Human Rights
Domain 2 tests whether you can explain the origins and architecture of human rights and evaluate how well they are protected. The recurring tension is between universal entitlement and state sovereignty.
Core concepts
- Sources: the UDHR (1948), a General Assembly resolution that is non-binding in form but widely treated as customary law; the ICCPR and ICESCR (adopted 1966, in force 1976); later treaties on genocide, torture, discrimination and the rights of the child.
- Generations: civil-political (liberty), economic-social-cultural (equality), collective-solidarity (fraternity). These labels are useful but rights are interdependent.
- Universality versus cultural relativism: the 1993 Vienna Declaration restates universality while acknowledging national and regional particularities.
- Enforcement: the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review, UN treaty bodies, special rapporteurs, regional courts such as the European Court of Human Rights, and the ICC acting on complementarity.
Worked example
Question: human rights are proclaimed but not protected. Argue through mechanisms, not sentiment. For: the P5 veto blocked action on Syria; South Africa did not arrest Omar al-Bashir in 2015 despite an ICC warrant; economic and social rights depend on resources and are subject only to progressive realisation. Against: The Gambia's ICJ genocide case against Myanmar (filed 2019) produced provisional measures; the Universal Periodic Review names and shames; ICC indictments restricted al-Bashir's travel. Judgement: the legal architecture is strong and enforcement is selective and power-dependent, so 'protected unevenly' is more defensible than 'not protected'.
Traps
- Describing the UDHR as a binding treaty.
- Claiming rights are absolute; most are subject to limitation and derogation.
- Forgetting that R2P, agreed at the 2005 World Summit, is a political commitment rather than a treaty obligation.
- Listing instruments instead of evaluating protection.