV/AIDS), sexual orientation, and civil, political, social, or other status. Additionally, it mandates that states prioritise taking extra efforts to safeguard the population's most vulnerable groups. In contrast to formal equality, which refers to the adoption of laws and policies that treat everyone equally, substantive equality is concerned with the results and outcomes of these laws, policies, and practises, and is particularly concerned with ensuring that they do not maintain but rather lessen the inherent disadvantage that particular groups experience. Therefore, all social security policies and programmes must respect, protect, and fulfil the rights of marginalised and disadvantaged groups, ensuring non-discrimination and equality. Policy makers must also work to rectify the effects of past discrimination, social norms, and power dynamics that contribute to inequality. In addition to these fundamental ideas, it is widely acknowledged that human rights are inalienable since they cannot be taken away or transferred.
Human rights are indivisible and interdependent as one cannot prioritise or choose between economic, social, civil, or political rights over other rights, and since all civil, social, and political rights are intertwined and dependent on one another in order to be fully realised.
Human rights are a topic of international law, therefore although nation states are obligated to uphold them, it is also the obligation of civil society groups, business, and other similar institutions to do the same.
Linking human rights and the capability approach
Amartya Sen investigated the connections between human rights and development, contending that while rights increase people's freedom, development increases their capacity.
The freedom to pursue such goals is therefore necessary for human growth even though human rights may be represented as goals for human functioning.
According to him, the concepts of rights and abilities are very different since one emphasises the opportunity component of freedom while the other emphasises the process part. Some fundamental tenets of equality may be broken if we only concentrate on ability. For instance, even though both have the capability, one does not even have the option of free choice to move around freely and as a result lacks a basic human right, if there are two people who dislike going out but one of them is unable to go out because they are placed under house arrest by the government for some reason. Therefore, in order to assure actual fairness, one must consider both the context and the competence.
The sensitivity to means is another distinction between the two methods. The human rights approach frequently fails to take into account the differences in means requirements, but the concept of capacity does. For instance, two persons with the identical right to freedom of movement might need to use different methods for that person who is handicapped or blind in order to exercise that right. The concept of capacity recognises that in order for a blind person to genuinely enjoy the same right, they would need some enabling factors, such as specific signals, technological support, etc.
Therefore, all institutional frameworks, such as the economic, social, political, or cultural institutions that may undermine or promote the fulfilment of these rights, are analysed when speaking about human rights in the context of human development or from its viewpoint. Amartya Sen created human rights concepts based on the capacity approach, in which he acknowledged the value of each person on an equal basis. Similar to this, the capacities approach offers a broad framework for comprehending and evaluating equality in light of human rights values. It emphasises what individuals value most, takes into account different demands, and calls attention to institutional and structural obstacles that stand in the way of their values.
Therefore, both methods are actually complimentary to one another, and if they are developed together, it is possible to increase human capacities as well as create social structures that protect people from suffering and enable them to live lives of dignity and worth.
- Human rights draws attention to the accountability of governments and other institutions to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people.
- The idea of human rights requires a large set of legal and political instruments to be enforced so that people’s freedom may be secured.
- Human rights additionally, add moral legitimacy to the objectives of human development. For instance, the right to education, health, etc as mandated by international law, gives moral legitimacy to the objective of development such as promoting people’s education and health and so on.
- The idea of human rights draws attention to those who lack it, therefore giving human development a sense of prioritization.
- Similarly, human development contributes to human rights by focusing attention on the socio-economic context that may hinder or help fulfill rights. It tries to mobilize resources and modify the constraint causing institutional factors in order to guarantee human rights, since legislation alone may not be sufficient.
Human rights approach to poverty reduction
According to Amartya Sen, who saw poverty as a deprivation of capabilities, incentive structures must be established with suitable rules to encourage participation in order to advance human development.
While providing selective and conditional social safety nets and social assistance, the popular discourse on reducing poverty continues to support the liberalisation of trade and financial markets, privatisation and deregulation of economic production, the creation of flexible labour markets, low public spending, and low taxation.
Poverty is seen as the antithesis of growth and results from both economic failure and the infringement of social rights. Therefore, if it is believed that poverty violates human rights, the human rights approach can help by politicking and bridging the gap between the promises made by international human rights instruments and the reality of global poverty.
Although a major indicator of extreme poverty is a lack of income, the human rights approach does not view poverty just as the result of economic hardship but also recognises that poverty implies enormous and intertwined social, cultural, and political hardships.
Even while it may not be a violation of human rights per se, poverty has been shown to be a substantial cause and result of breaches of human rights, and as a result, it is seen as a serious human rights concern. As a result, efforts to end extreme poverty must be supported by human rights norms and principles that have the potential to direct efforts to reduce, and ultimately eradicate, poverty. There are clear connections between human rights violations and the economic, social, cultural, and political deprivations that characterise poverty. In order to empower individuals who have rightful claims to rights, a focus on rights and duties helps to determine who is entitled to make claims and who has a duty to take action. Individuals are seen to be right-holders under the concept of human rights, while States and other actors are considered to be duty-bearers who are responsible and may be held accountable for their deeds or inactions. This assists in regulating the use of power and guarantees that individuals in positions of authority are accountable to those in less powerful positions. In this regard, the accountability principle, which is ingrained in human rights, has the potential to empower those who are poor and facilitate their visibility, ensuring that they receive the most benefit from public policies aimed at eradicating poverty rather than being passive recipients, by granting them the status of rights holders who can exercise their entitlements. This is also one of the factors that makes the human rights approach potentially more successful in reducing poverty while also ensuring that development is fair and long-lasting.
Taking a Human Rights Approach to Social Protection
The human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework designed to advance and defend human rights. It is based on international human rights norms. This framework makes it easier to analyse responsibilities, disparities, and vulnerabilities. It is also used to fight against unfair power dynamics and discriminatory actions that impair human rights. Plans, strategies, and initiatives built on the human rights perspective are rooted in a set of rights, and the related duties are outlined by international law. One of the few key elements of a human rights-based approach is that the fulfilment of human rights must be the main consideration when formulating policies and programmes. This strategy outlines both the responsibility bearers and their duties as well as the rights holders and their entitlements. It aids in building the capacities of the right holders, enabling them to make demands and hold responsibility bearers responsible for upholding their duties. The human rights approach entails the application of the core human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination, participation, transparency, and accountability to the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of social protection systems. These principles include accessibility, adaptability, acceptability, adequacy, and the incorporation of the gender perspective.
The implementation of human rights for the poorest and most vulnerable people might be supported by social protection policies and programmes. This is especially true when the variety of social protection instruments (such as insurance plans, public works projects, food assistance, targeted cash transfers, or social funds) are viewed as being founded on social justice and the equal rights and entitlements of those who benefit from social protection policies and schemes rather than on humanitarian concerns or charity. Both strategies can be viewed as complimentary and mutually reinforcing from this angle. States are legally required to adopt a human rights approach to guide the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of social policies that must reflect in the social protection programmes as a result of the United Nations' emphasis on human rights.
- a) Human rights standards assist in building social consensus and mobilizing commitments as well as efficient use of resources at the national and international level.
- b) It improves accountability as responsibilities are defined along with legal obligations
- c) Social protection programmes designed keeping in mind the human rights perspective is more likely to be sustainable and effectively contributes towards the eradication of poverty
- d) It empowers those living in poverty and gives the issue and those dealing with it more legitimacy as the norms and values are universally accepted
Incorporating welfare rights in the human rights debate
The politics of needs interpretation emphasises the possibility of claiming unique human needs as rights through identity-based fights for recognition. Effective involvement and interaction between diverse social groups are necessary to make this achievable. The fact that the private needs of oppressed groups become increasingly apparent and prominent is also an essential prerequisite. Therefore, this can become a way to participate in the global human rights agenda. Additionally, it may offer a more official and organised framework for the delivery of such rights.
Posner (2008) contends that due to its many benefits, attention should be given to human wellbeing rather than human rights. He contends that compared to the different rights specified in the human rights treaties, governments that work to improve the welfare of the populace have a larger support base. Additionally, he thinks that human rights treaties are too vague and restrictive, making it impossible for governments to adopt and carry out sensible policies that advance welfare at the expense of rights, and that these treaties do not provide sufficient guidelines and rules to govern how states may compromise on rights. He goes on to suggest welfare treaties as a substitute that would offer direction and verifiable indicators of compliance. There is a lot of confusion over which rights are human rights, and even which human rights should take precedence, which makes things difficult in real life.
Therefore, human welfare treaties should be enacted since they would compel nations to uphold a specific standard of citizen wellbeing and even to encourage it. States would be free to experiment and to take use of whatever is special about their resources and institutions, and such treaties would not oblige them to adopt any specific actions in order to improve wellbeing.