Human Rights

Introduction

Human rights are defined as those inalienable and universal rights and freedoms which all individuals enjoy simply because they are human, they are entitlements which we all share regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality, class or culture (Henry 2009: 1). Human right are rights inherent to all human beings, irrespective of the nationality, place of resident, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.

Human rights are entitlement gotten outside/without discrimination. these rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible in the sense that most states have the same human right laws that govern the security of individual and group with brings about equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination.

Most human rights are expressed and supported by law, in terms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. infact, these human right laws lay down obligations of Governments to act in certain way in order to promot and protect human rights.

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.

Universal Declaration on human rights in 1948 contains 30 articles. but the most important of these are considered as follows:

• the right to life, liberty, property and security of person,
• the right to an education,
• the right to employemtn, paid holidays, protection against unemployment and social security,
• the right to participate fully in cultural life
• freedome from torture or cruel, inhumane treatement or punishment,
• freedome of expression and opinion
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Vienna World conference on human rights 1993 noted that ‘it is the duty of states to promoted and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their politica, economic and cultural systems.

Human Rights Act in the UK

“The Human Rights Act was brought about as a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was set up by the Council of Europe. This was to ensure that the violations of human rights under the reign of Hitler during the Second World War, would not be able to happen again. The act however, was only passed into UK law in October 2000. individual now have the right to seek redress in a UK court instead of having to visit the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which covered the act of: the right to life, prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, Freedom from forced labour, Right to liberty, Right to a fair trial, Retrospective penalties, Right to respect for private and family life, Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Freedom of expression, Freedom of assembly and association, Right to marry, Prohibition of discrimination”.

The Human Rights Act 1998, has affected the lives of British Citizens, for example recently a law allowing terror suspects to be detained for up to 90 days without charge, but this was dropped as it was deemed to breach the rights of those being detained for such a long period of time.

Importance of Human Rights

Human rights help everyone to have a secured and safe life. it educates people to be directed to the full development of human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Criticisms Against Human Rights

Human rights as a principle is always positive. They should be the basis for evaluating any regime, aid program, etc. The criticism can arise when human rights are written down as laws, as they are almost impossible to police and there can be very blurry edges when defining everyday practicalities, such as a bill of rights.

Some sociologists also see a problem with western countries defining human rights in a way that makes sense to westerners, yet is at odds with another culture. An example is child education. we see it as a human right and wish to enforce it globally. Many poor countries depend on working children in order for the family to eat and survive. When the child is forced to go to school, they lose a breadwinner, and a parent can also be forced to cease work in order to now attend to a child who is not working at home like they used to. Costs are also astronomical in developing countries to school a single child, and many families are large. end result is deepening of impoverishment before the fruits of the child’s education kick in decades later. So is this still an easily recognisable human right?

“Human Rights” is a much used and abused term today, and is used extensively for political gain. The term is used to defend Human freedom as well as destroy it. People tend to attach importance to particular human rights issue according to ideology and political convenience. if a man is not to have recourse or rebellion against tyranny and oppression, taking law into their own hands,”Human Rights” should be built into the society as a natural rule. As a last resort only, law should be applied as a protection.

Desite the fact human right laws are in existence, there is still racism and discrimination which has criticised human right in a way that it can no longer make any impact to individual in some societies.

Conclusion

Human rights are the rights of individual men and women to basic freedoms such as freedome of association, freedom speech, etc.

One should note that ‘the improvement fo one right facilitates advancement fo the others, likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

1. Introduction

The purpose of the Act is to incorporate into UK domestic law certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights made in 1950. The intent is to give the major rights and freedoms in the Convention direct effect in the public law field and possibly in the field of private rights and obligations. A court or tribunal deciding a question in respect of a Convention right must take account of “relevant judgments, decisions, declarations and opinions made or given by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe” (Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act). This means that Strasbourg jurisprudence will be influential, although not binding, on national courts.

So the Strasbourg Court’s rulings on the legitimacy of any particular infringement will have an impact on the way domestic courts will approach the question. Strasbourg judgements provide non-binding guidance on the tests of necessity and proportionality, which means that any given limitation should achieve its aim without excessive impact on the rights of the individual.

This project will focus on the impact, benefits and contributions of the Human Rights Act of 1998 in relation to employment law with a view to evaluate its positive contributions in the area of the private sector employer and employees. It will research the achievements and the change brought into the United Kingdom legislation.

Taking into consideration many legal commentaries regarding the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the area of employment law; it is to be noted that a general consensus is the Act has given much leeway to employee rights. Those employers constantly face litigation over issues not previously covered by domestic laws. The incorporation into UK laws of certain rights and freedoms as set out in the European convention of human rights has afforded employees rights to challenge issues relating to dismissal, sexual orientation, discrimination, equality and numerous others. ‘The Convention has not so far been recognised as a direct source of law by UK courts although, when interpreting ambiguous statutes, courts have sometimes had regard to Convention provisions’

The expectations from several commentators that the Act’s broad scope would significantly impact upon the disciplinary/grievance hearings, employment tribunals, trade union right and other aspects relating to employment. After nearly a decade of its introduction I propose to evaluate the impact on important employment law cases brought under the Act. The project will also raise questions about what is the status of the Human Right Act 1998 on the rights of an individual law in England and Wales.

How the relevant provisions of the convention articles do help us to understand the decisions reached by the employment tribunals or English courts with regards to the UK national lawsHow the European convention principles have been given effect in UK law and if domestic courts have applied convention principles in case lawHow human rights are protected in the UK courtsHow does the court address similar disputes involving public authority in relation to the breach of the convention articles of the Human Rights Act 1998 and those of the private individual in the private sectorTo what extent if any has the domestic human rights protection being enhanced by the Act?

2. How the HRA 1998 introduces convention rights and
relevant convention Articles which could create impact into
employment law.

2.1 Statutory interpretation:

Since the HRA 1998 came into force on 2nd October 2000 claimants have been able to assert their convention rights in the United Kingdom Courts and Employment Tribunals, thus avoiding huge cost and delay of taking cases to European Courts of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Act gives effect to the provision of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Much speculation existed about the effect that the Act would have on employment law in the UK.

‘Parliament remains free to legislate in a manner incompatible with the Convention right which become part of municipal law under the Act’.

In an attempt to discuss the impact on the individual employment law would depend on how these rights are enforced as this is dependent on whether the individual as an employee or worker who is employed or works in the public or private sector.

The public sector employees and workers can assert their convention rights by bringing direct claim against their employers in the employment tribunal and courts by virtue of Section 7 of the HRA 1998. While the private sector employees cannot assert their convention rights through this route; instead they can rely on ss. 2,3, and 6 of the Act which places a statutory duty in employment tribunal and the courts to interpret domestic legislation in a way that gives effect to convention rights, and Strasbourg jurisprudence, as section 2 of the HRA 1998 provides ‘(1) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any (a) judgement, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights…’. Section 3 of the HRA1998 states that ‘so far as it is possible to do so, primary and subordinate legislation must read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights’.

Section 6 provides:

‘(1) It is unlawful for a public body to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right’. Section 6(3) provides that court and tribunals are included in the definition of public authority.

2.2 The Convention Rights:

Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to, the Act set out those rights under the ECHR which are to be part of municipal law ‘Convention rights’. Section 1 (1) defines the term ‘Convention rights’ as the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the various articles of “Convention”, which is defined in turn in section21(1) as the ECHR “as it has effect for the time being in relation to the UK”. ‘This makes it clear that the rights are those which operate in international law in relation to the UK’.[3] The current list of rights appears enormous but for the benefit of this task I will focus on the Convention rights that have had most impact on employment law. These are:

Article 4, which prohibits forced labour

Article 6, which provides for the right to a fair trial

Article 8, protects private and family life

Article 9, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10, protects freedom of expression

Article 11, which guarantees the rights to freedom of association and assembly

Article 14, provides that there shall be no discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of any Convention right.

The above rights which are relevant to employment law from the wordings of the Articles are not expressed in absolute terms and are therefore subject to certain restrictions. The Courts will employ extra measure in the process of interpreting statutes with Convention rights ensuring that a balance result is produced, that which is compatible with the rights. This is regarded as the ‘principle of proportionality’; finding a balance between the protection of the individual rights and to those that are of communal interest.

Article 8 contains both negative and positive obligations. The state is under a negative obligation not to interfere with privacy rights, but in addition Strasbourg case law has also extended Art.8 to impose a positive duty to take measures to prevent private parties from interfering with these rights: (1) X (2) Y v the Netherlands (1985)8 EHRR 235.

There are four protected interests under Article 8:

(1) private life;
(2) home;
(3) family;
(4) correspondence.

Most actions have been decided under the right to respect for private life, although they may involve incidental claims to respect for home, family or correspondence.

Like Articles 9, 10 and 11 Article 8 (2) contains specific exceptions to the right guaranteed in the first paragraph. These limitations may only be justified if they are “in accordance with the law” (Artciles 9,10 & 11 require measures to be “prescribed by law”) and, in all cases, “necessary in a democratic society”. The following analysis of these qualifications will apply equally to Articles 9 10 and 11 to follow.
In Accordance with the/Prescribed by law

This means three things:

(1) there must be a specific legal rule or regime which authorises the interference;
(2) the citizen must have adequate access to the law in question (The Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979) 2 EHRR 245);
(3) the law must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to foresee the circumstances in which the law would or might be applied Malone v United Kingdom

Necessary in a Democratic Society

Even if a measure has been taken in pursuit of one of the legitimate interests listed in the second paragraph of Articles 8, 9 10 or 11, the measure must be tested for “necessity.” The Court has held that the notion of necessity implies two things:

(1) that an interference corresponds to a pressing social need;
(2) that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

The Doctrine of Proportionality

In order for a measure to be “necessary in a democratic society”, it must respond to a “pressing social need” The Sunday Times v United Kingdom this involves the test of proportionality. If a measure has been adopted which infringes an individual’s Convention right in some way, it will not be considered disproportionate if it is restricted in its application and effect, and is duly attended by safeguards in national law so that the individual is not subject to arbitrary treatment (MS v Sweden (1997) 3 BHRC 248). The Court held that, ‘the domestic law must afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such communication or disclosure of personal health data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees in Article 8’

Margin of Appreciation

Depending on the aim pursued, the Court grants Signatory States a certain leeway in adopting the measures it considers most appropriate to pursue that aim. In the area of public morals, for example, State authorities have been considered to be in a better position than the Court itself to determine for instance the restrictions on the sale of pornography Handyside v United Kingdom.or the legal recognition of transsexuals Rees v United Kingdom.

The private individual has no direct obligation under the Convention rights however s 3 of the HRA 1998 requires that, ‘so far as it is possible to do so, primary and subordinate legislation must read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights’. This inference is that the courts or tribunals must read and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible with such rights taking into account Strasbourg jurisprudence. The Act does not create any ‘free –standing’ rights for employees there must be in existence the right which has to be interpreted in line with the Convention rights.

The Court of Appeal has consistently reiterated that the Human Rights Act remains relevant to decisions taken by employment tribunals considering for instance in a claim of unfair dismissal made against a private employer recommended the following five point approach which might aid tribunals in other unfair dismissal cases between private individuals relating to Convention rights issues. The five point approach suggested in the case of X v Y [2004] EWCA Civ 662

is as follows:

(1) Do the circumstances of the dismissal fall within the ambit of one or more of the Arts of the Convention?

(2) If so, does the state have a positive obligation to secure enjoyment of the relevant Convention right between private persons?

(3) If it does, is the interference with the employee’s Convention right by dismissal justifiedIf it is, proceed to (5) below.

(4) If it is not, was there a permissible reason for the dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), which does not involve unjustified interference with a Convention rightIf there was not, the dismissal will be unfair for the absence of a permissible reason to justify it.

(5) If there was, is the dismissal fair, tested by the provisions
of s98 of the ERA, reading and giving effect to them under s3
of the HRA so as to be compatible with the Convention right?

Considering the case of private employers section 3 appears more appropriate than section 6 of the HRA 1998 which explicitly applies merely to cases relating to public authority.

The requirement under section 3 of the HRA implies that the courts and employment tribunal, so far as it is possible to do so, be obliged to read and give effect to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and other related provisions in the ERA in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. The requisite of section 3 of the HRA applies to both primary legislation and secondary legislation; the ERA and the rules of procedure in the Employment Tribunal Regulations 2001. The ERA applies to all matters relating to employment rights disputes that exist between private sector employer and employee, unfair dismissal claims between public sector employer and employees. Invoking Section 98 of the ERA draws no distinction between an employer in the private sector and a public authority employer. In line with his leading judgement, Mummery LJ said, ‘in the case of such a basic employment right there would normally be no sensible grounds for treating public and private employees differently in respect of unfair dismissal, especially in these times of widespread contracting out by public authorities to private contractors…’[9]

Under Section 3 of the HRA it is the tribunal’s or Court duty to interpret S.98 (4) in a way compatible with Convention rights as was determined in the case of X v Y [2004].

An analysis of case law alleging breaches of convention rights and incompatibility of UK legislation.

The vast majority of employment cases to date have related to Article 6, the right to fair trial, Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, Article 4, prohibition of slavery and forced labour, Article 9, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Article 10, the right to freedom of expression, Article 11, the right to freedom of association and assembly. Below I will attempt to set out the main cases brought under these Convention Articles.

Article 8- the right to private and family life in Art8 (1) is subject to a number of restrictions in Art (2) restrictions which have in many cases proved deficient in the ability of claimants to bring successful claims under this Article. The tribunals and courts are required to regard the “principle of proportionality” when considering restriction on the exercise of a Convention right; which involves finding the right balance between the protection of the individual’s right and the interest of the state at large.

In X v Y , the Court of Appeal cautiously asked whether the tribunal should have taken an employee’s right to private life under Article 8 into account when determining the fairness of his dismissal in accordance with S.98 (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employee was dismissed after his employers found out that he had earlier received a police caution over some sexual activity in the toilet which he has failed to disclose when seeking employment as required by his employers. The Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal decision that since the activity took place in public his Article 8 right to respect for private life and his right under Article 14 not to suffer discrimination had not been engaged.

In Pay v Lancashire Probation Service, A Probation officer was dismissed when his employer’s discovered his links to a business involving sadomasochistic activities. The employee sought to argue that, in accordance with S.3 of HRA, his right not to be fairly dismissed should be interpreted in the light of Articles 8 and 10. The tribunal held that the dismissal had been effected for ‘some other substantial reason’ within S.98 (1) and that his employer’s decision to dismiss him was fair for the purposes of S. 98(4). Again the tribunal concluded that the employee’s activities were conducted in public and could not be accepted as such being part of this private life. The tribunal also addressed the issue relating to Article 10 that this Convention right was not infringed and concluded that the employer’s decision to dismiss was justified under Article 10(2) which restricts the right to freedom of expression; taking into consideration that the employee’s activities would pose a risk to the reputation of the employer. The EAT while upholding the decision of the tribunal rejected the employee’s argument that the tribunal had erred in its approach by considering first the issue of fairness before considering whether Conventions rights were engaged and, if they have been breached. They argue that the consideration was injected into S.98 (4) test and that ‘interpretative obligation’ were met.

In another development regarding the claim which breaches Article 8, employers have the right to undertake random drug, or alcohol test on employees. The was challenged in the case of Whitefield v General Medical Council [12] a medical doctor appealed against the condition placed on his registration by the General Medical Council requiring his abstinence from alcohol and submitting to random blood and breath test. He relied on Article 8 arguing that the conditions deprived him from consuming alcohol during family and social gatherings, therefore violated his rights under Article 8. However the Privy Council rejected his claim that restriction was for public safety in the course of his employment as this would have serious consequences on his practice and that testing for safety reasons would seem proportionate. They also suggested that he can still enjoy drinking with friends and family and could opt for soft drinks instead.

In the McGowan case, the Article 8 right was considered when a public sector employee who was dismissed after his employer obtained evidence through covert surveillance of his house that proved he was falsifying records of time sheets. However the EAT accepted the covert surveillance that the employer’s action was necessary to protect its assets and also investigation a criminal activity, despite the acceptance of the fact that tracking the movements of all inhabitants abode the house ‘raises…a strong presumption that the right to have one’s private life respected is being infringed’

The issue that has arisen between the right to privacy and freedom from intrusion into one’s personal life and relationship conflict with the right to fair trial has led the courts to demonstrate where appropriate the willingness to prioritise the right to a fair trial under Article 6 over Article 8 privacy rights. This was illustrated in the case of Jones v University of Warwick an enquiry agent obtained access and information from the employee of the company he was representing by posing as a market researcher, filmed her using a hidden camera. The employee had proceeded to make a claim against her employer alleging significant disability and claimed substantial damages. The employer then introduced the video footage as evidence of the employee recovery, the Court of Appeal accepted the video footage despite admitting that this act was a violation of employee’s Article 8 rights but states that ‘the significance of the evidence weighed against the gravity of the Article 8 breach’.

In contrast to the decision in Jones, the Court of Appeal in XXX v YYYoverturned the decision of EAT who earlier admitted the evidence of a nanny who had submitted a recorded video footage in support of her claim of sex discrimination; that the employment tribunal who had seen the footage had concluded that it did not assist the employee’s case, therefore in its view was irrelevant and did not affect the balance struck between Articles 8 and 6 respectively.

The EAT, in the case of De Keyser Ltd v Wilson made a general comment on the relationship between the two convention rights (Article 8 and 6) that ‘where an individual institutes proceedings, his or her right to privacy under Article 8 (1) will be qualified by Article 8(2) so far as is necessary to protect the right of the litigating parties to a fair trial under Article 6’.

Article 6 guarantees the right to ‘fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’

An evaluation of the impact of the HRA 1998 on the law of private employer and employee.

In his April 2009 report, Professor Ruggie of the UN Secretary General’s

Special Representative on human rights and transnational corporations and other business entities, explained:

‘states are not held responsible for corporate-related human rights abuse per se, but

may be considered in breach of their obligations where they fail to take appropriate

steps to prevent it and to investigate, punish and redress it when it occurs. Within

these parameters, states have discretion as to how to fulfil their duty. The main

human right treaties generally contemplate legislative, administrative and judicial measures’[17]

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

(i) HRA makes it unlawful for any Authority to act incompatibly with convention rights. However if the Authority is complying with its own primary legislation it will not have acted illegally.

(ii) HRA requires all legislation to be interpreted and given effect (as far as possible) to be compatible with convention rights.

(iii) The principle of proportionality is crucial so that say an authority in trying to prevent crime adopts a policy contrary to convention rights it must still show that the action was proportioned and not excessive.

(iv) Only a victim or someone potentially at risk of being affected by a measure can bring proceedings under the HRA

5. Conclusion

The Human Rights Act 1998 may be relevant to a dispute between private parties in the following ways:

oThe horizontal effect of the Act
oThe interpretative obligation on the Court; or
oThe positive obligations placed on public authorities by the Act.

However, none of the above makes the Human Rights Act enforceable directly against private individuals or companies.

Outline the nature of the violation

Torture is a serious human rights violation and is strictly prohibited by international law however it still does continue in majority of the countries around the world. Torture is an act of deliberately inflicting severe pain on someone without any legal causes. Torture is not only physical pain but also includes the act of causing mental pain as well such as threats to family or loved ones. Torture has been used as a punishment to intimidate or control a person.

The term torture includes a variety of methods such as severe beatings, electric shock, sexual abuse and rape, hard labour, near suffocation etc. Torture is considered a violation of human rights under Article 5 of the UN UDHR which states ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. A location in which torture occurs is Guantanamo Bay detention camp (GTMO) in Cuba. GTMO is a detainment and detention facility of the United States located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

The facility was established by the Bush administration to hold detainees from the war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. It is operated by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo of the United States government in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantanamo Bay. A few torture methods being inflicted upon the detainees of GTMO includes sleep deprivation, beatings, locked in confined cold cells, sexual assault and torturing with broken glass, barbed wire and burning cigarettes )Outline the international instruments and mechanisms in place to deal with the violation, and outline how these mechanisms have been breached There are numerous laws in place to deal with events involving torture and the following are the international treaties and mechanisms that determine standards for the human right to be protected from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. According to Article 5 of the UDHR which states that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman r degrading treatment or punishment’ torture is a human rights violation. Torture is a breach of Article 5 of the UDHR as it is an act of deliberate severe pain inflicted on someone to gain information. Methods of torture such as beatings, sexual assault, rat torture, scaphism are all cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which are prohibited and are a breach of the UDHR. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a treaty adopted by the General Assembly. This covenant elaborates the principles laid out in the UDHR.

Torture is a violation of this convention as it is prohibited under Article 7, which states ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation. As torture is a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment it is classified a breach of this covenant. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations, that aims to prevent torture around the world.

It is the principal UN treaty concerned with torture. It compromises 33 articles covering the rights at stake and the enforcement mechanisms. Torture is a violation of human rights as the Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture and no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be raised to justify torture. Torture breaches this article as it torture still exist today even though there are laws prohibiting its occurrence. The Optional Protocol to the Convention Against torture (OPCAT) entered into force on 22 June 2006 and is an important addition to the UNCAT.

The purpose of the protocol as stated in Article 1 is to ‘establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Torture is a breach of this Protocol because it occurs at GTMO as the detainees are treated unjustly such as being deprived of sleep and torturing of dangerous objects. The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions.

This convention defines humanitarian protection for prisoners of war. The convention states that prisoners of war ‘are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour’ (Article 14) and ‘must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity’ (Article 13). Article 17 specifies that ‘no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatsoever.

Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind’. Therefore torture is a severe breach of this convention as it is an act of inflicting cruel inhuman pain on prisoners of war to detain information which occurs at GTMO. Even though there are various international instruments and mechanisms in place to deal with torture they are still breached which occurs at GTMO. )Analyse the effectiveness of international law in protecting the human rights you have identified International law is the body of legal rules that apply between sovereign states which are regarded and acknowledge highly by the international community. International law may be not as effective in other countries due to state sovereignty, a nation states values and interest and whether or not treaties have been signed or ratified. The core principle of international law is sovereignty.

This means that no authority is legally above the state. The states are not obliged to agree to the international law and apply it within their state because of state sovereignty. This may be a reason in which why torture still exists in the world today as it has not been entirely abolished because some states have not agreed to apply the international laws dealing with torture within their state e. g. UNCAT where some states have both signed and ratified the convention, states have signed but not ratified and other states which have ot signed nor ratified the covenant such as Papua New Guinea, Angola, Zimbabwe and Iran where torture is known to still occur today. As long as state sovereignty applies the nation state cannot have any external interference and therefore cannot be influenced as to whether the nation state should apply the international law into their state or not. This limits international law from becoming affective into the nation state. Not every state will agree with the values as they are completely different to their own beliefs.

It may be used by states to maintain positions of power and gain self interest. Therefore it is not used objectively. For example a state which disapproves of torture may agree to the international laws created to prohibit torture whereas a state which torture may occur and the leader of the state does not want to entirely prohibit torture, will not agree to the international laws as their goals and values differ of other states. If the international law does not benefit the nation state in anyway the nation state may not decide to apply that law into their nation state.

So this weakens the developing and appliance of international law. The ICCPR is a covenant respecting the civil and political rights of individuals. This treaty has been signed by Cuba however it has not been ratified. Therefore the nation state does not have to entirely comply with the treaty which results in torture occurring in Cuba at GTMO and the ICCPR loses its effectiveness. This is because no external interference can influence to comply with the treaty and prohibit torture occurring at GTMO. OPCAT is an addition to UNCAT in which Cuba have yet signed or ratified.

It is an international inspection system for places of detention such as GTMO. However since Cuba has not signed nor ratified the protocol OPCAT does not have the jurisdiction to inspect GTMO. This reduces the effectiveness of the international law assisting to prohibit torture occurring at GTMO. As a result of state sovereignty, a nation states values and interest and whether or not the nation state has signed and ratified the treaty international is ineffective in reducing and prohibiting torture in occurring around the world today in such places such as GTMO located in Cuba.

From

the

first minutes

of

life,

a person

already has his

rights.

All

of

them are indicated

in the Declaration of Human Rights,

which has long been

accepted by the international community. It is unbelievable

that

people

needed centuries

to understand their rights and

protect

them. But they

are so simple!

Personal

rights and freedoms

are directly related

and

do not arise

from

citizenship or place

of

residence. Personal

rights and freedoms

are inalienable

and

belong to

a person

from birth. Human

rights

necessary to ensure

the protection of

life, freedom, dignity

and

other natural

rights

related

to

your

personal

and private

life.

Each of us must be convinced of

the violation of

our

rights and freedoms. And of

course protect them.

And

also,

and

this is

the

main thing – to

respect the rights of

other

people,

no

less

than

their

own.

Democracy is a very popular form of government. Every nation of the world today either desires to be a democracy or claims to be one. Today, it is a magic word. If truly interpreted it means freedom, justice and equality for all classes of people. Democracy assumes human beings to be basically good, rational and capable of self-restraint. In other words, democracy ensures human rights. Broadly speaking, human rights include right to life, liberty, property and security of an individual which have been guaranteed in our Constitution. Democracy confers certain rights on the people.

But unfortunately these rights are abused in the name of resisting oppression. The rights that those systems of governments bestow on everyone need to be balanced by certain duties and limits. Rights give status to each human being irrespective of his or her talents or the lack of them. They imply that each human being counts purely by virtue of the fact that he or she is human and that he or she is entitled to be treated in a particular way. Rights which are largely based on the fundamental objective of social good provide protection from oppression.

It ensures protection to every section of society including the neglected and weaker sections against oppression and harassment by the powerful-individual or government. These rights hold that individual entitlements are of such overriding importance that they eclipse all other considerations. The entitlements of these rights are accrued to human beings just because of their being human. Accordingly, every human being is entitled to assert his or her rights. Indeed, it is very difficult to ensure that individual rights will not be violated in a society.

However, it is necessary to institute a norm that rights are of such primary importance that whosoever violates, should have good reasons for this, i. e. in the larger interests of society. They should be liable to prove this. No doubt this is the unique characteristics of democracy that everyone has the freedom to dissent. But there is certain limit to the expression of dissent, if crossed, it may prove dangerous to social fabric and the unity and integrity of the country, as well. In fact, the success of democracy requires certain conditions which include tolerance, compromise, mutual regard for everyone’s rights and freedoms.

It requires rational conduct, good character, an intelligent understanding of public affairs, independent judgement, preferences of public interest. People need to think and work in the broader perspective, sacrificing their own self. They are expected to realise their responsibilities towards community and society. Preference to self-interest leads to the emergence of some negative qualities which may be dangerous to the both society and country itself. Such action hurt the cause of democracy and very often paves the way for dictatorship.

Democracy in real sense means perfect equality between one man and another and in all spheres of human activity. With its liberal democratic institutions and parliamentary system of government, India stands in good position in case of human rights. Indian Constitution incorporates a vast range of political, social, economic, cultural and religious rights of citizens. For ensuring the rights of all citizens, our Constitution allows for some special provisions for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other weaker and backward sections of society through the policy of reservation and other means.

Untouchability is banned and its practice in any form and anywhere is an offence. Primary education is free and secondary and higher education is subsidised and is being made progressively free. Physical and mental health is recognised as one of the social rights. India has recognised that human rights and democracy are inseparable and one cannot be secure without the other. The existence of the judiciary, free press and voluntary nongovernment organisations, in a way, ensures the protection and promotion of human rights.

In this regard the system of public interest litigation immensely helped in establishing the rule of law and maintaining a check on the arbitrary behaviour of politicians and public authority. The role of judiciary is highly appreciable in promotion and protection of human rights. Besides, remarkable achievements made in various fields of life such as education, science and technology, economics, sports, medical science, etc. have all led to better human conditions.

Furthermore, the land reform movements and other developmental programmes targeting weaker sections of society have added to the better human rights conditions in India. Labour legislation also constitutes an integral part of establishing better human rights conditions. Despite constitutional commitment and legislative reforms, the age old structure of inequality continues to remain a bitter reality. A significant portion of population is subjected to multiple deprivations. Poverty still remains a formidable challenge with 22 per cent of its population living below the poverty line.

Education, health care, drinking water, etc. remain a distant dream for a large portion of society. Child labour is still present in society, a large portion of them engaged in various hazardous industries. The difference between male and female wages still persists. There are many instances of violation of human rights of particularly the weaker sections of society. Police force in India is still colonial in their character and behaviour. Charges of human rights violation on the police is almost a daily affairs.

The gravest unfortunate reality is that the targeting of civil population has become the scary strategy of the new breed of terrorism unleashed by fundamentalist forces. Latest in the series is the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife in fake encounter at the hands of police in Gujarat. Sometimes the killings of innocent citizens in the name of mistaken identity expose the cruel face of our police. Though the presence of a fair judiciary in India is a matter of great relief, justice is done to the victims and guilty is punished.

Thus, there is a need to make them sensitive to civilian needs and human rights. They are required to exercise restraint in exercising their duties. However, it is equally desirable to guard against its misuse by an adversary. In brief, we may conclude that despite instances of human rights violations, India continues to be the largest democracy of the world, having democratic and open society, giving importance to liberty, equality, freedom and people’s other rights with the supreme fair judiciary protecting them.

The first Secretary General of the United Nations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts his views in these words, “Freedom from fear could be said to sum up the whole philosophy of human rights. ” Hence, the people of India need to come forward and join hands with the people of the world in the noble task of making them free from sense of fear and promoting human rights and democracy inseparable to each other.

Freedom is a concept that refers to many aspects of human life. I believe that is defined as the ability that people have to do or not something, and do it in a way or another. I also believe that is possible to understand freedom as that state in which a man is not being imprisoned or enslaved by another; it is a concept that refers to all aspects related to independence. This concept is something that has made us think in many ways, because many times, the do what we want, can take us to the wrong path, which may end up making us lose it.

Since the beginning of man to the present human freedom has played an important role in it but not the way we wanted to remember. A great example was Egypt; there existed on the banks of the Nile an extreme amount of slaves that contributed to the creation of the same. What I mean is that human freedom has been leaving a mark very strong throughout man’s existence but erroneously because it is not characterized by the excess of it, on the contrary, is characterized by its absence.

Slavery is not a story of the past, it is true that it was practiced more frequently in it but even in our times can be found slaves, this slavery can be accepted or not, for the slave. There are several types of freedom, among which are the freedom of expression, that is based in that every human being has the right to free speech, this is a right that I believe that we are only ones can make it count because we are responsible to find ways of how we want to express.

Also, freedom of opinion that says that we live in a democratic world so we have the right to give our opinions, regardless of whether it is our view and we are free to make it known; freedom of worship which is based on that we all come from a family with religious beliefs that we learn from childhood, and society teaches us that there are many more religions that we have to accept equally, and that each individual has the freedom to choose and defend their beliefs.

The freedom of choice each individual has to choose freely what they want without having anything to stop them doing that and the latest, freedom of decision which states that each person is the only responsible who can decide what does or does not do with his life.

As Charles Evans Hughes said, “When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free”. Freedom is an instrument double-edged, means to do what you want, while not against human nature; to regulate this freedom there are laws, which are the rules from the order is born so no one has more freedom than other, and nobody thinks that their freedom is more valuable than another. It is double-edged because this is the same trap that should not escape, and being a runaway freedom means being taken prisoner in bondage, there is his trap, care freedom makes us all prisoners of the slavery of be free, but this brings us the ability to think, speak, hear and do it without fear of being penalized, punished or exterminated.

Any other slavery, don´t. I believe that freedom in general is the lack of limitation for action. This has been present for years in the world, where it has been very important. From my point of view, the greatest attribute of being free is that we always have the decision last us. We can decide and be free to do what we want or what we want it or not oblige.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948 and one of the articles, article XXVI deals with protection of the fundamental rights, right to education:  Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.  Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The right to education is a universal right and is recognized as a human right. It includes the right to free, non biased and non political primary education for everyone, to make secondary education at least accessible to everyone and make access to higher education.

The right to education also provides the obligation to avoid discrimination at all educational levels and to improve quality of education. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights defined „education as teaching or instructions in particular to the transmission of knowledge and to intellectual development” and in a wider sense as “the whole process whereby, in any society, adults endeavor to transmit their beliefs, culture and other values to the young. “ The rights to educations have been separated into three levels.

Primary also known as elemental or fundamental education must be compulsory and free for any young person. It must not be discriminatory on nationality, gender, sexuality, etc. All countries ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights States must provide free primary education within two years. Secondary education must be available and accessible to anyone regardless of nationality, gender, or sexuality. It can be free or not, and it can be compulsory, but it does not have to be.

In some countries, even though minority, secondary education is compulsory, for example in Denmark, Croatia, Finland, etc. Higher education at the University level must be accessible to persons who meet necessary education standards to be able to go to universities. Higher education does not falls under the provision of free education. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaims that: „Everyone has the right to education“, the question is to what kind of education or who should provide it?

The fact is that UDHR was drawn up in 1948 when only a minority of young people in the world had access to any type of education, however, today we can say that situation is much better, showing that four out of five adults worldwide have some literacy skills. The purpose of the UDHR’s article XXVI is not just having quantative aspect, but also qualitative. The UDHR’s article XXVI has certain provisions that must be fulfilled in order to have qualitative education, such provisions are: „Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages“ and „Elementary education shall be compulsory“.

Today educational opportunities have significantly changed in most parts of the world especially in Europe, North America, and Asia, nevertheless Africa remains the main problem regarding the number of educated people. Another interesting point has been made over the years, whether educational institutions are ready to provide qualitive education to young people, and prepare them for social, economical, and political aspects of human life.

The commitment of the international community to implement the rights set out in the UDHR, mainly to adopt certain measures to ensure effective recognition, has taken different forms from international treaties to internationally agreed programmers. The UDHR’s rights and standards do not have force of law, however, the UDHR’s rights have been transformed into treaty provisions making legal obligation on the states that ratified the treaty to provide citizens with free and qualitative education on at least primary level.

The right to education is dealt with in Articles XIII and XIV of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and is also mentioned in Article XVIII(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As I previously mentioned almost all countries in the world have adopted and ratified treaties concerning right to education, but only some of them left doors open to individual citizens in their countries to challenge their own country for not complying with the provisions that they set in the treaties if that is the case.

In all Western Europe countries which have highly developed legal system, now exists a body of case law in regard to the right to education. Besides international treaties, countries worldwide have adopted other instruments for implementation of the right to education, from Recommendations of international conferences of States, to Declarations and Programmes or Frameworks for Action adopted by intergovernmental conferences, or by ‘mixed’ conferences composed of representatives of governments, international organizations and civil society such as the World Conference on Education for All.

The recommendations agreed by international conferences of states do not have the legally binding force as treaties, thus, they are normally adopted by consensus on the understanding that country will make everything in its power to implement provisions. In the world’s perception of the right to education changes has been made in the few past decades. the changes occurred in three phases or stages.

In the first phase, lasting from the late 1940s up until the early 1960s, international concern over the provision of ‘fundamental education’ came to focus particularly on literacy and expansion of elementary of primary education in developing countries. The second phase started in the mid 1960s until the late 1970s when focus passed on functional illiteracy and expansion of elementary education continued. In the last phase, from 1980s until the present functional literacy was regarded as an aspect of learning needs. Two general points for educational policy can be made.

The first is national efforts to reach out to those illiterate adults especially in Africa and the second to expand access to elementary education for the younger generation again mainly in Africa. These two points are the grounds for fulfillment of the UDHR article XXVI – right to education. Other provisions can be only partially fulfilled such as free education, but two provisions I mentioned can be fulfilled entirely in the whole world. The assessment of the fulfillment of the right to education is done by using so called 4As framework, which means that education must be available, adaptable, acceptable, and accessible.

This 4A framework was developed by Mrs. Katarina Tomasevski, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education. This 4A framework is intended to be applied on the governments, parents, and teachers. I will briefly explain these 4 As. Availability means that education must be funded mainly by the governments, education must be universal, free, and compulsory. The governments must ensure necessary infrastructure and educational materials for students and professors. Facilities intended to be schools must satisfy all safety standards, and all each school must have enough professional educators.

Adaptability means that educational programs should be flexible and schools must respect all religious holiday. Adequate care must be given to student and professors with disabilities. Accessibility means all children must have access to school regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality or social status. School must be within a reasonable distance for children, and if necessary transportation must be provided. Children must be supplied with all necessary textbooks and uniforms without additional costs.

Acceptability means that education that will be provided to students must be culturally appropriate and without if discrimination. Professors and methods of teaching must be objective, and all textbooks must not be bias or forcing single idea or belief. Professors must be at highest possible level of professionalism. UNESCO has several instruments for monitoring the implementation of the UDHR right of education with the support of Member States, various international organizations, the intellectual community, etc.

Thus, UNESCO’s constitution requires that member states must submit periodic reports on the implementation and development of the right to education. The articles VI and VIII of the UNESCO constitutions provides: „Each Member State shall submit to the Organization, at such time and in such manner as shall be determined by the General Conference, reports on laws, regulations and statistics relating to its educational, scientific and cultural institutions and activities, and on the action taken upon the recommendations and conventions“.

United Nation bodies which deal with human rights periodically receive reports from Member States, governmental and non-governmental organizations on implementation and violations of human rights including the right to education. The Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women are just two treaty bodies out of several which monitor the implementation of the right to education. Thus, it is important that two treaty bodies I mentioned above closely cooperate with UNESCO in order to protect human rights.

It is important to mention five international treaties which relate to education and protection of such right: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention against Discrimination in Education, Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be Responsible for Seeking the Settlement of any Disputes which may arise between States Parties to the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Convention on Technical and Vocational Education.

Besides to all the efforts of the United Nation, UNESCO, various international agencies and organization to implement UDHR’s provisions mainly article XXVI, many governments still give too little attention to protection of human rights. Hugh amount of money are being injected in military development and maintenance, while education as the important pillar of the modern society still stays on the margins of the governments budgets.

Mrs. Katarina Tomasevski, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education wrote interesting comparison stating that there are 150 soldiers for every 100 teachers in the world. She additionally stated that only 2% of educational funds come from international aid. Thus, in many African countries even primary education is not free and education simply becomes too expensive for the poor families in those countries.

Education cannot survive without money, and implementation and protection of the right to education depends upon the funds that governments and international organizations are willing to provide. We can conclude that only Europe and North America managed to satisfy all the requirements stated in the United Declaration of Human Rights article XXVI. There is still a lot of work to be done to copy this example to the rest of the world, especially in Africa, where education is only one problem among many others.

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. ” Mahatma Gandhi Human rights are commonly understood as “inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law. The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and in the activities of non-governmental organizations, has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world.

Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights. Ancient societies had “elaborate systems of duties… conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights”.

The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics. The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition that became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality. The right to food, and its variations, is a human right protecting the right for people to feed themselves in dignity, implying that sufficient food is available, that people have the means to access it, and that it adequately meets the individual’s dietary needs. The right to food protects the right of all human beings to be free from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.

The right to food does not imply that governments have an obligation to hand out free food to everyone who wants it, or a right to be fed. However, if people are deprived of access to food for reasons beyond their control, for example, because they are in detention, in times of war or after natural disasters, the right requires the government to provide food directly. Right to Food and right to be free from hunger are the human rights which are protected under various international human rights and humanitarian laws.

Right to food is explicitly mentioned in the Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948; and the Article 11 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. It is also recognised in the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Right to food of indigeneous people is implicit in the ILO Convention No-169 which is approved by 17 countries. Approximately 20 countries in the world have incorporated the Right to Food for their people.

World Development Report (1986) defined food security as “access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. According to Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the UNO, “Food security exists when all people at all times have access to sufficient and nutritious food to meet the dietary needs and food preference for an active and healthy life. ” Staatz (1990) defined food security as “The ability to assure, on a long term basis, that the food system provides the total population access to a timely, reliable and nutritionally adequate supply of food. Thus food security may be of short-term or sustainable. In case of short-term food security we consider food security of the present population only. But in case of sustainable food security we consider the food security not only of the present generation but also of the future generation as well. According to Swaminathan, “Sustainable food security means enough food for everyone at present plus the ability to provide enough food in future as well. ” In the long-run sustainable food security is very important. Food security is a state of being.

Like literacy or good health, food security is a state that everyone wants to enjoy. Governments have decreed that every person has an inalienable right to food. The fundamental purpose of economic activity is to ensure adequate access to food for oneself and one’s family. The primacy of food security as an objective for human activity is reflected in the frequency with which the term “food security” appears in UN declarations and NGO advocacy efforts. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture acknowledges the legitimacy of food security concerns.

South Africa, Brazil and Norway have all enshrined the right to food in law. There are basically three principle elements of Food Security. These are: Supply: Global food production has by and large kept up with or exceeded demand over the past century. The application of new technologies to agriculture, including mechanized vehicles to till, plant and harvest crops; improved seed and breeding stock; and the use of herbicides, pesticides and inorganic fertilizers, has vastly increased productivity.

At the same time , one third or more of agricultural land used to be dedicated to growing fuel (wood to burn) or feed for the animals that provide muscle for transportation and production (hay for horses and oxen). Much of that land is now available to grow food for humans instead, adding to the total overall supply. Distribution: Distribution depends on such things as markets, transportation, infrastructure, relative purchasing power and the source and nature of the supply.

Where the food is traded commercially , the volume and type of food traded is related to purchasing power and the ease with which the trader can reach a market. Access: Food security is about individuals , families and communities, not about regional and national aggregates. That is why, supply is only one piece of the food security puzzle. Only rarely does a whole country face hunger or famine. Rather, when the food supply is insufficient, those with greater purchasing power get food while those without sufficient income or entitlement go hungry.

In India there is a deeply rooted tradition of respect for food – it stresses the importance of growing and sharing food. Sharing or offering food is a universal tradition shared by all religious entities that have roots in the Indian soil. Accordingly, in 1950, India adopted a very progressive Constitution aimed at ensuring all its citizens social, economic and political justice, equality, and dignity. Therefore any law to be valid in Indian Territory must be within the constitutional framework.

Like in many countries of the World the “The Right to Food” in Indian Constitution is not recognized as a “Fundamental Right”. Therefore, there is no constitutional mandate to have a claim over it. Regarding right to food, one has to look for relevance in Article 21 of the Constitution, entitled “Protection of life and personal liberty” and Article 47 “Duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living […]” as well as in judicial interventions of the Supreme Court and various Acts, which have cumulatively strengthened the right to food in India.

Knowing the constitutional and legislative framework in India regarding the right to food is crucial for identifying right to food violations and supporting victims in realizing their right to food. Indian Constitution Part III, Article 21 “Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except to procedure established by law. ” The phrases “Protection of life” and “personal liberty” have called several times for interpretation. A series of judicial interventions and interpretations have deepened the normative content of this fundamental right.

Indian Constitution Part IV: Directive Principles The right to food or in general the economic, social, and cultural rights are defined in Part IV of the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy, which are guidelines to the central and State Governments for framing laws and policies. The provisions are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein are considered as fundamental in the Governance of the country. There are several Articles under the Directive Principles offer remote relevance for the right to food, but the clearest statement regarding the right to food is provided by Article 47.

Article 47:  Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs, which are injurious to health.

Putting together Article 21 and 47 and various interpretations of the Supreme Court of one can safely say that the Government of India has a constitutional obligation to take appropriate measures to ensure a dignified life with adequate food for all citizens. The right to food can be regarded as a fundamental right by virtue of interpretation. There has been a continous appeal to the Government for passing a legislation on food security.

The government is likely to accept most of the recommendations of Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) on the proposed food security law despite warnings that the suggestions would add to subsidy burden, increase dependence on imports and distort the country’s food economy. The food ministry has set out plans that are in line with the NAC’s proposal to widen the scope of the legislation, which seeks to provide legal guarantee of subsidised grains to the poor.

Several experts have warned that the NAC recommendations would force the government to substantially raise its grain procurement, which in turn would lead to a larger subsidy burden on its already stretched finances. The council had proposed legal subsidised food entitlements for at least 72% of the country’s population in Phase-I by 2011-12. The NAC had also proposed legal subsidised food entitlements for 75% of the country’s population, covering the ‘priority’ (below the poverty line) and ‘general’ (above the poverty line) households, in Phase-II by 2013-14. National Food Security Bill, 2011

The government has introduced the much anticipated National Food Security Bill — a legislation aimed at shoring up the UPA’s support base — in Parliament. The “landmark social legislation” will guarantee grain at extremely cheap rates to more than half of the population. Food minister KV Thomas, who introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha amid thumping of desks by Congress members led by party president Sonia Gandhi, said that it would ensure that all Indians “live a life with dignity”. The bill marks a shift in approach to the problem of food security — from the current welfare paradigm to a rights-based approach.

The proposed legislation confers eligible beneficiaries the legal right to receive grain at highly subsidised prices. The National Food Security Bill, 2011, considered to be the world’s largest experiment in ensuring food security to poor, has been a key project of Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The bill brings under its purview 63. 5% of the country’s population —75% of rural households and 50% of urban households. The bill classifies all entitled households as “general” and “priority”. At least 46% of rural households and 28% of urban households would be designated as “priority”.

Every person belonging to a “priority household” will be provided with 7kg of grain per month, comprising rice, wheat and coarse grain. Rice will be provided at Rs 3, wheat at Rs 2 and coarse grain at Rs 1 per kg. Others belonging to the “general category” would be entitled to not less than 3kg of grain per month at a rate not exceeding 50% of the minimum support price. Once passed, the food subsidy bill is expected to rise to Rs 95,000 crore. Initial estimates pegged the increase in subsidy at nearly Rs 28,000 crore.

However, on Thursday, the government made a downward revision of the additional burden on the central government — between R 21,000 crore to R 23,000 crore. The bill’s financial memorandum estimates the total annual expenditure on food subsidy under the targeted public distribution system at about Rs 79,800 crore. “The estimate of food subsidy is however dependent, among other things, upon economic cost, central issue of price of grain, number of beneficiaries covered and quantities of grain allocated and lifted, and therefore subject to change with changes in any or all of the variables affecting food subsidy,” the memorandum states.

Experts maintain that the annual increase would be to the tune of Rs 27,500 crore. However, Thomas said “an additional amount of not more than about Rs 20,000-21,000 crore annually would be required by way of subsidy. ” The minister argued since the food bill merges many ongoing programmes meant for women, children and the poor, there would be no additional financial burden. The total financial liability to implement the law is expected to be Rs 3. 5 lakh crore, with funds being required to raise agriculture production, create storage space and publicity.

A sum of roughly Rs 1,11,000 crore would be required to boost farm output with grain requirement increasing, on account of this intervention, from 55 million tonne to 61 million tonne annually. Thomas stressed that “this Rs 1,10,600 crore is not an additional burden. We need to invest in agriculture to boost production anyway”. The proposed law entitles every pregnant woman and lactating mother to meal free of cost during pregnancy and six months after childbirth. Cash benefits of Rs 1,000 per month to meet increased food requirements of pregnant women would be provided for the first six months of pregnancy.

At Rs 1,000 per month and covering 2. 25 crore women, an expenditure of nearly Rs 13,500 crore has been estimated. This will be borne by the central government and the states. Schemes to Ensure Food Security: There are also certain central food schemes and other assistance programmes for the poor in India. These are:  Targeted Public Distribution System;  Antyodaya Anna Yojana; Mid-day meal scheme;  Annapoorna Yojana;  Integrated Child Development Services;  National family benefit scheme;  National maternity benefit scheme; and National old age pension scheme. The Public Distribution System (PDS) Public Distribution System (PDS) is an Indian food security system. Established by the Government of India under Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food, and Public Distribution and managed jointly with state governments in India, it distributes subsidised food and non-food items to India’s poor. Major commodities distributed include staple food grains, such as wheat, rice, sugar, and kerosene, through a network of Public distribution shops (PDS) established in several states across the country.

Food Corporation of India, a Government-owned corporation, procures, maintain and issue food grains to the state. Distribution of food grains to poor people throughout the country are managed by state governments. As of date there are about 4. 99 lakh Fair Price Shops (FPS) across India. Annapoorna Yojana This scheme was started by the government in 1999-2000 to provide food to senior citizens who cannot take care of themselves and are not under the targeted public distribution system (TPDS), and who have no one to take care of them in their village.

This scheme would provide 10 kg of free food grains a month for the eligible senior citizens. The allocation for this scheme as off 2000-01 was Rs 100 crore. Antyodaya Anna Yojana Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) is an Indian government sponsored scheme for ten millions of the poorest families. It was launched by NDA government in December 2000. It is on the lookout for the ‘poorest of the poor’ by providing them 35 kilos of rice and wheat at Rs. 2 per kg. Mid-Day Meals Scheme The Midday Meal Scheme is the popular name for school meal programme in India which started in the 1960s.

It involves provision of lunch free of working days. The key objectives of the programme are: protecting children from classroom hunger, increasing school enrollment and attendance, improved socialization among children belonging to all castes, addressing malnutrition, and social empowerment through provision of employment to women. The scheme has a long history, especially in the state of Tamil Nadu. The scheme was introduced statewide by the then Chief Minister K. Kamaraj in the 1960s and later expanded by the M. G. Ramachandran government in 1982.

It has been adopted by most Indian states after a landmark direction by the Supreme Court of India on November 28, 2001. The success of this scheme is illustrated by the tremendous increase in the school participation and completion rates in Tamil Nadu. Status of the Food Schemes in India The framework of the right to food is one of the basic economic and social rights that are essential to achieve the “economic democracy” without which political democracy is , at best, incomplete. The right to food is nowhere being realized in India.

The schemes introduced by the Government are well designed, yet their implementation has been poor. In India, food security exists at the macro level in terms of physical access to food. Economic access is far from satisfactory, both at the micro as well as the macro level. The statement that economic access to food is far from satisfactory is confirmed by the fact that a significant proportion of the society lives in poverty and is malnourished. This section of the society is underprivileged and has less voice.

The right to food imposes on all States obligations not only towards the persons living on their national territory, but also towards the populations of other States. These two sets of obligations complement one another. The right to food can only be fully realized where both ‘national’ and ‘international’ obligations are complied with. CONSTITUTION OF FAO, 1965 Preamble The Nations accepting this Constitution, being determined to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purpose of: raising levels of nutrition and standards of living… and thus… nsuring humanity’s freedom from hunger.  Commitment Seven We will implement, monitor and follow-up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the international community. Objective 7. 4 To clarify the content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, as stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other relevant international and regional instruments, and to give particular attention to implementation and full and progressive realization of this right as a means of achieving food security for all.

To this end, governments, in partnership with all actors of civil society, will, as appropriate: a. Make every effort to implement the provisions of Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Covenant) and relevant provisions of other international and regional instruments; b. Urge States that are not yet Parties to the Covenant to adhere to the Covenant at the earliest possible time; c. Invite the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to give particular attention to this Plan of Action in the framework of its activities and to continue to monitor the mplementation of the specific measures provided for in Article 11 of the Covenant; d. Invite relevant treaty bodies and appropriate specialized agencies of the UN to consider how they might contribute, within the framework of the coordinated follow-up by the UN system to the major international UN conferences and summits, including the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna 1993, within the scope of their mandates, to the further implementation of this right; e.

Invite the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in consultation with relevant treaty bodies, and in collaboration with relevant specialized agencies and programmes of the UN system and appropriate intergovernmental mechanisms, to better define the rights related to food in Article 11 of the Covenant and to propose ways to implement and realize these rights as a means of achieving the commitments and objectives of the World Food Summit, taking into account the possibility of formulating voluntary guidelines for food security for all.

Article 25 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food. · The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent.

The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international cooperation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed: a. To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources.

Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need. Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

 States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health care services. 2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures: c. o combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods. d. to ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition. Article 27 States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means… shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition.

In this petition, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Supreme Court bringing to the court’s notice the extreme poverty of the people of Kalahandi in Orissa where hundreds were dying due to starvation and where several people were forced to sell their children. The letter prayed that the State Government should be directed to take immediate steps in order to ameliorate this miserable condition of the people of Kalahandi. This was the first case specifically taking up the issue of starvation and lack of food.

In this judgement, the Supreme Court took a very pro-government approach and gave directions to take macro level measures to address the starvation problem such as implementing irrigation projects in the state so as to reduce the drought in the region, measures to ensure fair selling price of paddy and appointing of a Natural Calamities Committee. None of these measures actually directly affected the immediate needs of the petitioner, i. e. to prevent people from dying of hunger. More importantly, the Supreme Court did not recognise the specific Right to Food within this context of starvation.  This is a landmark case relating to Right to Food and food security. This case, technically known as “PUCL vs Union of India and others (Writ Petition [Civil] No. 196 of 2001)”, is handled by an advisory group consisting of a few members from the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), former support group of the RIght to Food Campaign and other active individuals in the campaign. Supreme Court hearings have been held at regular intervals since April 2001, and the case has attracted wide national and international attention.

Although the judgment is still awaited, significant “interim orders” have been passed from time to time. For instance, the Supreme Court has passed orders directing the Indian government to:  introduce cooked mid-day meals in all primary schools,  provide 35 kgs of grain per month at highly subsidized prices to 15 million destitute households under the Antyodaya component of the PDS, (3) double resource allocations for Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (India’s largest rural employment programme at that time, now superseded by the Employment Guarantee Act), and  universalize the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). . CHAMELI SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. , In this case, it was held that right to life guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter. The method in which the constitutional social rights or the DPSP have been enforced or made justifiable by the Supreme Court has been through an expansion of the existing fundamental rights, particularly the Right to Life guaranteed in Article 21. CONCLUSION Starvation deaths and high prevalence of hunger clearly show that India needs to wake up.

The judiciary cannot monitor the implementation of the schemes forever. The government needs to review policy from time to time and take corrective measures for effective implementation of different schemes and programmes, establish effective mechanisms of accountability and ensure the right to food for all. As the problem of food insecurity relates to both the demand and supply of food, a solution could be to empower people towards greater purchasing power, as well as addressing the inadequacy of the distribution system, and checking corruption and leakages.

Awareness among the people with regard to their right to food can escalate the process of equitable distribution and thus help to realize the right to food for all citizens. The right to food is not just a basic human right, it is also a basic human need. It essentially requires the state to ensure that at least people do not starve. Implementation of the right to food does not imply that impossible efforts be undertaken by the states. The obligation to protect and respect the people compels the state to implement the right to food effectively, without recourse to extensive financial means. Food Crisis and Sustainable Food Security in India by Jaydeb Sarkhel .Right to Food- Reforms and Approaches, 2007, The Icfai University Press, pp5-6 [ 4 ]. Dev, S. M, and R Evenson (2003) ‘Rural Development in India:Rural, Non-farm and mitigation’ SCID Working Paper No. 187.

Human rights are the basic rights that a person is entitled to by virtue of being a human being regardless of color, race, creed and country of origin. Many countries have been accused of violating human rights and it is for that reason that there has been put in place various watchdogs to oversee and ensure that basic human rights are not violated. Mary Ann Gledon is perhaps one of the most influential women in America as far as human rights are concerned. Besides her high qualifications as a Professor, Mary has been vocal and highly critical in the manner in which human rights laws are applied.

The following discussion takes a brief overview of her criticism on the current human rights discourse . Glendon’s Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse is a book in which the author has criticized a great deal the application of human rights citing massive irregularities and thus abuse of human rights. Mary has in great depths criticized the courts arguing that by their unlimited authority to interpret the meaning of various human rights, the result has been that human rights have been individualized making people to lose responsibility for others.

Besides this there is total detachment from moral standards and as an absolute right (as made to appear by the courts), is above all other considerations . Mary argues that looking at the property law many societal concerns are not put in place and thus workers and employees are left uncatered for. Mary’s general argument as far as human rights are concerned is that there is a lot deviation in implementation of these rights and thus the very purpose for which they were established is defeated .

What is the nature of Perry’s response to Glendon’s, and others, criticism of contemporary rights talk? Michael Perry a renowned scholar and a vocal human rights activist has in his book The Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries differed with Mary Glendon and has instead attempted to respond to some of the issues raised in Mary’ book. This he has done by attempting to classify human rights in various categories . Firstly he argues that some rights that are classified under human rights actually do not apply to all but only to human beings in particular circumstances.

For instance the right to vote only applies to those citizens in a particular territory but not to all human beings. Perry disagrees with Mary quite a great deal in many of the issues raised in her book and attempts to give a different approach to the same issue of human rights . 3. What refinements does Glendon suggest to current human rights discourse? Glendon feels that in order to bright order to the American system on human rights a lot of reference must be made to the European countries.

She points out that the constitution and even decisions of courts of European countries are good examples of balanced human rights. This basically means that the scope would be expanded but only to the extent and limit where they do not interfere without concerns of the society. Conclusion To be able to arrive at the correct position we have to look at both authors critically since both have strong arguments but they also have some weaknesses in their arguments.