PU Pol R

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY
CHANDIGARH

Topic : Rights
A project report to be submitted on the above topic in the subject of political science.
For the fulfilment of requirement of the syllabus of B.A. LLB(Hons.) 2nd Semester

Submitted To : Submitted By :
Dr. Sarabjit Kaur Name – Abhinav Jaspal,
Section – C, B.A. LLB,
2nd Semester
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has contributed to the
successful completion of my college project on rights in Political Science.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my instructor Dr. Sarabjit Kaur for providing
me with the necessary guidance and support throughout this project. Their insightful
comments and constructive criticism have helped me in improving the quality of my
work.
I would also like to thank my classmates for their valuable inputs, feedback, and en-
couragement that helped me gain new perspectives and insights on the topic of rights.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the UILS Department and Dr. Rajinder Kaur, Direc-
tor, UILS for their assistance in providing me with relevant and up-to-date resources
that were crucial for the completion of this project.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support, moti-
vation, and encouragement that helped me in overcoming the challenges faced during
the course of this project.
INDEX

1. Introduction
- Definitions
- Kinds of Rights
- Characteristics of Rights
- Rights in context of India

2. Historical Background
- Rights in Ancient Civilizations
- Rights in Ancient India
- Rights in Medieval India

3. Literature Review
- Laski’s Theory
- Marxist Theory

4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
6. References
I. Introduction : Rights
/rʌɪt/
Right, A title ? A privilege ? An Interest ?, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes ‘Rights’ as,
Entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be in certain states; or entitlements that others per-
form certain actions or be in certain states. It adds, ‘Rights structure the form of governments, the
content of laws, and the shape of morality as many now see it. To accept a set of rights is to ap-
prove a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must,
and must not be done.’

Definitions –

1) The Oxford English Dictionary defines “Rights held to be justifiably belonging to any per-
son”.

2) “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek in general, to be
himself at his best.” – Laski

3) “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfilment of man’s vocation as a moral being.” – T.H.
Green

4) “Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way.” - Andrew Heywood (Politi-
cal Theory)

Kinds of Rights –
A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dis-
solve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud
of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first
strike, to castle kingside, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one’s eyes, to pronounce
the couple husband and wife, to be left alone
To make sense of this profusion of assertions we can class rights together by common attributes.
Rights can be categorized, for example, according to:

• Who is alleged to have the right: Children’s rights, animal rights, workers’ rights, states’
rights, the rights of peoples.
• What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to
pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights.

• Why the right holder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights are grounded in moral reasons,
legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights exist by local convention.

• How the asserted right can be affected by the rightsholder’s actions: The inalienable right to
life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.

Understanding Rights and its nature, we come to realise that it’s not just limited to a sentence long
definition. In Fact, it has vast categories and further sub-categorizations of those categories. As is
discussed above, Rights can be derived from customs – the traditions that are being practiced since
the beginning of the time, or from the laws – such rights which are incorporated into constitution of
the state e.g., Fundamental Rights, Legal Rights, Further the rights which finds its origin in Natural
Law or the Law of God. Such Rights e.g., right to life, are not only protected by legal force and avail-
able to the citizens but a distinct nature of it is that it is extended to the non-citizens as well.
The Categories of Rights is discussed in detail below –
1) Natural Rights:
Many researchers have faith in natural rights. They stated that people inherit several rights
from nature. Before they came to live in society and state, they used to live in a state of na-
ture. In it, they appreciated certain natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty and
right to property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason. Political theory
maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no govern-
ment can deny these rights.

2) Moral Rights:
Moral Rights are based on human consciousness. They are supported by moral force of hu-
man mind. These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These are not assisted
by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public opinion are the sanctions behind moral
rights. If any person disrupts any moral right, no legal action can be taken against him. The
state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize these rights. Moral Rights
include rules of good conduct, courtesy and of moral behaviour.

3) Legal Rights:
Legal rights are those rights which are accepted and enforced by the state. Any defilement
of any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These
rights can be enforced against individuals and also against the government. In this way, legal
rights are different from moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. Le-
gal Rights are of three types:
• Civil Rights –
Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized
social life. These fulfil basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and equality
are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.
• Political Rights –
Political rights are those rights by virtue of which inhabitants get a share in the political pro-
cess. These allow them to take an active part in the political process. These rights include
right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold public office and right to criticise and oppose
the government. Political rights are really available to the people in a democratic state.
• Economic Rights –
Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These em-
power all citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of
every person are related to his food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment. Without the
fulfilment of these no person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore es-
sential, that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right to lei-
sure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical disability and old age.

3) Concept of Human Rights:


Human rights are those moral rights that are morally important and basic, and that are held
by every human being because they are possessed in virtue of the universal moral status of
human beings. Human rights are one of the significant aspects of human political reality. It is
the moral rights of highest order. Human Rights are evolved out of self-respect. It is intrinsic
to all humans without any discrimination of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, reli-
gion and colour etc. It received new shape when human beings began to think themselves.
Each and all human beings are entitled to these rights without any discrimination.

Characteristics of Rights –
1. Human rights are inalienable.
This means that you cannot lose them, because they are linked to the very fact of human
existence, they are inherent to all human beings. In particular circumstances some – though
not all – may be suspended or restricted. For example, if someone is found guilty of a crime,
his or her liberty can be taken away; or in times of national emergency, a government may
declare this publicly and then derogate from some rights, for example in imposing a curfew
restricting freedom of movement.

2. Human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.


This means that different human rights are intrinsically connected and cannot be viewed in
isolation from each other. The enjoyment of one right depends on the enjoyment of many
other rights and no one right is more important than the rest.
3. Human rights are universal,
Which means that they apply equally to all people everywhere in the world, and with no
time limit. Every individual is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction of
"race" or ethnic background, colour, sex, sexual orientation, disability, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, birth or other status.

Rights – in context of India


The Constitution of India makes provisions for basic rights also known as Fundamental Rights for its
citizens as well as for aliens. A distinction is made between Specific Fundamental Rights and Un-
specified Fundamental Rights. The rights enshrined in the Constitution also at times are at par with
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICPPR) which is an international treaty. The
ICCPR is applicable to States rather than to individual.
Therefore, rights enshrined therein become the obligation of a state only when they have been in-
corporated in the State’s internal law.
The Preamble to the Constitution pledges justice, social, economic and political, liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and of opportunity and fraternity assuring
the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation to aid its citizens. India was a
signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A number of fundamental rights guaran-
teed ta the individuals in Part III of the Indian Constitution are similar to the provisions of the Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights.
The following chart makes it very clear:

Civil and Political Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Indian Constitution

Article Declaration Constitution

Equality before law Article 7 Article 14

Prohibition of discrimination Article 7 Article 15(1)

Equality of opportunity Article 21(2) Article 16(1)

Freedom of speech and expression Article 19 Article 19(1)(a)

Freedom of peaceful assembly Article 20(1) Article 19(1)(b)

Freedom to form associations or unions Article 23(4) Article 19(1)(c)

Freedom of movement within border Article 13(1) Article 19(1)(d)

Protection ion respect of conviction for offences Article 11(2) Article 20


Protection of life and personal liberty Article 3 Article 21

Protection of slavery and forced labour Article 4 Article 23

Freedom of conscience and religion Article 18 Article 25(1)

Remedy for enforcement of rights Article 8 Article 32

Right against arbitrary arrest and detention Article 9 Article 22

The table below shows that most of the economic, social and cultural rights proclaimed in the Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights have been incorporated in part IV of the Indian Constitution

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Indian
Constitution

Article Declaration Constitution

Right to work, to just and favourable condition of work Article 23(1) Article 41

Right to equal pay for equal work Article 23(2) Article 39(d)

Article
Right to education Article 26(1)
21(a),41,45,51A(k)

Right to just and favourable remuneration Article 23(3) Article 43

Right to rest and leisure Article 24 Article 43

Right of everyone to a standard of living adequate for him


Article 25(1) Article 39(a), 47
and family

Right to proper social order Article 28 Article 38


II. Historical Background :
Human Rights in Ancient Civilizations
The United Nations pinpoint the origin of Human Rights to the year 539 BC. When the troops of Cy-
rus the Great conquered Babylon, Cyrus freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to
choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other precepts were recorded
on a baked-clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder, whose provisions served as inspiration for
the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Based on these decrees, civilizations in India, as well as Greece and Rome, expanded on the concept
of 'natural law' and society continued to make progress, leading to another cornerstone of the his-
tory of Human Rights. Already before 200 BC. most of the world’s major belief systems had been
founded: the Jewish faith (later developed into Christianity), Confucianism and Daoism in China,
Hinduism and Buddhism in India. 3th century BC – Equality, the idea that equality of rights applies
to all people is found in the Greek philosophy of the Stoics. They considered man and woman to be
equal. They argued for respect for women and children, for compassion and tolerance towards the
other, for inclusion of ‘barbarians’ into the human community. Some stoics considered slaves on
equal footing as well. From the 12th century, small parliaments were established in Scotland, Po-
land, the kingdom of León and Paris. Most conspicuous was the English Magna Carta of 1215, a con-
tract between the monarch and the (well-to-do) citizens who formed a ‘parlamentium’. the Magna
Carta of 1215, accepted by King John of England, considered by many experts as the document that
marks the start of modern democracy. Also known as the Great Charter, this document covered,
among other things, the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and estab-
lished principles of equality before the law
Human Rights in Ancient India
The concept of human rights is not alien to Indian political thinkers and philosophers. The concept
is as old as ancient civilization. In ancient India, law was based on the principle of Dharma. The Epics
Ramayana and Mahabharata make us learn that Dharma was ordained for the advancement of all
creatures as well as restraining creatures from injuring one another. The righteousness has been
described as the essence of Dharma in The Bhagwad Geeta. The Upanishads speak of Dharma as
the foundation of whole universe. The Vedas and Smritis talk about the concept of VasudhaivKu-
tumbakam (the whole world as one family). All the four Vedas insist on equality and dignity for hu-
mans. The teachings of Buddha worked effectively for the protection of human rights. The great
King Ashoka had been successful in the creation of a welfare state for his subjects and provided
them with basic freedoms and rights.
Hence, it is very much clear that Ancient Indian Literatures stood for enlarging and encouraging hu-
man rights, freedoms, liberty and equality for all people irrespective of any discrimination based on
caste, creed, gender, sex, religion.
Human Rights in Medieval India
The Medieval period signifies the Muslim era in India. The Pre-Mughal period saw the existence of
social, political, cultural, religious rights. But with the advent of Mughals, the concept of human
rights got lost in the dark. But Akbar's period (1526-1605) showed that the great regard was given
to the social, religious and political rights. In his religious policy Din-E-Ilahi (divine-religion), he tried
to preach the idea of secularism and religious tolerance. Similarly, various religious movements like
Bhakti (Hindu) and Sufi (Islamic) made remarkable contribution to the emergence of human rights
which at times suppressed by the other Mughal Emperors like Babar, Humayun, and Aurangzeb.
III. Literature Review –
There are several theories on this subject, all of which explores various elements of it and each the-
ory provides a peculiar perspective. For one, there is Utilitarian theory of Rights, although forms of
utilitarianism have been put forward and debated since ancient times, the modern theory is most
often associated with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) who developed the the-
ory from a plain hedonistic version put forward by his mentor Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832). It is a
theory of morality. It would say that an action is right if it results in the happiness of the greatest
number of people in a society or a group. However, there are many drawbacks of this theory as it
fails to take into consideration many key aspects and it can be said it put all of its focus on the out-
come as it is majorly inspired by consequentialism. A slightly different approach on the same sub-
ject matter can be observed in the deontological theory(Kantianism). Immanuel Kant, the theory’s
celebrated proponent, formulated the most influential form of a secular deontological moral theory
in 1788. Kant observes that what might be right for one may not be right for the other in a relatively
similar situation and hence it rules out the consequence factor and emphasize more on the morality
aspect.

Laski’s Theory of Rights


Harold Laski (1893-1950), a theoretician of the English Labour Party, an influential figure and crea-
tive writer of political science, who authored about 20 books, has expounded the theory of rights
and it is in many respects a classic representation. He describes rights as “those conditions of social
life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best”. Laski calls rights as condi-
tions of social life. Rights are a social concept and are deeply linked with social life. He places rights,
individuals and states on the same board in the sense that they cannot be separated from each
other and there is no antagonism between them. If Laski were to give rights to the individual, he
would give them in this order: the right to work, right to be paid adequate wages, right to reasona-
ble hours of labour, right to education, right to choose one’s governors, followed by other rights.
Laski’s argument is that without granting economic rights first, an individual cannot enjoy his politi-
cal rights: political liberty is meaningless without economic equality: ‘where there are great ine-
qualities, the relationship between men is that of the master and the slave’. Equally important, but
lower in order is the right to education: education alone helps an individual exercise these other
rights properly. With the economic and social (education rights) at one’s disposal, there is a greater
likelihood of the individual exercising his political rights in the right earnestness.

Marxist Theory of Rights


The Marxist theory of rights is understood in terms of the economic system at a particular period of
history. A particular socio-economic formation would have a particular system of rights. The state,
being an instrument in the hands of the economically dominant class, is itself a class institution and
the law which it formulates is also a class law. So considered, the feudal state, through feudal laws,
protects the system of rights (privileges, for example) favouring the feudal system. Likewise, the
capitalist state, through capitalistic laws, protects the system of rights favouring the capitalist
system. To secure rights for all in a class society, the Marxists argue, is not the object of the class
state; rather its aim is to protect and promote the interests of the class wielding economic power.
According to Marx, the class which controls the economic structure of society also controls political
power and it uses this power to protect and promote its own interests rather than the interests of
all.

All these theories attempt to explain and put forward their version of Human Rights, while one the-
ory bases its hypotheses wholly on the class division of the society the other proposes that Rights
exist because of society and that they were not there before the emergence of society. If viewed
collectively both the theories have completely different explanation for the same subject matter.
Laski’s theory of rights emphasises on the social aspect, it expounds that Rights are the require-
ment of Social Life of an Individual and that an Individual cannot be their best self in non-existence
of rights. It gives priority to the economic rights and holds a view that individuals or citizens can
only enjoy their political rights if they enjoy their economic rights first. Further, on legal theories of
rights, Laski examines the legal theory of the state. The central principle of the legal theory of rights
is that they completely depend upon the institutions and recognition of the state. An individual can-
not claim rights if those are not recognised by the state. Mere recognition, moreover, is not suffi-
cient for the exercise of rights. The state must, through law and institutions, implement the rights.
The theory emphasizes the relation between right and duty. He stated that Rights are correlative to
functions. The functional theory emphasizes that an individual is entitled to claim rights only when
he performs duty otherwise the claim or demand for right cannot be entertained.
Unlike Laski, who only talks about Rights in the context of society, Karl Marx presents and alto-
gether different approach on the same. He discusses Rights in context of economic system and how
the dominant class holds the power and create laws only to protect their interest. To secure rights
for all in a class society, the Marxists argue, is not the object of the class state; rather its aim is to
protect and promote the interests of the class wielding economic power.
However, as it is evident, that Marxist view Rights to be only as an outcome of class division and
class conflict. In my opinion He failed to view this subject in a bigger picture and only saw it as a
small part of something big which defeats the purpose of this hypotheses as the main subject i.e.,
Rights only seems to be a minor theme of the whole theory. Neither the economic factor alone pro-
vides the basis of society nor the superstructure is the reflection of only the economic base; non-
economic forces also play their role in determining the superstructure.
IV. Discussion –
Human rights are standards that recognize and protect the dignity of all human beings. Human
rights govern how individual human beings live in society and with each other, as well as their rela-
tionship with the State and the obligations that the State have towards them. The fact that our hu-
man rights aren't even 100 years old could surprise you. The horrible events of the Second World
War made it abundantly evident to everyone that people were not being treated equitably, as we
discussed in our open step. The wholesale murder of Jews during the Holocaust, as well as the
deaths of numerous people with disabilities and LGBTQ+ people, served as a sobering wake-up call
for international leaders. According to the Humanists in their open step on human rights, one of the
key reasons why human rights are so crucial is because they assist in shielding oppressed minority
against tyranny. Human rights make it harder for dictators and authoritarian governments to get
away with crimes against humanity, even while they still have a lot of authority over weaker popu-
lations. Oppressive leaders frequently don't want to risk harming their nation's reputation.
Beyond this, however, there are myriads of complex and diverse traditions of critique, with plenty
of internal contradictions.
Universalism critique including that of ‘cultural relativism’, is one of the main arguments against
human rights. This critique holds that human rights, as contained in the UDHR, dictates liberal,
Western values, and no space is allowed for ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘relativism’, or ‘contextualism’. It is
argued that, the human rights framework is inevitably contextualised within an essentially Western
and modernist framework.
Inability to take account of practical limitations and challenges – Another criticism views human
rights as moral idealism that fails to take account of realistic limitations and challenges. It is argued
that practical problems in ensuring adherence to human rights standards (for example, limited re-
sources and lack of capabilities) are often overlooked.
The effectiveness of human rights enforcement mechanisms has also been questioned. This is
mostly because states, tasked with the fulfilment and protection of rights, are the same actors who
decide on accountability and enforcement mechanisms. It makes sense to argue that states will be
reluctant to allocate sufficient resources and attention to a well-functioning system that will only
work to scrutinise their actions.
Limited contributions from other related disciplines, it is critiqued that only focussing on achieving
technical legal changes to further the protection of human rights, such as stronger legal protection
or constitutional reform, can come at the cost of advocating for social justice. In the past, law was
perceived as the primary mechanism for human rights protection, with the focus of literature on
the analysis of human rights legislation, treaties and conventions. Unfortunately, limiting the hu-
man rights framework in this manner limits the scope of its value in practice, as it leaves a variety of
other professionals such as social and community workers disempowered.
Regardless of all the criticisms, Human Rights are of great significance, it is the only armour a citizen
has against the oppressive forces of state and its agents. It secures Human interests and provides
opportunity and allows development.
V. Conclusion –
The purpose of this project has been to explore the different types and features of rights, including
civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as the debates surrounding their signifi-
cance and also recognition and protection.
The concept of rights is a fundamental aspect of human existence and has been a central topic of
discussion in political and philosophical circles for centuries. Rights can be understood as a set of
entitlements that individuals possess by virtue of being human, and these entitlements can take
various forms, such as legal, moral, or social. The nature and scope of these entitlements can vary
widely based on the society and culture in which they are recognized.
Throughout history, the recognition and protection of rights have been a contested issue. Various
actors and groups have advocated for different types of rights and levels of protection, leading to
debates about the significance and legitimacy of certain rights. For example, the civil rights move-
ment in the United States fought for equal protection under the law for African Americans, while
the women's suffrage movement fought for the right to vote for women. Similarly, debates have
arisen around economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to healthcare, education, or
adequate housing.
The development of rights in India can be traced back to the country's Constitution, which was
adopted in 1950. The Constitution provided a framework for fundamental rights, which are essen-
tial entitlements that are recognized and protected by law. Over the years, the Indian judiciary has
played a critical role in expanding and protecting these fundamental rights, with several landmark
cases contributing to their development. One such case is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978),
which is considered a watershed moment in the development of Indian fundamental rights. In this
case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Con-
stitution was not limited to procedural protections but also included substantive freedoms. This de-
cision led to the expansion of fundamental rights in India, including the right to privacy and the
right to live with dignity. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held
that the power of the Indian Parliament to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and could not
be used to abrogate fundamental rights. This decision ensured that fundamental rights would be
protected from arbitrary government action, even in times of political turmoil. In recent years, the
Indian judiciary has continued to expand and protect fundamental rights. In Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the criminalization of consensual same-sex rela-
tionships was a violation of the fundamental rights to equality and privacy. This decision led to the
decriminalization of homosexuality in India, a significant step forward for LGBTQ+ rights in the
country.
In conclusion, the concept of rights is an essential aspect of human existence, providing a frame-
work for individuals to live with dignity and respect. While debates and challenges may arise
around the recognition and protection of rights, their importance in promoting freedom, equality,
and justice for all cannot be overstated. As such, it is crucial for individuals, governments, and civil
society organizations to continue advocating for the recognition and protection of rights in contem-
porary society.
VI. References –
Literary Sources –
1) O.P. Gauba, 2021, Concept of Human Rights, An Introduction to Political Theory.
2) Andrew Heywood, Rights, Obligations and Citizenship, Political Theory – An Introduction.
3) Dr. Eddy Asirvatham, Particular Rights, Political Theory.

Online Sources –
4) Wenar, Leif, "Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Ed-
ward N. Zalta (ed.),
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rights/>.
5) Rights: Meaning and theories; different kinds of rights; concept of Human Rights, Civil Ser-
vice India,
https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Political-Science/notes/rights-meaning-and-the-
ories.html
6) Ansh Arora, Interpretation of Human Rights In India, Legal Service India,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1200-interpretation-of-human-rights-in-
india.html
7) Smriti Aggarwal, The History and Development of Human Rights In India-Comparative Study
Between India And USAs Human Rights Laws, Legal Service India,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4430-the-history-and-development-of-hu-
man-rights-in-india-comparative-study-between-india-and-usa-s-human-rights-laws.html
8) A brief history of human rights, Amnesty International,
https://www.amnesty.nl/a-brief-history-of-human-rights
9) Hemant More, (2021), Theories of Rights, The Fact Factor,
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/legal_concepts/jurisprudence/jurisprudence-theories-
of-rights/17455/
10) What are Human Rights, UNICEF.org,
https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-rights
11) Rhiannon Wardle, (2021), What are human rights and why are they important? Future
Learn,
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/blog/what-are-human-rights
12) (2018), Critiques of the human rights framework as the foundation of a human rights-based
approach to development, University of free state,
https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/jjs/article/download/3598/3383/6770

You might also like