Objectives of Human Rights Education

 Human Rights Education promotes respect for human rights of all individuals.
 It develops the knowledge, skills, and values of human rights.
 It develops the socio-psychological, human personality.
 It helps people and policy makers to evolve the ways and means to overcome the problems
of each nation and that of the International Community.
 It helps to foster understanding, tolerance, gender equality and
 Develops friendship among all nations and eliminates racial, ethnic, religious, and linguistic
differences.

A number of models are developed to impart the above values of human rights education.
Among the various models, the following three considered as the vital ones, to achieve the aims
and objectives of human rights.

1. Values and Awareness Model: This model focuses on transmitting basic knowledge of
human rights and to foster the integration into public values through a curriculum of
educational institutions.
2. Accountability Model: This model focuses on the ways in which professional
responsibilities to inculcate directly monitoring human rights violations and advocating
the authorities to protect the rights of the people.
3. Transformational Model: This model aims to empower the individuals in order to
recognize the abuses of human rights and their prevention.

These being the core concepts of human rights education, the UN has framed guidelines to
propagate human rights through various methods and means both in the International and
the National levels.

Summary:

o Value being an important aspect of life, it forms part of Law and Society. Value being
a central point regulates the relations between individuals; scholars have identified
number of points. By adhering to these points, an individual can achieve the goals in
life.
o Dignity being another aspect of value regulates the behaviour of individuals. The
human relations and the exercise of human rights depend on the dignity, is the most
important aspect in the basic rights of liberty, equality and freedom. The entire
human rights law has been developed basing on these aspects.
o Liberty is another important concept. According to various scholars, duty alone
protects the concept of liberty. It is this concept that has given a basis for right. If
liberty is not exercised properly, it will result in upsetting the applecart of rights.
Equality is an important component of human rights.
o Equality proposes to bring in all people under one category. Any kind of inequalities
are in existence, it is for the States to eliminate them through a legal mechanism.
This will result into a classless society.
o The aim of human rights is to do justice to every individual. In order to achieve
perfect justice, all the qualities of human kind and the values need to be followed by
every individual to achieve the realistic concept of justice.
 o Ethics deals with personal character of individuals. Morals lay emphasis on the social
system. The strict adherence of ethical practices alone makes a society healthy
which in turn could help the people to realise their human rights.
o There exist a number of differences between various individuals in a society.
However, obedience to human rights will result in living together with unity in
diversity among the individuals. The outcome of it will bridge the gap between
nation-states and to establish the concept of one world.
o Human Rights Education teaches us the practice of various values to be adhered. At
the same time, the knowledge of it, transforms individuals accountable for their acts
either at personal level or societal level. The knowledge of human rights would also
lead us to establish an orderly, peaceful, and friendly society both at the
international and national spheres.

Perspective of Rights

Etymology of `right':

The word which we use in the modern English terminology has its origin from the old English right or
reht. In the early periods, it had been used with different nomenclatures in various languages across
the World. Accordingly, it has gained a number of meanings, depending on the situation with a wide
variety of expressions. In the language of law, they are moral, ethical entitlements which need to be
conferred and exercised as framed by an authority of law.

Basing on the different expressions, there exist a considerable debate in the academic circles,
especially in the fields like, Political Science, Philosophy, Anthropology, and Law about the
foundation, meaning, and function of right in different contexts. Before discussing the various types
of rights, a simplified meaning and analysis is provided here for an easy understanding of various
facets of a right.

Meaning of a Right:

From a historical point of view, `right' in its objective sense is described as right or just actions that
individuals have to discharge to maintain harmonious relationships between themselves. In the
modern or subjective sense, its definition is long and divisive. Whatever may be the controversy, and
scholarly discussion that surrounds the historical origins, and the different meanings that `Right' has,
in general rights mean- a legal sanction or normative value.

Analysis of Right :

In its analytical perspective, “right” has two parts (form and function). One is the internal structure
of right (their form); and the other is what rights do for those who hold them (function). Accordingly,
right is a combination of claim and duty. This means a right confers certain liberties or privileges and
imposes duties upon individuals to exercise while claiming their rights. A number of jurists define the
concept of exercise of rights with duty as positive and negative rights. Accordingly, the person who is
possessive of positive rights entitled to provision of some goods or services. A holder of negative
right is entitled to non-interference. In the eyes of law, Right confers on a person certain amount of
liberties and privileges. At the same time impose obligations to discharge. Furthermore, possessing a
right should also enable a person to exercise it. This part of empowerment mechanism could be
achieved only by imparting the values of human rights education.
However, basing on the common usage of the term philosophers and political analysts in subjects
like philosophy, politics, law and logic et.al., have defined the rights in a number of categories.
Accordingly, rights may be broadly defined as

1) Natural Rights;

2) Legal Rights;

3) Claim rights;

4) Liberty Rights;

5) Positive Rights;

6) Negative Rights;

7) Individual Rights and

8) Group Rights.

Natural Rights:

The concept of Natural rights is closely associated with the philosophy or theory of Natural law.
According to this theory, nature or God alone regulates the wisdom and the activities of men. The
kings being the divine origin, as representatives of God, the rules framed by them were considered
divine in nature. But in the age of enlightenment ( or Age of Reason) of the eighteenth century a
number of Western advocators like, Hobbes, Locke, Hugo Grotius, Rousseau, Samuel Pufendorf,
et.al., challenged the origin of divine concept to natural law.

A natural right is nothing but, rights based on just, fair and reasonable. This means, the individuals
unite themselves to form political societies through mutual consent, and agree to form a
government of their own. It will enable them to lead their life through common rules and regulations
framed by either them or their representatives. At the same time, they accept a set of legal and
moral duties to be observed or bound by them in the exercise of their rights in order to live in peace
and security without any violence.

However, this being the central philosophy advocated by all philosophers of natural law, there is a
difference of opinion that exists among them. A section of modern naturalists argue that since
human rights are closely associated with the concept of natural rights, there exist no difference
between natural and human rights;

both are one and the same. But some traditionalists argue that since natural rights are not framed
by men and are the dictates of right of reason of nature, both cannot be equated. According to
them, since natural rights are being above the power of any authority either state or international
bodies, and are universal in nature, they cannot be equated with human rights, because they are
adapted by human society through an international body and not of divine origin.

A close examination of both the above pictures clearly explains the theoretical differences. In a
simple manner, natural rights essentially are the Life, Liberty and Freedom that an individual possess
and the way to live without any disturbance or interference by others. Accordingly, by birth, the
rights are inherited with the body of the individual as the gifts of God or nature. Hence, they are
inherent or inalienable rights.
The second picture explains the arguments of the modern natural philosophers' view that though a
human being is born with free will, as a social animal one has to have minimal limitations in the
exercise of their natural rights. Because, man himself created the modern concept of state, they
have to adhere to the laws framed by the state, so as not to disturb the rights of others. These rights
are otherwise referred to as Legal Rights that are sanctioned by the authority of law which entitles a
claim to an individual to have his rights enforced legally.

Legal Rights:

Legal Rights means, rights that are guaranteed to citizens of a country by law to enjoy certain
freedoms without any fear or favour. Legal rights also referred to as statutory rights, bestowed by a
particular government to the governed and are relative to specific cultures and governments. These
rights are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body. These rights may differ
from country to country depending upon the constitution and culture that they adopted.
Nevertheless, at the same time legal rights impose an obligation on other people not to exceed the
prescribed limits of law.

Claim Rights and Liberty Rights

Claim rights means, the rights that impose an obligation on another person to respect the right of
the other person. Liberty rights means, rights that are to be exercised at free will by the holder of
rights, without any obligation on another person in exercise of his/her right.

For example, a person has liberty to speak freely as he likes, is a liberty right. But at the same time, if
it affects the rights or hurts the reputation of another person, then it turns into a claim right. A
section of philosophers drew a distinction, which is thin and narrow between positive and negative
rights.

Positive And Negative Rights

Positive rights means, rights for which a person is expected to discharge some service or to do good
independently or to the society as a whole. Negative rights impose an obligation on others not to
interfere with the liberty or independence of another holder of rights. In the language of law since
both rights are passive rights, it is difficult always to classify these rights in a strict sense. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has both the characteristics of Positive and Negative
rights. Many scholars argue that since there is a co-existence between the two concepts; a
distinction is not necessary.

Examples for Positive Rights: These rights normally impose duty either on the state or on society or a
group of individuals in satisfying the claims of owners of rights, (for example) Right to Education,
Right to Health, Social Security etc. In the Indian context these are described as the Directive
Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of India. It is not easy to achieve this category of
rights as they depend on various factors including the resources. These rights are referred as
Economic, Social and Cultural rights in the language of human rights.

Negative Rights Examples: The rights normally impose a duty on every individual as a moral and
legal obligation to refrain from causing injury to the exercise Introduction to Human Rights & Duties
of the right of other person. Right to freedom of speech and expression, right to life and liberty, right
to equality, right to property, right to be heard right to speedy trial and justice, right to worship,
freedom of religion, right to legal remedy etc. are referred to as Civil and Political Rights in the
UDHR.
Individual and Group Rights

Individual rights mean the rights that belong to an individual alone. These rights are mainly political,
economic, or legal in nature. These rights can be exercisable by individuals to enjoy their life and
liberty without any interference of anybody including the state. However, the individual rights have
positive and negative elements. Positive element obligates a person to discharge the right according
to law. The negative element prohibits any act that is not permitted by law.

Group Rights means rights that are enjoyed by a group and as well as individually. For example, the
rights of disabled persons are considered as group rights. They promote the rights of the disabled as
a group. At the same time, an individual disabled person also could claim the rights independently of
the group.

From the above brief discussion, a right may be defined as something that one possess to exercise
either naturally, legally, or socially with a moral/legal duty to act without violating the right of
others. Accordingly, a right has five elements in it. They are:

1. A right holder ( which the subject of a right) has claim to

2. Some substance of it ( the object of right)

3. Which he or she may assert, demand, enjoy or enforce (exercising a right)

4. Against some individual or group ( the bearer of the correlative duty)

5. Citing in support of his or her claim on some particular ground (the justification of a right)

Universal Rights

Universal rights means rights that every individual would able to exercise their freedoms irrespective
of their country of origin, residence freely without any interference by the state or any other person
subject to legal limitations. These rights promote the dignity and the worth of an individual at all
times. Hence, they impose obligations on every state to protect and promote the dignity and the
freedom of individuals without any discrimination as to race, sex, language, or religion. Since these
rights are the minimal in the life of an individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the former President of
USA in his joint address to the US Congress on January 6,1941 advocated freedom of speech,
freedom of worship, freedom from fear and freedom from want as the basic principles for the worth
and dignity of an individual.

Basing on the above principles, the ideology of freedom of the individual advocated for many
centuries. The United Nations in its Charter adopted on October 24, 1945 recognized human rights
as a part and parcel of international law. Accordingly, the concept of human rights took their birth in
international law. They in turn impose an obligation on every state to promote them without any
discrimination. These rights have been further elaborated through the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights adopted on December 10, 1948. Though there exists a difference of opinion about the
Universality of human rights between political philosophers and scholars of international law, in
view of their wide acceptance by 193 member states of the United Nations, they are no doubt
constituted as universal rights.

A right is that which a man demands from others justifiability. A responsibility is that which makes a
man accountable to his actions and consequences of his actions and conduct. A right can be moral,
ethical, legal or social or cultural. Rights are treated as moral when they are natural i.e. enhance the
existence. A rational right is justifiable and not emotive. A right has to be based on reasons and it has
to be always general.

Refersnce:

http://www.unipune.ac.in/pdf_files/Final%20Book_03042012.pdf

http://mls.org.in/books/h-2537%20human%20rights%20in.pdf