Human Rights have a very long history. Already the habeas corpus idea stresses the rights of individuals from illegal confinement. In Spanish speaking countries it is the amparo de libertad ("protection of freedom") that protects from unlawful imprisonment. Today we think of the UN convention when discussing HR. What I have mentioned so far, are all European rights systems. It might appear that systems of western origin are exposed on other cultures. However this is not entirely correct: we live in a globalized world where non-European cultures have taken many western concepts (without being forced to do so). People who are to benefit from HR would see it as important to have such rights without asking where the origin once had been. The introduction of rights systems have always political background. When politicians speak up for HR we can all this also a campaign. But is this all bad? It is good, it would be even better, if many more politicians would stick to it. What certainly is bad is the finger-pointing, saying how can you allow, when at home also HR violations are happening. Here I am reminded of the bible saying "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye,but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye?" . I am certain that other religion traditions have similar disregard for hypocrisy. At the end of the day I feel that any rights system that helps to prevent suffering of people have my support. At the same time I would speak out when such systems are compromised or used for discrimination.

Thanks for your views and perspective. I understand the politics of rights, but want a more convincing position on the 'politicized rights' where rights groups, shamefully and blatantly are partisan when speaking out and standing for. This is what undermines the sublimely potent rights of individuals and groups.

May be or not. To see the effectiveness of its related organizations seems campaign but its supports are truly effective like help to Rohingya in Bangladesh. They are not effective to pressure and compel Myanmar but provide food and other services continuously.

I see it as an antinomi value, every development of human rights discourse and science, can be suspected and used further in every aspect of life. When the imposition of advanced country double standards and controversy outside can be understood and discussed in international politics. Not only denied human rights, but also needed to occupy scientific and political positions of human rights.

Yes, the reasoning behind the original question was that the world might have had classifications of the world based on variable value systems and demarcation yardsticks based on power wealth and riches. However, humanity has moved on and each tribe, 'nation' ethnic has gained and wishes to claim what might have been lost or deprived. The most modern discovery that such would not happen in the future is the 'rights' perspective. All I argued earlier was that, the powerful and the rich cannot politicize it and own 'right' at their whim and fancy. We have an issue to address here of this disparity, hence my question to those interested. Aji Utomo's response is in line with this disparity and the polorisation.

Human rights history properly begins with the campaign against the King Leopold's personal colony in the Congo. This was the first serious, international human rights campaign and included many prominent people in the early 20th century. It was nominally successful, as the Colony was removed from the control of the King. It was also essentially unsuccessful, since the takeover of administration by the Belgian government did not truly liberate the people of what became the Belgian Congo, and in important respects, things like slave mining of minerals remains to this day (in a way that is technically legal - even in the USA prisoners are not covered by the amendment which outlawed slavery).

More generally, ALL human rights campaigns are politicized from the outset and need to be understood in that context. Human rights advocates seek political changes, by definition.

The United Nations has serious structural problems, and for some reason is unable to adopt reasonable policies, or to control corruption in its institutions. Nations with hopeless human rights records are allowed to have memberships on committees related to it, or even chairmanships of them. This is badly abused to strive for political goals of such members, without regard for actual human rights.

The era in which the UN might have mattered is probably drawing to a close. Its failure to act effectively is substantially structural, and compounded by a lack of mechanisms to police its members (or expel them for violating its rules). The need for a place to meet no longer exists, an the institution is likely to slowly fade from existence. Unless a serious reform movement takes over which is actually interested in preventing international wars and internal human rights abuses. In theory the UN could also police illegal trade in forbidden nuclear materials and delivery systems, piracy, international slave trading (called "human trafficking" - a mistake - never use a longer term when a short one with dire implications exists) and perhaps international drug trafficking. But none of these are feasible without the political will and funding to implement them. I do not think either exists.

I am glad that several colleagues have responded on this disparity of pursuit and application of human rights as an important material of democracy. Policing the 'abusers' has also been based on the who is 'friendly and not friendly' with the 'policing agent' also matters and worries in certain cases. The allied forces (WWII), after they knew well that Hitler and most of his fellow criminals have either committed suicide or killed in action ( except Eichmann who was later found by Mossad, hiding in Argentina), yet went ahead and erased the beautiful city of Dresden to ground zero. Nobody knows for sure how many were killed their, it was not a combatant city but a communication city where the Nazi communication was based. Skeletons are too many, litany is too long for the European Union and North American countries ( which now stands as a holier than thou position). So the modern states and their leadership should be careful about ' preaching' doctrines they have violated blatantly and now seemed to be on a 'self civilising project' which is a laughable proposition here in the 21 century. But none should be give any green light, not to any state whether in the Northern or the Southern hemisphere to infringe on rights of people at any cost. We together must uphold rights, not for rights sake but for create sustainable peace. I agree, campaigns are complicated, but its politicisation we must minimise, a difficult path.

The science of rights:

https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights

Yes browsed through the document Micheal. Agree on the title except the notion of proof which is a bit out of place phraseology. Rights are rights, they do not need proof. Would like a real response to the question raised and the responses so far. Your document might be good for a literature review to identify a research gap for a researcher I must say. Good attempt.

Dear Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi ,

Thanks for your interest!

Life’s unalienable rights is an axiom—a truth that requires no proof. My work focuses on the symmetry of unalienable rights to the constructal law. In general, all flow including human flow is govern by the constructal law resulting in dendritic patterns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-NDwqyTOaM

From the empirical, I claim that life’s unalienable rights is the constructal law.

Regards,

Mike

Law itself is a construct Michael, historical, contextual even cultural. The 'white only' Australian law became defunct when the first Chinese migrated into Victoria. I grant what might be called as inalienable rights, but whose rights ? Samis in par with the white Northern Europeans or the Amazon natives to the Spanish, Portuguese invaders, the natives of Australia who had to give up to the convicts of England, or the Māoris of New Zealand Aoteroa, yet another set of arrivals. This is where empiricism is also questioned because its more complicated than claims we wish to make I am afraid. Generalisation is a simplification, even the UN's so called charter on paper may sound perfect, in practice it is flawed. Worse is that those who implement prefer a different yardstick of the Security council with its Veto powers. What right is that after all. This is not 1948 when they ratified it first as the league of nations to form UN, it was another century all together. The world has moved on ! Thanks for your response.

Dear Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi ,

Thanks for your “historical” reply. The “construct” of life’s unalienable rights to the constructal law pertains to all life. Notably, it would be impossible to remove any one of the unalienable rights and leave the other two intact because each right is dependent on the others: Without life, one cannot enjoy liberty or pursue happiness (survival, positive feedback for all life); without liberty, one cannot pursue happiness and, as this freedom often overlaps with the pursuit of survival, one would be unable to continue living; without pursuit, one would lack the required energy or will to continue life, enjoy liberty or seek happiness. This intra-dependency over the condition of any right by the performance of the others, results in a range of feedback between two positions.

An evolutionary constructive result flows towards the position of life, liberty, and happiness, while an unconstructive performance flows towards extinction approaching the position of death, tyranny or distress (negative feedback). Within the observable living universe, it appears nothing can affect this intra-dependent relationship; and it would seem, these unalienable rights represent the constructal law by the empirical observation of living flow systems generates dendritic patterns.

For example, the evolution of philosophy is also a type of flow. Relative to the constructal law ([unalienable rights]), for the flow of philosophical reformation [Life] to persist in time, it must evolve freely [Liberty], such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to the pedagogic currents of nature via discovery [Happiness]. The evolution of enlightenment, promotes change in the configurations of philosophy, culture, markets, technology, scientific understanding, etc., generating dendritic patterns guided by the physical constructal law all superimposed on the same area (the globe) and in the same volume (the brain).

Regards,

Mike

Thanks Mike for your further reflection on the subject. My issue is not the theoretical and the philosophical moorings, this is most plausible. But with these profound basis, yet the global powers centres manipulate 'right' for their own convenience, this is what I intended to investigate, IS THE CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS politicised? I am aware, that there is no YES and NO answer to it. Hence the discussion so far has been productive. Appreciate your contribution.

Dear Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi ,

Thank you for those kind words.

I find it inviting to “investigate” why the world has changed during the enlightenment err? Not only in scientific expansion but in philosophical reasoning in governance that led one social system taking humanity, within a short 200-year period, from a four-wheel horse and buggy to a four-wheel moon rover at the same time raising the standards of living throughout the world. How could this be, when those same laws of nature were known to the world?

After discovery of the physical constructal law, in 1996, it became apparent to me in 2008 that Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of “unalienable Rights” was a living version of the constructal law. It would be my recommendation for those who investigate “THE CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS” to start with the laws of nature, the laws that no human can change. And in Jefferson’s words, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Best regards, and good luck with your investigation.

Mike

Comment re Dresden. It (with Hamburg) were the very first firestorms in human history. Later in time, General Curtis LeMay decided to deliberately cause such, and all but three Japanese cities were burned out by such on purpose. But these early cases were more a matter of irresponsible planning by the British. Unwilling to bomb in daylight, due to accurate AA fire, they bombed at night, and evolved dropping firebombs with "pathfinder" units trained how to locate a target city (using navigation aids), for the larger mass of bombers to target. They simply dropped too many firebombs, and didn't think through the consequences. That isn't an excuse in law: there is no defense if one causes "casualties wonton and disproportionate to any military necessity." Indeed, bombing of "cities and towns" is generally forbidden by the law of land warfare - a crime for which we put German aircrews in prison at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals. The problem is that the Allied tribunals had no jurisdiction over Allied war crimes. Unlike today, when US law requires we prosecute war crimes by our own, it was not then policy to do that. Indeed, prosecuting US soldiers for war crimes is remarkably unpopular in the US military, and if you do it, many regard you as unpatriotic or even "a traitor." But formal US military training is humorless about such things, and I personally never had any qualms about why we MUST insist on proper conduct. It is the only path to 'good order and discipline' and also serves the political interests of our country (and the international community writ large). In the naval services, part of basic training is that "you are an ambassador for our country" and it is your job both "do the right thing" and to "avoid doing things that are a PR problem for our country." Unrelated to the theory, I ultimately learned something else: if you protect civilians from war crimes, you will never suffer from the guilt people who commit them do. Later in life, I came to know about the psychological effects of misbehavior on the person who misbehaved. It turns out "doing the wrong thing" comes with penalties, regardless of if one is actually charged for the crime.

Indeed enlightening. From Dresden to rights, good logic and it seems like a ground preparation to further explore on our subject.

Certainly, the issue of campaigning of defending human rights has become politicized by the interests of the countries that dominate the UN resolutions. Everyone knows how major countries deal with the classification of human rights violations. There are serious violations that are overlooked because the country that commits such violations has an economic deal or rich country. So, the human rights campaign is now dominated by economic, political and ethnic intrestes that making it a double standard.

Human rights matter much more in democratic societies. And rather less even in democracies which elect nationalist governments. [See India, Hungary, Poland and the USA as present examples]. Nevertheless, the opinion of ordinary people matters, and shapes policies and international agreements, in a sense unthinkable before the modern era. The very first human rights movement concerned the astonishing personal colonial regime of King Leopold of Belgium. Began by a British businessman who served as a logistics contractor (they needed a lot of shipping) when he noticed the ONLY "imports" were weapons and troops, but vast amount of exports (rubber, ivory, minerals, etc). Ultimately almost every famous person of the early 20th century became involved, and the King was divested of his colony. The "reform" effort was by any means perfect or entirely successful, but it was a start. A big problem is that the movement responsible for it lost interest after its apparent success (which, indeed, removed the regime and, indeed, outlawed classical slavery). It is difficult to organize and sustain public demands for reform. The political process is dominated by professionals most of whom are not statesmen, but instead are extremely self serving. And THAT is why the process tends to become politicized. Any problem large enough to need reform requires political policy changes in one or several or many countries. And that process will always be shaped by politicians, who naturally tend to have a variety of motives. The main problem is that (a) it costs money to address problems; (b) it takes a lot of time to address problems comprehensively and (c) politicians will tend to avoid risky and/or costly solutions whenever they can, because they need to insure business as usual, most of which is indeed necessary and vital for their countries and for the world.

I agree to some extent, your example is a historical one which might be good, however the contemporary issue of human rights also has become both a tool of politics and a diplomatic tool to arrest less affluent countries by the more powerful polities while the so called less affluent countries in their turn deploy human rights as a political tool to survive. Leopold made Belgium a wealthy place, no doubt while his other counterparts in central Europe made their 'right to navigate, conquer and plunder'. Who created that right? What right was that? over other humans and their lives. They pioneered in making human rights to their advantage, a slave did not have right so were the colonies they conquered and dominated. Now the very masters preach, campaign and crusade for rights far away while the backyard is full of skeletons. The cleverest attempt is that they have now formed bodies of rights crusaders in the former colonies who are now paid to do the same. Politics of rights is a willful construction for disproportionate maneuvering and a tool for new form of domination and a 'guilt ride of the powerful nations', interestingly their agents have shared the same guilt framework but unaware of that 'original sin'.

I think you are omitting the nature of political evolution in first world nations. I also think you are unfairly forgetting virtually all of recorded history. Europe (and if you wish, its daughter in the USA, and perhaps even its imitator Japan) did NOT invent slavery. It was a feature of virtually every ancient empire, and many between them and the modern colonial era. And a reason for the campaign for human rights in first world nations being significant is that these countries were transformed into democracies. Indeed, you cannot find an ancient or medieval society that threw off slavery as the British Empire did. [Note that was championed by the Quakers, a Christian sect, which came up with the concept of buying out the slaveowners at government expense]. The Royal Navy, joined by the US Navy, began to act against slavery worldwide in the late 19th century. Again, something without parallel in ancient or medieval times. The word Imperialism is the proper name of a formal policy of the UK dating from the 16th century. You cannot find a single advocate of that policy active in UK politics today, and only those familiar with history even know that the term was invented as an official policy. You should rejoice that former colonial nations have reformed to such a degree they campaign against the things formerly part of official policy.

The Euro American history of rights is not my centre of gravity for an epistemological query on 'rights'. Its the violator's perspective that you seem to argue from. Its easy to do that and continue to bulldoze with little or no fine tuned evidence but just on narrative seeking analysis. This is neither could claim academic credence nor justice to the victims of the so called civilizing forces of the Euro centric imperialist attitudes, yet we read shamelessly portrayed such in literature. Its classically flawed exegesis was by Huntington whose caricatured theory of clash of civiliasation that influenced the political corridors of both sides of the big pond. The rest is history engineered by the the Bush administration and poodled by the British Blair ( this is what you might be talking as "and if you wish, its daughter in the USA, and perhaps even its imitator Japan") This is the fault line you are grounding your argument. How about to ascertain and ratify with apt intellectual honesty that before Jefferson was the Buddha, Mahaveera, Confucius, Lao Tzu and of course the Greeks. Expand your history of thought of rights please, then you might a glimpse of what other tools of literature analysis might exist and viable.

I am a generalist, not limited to English, nor to modern history for my perspective. Further, I am not an apologist for colonialism, European, American, or any other flavor - including the ancient varieties. Which is why I mentioned ancient forms of it. I don't really believe there are - or ever were - "perfect" countries. What I do believe in - and what you are ignoring - is that countries can learn from their own experiences. Also that popular and democratic processes as a driver for the policy decisions of states (which permit that - not all do - see for example PRC with its "colonial" policies today) are an important factor in the evolution of human rights. The human rights movement really did end a global trade in slaves late in the 19th century. It really is making strides on a less visible global trade in "white slavery" (a term used for the sex trade, in contrast to "black slavery" - a term used for labor slavery at a time when many labor slaves were black). Not all virtue comes from outside Europe. It was not China nor India that outlawed slavery. Nor black African empires when there were some. Labor slavery continues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (in a peculiar form that would be legal even in the USA) - under a black regime. Objective scholarship isn't racist nor nationalist - it includes everything - everywhere. Good and bad.