Three generations of human rights

The division of human rights into three generations was initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg. He used the term at least as early as November 1977.^[1] Vasak's theories have primarily taken root in European law, as they primarily reflect European values.

His divisions follow the three watchwords of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The three generations are reflected in some of the rubrics of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

First-generation human rights

First-generation human rights deal essentially with liberty and participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature, and serve to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights include, among other things, freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion, and voting rights. They were first enshrined at the global level by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

See: Articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

When first generation human rights are limited this directly limits second generation rights. Improving first generation rights is the "causal link from first generation human rights to improved socio-economic outcomes".^[2]

Second-generation human rights

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by governments after World War I. They are fundamentally social, economic, and cultural in nature. They ensure different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment. Secondary rights would include a right to be employed, rights to housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits. Like first-generation rights, they were also covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

See: Articles 22 to 27 of the Universal Declaration, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Third-generation human rights

Third-generation human rights are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and social, as expressed in many progressive documents of international law, including the 1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and other pieces of generally aspirational "soft law." Because of the principle of sovereignty and the preponderance of would-be offender nations, these rights have been hard to enact in legally binding documents.

The term "third-generation human rights" remains largely unofficial, and thus houses an extremely broad spectrum of rights, including:

• Group and collective rights
• Right to self-determination
• Right to economic and social development
• Right to a healthy environment
• Right to natural resources
• Right to communicate and communication rights
• Right to participation in cultural heritage
• Rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability

Criticism

This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (December 2008)

Libertarians and others sharing laissez-faire philosophy see second and third generation human rights as an attempt to cloak political goals in the language of rights, thus (a) granting certain political goals inappropriately positive connotations; (b) advancing the power of governments and NGOs while (c) diminishing the legitimate negative rights of individuals who are coerced by state power into funding or otherwise providing certain services (for example, a "right to employment" necessarily means that individuals may be forced to provide employment to others, and/or may be forced to pay additional taxes to governments to monitor and administer programs.)^{[citation needed]}

19th century philosopher Frederic Bastiat summarized the conflict between these negative and positive rights by saying:

Responses to Criticism

Jeremy Waldron says in response to critics of the second-generation rights, that;

"In any case, the argument from first-generation to second-generation rights was never supposed to be a matter of conceptual analysis. It was rather this: if one is really concerned to secure civil or political liberty for a person, that commitment should be accompanied by a further concern about the conditions of the person's life that make it possible for him to enjoy and exercise that liberty. Why on earth would it be worth fighting for this person's liberty (say, his liberty to choose between A and B) if he were left in a situation in which the choice between A and B meant nothing to him, or in which his choosing one rather than the other would have no impact on his life?" ^[4]

See also

• Two Concepts of Liberty: a lecture by Isaiah Berlin which distinguished between positive and negative liberty.

Notes

1. ^ Karel Vasak, "Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to give Force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", UNESCO Courier 30:11, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, November 1977.
2. ^ D. Kaufmann • Chapter in Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement • Edited by Philip Alston and Mary Robinson. Human Rights and Governance: The Empirical Challenge http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20771260~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html
3. ^ Bastiat, Frédéric (1995, originally written 1850). "The Law". Chapter 2 in Selected Essays on Political Economy". Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss2.html. Retrieved 2009-01-20. 
4. ^ Jeremy Waldron, 1993. Liberal Rights: Collected Papers, page 7, 1981–91. ISBN 0-521-43617-6

External links

• Indivisibility and interdependence of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, UN GA resolution, 1986