Human Rights Violations
A topic report presented to the 2015 National Federation of High Schools
Topic Selection Committee
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Summer 2016
Presented by:
Alena Kang-Landsberg (Student)
A&M Consolidated High School, College Station, Texas
Introduction
When I began looking at writing a topic based on human rights violations I quickly realized that human rights is an incredibly vague term. The typical definition of human rights is as follows;
Amnesty International USA. “Human Rights Basics.” Amnesty International, n.d..Web. 28 Jan. 2016
Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the foundation of the international system of protection for human rights. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10th, 1948. This day is celebrated annually as International Human Rights Day. The 30 articles of the UDHR establish the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of all people. It is a vision for human dignity that transcends political boundaries and authority, committing governments to uphold the fundamental rights of each person. The UDHR helps guide Amnesty International's work.
Hence, the definition of human rights is vague enough that a resolution without a large number of limiters would essentially have an infinite number of different AFFs. After all, the UN declared internet access a human right.
Jackson, Nicholas. "United Nations Declares Internet Access a Basic Human Right." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 3 June 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
A lengthy report(PDF) released by the United NationsFridayargued that disconnecting individuals from the Internet is a violation of human rights and goes against international law. "The Special Rapporteur underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression," according to the report's summary, "but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole." A BBC survey of 26 countries in March 2010 found that 79 percent of people believe access to the Internet is a fundamental right.The Democracy Report Released after the seventeenth session of the United Nations' Human Rights Council, the report "on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" comes on a day when its message couldn't be more important. It's the same day, Wired's Threat Level blog points out, that "an Internet monitoring firm detected that two thirds of Syria's Internet access has abruptly gone dark, in what is likely a government response to unrest in that country." The report's authors speak to a wider issue that we're currently facing, though; this isn't just a problem in Syria. "[T]he recent wave of demonstrations in countries across the Middle East and North African region has shown the key role that the Internet can play in mobilizing the population to call for justice, equality, accountability and better respect for human rights," the report notes. "As such, facilitating access to the Internet for all individuals, with as little restriction to online content as possible, should be a priority for all States." Of course, many of the dictators and leaders across the Middle East region that the report highlights recognized the power of the Internet early -- and attempted to cut it from their citizens' lives. But people, in most cases, found a way online. In Egypt, for example, we saw hundreds of individuals using old modems and telephone lines to route their traffic through a volunteer network around the globe. And we support them. A survey of 26 countries conducted by the BBC in March 2010 found that nearly four out of five people (79 percent, to be exact) believe that access to the Internet is a "fundamental human right." Some countries have taken things one step further. Estoniapassed a law in 2000, for example, that declared access to the Internet a basic human right. In 2009, France followed. Legislators in Costa Rica, in 2010, reached a similar decision. In 2009, Finland, the report notes, "passed a decree ... stating that every Internet connection needs to have a speed of at least one Megabit per second (broadband level)." There, should they need to, people will be able to organize even faster.
Thus, since ensuring adequate negative ground is already difficult with rights-based topics, and since the basis for the topic this year (2015-2016)--the right to privacy--already involve a human rights violation, I determined that the best course of action would be to limit the topic to specific categories of rights. Human rights are typically divided into the following categories
End Slavery Now. "Human Rights and Slavery." End Slavery Now, n.d.. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of gender, nationality, place of residency, sex, ethnicity, religion, color or and other categorization. Thus, human rights are non-discriminatory, meaning that all human beings are entitled to them and cannot be excluded from them. Of course, while all human beings are entitled to human rights, not all human beings experience them equally throughout the world. Many governments and individuals ignore human rights and grossly exploit other human beings. There are a variety of human rights, including: Civil rights(such as the rights to life, liberty and security), Political rights (like rights to the protection of the law and equality before the law), Economic rights (including rights to work, to own property and to receive equal pay), Social rights(like rights to education and consenting marriages), Cultural rights (including the right to freely participate in their cultural community), and Collective rights (like the right to self-determination).
These rights are generally grouped as civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights; and collective rights. I determined that the best categories to focus on are economic, social, and cultural rights for multiple reasons. Economic, social, and cultural rights provide important discussions on prominent problems such as poverty, health, and education. Additionally, a major problem with collective rights is that they have a complicated definition based on the group qua, as well as limited literature. Also, civil and political rights overlaps with this year’s (2015-16) surveillance topic as the right to privacy is an integral right within this category.
One might ask what the distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights is. In truth, the distinction is limited. However, although the distinction is somewhat artificial, there is a distinction upon which arguments can be made.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Frequently Asked Questions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights." Ohchr.org. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dec. 2008. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Are economic, social and cultural rights fundamentally different from civil and political rights? No. In the past, there has been a tendency to speak of economic, social and cultural rights as if they were fundamentally different from civil and political rights. However, this categorization is artificial and even selfdefeating. Why then do we often speak of “civil and political rights” and “economic, social and cultural rights” as separate categories of rights? Several reasons have led to this categorization, which has tended to obscure the elements that all rights have in common. First, the distinction was initially drawn for historical reasons. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made no distinction between rights, the distinction appeared in the context of the deepening cold war tensions between East and West. The market economies of the West tended to put greater emphasis on civil and political rights, while the centrally planned economies of the Eastern bloc highlighted the importance of economic, social and cultural rights. This led to the negotiation and adoption of two separate Covenants—one on civil and political rights, and another on economic, social and cultural rights. However, this strict separation has since been abandoned and there has been a return to the original architecture of the Universal Declaration. In recent decades, human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities have integrated all rights. Second, economic, social and cultural rights have been seen as requiring high levels of investment, while civil and political rights are said simply to require the State to refrain from interfering with individual freedoms. It is true that many economic, social and cultural rights sometimes require high levels of investment—both financial and human—to ensure their full enjoyment.However, economic, social and cultural rights also require the State to refrain from interfering with individual freedoms, for instance trade union freedoms or the right to seek work of one’s choosing. Similarly, civil and political rights, although comprising individual freedoms, also require investment for their full realization. For example, civil and political rights require infrastructures such as a functioning court system, prisons respecting minimum living conditions for prisoners, legal aid, free and fair elections, and so on.
Although many of the differences are perceptual, these differences still provide a stasis point for the debate as there are separate covenants to reference. The adoption of the separate covenants provides a fairly clear delineation of what economic, social, and cultural rights entail. Hence, I would advise, as a starting point for understanding economic, social, and cultural rights, examining the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. One can find said covenant in the appendix or at
Of course, there are other definitions and/or lists of economic, social, and cultural rights. The National Economic and Social Rights Initiative describes the following as some important economic and social rights.
National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. "Economic and Social Rights." . National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.
Human rights are based on principles of dignity and freedom. Both are severely compromised when human beings cannot meet their fundamental needs. Economic and social rights guarantee that every person be afforded conditions under which they are able to meet their needs. In particular, economic and social rights include: The Right to Education enabling all persons to participate effectively in a free society and is directed to the full development of the human personality. Learn more » The Right to Food guaranteeing freedom from hunger and access to safe and nutritious food. Learn more » The Right to Health ensuring the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health including access to care, nutrition, and clean water and air. Learn more » The Right to Housing ensuring access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable home with freedom from forced eviction. Learn more » The Right to Social Security guaranteeing that everyone regardless of age or ability to work has the means necessary to procure basic needs and services. Learn more » The Right to Work guaranteeing the opportunity to have fulfilling and dignified work under safe and healthy conditions with fair wages affording a decent living for oneself and one's family. It also provides for freedom from unemployment and the right to organize. Learn more »
In addition to the question of defining which human rights to use, there was also the question of the scope of the topic. After all, human rights are a worldwide issue, with human rights violations occurring around the globe on a daily basis. Hence, an international topic would clearly explode Affirmative ground. In addition, since the 2016-2017 topic is an international one, that would potentially allow repetition of cases within consecutive years. Thus the topic ought to be a domestic topic. Furthermore, human rights protection is definitely necessary in the United States.
Human Rights Watch. "World Report 2015: United States." Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 June 2016.
The United States has a vibrant civil society and strong constitutional protections for many basic rights. Yet, particularly in the areas of criminal justice, immigration, and national security, US laws and practices routinely violate rights.Often, those least able to defend their rights in court or through the political process—racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, children, the poor, and prisoners—are the people most likely to suffer abuses.
Dakwar, Jamil. "UN Issues Scathing Assessment of US Human Rights Record." Aclu.org. American Civil Liberties Union, 15 May 2015. Web. 21 June 2016.
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a scathing report today, consisting of 348 recommendations that address myriad human rights violations in the United States.The report came out as a part of a mechanism called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which examines the human rights record of all U.N. member states. The council questioned the United States on its record earlier this week. Although many of these recommendations in the report are redundant or too general to offer tangible solutions to the human rights situation in the U.S., they echo many of the concerns raised by U.S. civil society groups like the ACLU, who attended the review and offered concrete recommendations to reverse policies that are inconsistent with international human rights principles. For example, the report adopted a recommendation made by Sweden to "halt the detention of immigrant families and children, seek alternatives to detention and end use of detention for reason of deterrence." The report also adopted several recommendations calling on the Obama administration to independently investigate allegations of torture documented in the recent Senate torture report and provide reparations to victims. Denmark, for instance, recommended that the United States "further ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment — whether still in US custody or not — obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance." In addition, the report included many fitting recommendations to address police brutality and excessive use of force as well as ending racial profiling against minorities and immigrants. Mexico recommended that the U.S. "adopt measures at the federal level to prevent and punish excessive use of force by law enforcement officials against members of ethnic and racial minorities, including unarmed persons, which disproportionately affect Afro American and undocumented migrants." Ireland, for its part, directly touched on the broken trust between American law enforcement and communities of color and recommended that the U.S. "continue to vigorously investigate recent cases of alleged police-led human rights abuses against African-Americans and seek to build improved relations and trust between U.S. law enforcement and all communities around the U.S." While in some areas, like LGBT rights and freedom of speech, the United States' human rights record fares far better than other parts of the world, in many areas — including national security, criminal justice, social and economic rights, and immigration policy — the U.S. has an abysmal record compared to other liberal democracies. This report sends a strong message of no-confidence in the U.S. human rights record. It clearly demonstrates that the United States has a long way to go to live up to its human rights obligations and commitments. This will be the last major human rights review for the Obama administration, and it offers a critical opportunity to shape the president's human rights legacy, especially in the areas of racial justice, national security, and immigrants' rights. The Obama administration has until September to respond to the 348 recommendations. At that time, the administration will make a direct commitment to the world by deciding which of the 348 will be accepted and implemented over the next four years, and which will be rejected. While many of the recommendations fall outside the constitutional powers of the executive branch — such as treaty ratification and legislative actions on the national, state, and local levels — the Obama administration should use its executive powers to their fullest extent to effectuate U.S. human rights obligations. The U.S. record for implementing U.N. recommendations has thus far been very disappointing, but if President Obama really cares about his human rights legacy, he should direct his administration to adopt a plan of action with concrete benchmarks and effective implementation mechanisms that will ensure that the U.S. indeed learns from its shortcomings and genuinely seeks to create a more perfect union.