LOOKING AT HUMAN RIGHTS
The universal, inalienable, and inherent rights every human being enjoys from birth to death, regardless of nationality, sex, ethnicity, religion, or any other social status, are known as human rights. Human rights are not granted by any state. They are the rights we have simply because we are human beings. This paper takes a cursory view of the historical invocations of rights and the evolution of notions of rights to life, liberty, equality, free speech, and privacy. I will briefly discuss these concepts in relation to state practice, declarations, and laws that seek to preserve human dignity. I hope this provides a basic yet meaningful understanding of human rights concepts for students, while also eliciting varied opinions from interested minds.
People view human rights differently. Some view it as an inherent, morally justified human demand against which no attack can be justified. To them, human rights often draw on a sense of morality and a universal recognition of human dignity. Others view human rights as a slogan that represents claims that have been or can only be upheld by a judge. Here, the parties dispute the facts, each claiming the law should be applied in favour of their view of what constitutes a human right. When the term “human rights” is raised, there is almost always an underlying issue of unfair treatment of a person or a group of persons, or an allegation of an unfair application of a law. It is usually deployed to condemn behaviour or change behaviour. Human rights ultimately exist to preserve humanity’s dignity.
A major issue in the discussions of human rights is the scope of applicable laws. Whereas human rights generally invoke notions of fairness, respect for human dignity, and the protection of freedoms, which one would expect to be universal, some oppose the idea of external judges deciding domestic human rights issues. In a protest against the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, the Sunday Telegraph, in a 2006 publication, branded the Human Rights Act of 1998 as the criminals’ rights act 1998, the refuge of terrorists and scoundrels. Similarly, in 2014, a member of parliament for Epsom and Ewell, Chris Grayling, pushed for a seizure of power from the European judges and the return of the phrase ‘human rights’ to what he believed it to be.
The subject of human rights has brought an unexpected change to international relations. The prohibition on a state interfering in another’s domestic affairs was an entrenched global principle. Now, civilised societies recognise, through treaties and other instruments, the importance of promoting a shared natural right of the human race. Human rights, in the last six decades, have found their way even into trade deals. Respect for human rights gained even more recognition after the Second World War. Due to the casualties and devastation, the world came to accept that how humans are treated anywhere is a matter of concern for humans everywhere.
The United Nations established a committee of experts with diverse backgrounds to propose an instrument that would soon become known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. It is a comprehensive instrument that outlines fundamental human rights. This placed all human rights issues above domestic state control. Following its introduction, states have established departments responsible for advancing human rights and have even made membership in intergovernmental organisations contingent on advancing human rights. The European Union’s special representative for human rights is an example of such a department.
Public declarations and acknowledgements of human rights may differ from the actual implementation of policies that safeguard them. Since 1948, the world has nevertheless seen atrocities that have gravely impacted human rights. For instance, the 1994 Rwandan genocide and crimes against humanity, and the more than 70,000 lives lost in Gaza in 2025. Amnesty International reports crackdowns on protesters, with over 277 deaths in Mozambique and 60 in Kenya, as well as the recent brutal treatment of protesters in Iran.
Everyone is presumed to have the rights to life, liberty, a fair trial, freedom of speech, and to own property. The protection of rights, however, must be understood in the context of what is a legal or justified restriction of human behaviour. For example, a person who has been tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, thereby restricting their liberty, is legally justified. Given the competing thoughts, it is essential to balance society’s overall interests with individual interests.
a) Free speech
Free speech is one’s ability to freely express an opinion or idea without censorship or any retaliation. Societies grow through the exchange of ideas, though it can sometimes get heated and challenging. However, speech is restricted to avoid incitement, harassment, and many other unacceptable outcomes that could result from unchecked speech. The value of protecting free speech was best captured in Najib Mahfouz’s 1989 statement. As regards freedom of expression, I have said that it must be considered sacred and that thought can only be corrected by counter-thought. Speech that threatens or degrades a particular social group is known as hate speech. Efforts to prosecute such violations also raise questions about how doing so could potentially limit critical voices, thereby preventing informed debate. The internet presents a very crucial situation where minorities and vulnerable victims are harassed or ridiculed on a platform that is accessible by millions, with far-reaching consequences. In determining which to prosecute, it is important to consider context and people’s privacy rights.
b) Privacy
In human rights law, privacy is the respect for human dignity, home, correspondence, sexuality, etc. Privacy, per se, was not recognised as a right until 1948, when the UDHR officially recognised it. The scope of privacy is broad and can be difficult to determine, especially in balancing it with the public interest in cases involving crime investigation or terrorism. However, the protection of privacy has been extended to include challenges to telephone tapping, surveillance, monitoring of online activities, and the dissemination of images or other private data.
Privacy protections have always been against state actors or the government. This approach diverted attention from how privacy was used to justify unacceptable practices under the guise of the private sphere, which did not involve state actors or the government. For example, marital rape, child abuse, female genital mutilation, etc., are human rights violations that largely went unchecked under the notion that the government or public authorities could not interfere with what goes on between private people. It was difficult to remedy these problems because of the distinction between public and private law. The implication was that what occurs in the privacy of individuals, with no government involvement, fell outside state control and should be addressed under private law. This undermined the overall objective of preserving human dignity.
As stated earlier, the right to privacy is broad and has evolved to extend government protection to violations committed in the so-called private sphere. The prohibition of discrimination remains a central issue in the discussion of human rights. All persons have the right to the enjoyment of all the fundamental rights. Therefore, any discrimination or unequal treatment, especially based on sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., is unacceptable and violates the UDHR.
As all humans are born equal in dignity, philosophical notions of equality, fairness, and access to justice require governments to introduce policies that ensure all humans are treated equally and fairly under law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
It must be noted that these anti-discrimination restrictions apply not only to governments and state actors but also to private individuals, such as landlords, employers, entertainers, and schools. The whole essence of human rights is to protect natural dignity and equality, and to preserve the worth of every human being. The rights to life, liberty, freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy are unfettered rights that all people are entitled to simply because they are humans.
By: Nana Owusu Agyemang LLB(Hons),
LLM (Dispute Resolution and Legal Process),
PhD researcher in International Law and Treaty Law
