Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Research Paper Example

History of Human Rights

In order to describe and fully understand conflict amongst nations with regards to human rights issues, it is essential to first understand what are human rights and civil liberties and what is meant by a sovereign government with relation to human rights. To discuss these issues we will look at both democratic societies such that exist in the United States and elective dictatorships that exist in the United Kingdom then examine other nations such as Africa and Sri Lanka.

In the United States human rights are governed and protected by the entrenched United States Constitution which affords us freedoms of speech, assembly, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  These rights are codified in the [1]Bills of Rights which are the first ten amendments.  They historically began in 1865 with the abolition of slavery and moved on to women’s suffrage in 1920.  The United States took a leading role in the United Nations with the creation of the [2]Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 20^th Century, yet has been criticised for its slow moving role in anti-discriminatory acts against equal participation in same sex marriages in a more recent trend.

The United Kingdom has no formal Constitution, rather an uncodified and transparent Constitution that leads way to reason why some call the UK an ‘elective dictatorship’.  The executive and legislative branches of government often overlap hence creating no true separation of powers.  The recent changes in government such as the [3]Constitutional Reform Act 2006 has enabled the judiciary to be reformed and make sections of the executive more accountable, but still Parliament still has true sovereignty. If there is a violation of Human Rights by a public body as per s.6(1) of the [4]Human Rights Act 1998 the Courts can only issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ and send the action to Strasbourg.  The judiciary cannot make a final decision.  It is up to the Highest Court to make that determination. There are other judicial systems in place such as Preliminary Reference and Judicial Review if a person feels their rights have been infringed by the government or a public body.

Law Regarding Infringement of Human Rights

“A claim for judicial review or preliminary reference may be brought against inferior courts, tribunals or any body or person performing public duties or functions. The powers exercised by those bodies or persons include powers derived from statute, powers derived from the prerogative or powers involving a sufficiently ‘public element’”. [5]“Constitutional Law”.  In [6]R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex p Lain [1967], the court established that judicial review was extended to bodies exercising powers under the royal prerogative rather than limited to bodies under statute only.  This extended the scope of parties that could make claim to infringement of human rights.  However, it should be noted that bodies exercising powers under the royal prerogative are amenable to judicial review only if the issues raised are ‘justiciable’.  Justiciable refers to a matter which is capable of being decided by a Court of law in contrast in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] [7]relates that issues of foreign policy, national security and military deployments are ‘injusticiable’ in a Court of law.

Datafin[8] stresses that in addition to looking at the source of the power the court must look at the nature of the power to determine if an infringement of human rights is actionable by judicial review or preliminary reference. Judicial Review is not available to challenge purely religious matters because this is not a government interest rather a personal interest. Religion is something to be encouraged but is not the business of government. Preliminary Reference is the action that would be taken to challenge an infringement of rights relating to religious matters. “See: [9]R v Chidef Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations ex p Wachmann [1992] where it was distinguished that there must be  a potentially governmental interest in the decision making power in question to warrant a judicial review decision.” [10]“Constitutional Law”.

It must be shown that there was some form of illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality involved with the human right’s infringement for it to be reviewable by a Court of Law.  This was established in Lord Diplock’s case[11] GCHQ.  Illegality means that the person who made the law must ‘give effect to it’.  Irrationality is the most difficult of the three to prove because it must be shown that the decision made is ‘so outrageous that it is in defiance of logic according to moral standards that no sensible person would have arrived at it.’.  It is also called ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’.  Procedural improprietary combines failure to observe basic ruses of natural justice or act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision.

Recent Conflicts Concerning Human Right in Africa

The government of the Democratic Republic of Conga has been investigating the rampant sexual crimes against women and children as part of its efforts to combat sexual violence.  Brutal inter-ethnic violence is becoming prevalent in volatile areas of the Jongeli state where 185 civilians were killed in August 2009. [12]“Human Rights Watch”.

Social marches against desperate social and economic situations because of sharp living costs and suppressed living conditions were brought to a halt after destruction of private and public property.  Security forces killed many who were involved in the marches claiming they had the right to a better standard of living including the right to food. “Protesters were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned and treated very badly while in prison. At no time were investigations conducted to determine if security forces were responsible human rights violations while responding to the protests.”[13] ”Africa: The State of Africa’s Human Rights”.

Human Rights Violations in Sri Lanka    

Through group mass site killings, starvation deaths and war crimes impending mass killings still continue in Sri Lanka camps. Amnesty International has sent joint letters to President Obama recently and five other rights groups urging public call for inquiry for mass killings that recently took place in Sri Lanka.  They also urged him to take steps to protect those in government run internment camps, numbering over 300,000. Government forces have repeatedly attacked ‘no fire’ areas such as medical hospitals despite their denial.  “The failure of the international community to take concrete action to protect civilians in Sri Lanka has given the green light to regimes around the world and has signalled that there is nothing that the international community will do when a government kills its own people under the cover of sovereignty.” [14]“Amnesty International USA”.

British Human Rights Judicial Applications

The Ministry of Defence made an attempt to violate a British soldiers human rights by making claim that his rights could only be protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 while he was ‘on military base’.  This has to do with jurisdiction issues.  Three senior judges rejected this claim and stated that soldier’s human rights must be protected by European human rights according to the EU treaty as per ECHR wherever they are deployed, even in battle. Judges made statement to the effect, “In our judgment it makes no sense to hold that he is not so protected when in an ambulance or in a truck or in the street or in the desert”. “Soldiers serve abroad as a result of, and pursuant to, the exercise of UK jurisdiction over them. Thus the legality of their presence and of their actions depends on their being subject to UK jurisdiction and complying with UK law.” [15]“Judges uphold British soldiers’ human rights – even in battle”.

Conclusion

It can be shown that in sovereign countries even with the most stringent laws to protect human rights there still appears to be infringements of human rights by public bodies. In some countries it is easier to judicially fight these infringements rather others more difficult because of political impositions in place.  There is continued effort through sovereign states and political influence through marches and government influence that continue to affect the violations. In some countries the efforts to stop violations will take much continued effort and support from other democratic nations including stricter legislation with respect to human rights enforcement.

[1] Bill of Rights

[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[3] Constitutional Reform Act 2006

[4] Human Rights Act 1998

[5] Routledge Cavendish (2009). Constitutional Law. London: Taylor and Francis Group

[6] R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex p Lain [1967]

[7] Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]

[8] Datafin

[9] R v Chidef Rabbi  of the United Hebrew Congregations ex p Wachmann [1992]

[10] Routledge Cavendish (2009). Constitutional Law. London: Taylor and Francis Group

[11] GCHQ

[12] Human Rights Watchhttp://www._hrw.org/en/africa>accessed 14 August 2009.

[13] Africa: The State of Africa’s Human Rights< http://allafrica.com/stories/200905280344.html>accessed 14 August 2009.

[14] Amnesty International USAhttp://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/sri-lanka/president-obama-urged-to-act-on-sri-lanka-by-six-rights-groups/page.do?id=1641050accessed 14 August 2009.

[15] Judges uphold British soldiers’ human rights – even in battle< http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/18/human-rights-army-jason-smith-inquest> accessed 14 August 2009.