Human Rights...and Responsibilities

The laws in the UK recognise that all people have fundamental human rights. These rights apply regardless of race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other differences a person may have.

The rights do not have to be earned and are generally not lost on account of an individual's behaviour. For example, the fundamental human right not to be tortured is deemed to be universal and absolute. This means that there is no situation in which torture can be justified. The actions of the individual are, for these purposes, irrelevant. However, not all of these fundamental human rights are absolute or unlimited. For example, the right to freedom may be lost where an individual is convicted of a criminal offence resulting in a custodial sentence.

Who Has Responsibility for Upholding Human Rights?

The concept of fundamental and universal human rights raises the question as to who is responsible for ensuring that these rights are upheld. The United Nations (UN) monitors human rights in countries all over the world and deems responsibility for upholding human rights to lie primarily with national governments. A 1998 Declaration stressed the importance of this, but also recognised that individuals and organisations may also have responsibilities for upholding and promoting human rights. The Declaration was , at least in part, intended to protect human rights campaigners from persecution and also recognises the right of an individual to uphold human rights.

Do Human Rights Come with Responsibilities?

Generally, UK laws do not explicitly place a responsibility on private individuals to uphold the human rights of others. However, laws governing other issues may implicitly contain a prohibition on breaching an individual's human rights. For example, the laws against killing another person or stealing their property inherently contain a prohibition against breaching the associated human rights. Even if there is no law that specifically forces one individual to uphold the human rights of another, it does not necessarily mean that there is absolutely no reciprocal responsibility that comes with human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the UN in the wake of the Second World War. Three years after the end of the war, the world was still struggling to respond to the gross barbarity committed by human beings against other human beings during the war. In issuing the Declaration the UN sought to have its members arrive at a consensus on the basic human rights considered universal to all people.

The prime responsibility for upholding these rights was placed squarely on the member states themselves. However, the UN also called on member states to ensure that the Declaration was widely publicised – particularly in schools and educational establishments. This, surely, would have served two purposes: to make individuals aware of their own rights but also of the rights of those around them.

By being made aware, from an early age, that rights apply equally to all an individual may be encouraged to take responsibility for upholding the rights of others. Further, for a civilised society to function, it could be said that individuals should take responsibility for their own behaviour and the effect it has on others - at the same time as protecting their own human rights.

Arguments Against Human Rights Without Responsibilities

We hear more and more about human rights today – with critics of the current UK human rights law being just as vociferous as those seeking to uphold the rights contained in the existing legislation. The reciprocal responsibilities necessary for a humane society can sometimes be lost in the argument. One of the criticisms levelled against the UK's Human Rights Act – which brought European human rights law directly into effect in the UK – is that it does not specifically set out the responsibilities expected of individuals.

A delicate balance must clearly be struck if all people are to enjoy the benefits of living in a society which recognises the importance of fundamental human rights. There is more to this than trying to use human rights as a “get out of jail free” card or to assume that human rights law is only there to protect people who have breached other laws. However, if some human rights are considered to be fundamental and absolute there can be no automatic qualification that they are only absolute if certain conditions are satisfied.

The arguments for and against human rights laws will, undoubtedly, rage on. Meanwhile, the silent majority will probably be quietly happy that their human rights are upheld and continue to respect the human rights of those around them.