Max Tallberg
In my previous blog text, I examined the historical development of ideas about human rights. I now turn to what is thought about human rights today.
To begin with, it is useful to present a basic definition: human rights are rights that belong to all people for the simple reason that we are human. They are not rights granted by states but are inherent and self-evident, belonging to us regardless of nationality, gender, ethnic background, religion, language, or any other factor that defines individuality. Human rights cover our most fundamental entitlements, such as the right to life and liberty. At the same time, they include the rights that make life worth living—such as the rights to food, education, work, and health. In practice, they therefore extend to nearly all aspects of human existence.
The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I discussed in the previous text, was the first legal document to affirm these fundamental and universal rights. It continues to serve as the foundation for all international human rights law. The rights it sets out cannot generally be taken away, and they are interdependent: one cannot be fully enjoyed without the others. For instance, progress in political rights—such as the right to vote, freedom of expression, or the right to privacy—makes it easier to realize economic and social rights. Conversely, the denial of these rights harms the realization of many others.
Human rights therefore unite people not only through rights but also through duties. From the perspective of a lawful and just society, an individual can enjoy human rights only if others respect them. Thus, one’s own rights should not be exercised in ways that infringe on those of others. For example, freedom of speech should not be used to violate another person’s privacy. Freedom of speech and liberty are therefore not entirely absolute, and serious criminal offenses may lead to restrictions of liberty. Beyond individuals, states have a special duty to ensure that citizens enjoy their rights. These rights should be realized as widely as possible within the framework of national law. Securing the rights of citizens is therefore a duty of society, and under international law a state can be held accountable if it fails to uphold them.
Human Rights Today
Human rights can be defined both positively—as rights to something—and negatively—as rights against something. Positive economic, social, and cultural rights include the right to develop and flourish, and the right to participate in cultural and social life. These also cover rights to health, education, and employment, as mentioned earlier. Negatively defined rights, on the other hand, include the prohibition of torture and other forms of oppression. The state’s responsibility is both to prevent human rights violations (by guaranteeing negative rights) and actively to promote the realization of positive rights. Rights directed toward individuals are called individual rights. At the same time, there are also collective human rights that apply to groups, particularly relevant for groups that have experienced significant oppression, inequality, and injustice.
It must also be acknowledged that societies’ responsibility in implementing rights is not unlimited. For example, the positive right to food does not mean that every government must provide free food to all citizens. Rather, the demand relates more to food security—that food must remain accessible even in times of scarcity or distribution problems. Guaranteeing positive rights is therefore complex in practice. Behind human rights, however, lies a broader concern with ensuring personal individuality and the functional conditions that make it possible: everyone should have the freedom to make fundamental decisions and the necessary prerequisites that make those decisions genuine. These prerequisites include access to reliable information and education, as well as the capacity to act on choices. Lack of education hinders the realization of rights, since the uneducated are less likely to be aware of their rights or to know how to defend them. It also prevents participation in democracy. Similarly, a minimum guaranteed social security—for example in the form of a basic income—would advance the realization of human rights. From this perspective, many other rights can be derived from the protection of human personality.
Human rights can be approached either top-down or bottom-up. Philosophy often approaches the matter from the top down, formulating general principles and values. Practical reflection, by contrast, approaches it from the bottom up, highlighting concrete questions. Both perspectives are useful, and both should be included in the conversation. A sufficiently broad understanding requires the adoption of both.
Ongoing Debates and Challenges
Given all this, it is fair to say that we now have a nuanced and precise understanding of human rights. Yet problems remain. One concerns the definition of who counts as human. Do unborn fetuses have human rights? What about future generations? In practice, questions also arise regarding citizenship and legal adulthood: should a recently arrived immigrant be granted full political rights? At what age should such rights apply?
Human rights can also be interpreted differently. For some, they mean that everyone should be treated with regard to their inner dignity. For others, human rights imply that police and courts must treat criminals or terrorists with dignity, even at the expense of public safety. Questions of universality also intersect with local cultural and economic characteristics, which complicates the discussion, though they do not necessarily negate universality itself. For example, Western societies have emphasized freedom and autonomy, while these have been less central elsewhere. Yet these differences need not be decisive when examining the background and universality of human rights.
One proposed solution to these ambiguities is to adopt the definitions provided in international human rights law as the authoritative standard. When officials and activists today speak of human rights, they are most likely referring to international and state law rather than to moral or philosophical justifications. Even so, human rights as a concept—and especially in application—remain somewhat indeterminate. This ambiguity arguably stems from Enlightenment-era documents. To overcome it, some suggest that human rights should be understood primarily in relation to human dignity, with the focus on how dignity can be practically guaranteed. From this perspective, human rights would comprise only a limited set of fundamental rights. Others argue that human rights should be minimal, aimed more at preventing the worst harms than achieving the best outcomes. This would leave more room for democratic decision-making in building functioning societies.
Some argue that human rights should be grounded in morality; others that they should be grounded only in legal principles. Still others suggest they should be understood as norms or political practices to be implemented in real-world politics. John Rawls, for example, favored a narrower definition, so that human rights could be accepted in all states—not just liberal democracies. He also believed that with such a definition, international intervention would be easier to justify: broad definitions would make violations more common and interventions more frequent, which would be less sustainable. This was therefore a practical approach to human rights implementation. I would argue, however, that conceptions of human rights resonate most strongly and compellingly at the level of higher ideals. It could also be claimed that human rights can only truly be realized in genuine democracies—so promoting and spreading real democracy should be seen as a global goal.
It is nonetheless clear that human rights are open to interpretation, especially when considering the use of one right in relation to potential harm to others. Context is also crucial. Still, these debates about application do not undermine the underlying values of human rights or their persuasiveness. It is evident that human rights are applied above all in practical political and social contexts; they matter most when considering how people should treat one another. Even so, the universal understanding that underpins them does not lose its significance when translated into practice. Individuals may be seen as having a universal grasp of human rights, even if their application is not always straightforward. The fact that human rights are often felt most powerfully on an emotional level also makes their definition more difficult. At the same time, it gives them real meaning in everyday life and behavior.
A central point is that human rights, their application, and their use require ongoing public discussion. Through such dialogue, consensus can be found—already suggested by the broad contemporary consensus mentioned at the beginning of this text. Many aspects of the modern world function in this way: we can define a general theoretical foundation that must be preserved, but practical application always requires context-bound debate. Within such debate, it can be recognized that human rights do not extend to every question. For instance, they do not determine how many children a person may have—though it can also be argued that this number should not be restricted in a negative sense. Although human rights cannot be defined completely or exhaustively, sufficient agreement can be achieved—just as with justice. Shared dialogue and practical application of its outcomes are essential.
Human Rights in a Globalized World
It is crucial to understand that human rights are living and evolving, not static. Philosophical debate will remain part of their justification—whether it clarifies or not. Crimes against humanity and their exposure nevertheless continue to make clearer the idea that international obligations exist simply because of human dignity. Genocide, slavery, and torture are therefore international crimes that cannot be tolerated. In international relations, it is relatively new that one country may intervene in another’s internal human rights situation. For much of the 20th century, this was not the case.
What, then, does the world look like today through the lens of human rights? It is clear that they are far from universally realized, as a large portion of humanity still lives in poverty. This is above all because people in wealthy nations do not view this situation as morally urgent enough. In the West, we live in extreme isolation from the absolute poverty of less developed nations. Yet it can be argued that we are directly responsible for them: our actions and accumulated wealth harm them, since global structures are built unjustly and oppress those in weaker positions. The world still operates such that the strong take as much as they can, even while adhering to their moral norms. Although the West no longer practices colonialism or slavery in their historical forms, citizens of developed countries continue to benefit from the labor and resources of less developed nations. Socioeconomic rights and adequate living standards remain poorly realized globally, and their absence is tied to the absence of many other rights, such as genuine democracy.
Nevertheless, most ordinary people worldwide want the goals of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be realized in practice. Human rights enjoy broad support in global surveys, and people want them implemented. Empirical research can also show whether significant international disagreement exists. The overwhelming majority supports human rights, even if people understand them in different ways. On many points, consensus is possible. Because human rights are so widely accepted, relativist arguments can be set aside as secondary; human rights should be regarded as universal. Accepting this helps in many other areas of politics and society as we discuss and attempt to understand the world. Three-quarters of the world’s states have ratified the most important human rights treaties and are part of international courts. All states now use similar political institutions, which also strengthen human rights. Laws, police, armies, bureaucracies, taxation, and public schools are examples. Globalization, too, has made the world more unified and has narrowed differences among groups. Greater immigration and tourism, electronic communication, social media, international law, and global organizations all contribute to this interconnection. Nation-states affect one another more than ever. We increasingly understand that we live in a globalized world. The next step must be to ensure that in this world the conditions for a dignified life are guaranteed to all.
References
Clapham, Andrew (2015). Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Hampshire: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, James (2008). On Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, L. A. (2007). Inventing Human Rights: A History. New York: W.W. Norton.
Joseph, Peter (2017). The New Human Rights Movement. Dallas: BenBella Books.
Pogge, Thomas (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tallberg, Max (2022). A Citizen of a New Time: A Vision of a Better World. 2nd revised edition. Helsinki: Bofori Oy.
OHCHR – What are Human Rights?
Australian Human Rights Commission – Introduction to Human Rights
UN Press Release – GA/SHC/3956
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Human Rights
UN – 2020 SG Call to Action for Human Rights
