**2.1 The ethical dimension of human rights**

*Education, Human Rights and Peace in Sustainable Development*

and respect, on the other, needs consideration.

**2. What are human rights?**

individual (moral) rights to self-determination.

human rights and is however yet to be established [1]. In this regard, the tension that arises between the protection of humans from being exploited and their fundamental rights violated, on the one side, and the promotion of individual autonomy

Given the significant role played by governments (consisting of humans) in determining the structures, formations, and circumstances under which effect can be given to human rights within their respective countries, this chapter explores the practices, norms, and values adhered to by humans and how they correspond or conflict with the goals of international human rights law through a philosophical lens. By describing and analysing both the legal and normative impact of human nature and behaviour, this chapter contributes to the understanding of contemporary sociolegal changes and its consequential implications on the effective realising of human rights. Consideration is taken of the practical reality mirroring the worldwide occurrence of daily human right infringements by humans through their behaviour, making it clear that neither the existence of natural laws nor the ratification of human right treaties is necessary congruent with their day-to-day governance of nations and that a gap exists between philosophical views pertaining to natural moral rights, idealistic legal documents guaranteeing human rights, and reality. In order to continue the philosophical debate regarding human rights, a

conceptual clarification of what human rights entail is firstly provided.

Human rights are regarded by Heard [2] as being a product of a global philosophical debate that has prolonged for over 2000 years. As a result, human rights are viewed as a continuation of the natural rights tradition which focused on the moral properties of human beings and, thus, emerged long before the adoption thereof in legal documents [3]. They encompass moral entitlements that belong to humans whether recognised by legal systems or not [4]. As moral rights and claims, they present minimum standards pertaining to human treatment to which humans are morally entitled to [5] simply because of them being human [6]. In this regard, Nussbaum [7] identified the need for a list of minimal goods or opportunities required by all humans to live decent lives—an issue that soon became a central topic in the debate on the philosophical foundations of human rights. Gusman [3] agrees by stating that the question is not whether human rights have value but rather whether their special status as being essential to ensure humans a valuable life is recognised. Along the same trend, Grotius [8] viewed human rights as part of universal laws of nature not only guiding the interaction between humans but also allowing for

Various authors [9–12], however, argue that rights cannot exist without being provided legal status ensuring mechanism for their enforceability. In referring to the views of philosophers such as Burke, Bentham, and Rousseau, Heard [2] similarly argues that human rights do not automatically belong to all humans detached from human endeavour as they are, par excellence, created by human action. As such, human rights are the product of both human co-existence and legal systems. Although philosophers were initially reluctant to scrutinise human rights as embedded in international and national legal systems [13], Kirchschlaeger [14] identified four different dimensions to human rights aiming at guaranteeing the safeguarding of every human in respect of the crucial areas and elements of basic human existence (life and survival). These four dimensions are forthwith employed as a framework in obtaining a holistic and integrated view of human

**168**

rights.

Considering the philosophical emphasis on basic moral or natural rights as well as on the very nature of rights, the ethical dimension of human rights is firstly analysed. Although philosophers measured human behaviour during premodern times against the will of God (adherence to natural moral obligations), modern times necessitate the consideration of human behaviour as being morally good or bad by measuring its degree of adherence to legally sound human rights [15]. This is due to human rights becoming central to the ethical and political discourse, indicating a weighty shift regarding how humans understand the foundations of morality.

By itself, human rights incorporate norms that are perceived to allow humans to live civilised and honourable/dignified lives [6] or lives worth living as long as they know and recognise these rights and behave according [16]. It has, moreover, become crucial for humans to be aware of the fact that they are part of a dynamic world, co-existing amongst other humans. This entails the dichotomy of man—as an individual complete whole, humans strive at self-survival placing them in basic competition with one another on the one side, whilst they, as members of a social unit, on the other side, should be dedicated to group survival [17–19].

Since human rights derived from human nature, and humans are, by nature, egoistic in that they selfishly seek individual autonomy at the cost of others [19], legal systems aim at limiting and guiding human behaviour by combining human rights with corresponding duties [17]. This entails that the human rights of others need to be respected at all times even if it may be detrimental to individual needs [13]. Human rights, subsequently, do not only provide legitimate claims, they also oblige—by way of successive waves of responsibilities—all humans to respect them and to withhold themselves from infringing upon the human rights equally conferred to others as well as to, for unselfish reasons [20, 21], protect and support those whose rights are abused or denied. With regard to the latter, Keith [1] and Kirchschlaeger [14] draw specific attention to vulnerable, marginalised human beings and those belonging to discriminated against minority groups having to endure the violation of their human rights because they simply do not possess sufficient knowledge or means to claim their rights and, thus, cannot make their voices heard. It is in this regard that Changeux [22] proposed that humans need to discern and explain the different aspirations and beliefs of human beings regarding their own mental health and life expectations to each other through extensive dialogue in order to ensure the good life all desire and to achieve a more harmonious balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of human society.

The international legal recognition of human rights aiming at giving effect to human rights is regarded as one of the greatest moral achievements of humankind [23]. This is due to the perception that an ethical system functions as a framework for the creation, manifestation, and enforcement of legal principles. In this regard, Kirchschlaeger [14] believes that a just law is a code made by humans to reflect their moral convictions, whilst unjust law comprises of codes that is not in harmony with moral laws. Since the practical realisation of human rights depends upon the conscious willingness of humans themselves to follow moral acceptable behaviour towards others [13], human rights will continue to have a strong moral foundation regardless of their legal status.

#### **2.2 The legal dimension of human rights**

According to Habermas [24], the legal dimension of human rights has not solely developed in reaction to wars of aggression and mass crimes on humankind nor can its advances be limited to a human rights regime. He contends that globalisation was the main reason behind this dimension as it highlighted the necessity to standardise moral human behaviour across national borders, thus requiring governance beyond the nation-state and the conversant legal principles that has, until now, been effective. As a direct consequence, the sovereignty of national governments (the subjects of international law) was affected, and their ability to control human behaviour was limited as they were left with less independent decision-making power regarding their traditional functions, ranging from protecting peace and physical security to warranting freedom, the rule of law, and democratic legitimation (creators of social security for its citizens). In this regard, the international human rights regime has adopted a more behavioural tone during the twenty-first century [25]. This is in line with the philosophical views of Burke, Bentham, and Rousseau [2], namely, that human rights are a product of a specific society and its prevailing legal system due to their interdependency on human behaviour rather than belonging to humans merely based on their humanness.

Because of its international legal recognition, human rights are defined by various authors [4, 25–27] as universal rights which emerged as an ideal from legal imperatives as reflected in various declarations, conventions, and treaties leading to a universal culture of human rights. International human rights law, although existing beyond the determination of specific societies [2], essentially serve as individual legal entitlements primarily against all States and State entities. Such entitlements allow humans to legitimately claim equal protection of their basic human needs, respect for their dignity, and the fulfilment of their ideal to live a life worth living [1, 6] regardless of where they live. This is in line with the philosophical views of Rousseau, claiming that people agree to live alongside others if society protects them and if human rights are used as an ethical yardstick to globally determine and criticise governments' treatment of their inhabitants [2].

Different authors [14, 23, 28, 29], to the contrary, believe that international human rights law is not universal in the sense that it cannot substitute national laws but only complement them. They believe that human rights are incompatible with their own universality as they simply apply within a specific geographical area once accepted by societies as part of their positive national legal doctrine. For human rights to have universal status, Gusman [3] contends that they must be justifiable from different moral cultures and acceptable by the majority, though not necessarily all, cultures around the globe.

In criticising the individualistic approach to universal human rights derived from Western cultures [6, 30], Mkabela [31] voices his concern over universal human rights negating the importance of a unique set of values guiding human behaviour in different communities. He opines that the significance of unique values lies in them serving as the foundation for developing practices, codes, and ethical as well as cultural standards and for directing attitudes regarding ethical behaviour amongst humans irrespective of class, ethnicity, or gender. To substantiate his argument, Mkabela [31] refers to ubuntu, a traditional value system pertinent to the African continent, incorporating moral values such as humility, modesty, conformity, and empathy forming the basis upon which individuals are viewed through a lens placing more emphasis on individual duties and responsibilities than on individual human rights.

Prominence is placed on moral values based on the mutual acceptance that the humanity of individuals is conveyed through personal interactions with others in a specific community. In view hereof, it is evident that human rights law needs the support of an equivalent moral awareness and ethos to be effective and regarded as being just. Humans do not follow legal principles purely because they fear its sanctions but rather because they believe in and share the ethical principles underscored by legal imperatives [14]. This is consistent with the nature of humans to constantly,

**171**

*Humans: The Biggest Barrier to Realising Human Rights - A South African Perspective*

taking regard of the political element influencing human rights.

ing with individuals being subjected to their behaviour [28].

In this regard, Pacilli et al. [32], however, caution that too strong identifications with political groups may lead to the dehumanisation of others not belonging to such groups. It is in this regard that emphasis must be placed on democracy as entailing more than just a political institution but rather signifying a representational and moral concept. Of its own accord, democracy embodies a value system which surpasses many aspects of social life, starting with individuals who strongly identify with democracy, filled with passion to build true democracies around the world [28]. The value of robust, safe and unwavering democracies for the realisation and protection of human rights to bring about human security

The extent to which human rights are legally recognised within a society is directly influenced by the different political struggles societal members had to

Experiences gained through a variety of political struggles occurring worldwide against human injustices, nevertheless, led to political deliberation, the formation of political grounded opinions and political theories, as well as the following of political processes to achieve mutually agreed upon resolutions that could enjoy global acceptance in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such injustices. This, in turn, allowed for moral human rights to be schematically transformed into legally protected human rights with the aim of ensuring their enforceability, warranting a more controlled and well-disciplined judging system as well as assuring the selection of the elements of human existence that essentially requires special protection [14]. Since the outcome of political decisions may, by itself, give rise to gross human rights infringements when extreme political action and military intervention are undertaken, justified by an attempt to bring an end to individual human rights violations [33], the law, in turn, places specific limitations on political State power [28]. By guaranteeing political rights as well as rights to development, social, economic, and cultural rights, the law moreover promotes the active political participation of individuals in political decisions affecting them, thus allowing their voices to be heard when it comes to their rights and their own lives. This is achieved through effective democratic processes and the full realisation of political and civil rights [20], thus ensuring that all States function within their legal boundaries when deal-

**2.3 The political dimension of human rights**

endure [2].

consciously, and unconsciously adapt their behaviour in order to regard themselves

In considering the amount of prevalent human rights violations occurring worldwide despite the existence of moral and/or legal human rights, Wolfgang [30], to the contrary, casts doubt on the social validity of human rights to bring about mutual respect amongst humans. Posner [23], likewise, criticises human rights law as he could find little evidence of it improving the general well-being of humankind. In this regard, Ajey [6] notes that the values cherished in international human rights documents arise mainly from liberal conceptions of humans and society, which gave rise to the prioritisation of civil and political rights over socio-economic rights (the rights to work, health, or education) as well as the rights of community members, despite their developmental value for humankind. In agreement, Wolfgang [30] cautions against a too optimistic view steered by the conviction that globalisation, economic growth, and legal actions alone can foster human rights. Mention is, in this regard, made of the inherent weaknesses of international human rights law to respect traditional community practices as well as the diversity amongst nations, which he regard as being incompatible with the idea of universal human rights. This leads to necessity of also

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88912*

as being moral persons [32].

*Humans: The Biggest Barrier to Realising Human Rights - A South African Perspective DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88912*

consciously, and unconsciously adapt their behaviour in order to regard themselves as being moral persons [32].

In considering the amount of prevalent human rights violations occurring worldwide despite the existence of moral and/or legal human rights, Wolfgang [30], to the contrary, casts doubt on the social validity of human rights to bring about mutual respect amongst humans. Posner [23], likewise, criticises human rights law as he could find little evidence of it improving the general well-being of humankind. In this regard, Ajey [6] notes that the values cherished in international human rights documents arise mainly from liberal conceptions of humans and society, which gave rise to the prioritisation of civil and political rights over socio-economic rights (the rights to work, health, or education) as well as the rights of community members, despite their developmental value for humankind. In agreement, Wolfgang [30] cautions against a too optimistic view steered by the conviction that globalisation, economic growth, and legal actions alone can foster human rights. Mention is, in this regard, made of the inherent weaknesses of international human rights law to respect traditional community practices as well as the diversity amongst nations, which he regard as being incompatible with the idea of universal human rights. This leads to necessity of also taking regard of the political element influencing human rights.

#### **2.3 The political dimension of human rights**

The extent to which human rights are legally recognised within a society is directly influenced by the different political struggles societal members had to endure [2].

Experiences gained through a variety of political struggles occurring worldwide against human injustices, nevertheless, led to political deliberation, the formation of political grounded opinions and political theories, as well as the following of political processes to achieve mutually agreed upon resolutions that could enjoy global acceptance in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such injustices. This, in turn, allowed for moral human rights to be schematically transformed into legally protected human rights with the aim of ensuring their enforceability, warranting a more controlled and well-disciplined judging system as well as assuring the selection of the elements of human existence that essentially requires special protection [14].

Since the outcome of political decisions may, by itself, give rise to gross human rights infringements when extreme political action and military intervention are undertaken, justified by an attempt to bring an end to individual human rights violations [33], the law, in turn, places specific limitations on political State power [28]. By guaranteeing political rights as well as rights to development, social, economic, and cultural rights, the law moreover promotes the active political participation of individuals in political decisions affecting them, thus allowing their voices to be heard when it comes to their rights and their own lives. This is achieved through effective democratic processes and the full realisation of political and civil rights [20], thus ensuring that all States function within their legal boundaries when dealing with individuals being subjected to their behaviour [28].

In this regard, Pacilli et al. [32], however, caution that too strong identifications with political groups may lead to the dehumanisation of others not belonging to such groups. It is in this regard that emphasis must be placed on democracy as entailing more than just a political institution but rather signifying a representational and moral concept. Of its own accord, democracy embodies a value system which surpasses many aspects of social life, starting with individuals who strongly identify with democracy, filled with passion to build true democracies around the world [28]. The value of robust, safe and unwavering democracies for the realisation and protection of human rights to bring about human security

*Education, Human Rights and Peace in Sustainable Development*

criticise governments' treatment of their inhabitants [2].

merely based on their humanness.

ily all, cultures around the globe.

ties than on individual human rights.

the main reason behind this dimension as it highlighted the necessity to standardise moral human behaviour across national borders, thus requiring governance beyond the nation-state and the conversant legal principles that has, until now, been effective. As a direct consequence, the sovereignty of national governments (the subjects of international law) was affected, and their ability to control human behaviour was limited as they were left with less independent decision-making power regarding their traditional functions, ranging from protecting peace and physical security to warranting freedom, the rule of law, and democratic legitimation (creators of social security for its citizens). In this regard, the international human rights regime has adopted a more behavioural tone during the twenty-first century [25]. This is in line with the philosophical views of Burke, Bentham, and Rousseau [2], namely, that human rights are a product of a specific society and its prevailing legal system due to their interdependency on human behaviour rather than belonging to humans

Because of its international legal recognition, human rights are defined by various authors [4, 25–27] as universal rights which emerged as an ideal from legal imperatives as reflected in various declarations, conventions, and treaties leading to a universal culture of human rights. International human rights law, although existing beyond the determination of specific societies [2], essentially serve as individual legal entitlements primarily against all States and State entities. Such entitlements allow humans to legitimately claim equal protection of their basic human needs, respect for their dignity, and the fulfilment of their ideal to live a life worth living [1, 6] regardless of where they live. This is in line with the philosophical views of Rousseau, claiming that people agree to live alongside others if society protects them and if human rights are used as an ethical yardstick to globally determine and

Different authors [14, 23, 28, 29], to the contrary, believe that international human rights law is not universal in the sense that it cannot substitute national laws but only complement them. They believe that human rights are incompatible with their own universality as they simply apply within a specific geographical area once accepted by societies as part of their positive national legal doctrine. For human rights to have universal status, Gusman [3] contends that they must be justifiable from different moral cultures and acceptable by the majority, though not necessar-

In criticising the individualistic approach to universal human rights derived from Western cultures [6, 30], Mkabela [31] voices his concern over universal human rights negating the importance of a unique set of values guiding human behaviour in different communities. He opines that the significance of unique values lies in them serving as the foundation for developing practices, codes, and ethical as well as cultural standards and for directing attitudes regarding ethical behaviour amongst humans irrespective of class, ethnicity, or gender. To substantiate his argument, Mkabela [31] refers to ubuntu, a traditional value system pertinent to the African continent, incorporating moral values such as humility, modesty, conformity, and empathy forming the basis upon which individuals are viewed through a lens placing more emphasis on individual duties and responsibili-

Prominence is placed on moral values based on the mutual acceptance that the humanity of individuals is conveyed through personal interactions with others in a specific community. In view hereof, it is evident that human rights law needs the support of an equivalent moral awareness and ethos to be effective and regarded as being just. Humans do not follow legal principles purely because they fear its sanctions but rather because they believe in and share the ethical principles underscored by legal imperatives [14]. This is consistent with the nature of humans to constantly,

**170**

cannot be overstressed [34]. The efficiency of democracies must, subsequently, be measured by the extent to which all of its members, including governments, are dedicated to ensure that human rights and laws are throughout equally respected and upheld [20]. Such dedication can be measured by dissecting the establishment and maintenance of positive human life experiences relating to political stability, economic prosperity, workable democracies, and peaceful co-existence in societies amidst the existence of potentially opposing divisions [35]. In this regard, Heard [2] emphasises that the rights of man must be held sacred, however great a sacrifice governments must make.

#### **2.4 Human rights in its historical dimension**

The historical fight for human rights started with philosophical and/or theological ideas and concepts underscored by Hobbes, Locke, and Kant regarding the need to respect the inherent worth of humans which gradually spilled over to the political sphere of national governments and, eventually, to the international domain [14]. In acknowledging the prominence of the values embedded in human rights, Gearty [36] even opines that their recognition across political and ideological borders symbolised the end of all ideologies and, thus, the end of history. It brought an end to historical periods during which human beings were not treated with dignity nor equally protected to the extent to which they deserved and, consequently, started a new moral era [23] which can be inherited by future generations [16]. In order to delineate the efficiency of such an inheritance, the human rights most prominent for current and future generations need identification.
