W1: History and sources of international human rights law
Exam:
- Assignments (total of 15 pts)
- Exam (85 pts- 47 pts to pass) – digital
Background human rights
Human rights: represent vertical relationship: between state and individual
HR protects individual by making sure that the state is not limiting these rights
Late in history
Basis= human dignity (human rights declare something that was already there: you
already had your human rights, simply because you’re a human)
Elements: inherent, inalienable (you can’t just give them up)
Distinguish between legal norms and political/moral norms
History of human rights
� Thomas Hobbes: ruler had to respect god’s will, no right to resist!
� John Locke: men are free and equal, ruler has to respect this!
� Montesquieu: ruler has to respect the freedom of men AND the separation of
powers!
� Bentham: human rights only get respected when they are put on paper!
Upcoming human rights regime, but this was only on national level
In the 20th century: change! League of Nations – on international level, but with very
weak power+ limited supervision
After this: ILO, after this: United Nations (1945)- Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948)
International human rights law (IHRL)
States must comply, individuals as beneficiaries
(non)- reciprocity
Critiques IHRL
Realist critique: states are the ones who decide about Treaties, they play power
games, the idealistic idea about human rights are nonsense.
Feminist critique:
- Liberal: women should be more prominent in society and thereby IHRL would change
as well
- Cultural: IHRL is interpreted without female perspective in mind- it should be taken
much more in account + context of these women should be taken more in account
- Radical: Men use human rights law without thinking of women’s concerns. Men only
use IHRL for themselves.
Colonial critique: IHRL is dominated by rich and wealthy countries, it’s a game of
power and domination of the third world/developing countries (TWAIL)
Critiques all in common: ‘IHRL is not neutral’
Exam:
- Assignments (total of 15 pts)
- Exam (85 pts- 47 pts to pass) – digital
Background human rights
Human rights: represent vertical relationship: between state and individual
HR protects individual by making sure that the state is not limiting these rights
Late in history
Basis= human dignity (human rights declare something that was already there: you
already had your human rights, simply because you’re a human)
Elements: inherent, inalienable (you can’t just give them up)
Distinguish between legal norms and political/moral norms
History of human rights
� Thomas Hobbes: ruler had to respect god’s will, no right to resist!
� John Locke: men are free and equal, ruler has to respect this!
� Montesquieu: ruler has to respect the freedom of men AND the separation of
powers!
� Bentham: human rights only get respected when they are put on paper!
Upcoming human rights regime, but this was only on national level
In the 20th century: change! League of Nations – on international level, but with very
weak power+ limited supervision
After this: ILO, after this: United Nations (1945)- Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948)
International human rights law (IHRL)
States must comply, individuals as beneficiaries
(non)- reciprocity
Critiques IHRL
Realist critique: states are the ones who decide about Treaties, they play power
games, the idealistic idea about human rights are nonsense.
Feminist critique:
- Liberal: women should be more prominent in society and thereby IHRL would change
as well
- Cultural: IHRL is interpreted without female perspective in mind- it should be taken
much more in account + context of these women should be taken more in account
- Radical: Men use human rights law without thinking of women’s concerns. Men only
use IHRL for themselves.
Colonial critique: IHRL is dominated by rich and wealthy countries, it’s a game of
power and domination of the third world/developing countries (TWAIL)
Critiques all in common: ‘IHRL is not neutral’
