An Article On Human Rights

The development of a human rights policy in the EU has been a long and often undocumented journey. The sectoral approach of the Paris Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 had an economic and functional intention, lacking a declaration of fundamental rights, as seen in national constitutions. It was not until the 2000 Nice Summit that the European Union first established a written charter, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, explicitly stating and guaranteeing human rights in the European Union. Documented EU human rights policy before 2000 can be seen primarily in two ways:

In spite of the well-documented existence of health inequity in Canada, progress in assigning accountability for achieving health equity has been slow. The purpose of this project is to support work to operationalize the right to health by clarifying legal obligations and responsibilities of governments, promoting accountability, and identifying remedies.

Human rights are protected under Australian law in three key ways; statute law, the constitution and common law. It could be argued that if Australia adopted a bill of rights, human rights would be more clearly defined, consistent in all states and territories and more easily understood.

However, a few contradictions abound: as this article shows, rights discourse has been used to attempt to advance arguments that will actually allow access to private or semi-private health insurance in ways that may exacerbate disadvantage (Canada and Israel); it is used to expand access to medications to the middleclass, sometimes (arguably at least) at the expense of the poor (Brazil);7 and it competes with other rights (especially intellectual property within the trade regime).8 Also, there have been attempts (even if those ultimately failed) to use rights arguments in order to undermine the expansion of access to health care under President Obama’s health care reform in the U.S.9 This is in addition to the “medicalization” of the right to health, i.e., the frequent focus on health care rather than on social determinants of health such as education, nutrition, and housing.10 While there has been growing attention in recent years to some of these contradictions,11 this article focuses on the first of them: the contradiction between on the one hand the ability of the right to health to reinforce privatization and commodification of health care, by rearticulating claims to private health care in terms of human rights, and on the other hand, its ability to reinforce and reinstate public values, especially that of equality,12 against the background of privatization and commodification.13 As will be discussed throughout the article, claims of access to private or semi-private

Executive Summary Many argue that health care is a basic necessity and based on the concept of equity and justice, the government should provide this facility so that no individual is unable to treat his illness and live a healthy life due to his financial background. However, this is conflicted by people who suggest that under utilitarianism and altruisms, the government needs to make a decision which is better for the society and not just take the moral high ground. Background Health care, by many, is considered a basic necessity and many people argue that it should be covered by government and every individual regardless of their financial background should not be denied the right to health care services. Yet, many governments either only provide health care to its own citizens or do not provide free health care at all and support this claim through various arguments that we will further dwell into.

Eva Brems, 'Enemies or Allies? Feminism and Cultural Relativism as Dissident Voices in Human Rights Discourse.' (1997), Human Rights Quarterly.

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

The Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945, defines sovereignty as the state having complete power to enact legislation regarding “all property, events, institutions, and persons” living inside its borders. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the following definitions of sovereignty that can be used in this context. They are, rule and existing as an independent state and supremacy in respect of power, domination, or rank; supreme dominion, authority, or rule. Inherent in the definition of sovereignty is independence and the ability to make decisions without consultation or being overruled by anyone or entity. In the United States Native American tribes or nations are sovereign. Native Americans retain political

Glendon, Mary Ann (2002). A world made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House. ISBN

It seems pretty standard that human rights should be applied, under any circumstance, to every member of the human race. Unfortunately, even in the year 2017, this is rarely always the case. There are many factors that decide whom gets treated with respect and whom is still seen as a lesser human being and more often than not the middle and lower classes in societies are left to their own devices in terms of trying to strive for equality. This notion is not only unnerving but massively disappointing in a day and age where equal rights for all humans should not only be expected but also enforced at all times no matter the given situation. “The idea that the protection of human rights knows no international boundaries and that the international community has an obligation to ensure that governments guarantee and protect human rights has gradually captured the imagination of mankind. Today violators of human rights can no longer count on one or the other superpower to shield them against international condemnation.” (Buergenthal, 1)

The rights of the individual are rights which we receive when being born, we have these rights in order to protect ourselves, to give no one person absolute power, and to be ‘free’. Freedom is one of the most important aspects of society. This was shown by Locke with him believing that we should all have our own rights that no one can take away. This was an ideology that could protect individuals freedom from each other as well as corrupt state.

How successful were Hobbes and Locke in their attempts to justify the existence of Human Rights?

[‘Human rights’ are a series of basic rights afforded to all human beings and officially adopted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), created in 1948.

The notion of universal human rights is a fairly new concept, coming into existence only after the Second World War as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The system of rights was premised on the main assumption that since no one could control his or her birth, it should then follow that everyone should have a birthright to be protected from certain ills, or guaranteed certain liberties.

My assignment will be a discussion about Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the HRA 1998. I will explore the article and define it in detail. I will explain why this article is particularly important for a Police officer/Investigator dealing with an offender from the beginning of a case until a court appearance. Furthermore I will discuss the possible consequences if the Police officer/Investigator fails to comply with Article 6. Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) has been developed over centuries, originally copied from sources such as the “Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the common law.” (Fair Trial, 2014) But is now Article 6. Article 6 derived from the European convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and was signed in Rome (Italy) on 4 November 1950 by 12 member states of the Council of Europe and entered into force on 3 September 1953. Article 6 was created during the aftermath of World War Two, when motivated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universal Declaration of Human Rights “proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;” (Rights) It was thought to be a wider response of the Allied Powers in distributing a human rights agenda, in the hopes that the violations of human