text:
Social Work and Human Rights
Social Work and
Human Rights

A Foundation for
Policy and Practice

SECOND EDITION

ELISABETH REICHERT

Columbia University Press _New York_
Columbia University Press
 _Publishers Since 1893_
New York Chichester, West Sussex
cup.columbia.edu
Copyright © 2011 Columbia University Press
All rights reserved
E-ISBN 978-0-231-52070-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Reichert, Elisabeth.
Social work and human rights : a foundation for policy and practice /
Elisabeth Reichert.—2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-231-14992-1 (cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-231-14993-8 (pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-231-52070-6 (ebook)
1. Social service. 2. Human rights I. Title.

HV41.R433 2011
361.2—dc22

2011011912

A Columbia University Press E-book.
CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at cup-ebook@columbia.edu.

References to Internet Web sites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.
Contents

_Foreword by Joseph Wronka_

Introduction

1. Development and History of Human Rights

2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

4. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

5. Diversity Within a Human Rights Perspective

[6. Human Rights and Children, Persons with Disabilities,
Persons with HIV-AIDS, Gays and Lesbians, Older Persons,
and Victims of Racism](chapter6.html#rch6)

7. International Aspects of Human Rights

8. Applying Human Rights to the Social Work Profession

Conclusion

_Appendix A: Universal Declaration of Human Rights_

_Appendix B: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_

_Appendix C: Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_

_Appendix D: Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly_

_Appendix E: Suggested Internet Websites for Further Research_

_Index_
Foreword

Today, no government, professional association, or organization purporting to help others would _dare_ say that it is against human rights principles. In this updated version of the 2003 book by Dr. Reichert, she highlights this point with utmost clarity, scholarship, and passion. By placing human rights within its historical context (as one should) and viewing human rights as a powerful social construct that arose from the ashes of World War II and in the 21st century an idea that moves people to action, the reader immediately comes to understand the urgent need of the world community not to look the other way as it did during the Holocaust. Or, for that matter, as it did during genocide against Indigenous Peoples, promotion of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and perpetration of other atrocities. Some of these tragic occurrences still exist today, like extreme poverty, where worldwide close to one billion people go to bed starving each night.

Today, globalization, actually corporatization, in collusion with governments, a military structure, and educational system, has taken root with a burgeoning of policy euphemisms and flowery language like "free trade agreements," "structural adjustment," and the like. Yet human rights principles, especially those enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drafted in part under the able leadership of an American, Eleanor Roosevelt, and upon a foundation constructed from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech of 1941, may hold the key to a socially just world. President Roosevelt envisioned a world free from fear and from want, where every person, everywhere, also had freedom of expression and the right to worship. Dr. Reichert shows us, with particular and keen attention to the profession of social work, how to unlock this key.

A major theme of this work is that no one wants to be accused of violating the human rights of others, not only of citizens, but of friends, colleagues, clients, patients, teachers, and students. As Eleanor Roosevelt eloquently stated, _human rights begin at home, in our neighborhoods, and in our workplace_. The problem is that people, particularly those in the United States where there is an alarming dearth of knowledge about human rights principles—an irony given U.S. historical leadership here—tend to have meager, if not narrow, viewpoints of definitions of human rights, violations of which always seem to take place in foreign lands, never in the United States. The author broadens the reader's perspective by describing in detail poignant articles, not only of the Universal Declaration, but of some of the many important documents that came after the Universal Declaration and that pertain, more specifically, to women, children, people with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, persons with mental illness, and development.

She also takes on the rather thorny issue of the interdependence and indivisibility of rights, describing struggles involved in guaranteeing civil and political rights, such as freedoms of speech and the press with economic, social, and cultural rights such as rights to medical care, adequate shelter, and meaningful and gainful employment, and even with solidarity rights like the rights to peace and self-determination. After all, what _is_ freedom of speech to a person who is homeless and lives in a world at war? Dr. Reichert is fully aware of the connection and invites the reader to join her in exploring these struggles and challenges, which are at the forefront of the social work profession. Dr. Reichert shows us that social work has always been a human rights profession, from its inception to contemporary times. She humbly acknowledges and rightly so that human rights is not the panacea for everything, but the concept of human rights does have the power to move people, as well as provide an excellent framework within which to debate issues and expand our parochial consciousnesses. There is truly joy in this struggle.

Unique to this up-to-date and timely work is a thorough knowledge of the profession of social work, particularly as many of its ethical and practice issues relate to human rights principles. Dr. Reichert correctly states, for instance, that the social work profession's Code of Ethics with its emphasis on human dignity, self-determination, social justice, and social change reads like a mini Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Her practice examples also illustrate how human rights principles, which can further delineate and define more accurately the worthwhile and important, but often nebulous, concept of social justice, can be applied in practical situations.

Eleanor Roosevelt wanted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be a document for the lay person, not for someone with a doctorate in jurisprudence. Certainly students of human rights should examine noteworthy legal cases, such as the precedent-setting decision of _Filartiga v. Pena_ (1980), which ruled that many provisions of the Universal Declaration should be considered _customary international law,_ which all nations must abide. Yet the essential thrusts of human rights documents, which legally mandate the fulfillment of human need, pose obligations upon governments. These obligations ought to mirror the will of the people by informing them of their fundamental rights because they are human, and not because they are white, black, red, brown, or yellow; male, female, transsexual, bisexual, or intersexed; young, middle-aged, or old; or any other attribute, other than the fact that they are human.

Yes, information is power. After reading _Social Work and Human Rights_ , I am sure that the reader will become armed with a vast array of human rights knowledge and further energized to wage peace and to create a socially just world, as a citizen of the world. If every bomb made is theft from the poor as former U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower asserted, and if the world will be a better place once the peacemaker, not the warrior, is praised as former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy stated, such a socially just world, constructed from the pillars of human rights, ought to bring us closer to a human rights culture: a "lived awareness" of human rights principles in our minds and hearts and dragged into our everyday lives. This awareness ought to result in a global consciousness reflecting millennia of spiritual wisdom to treat each other like we would like to be treated and to do our duties to one another in a spirit of brotherhood [and sisterhood] as asserted in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

_Joseph Wronka_

Professor of Social Work, Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts Principal Investigator of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Project (originating in the Center for Social Change, Brandeis University, the Heller School for Social Policy and Management) Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva for the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW)
Introduction

Human Rights belong to everyone, or they are guaranteed to no one.

—Amnesty International

The concept of human rights has long occupied many individuals and groups. The belief that all people who inhabit our world share inherent privileges and rights has significant attraction. This commonality among all who reside on the planet, regardless of country or nationality, helps bring individuals and countries closer together than might otherwise be the case. If someone who lives in the United States acknowledges that someone living in China or Russia has the same right to a safe, nonviolent environment, this link can lead to greater cooperation in resolving key issues affecting human existence.

In the social work profession, human rights have only recently begun to have significance. For too long, social workers have stood aside from human rights, considering discussion of the topic to be more international and legalistic. Fortunately, this reluctance to integrate human rights into social work policies and practices has started to fade. Human rights now cover domestic, as well as international, circumstances and, in many cases, human rights principles have a direct impact on local social work issues. Unless individuals, communities, corporations, governments, and other groups recognize human rights at home, promotion of human rights on a broader level will be meaningless or, at best, superficial. The most appropriate place to begin the study and application of human rights is in a person's own environment. Only after the person, entity, or group thoroughly understands human rights in a local sense can human rights be expanded to a broader spectrum of circumstances.

What Are Human Rights?

When beginning any study of human rights, the first and most obvious question that arises is, What are human rights? Without a coherent and thoughtful response to this question, human rights cannot be understood. Unfortunately, many individuals (especially, it seems, politicians) blithely use the words _human rights_ as if everyone knows what they mean. For instance, U.S. politicians frequently criticize China for its violations of human rights, but without explaining exactly what those violations are. What specifically has China done to run afoul of human rights? Why are those acts considered violations of human rights? Who defines human rights? Do only China and other countries outside the United States violate human rights? General statements alleging that a country violates human rights are confusing because such generalizations usually offer only scant insight into the true concept of human rights. Before a politician, lawyer, social worker, or other individual accuses another individual or entity of violating human rights, that person needs to have at least a basic grounding in the concept of human rights.

Human rights define the needs and also the set of rights that each individual may claim, no matter where he or she resides. The concept of human rights can generally be defined as "those rights, which are inherent in our nature and without which we cannot live as human beings. Human rights and fundamental freedoms allow us to fully develop and use our human qualities, our intelligence, our talents and our conscience and to satisfy our spiritual and other needs" (UN 1987, 4).

While useful in obtaining a general notion about human rights, this definition immediately raises questions about whose "nature" is being defined. A U.S. resident might feel that having access to running water, electricity, and similar resources is inherent in her or his nature and therefore necessary to develop fully as a human being. In contrast, a resident of a less economically developed country might feel that simply having sufficient food and warm clothing is enough to live with dignity as a human being. Whose version of human rights should prevail? Are some people entitled to greater human rights than others because they have the means to obtain or purchase valuable resources? From a purist's view, certainly not; every individual is entitled to the same human rights. The difficulty arises in allocating resources to achieve human rights. A fundamental issue concerning human rights is constructing policies enabling human rights to apply to everyone, not just selected individuals and groups.

_Human Rights and Law_

ROBERT J. MCCORMICK

Social workers may harbor the misconception that the study of human rights is mainly for lawyers and the courts. Nothing could be further from reality, for left to merely legalistic tools, human rights might never see the light of day.

Consider the United States Supreme Court case of Dred Scott, a former slave who tried to keep his freedom under constantly shifting legal grounds ( _Scott v. Sandford_ 1857). Before the legal abolishment of slavery after the U.S. Civil War (U.S. Constitution 1787, amends. 13 and 14), Dred Scott had been a slave in the state of Missouri, which allowed slavery. Scott's owner then moved with him to the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin, areas that prohibited slavery. Because he resided in a free state and a free territory, Scott gained his freedom. But he then returned to Missouri, where the prevailing law stated that if a slave returned to Missouri after having resided in a free state or territory, he or she could remain free ( _Rachael v. Walker_ 1837). Accordingly, to obtain his freedom legally, Scott began court proceedings in Missouri. As his case wound its way to the Missouri Supreme Court, the debate over slavery became increasingly heated. Then, instead of following previous legal precedents, the Missouri Supreme Court overturned those principles and refused to grant Scott his freedom ( _Scott v. Emerson_ 1852).

Scott's plea for freedom next went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rendered its infamous decision known as the _Dred Scott_ case, an abomination of political, social, and cultural integrity. The Court held that as an African Negro, Scott could never be a citizen of the United States and, furthermore, was considered to be a piece of property protected (for the benefit of the slave owner) by the Constitution ( _Scott v. Sandford_ 1857). Outrage followed this decision, but Congress did not begin overturning the legal principles established by the _Dred Scott_ case until after the Civil War. Indeed, decades passed before Congress removed all the legal residue of this malicious court ruling. Moreover, until prohibited by court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s, segregation enabled many southern states legally to separate races in schools, eating facilities, public transport, and other institutions.

Even today, ghosts from the _Dred Scott_ case remain, a reminder that a society must always be diligent in the protection of basic human rights and freedoms. Perhaps, though, the most significant lesson from _Dred Scott_ is that the misuse and distortion of laws can perpetuate violations of human rights. The law is not always on the side of human rights.

Human rights principles require a cultural understanding of and attention to existing resources. A social work practice based on human rights is no panacea for discrimination, inequality, poverty, and other social problems, although knowledge of human rights can help the practice better understand its role as a helping profession. Thus by integrating human rights into the profession, social workers obtain a unique insight into issues central to their profession.

_Human Rights Include Economic and Social Rights_

Before President Barack Obama took office, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter wrote that President Obama would have huge challenges ahead of him, with a high priority being the "restoration of human rights, which have been badly eroded in recent years" (Carter 2008). To which human rights is President Carter referring?

President-elect Obama has reiterated his decision to close Guantanamo Bay detention center and end U.S.-sponsored torture. Also under discussion is the establishment by the U.S. government of an independent commission to examine the actions that led to these shameful policies and practices. Together, these steps would signal a renewed commitment to the cause of universal human rights long championed by the United States. As this year [2008] marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the reassertion of these fundamental rights is necessary. (Carter 2008)

So far, so good. But even a cursory reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reveals that human rights encompass much more than preventing torture and unlawful detention. What about education, employment, health care, housing, and other social and cultural rights specifically mentioned in the Universal Declaration?

The focus on political human rights as if those were the only rights that mattered omits the essence of human rights and is not a true appreciation of the human rights concept. Although political rights are important, so are economic and social human rights. Indeed, at a time of financial distress for many people around the world, economic and social human rights have become even more important to discussions about human rights.

The framers of contemporary human rights never intended to limit them to political ideals, meaning democratic elections, freedom of speech and religion, and other rights typically associated with the U.S. governmental system. Instead, human rights concern a wide variety of political, economic, and social areas. For example, a specific human right includes the right to adequate health care, which the United States does not legally recognize. Does this mean that the United States is violating its residents' human rights by not providing adequate health care to each of them? Some would answer this question affirmatively, while others might say that health care is an individual, not a government, responsibility, regardless of any human rights principle.

A selective recognition of human rights by U.S. politicians and other individuals indicates a lack of understanding of the overall concept of human rights or perhaps a reluctance to discuss economic and social human rights. Yet, without viewing economic and social rights as key components of human rights, the overall importance of human rights significantly diminishes.

Universality and Indivisibility

To begin any study of human rights, social workers need to understand two basic concepts relating to those rights: universality and indivisibility. The concept of _universality_ (or _universalism_ ) underpins human rights. Every individual has a claim to human rights, wherever he or she resides. For example, human rights include adequate nutrition and shelter for everyone. Perhaps a country's resources are insufficient to satisfy these rights. But because nutrition and shelter are integral to human rights, governments have an obligation to provide a framework to ensure the delivery of these rights. A government that claims it does not have sufficient resources to provide food and shelter for everyone may be using this as an excuse for ignoring these rights. Yet, by classifying certain rights and freedoms, like adequate food and shelter, as human rights, all governments are recognizing a common goal of creating conditions to guarantee those rights and freedoms.

Difficulty with the universality concept frequently arises when a country's view of a particular human right is different from that of most other countries. When a country does not accept a particular human right, a reluctance to promote it usually results. The notion of universality may clash with local cultures, laws, policies, morals, and other commonly held beliefs that fail to recognize the human right in question. In some countries, discrimination against gays and lesbians is allowed because cultural or religious norms permit it. Yet even though human rights require sensitivity to culture and religion, such discrimination violates general human rights principles. Another example of sidestepping human rights concerns the use of torture in interrogating suspected terrorists. Human rights principles clearly ban the use of torture. But what if the use of torture could lead to information that would prevent a great harm? Should cultural or legal norms allow torture in these circumstances? Which should prevail, the cultural, legal, or religious norm or the human right? The answer is that if human rights apply to everyone, then the human rights principle must prevail, even in the case of a suspected terrorist or terrorist.

The reluctance of a country or group to acknowledge a human right that conflicts with local traditions or laws can often be traced to their origin and the rejection of being told what to do by an outside group. The following questions help determine the circumstances of the local tradition or law:

  * Who defined the local tradition or law?
  * Who benefits from the definition?
  * Who loses from the definition?
  * Whose voices are being heard in the decision not to acknowledge the proposed human right?
  * Who defines culture, religion, and legal norms?
  * Does one government or group have the right to tell another government or group that its beliefs or policies violate a human right?
  * In the case of disagreement over the interpretation of a human right, who decides which is correct?

Obviously, universality presents challenges in interpreting and exercising human rights. The principle of universality places a unique stamp on the body of laws and other guidelines referred to as human rights:

Human rights doctrine is now so powerful, but also so unthinkingly imperialist in its claim to universality, that it has exposed itself to serious intellectual attack. These challenges have raised important questions about whether human rights norms deserve the authority they have acquired: whether their claims to universality are justified, or whether they are just another cunning exercise in Western moral imperialism. (Ignatieff 2001, 102)

Social workers may find the notion of universality difficult to fit into other social work principles, especially those pertaining to cultural diversity and self-determination. Universality does not mean that everyone is alike or should develop in the same manner. Universality allows all types of diversity and differences among individuals and groups. The key to understanding universality is to accept that the goal is not to create sameness among different cultures. Rather, the purpose of universality is to ensure that individuals and peoples everywhere have basic rights within their existence, but not that everyone will exist in the same manner. This book addresses specific issues surrounding the universality principle, especially in the context of culture.

In addition to universality, another important concept in human rights doctrine is indivisibility. The concept of _indivisibility_ refers to the necessity for governments and individuals to recognize each human right and not selectively promote some and ignore others. The fact that U.S. policy does not guarantee health care to all its citizens highlights the importance of indivisibility among human rights. Without adequate health care, an individual may fail to attend to an illness that becomes life threatening or debilitating. Impaired health also reduces an individual's enjoyment of other human rights, such as the promotion of family or employment. Impaired health could even affect the will or ability of an individual to participate in an election or other activities viewed as human rights. Consequently, the denial of one human right can easily impinge on the enjoyment of other human rights and directly or indirectly deny others. For this reason, the notion of indivisibility plays a key role in the exercise of human rights.

Indivisibility, like universality, generates controversy. Not every country has adequate resources to provide all the economic rights defined as human rights. Some countries also have political traditions that place little emphasis on democratic elections and other political rights. Should such circumstances excuse the recognition of certain rights? If a country views a particular human right as unsuitable for its residents, can this country refuse to acknowledge that human right? Even though indivisibility occupies a key position within human rights, the concept may create ambiguity in the acceptance of some rights. Consequently, resolving the ambiguity is an important part of any study of human rights.

Human rights may appear impractical, strange, or even utopian to social workers. But by analyzing specific human rights and the justification for a particular human right, they can better understand how human rights naturally connect to their profession.

Human Rights and U.S. Social Work

Since the first edition of this book was published in 2003, the social work profession in the United States has begun to view human rights seriously as an integral component of social work. A major example of this effort to integrate human rights into social work is the introduction of human rights into academic curricula by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) (CSWE 2008). Social work literature from the United States now includes substantive efforts to analyze and link human rights to social work (Gamble and Weil 2009; Mapp 2007; Reichert 2007; Wronka 2008), and social work educators have begun to integrate human rights into social work teaching, research, and practice (Mayadas and Elliot 1997; Roche and Dewees 2001; Roche et al. 1999; Witkin 1993, 1998). Social work literature on connecting women's rights to human rights also exists(Reichert 1996, 1998; Roche 1996; Wetzel 1993). Nonetheless, despite recent efforts by the CSWE and others to integrate human rights into social work education, social workers in the United States have yet to fully acknowledge the connection of human rights to social work. For example, the U.S.-based National Association of Social Workers (NASW) does not even mention the term _human rights_ in its most recent code of ethics (NASW 1996).

On an international level, social workers have already embraced the concept of human rights as a key component of their profession (Ife 2001; IFSW 2010; Staub-Bernasconi 1998), and the concept of human rights is equally important to U.S. social workers. Indeed, social workers in the United States follow many of the concepts in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the declaration is reproduced in appendix A) and other human rights instruments.

Why has there been so little discussion by the social work profession in the United States about human rights? The continued reluctance of U.S. social workers to join their international counterparts in promoting human rights appears to be the result of three factors:

1. _A focus in the United States on social justice instead of human rights_. U.S. social workers continue to regard the concept of social justice as paramount to their profession and thus make little mention of human rights (Pelton 2001). The promotion of social justice as the profession's central theme began with the historical and philosophical theories that now frequently appear confusing and outdated. For example, we do not even have a clear definition of social justice. Instead, social work academics describe various types of social justice without explaining what kind of social justice applies to the circumstances at hand (Hartman 1990; Tyson 1995). Consequently, by focusing on social justice, U.S. social workers might believe that they also are addressing human rights. But human rights encompass a more comprehensive set of guidelines for the social work profession:

Social work can be proud of its heritage. It is the only profession imbued with social justice as its fundamental value and concern. But social justice is a fairness doctrine that provides civil and political leeway in deciding what is just and unjust. Human rights, on the other hand, encompasses social justice, but transcends civil and political customs. It takes into consideration the basic life-sustaining needs of all human beings, without distinction. (NASW 2009, 205)

This statement from NASW clearly indicates why social justice is only one part of the human rights structure.

2. _The inclination of U.S. social workers to view human rights as only political rights_. Aside from using as its ideal an amorphous concept of social justice, the social work profession in the United States often equates human rights with constitutional and legal issues, thereby sidestepping any apparent importance of human rights for nonlawyers. As reflected in early documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the liberal U.S. political tradition emphasizes individual political and civil rights (Roche and Dewees 2001). These documents are relatively indifferent to economic and social rights (Charlesworth 1994) and instead concentrate on civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, press, and religion, as officially protected cornerstones of U.S. public policy. Economic, social, and cultural components of human well-being, such as food, shelter, health care, and cultural identity, tend to be relegated to individual initiative and personal achievement (Flowers 1998). Accordingly, social workers may discount the importance of human rights by viewing the Constitution and other basic documents as encompassing the entire gamut of human rights, thus assuming that it is unnecessary to explore the topic further. Therefore, when U.S. social workers encounter the term _human rights_ , they may view those rights as only indirectly related to the social work profession.

3. _A belief that human rights are international and not local._ Another factor inhibiting U.S. social workers from embracing human rights is the common perception that they are restricted to international circumstances. Social workers in the United States often do not connect human rights to local situations. The most recent policy statement from the U.S.-based National Association of Social Workers on human rights continues to bear the title of International Policy on Human Rights, even though it discusses domestic social work issues (NASW 2009, 202–7). This connection of human rights to something international may contribute to the reluctance of U.S. social workers to specifically embrace human rights (Reichert 1998). Nonetheless, human rights include cross-cultural concepts, which transcend national boundaries. In that respect, human rights have an international aspect, although most pertain to principles that have a local application, without any reference to international circumstances.

The reluctance to promote human rights does not mean that U.S. social workers are less competent than their international counterparts. But because human rights occupy a central role in the social work profession, in both the United States and elsewhere, social workers could benefit from a better understanding of human rights and the relationship of those rights to the profession.

Certainly, as indicated by recent NASW policy statements, CSWE educational requirements, and contemporary social work literature, the social profession in the United States has begun to acknowledge a connection between human rights and social work. These voices in the social work profession remain few, however, and all too often, the social work treatment of human rights simply merges the topic into a vague classification of social and economic justice.

Social Justice: An Outdated Concept?

Social workers in the United States generally encounter a guiding principle in their training, known as _social justice_ , which tends to concentrate on the _needs_ of a client rather than on the _rights_ of a client. In the education of social workers, the National Association of Social Workers' Code of Ethics reflects this strong commitment to social justice (NASW 1996).

While the social work profession groups all types of goals under the umbrella of social justice, scrutiny of this concept reveals shortcomings, primarily in the precise contours of social justice itself. The satisfying sound of this term clearly helps support its continued use in the profession. But the use of a term simply because it evokes a desirable resonance is meaningless if the term itself lacks a clear definition and ready application to social work practice. Social justice encompasses three main theories: libertarian, utilitarian, and egalitarian. Each has its followers and adherents, though the egalitarian theory is apparently the most relevant to social work practice.

_Libertarian Theory_

The libertarian theory of social justice states that each individual is entitled to any material possession that he or she has legally acquired (Nozik 1974). According to this theory, the individual has autonomy and has no obligation to share resources with others. This autonomy militates against any forced redistribution of resources from the haves to the have-nots. Charity, or service to others, occurs from the largess of the benefactor, rather than through any right of the recipient to obtain what the benefactor possesses.

As an entitlement-based form of social justice, the libertarian theory rejects distributive justice, and for this reason, social workers may not readily subscribe to it. In reality, however, many of the basic principles in the organization and sentiment of U.S. government structures follow a libertarian theory, frequently with only limited attention to the redistribution of resources.

_Utilitarian Theory_

The second theory of social justice evaluates actions on the basis of whether they provide the greatest happiness for either the individual or the greatest number. This utilitarian theory holds that although an individual has the right to be free from coercion, a redistribution of scarce resources sometimes meets the interest of the common good and thus should be observed (Van Soest 1994). For example, according to this theory, conditions that encourage the greatest production of food for all, regardless of an individual's circumstances, should be promoted.

Essentially, providing the greatest good for the greatest number is the basis for the utilitarian theory's primary principles. In contrast to the libertarian theory, a utilitarian does not hesitate to infringe on an individual's rights to resources if the sharing or redistributing of those resources would benefit the greatest number within a defined region. Obviously, the inherent conflict with this theory of social justice is determining what benefits the greatest number.

_Egalitarian Theory_

The egalitarian theory of social justice corresponds most closely to what the social work profession appears to mean by social justice (Reisch and Taylor 1983). According to this theory, the needs of all must be considered (Rawls 1971). The redistribution of scarce resources becomes a moral imperative, and any redistribution should benefit, or at least not harm, the most vulnerable in society. Essentially, the disadvantaged have a right to basic resources for living.

Clearly, the egalitarian theory of social justice rebuts the libertarian and utilitarian theories when equality is the defining value (Rawls 1971). In an egalitarian society, citizens must have equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal access to social resources. Inequalities in resources should be allowed only when those in the lowest margin of society benefit (Van Soest 1992). Although social resources generally refer to economic benefits, the egalitarian theory can also be applied to noneconomic goods or services. That is, alleviating noneconomic "deprivations" can be a form of social justice (Rawls 1971; Wakefield 1988).

_Summary of the Three Theories_

Even when it is based on the preceding three theories, the term _social justice_ remains elusive, for it defies a single, relatively concrete definition. According to the libertarian theory, social justice protects the rights of the individual. The utilitarian theory tempers the libertarian theory to provide for the greatest good of the people, and the egalitarian theory forms the basis for redistributing resources to the less endowed in society. In other words, depending on the theory, social justice means different things to different people.

In a social work context, social justice appears to reflect the egalitarian theory more than the other theories, as the social work profession uses social justice to encompass fairness in the distribution of resources, rights, opportunities, and duties (Rose-Miller 1994). Social policy concerns the allocation of resources, whereas social justice is about ensuring that all people have the same access to those resources. Social work addresses the way that injustices are structured into the allocation of resources and the disadvantages that accrue from such injustices (Benn 1991).

While concepts of social justice may seem obvious, one case study indicates that social workers appear to lack a coherent sense of what constitutes social justice, sometimes equating it with John Rawls's fairness model of individual rights and at other times calling for equality of social groups (Longres and Scanlon 2001). No theory fully explains the concept of social justice, and definitions simply beg more questions about the meaning. In light of these difficulties, social workers should view the current usage of the term critically (Rose-Miller 1994).

Like social justice, definitions of human rights can also present open-ended responses, although human rights encompass a more comprehensive and defined set of guidelines for social work practice than social justice does. Human rights focus on what must be given to a client, which elevates the discussion into one not simply of recognizing the needs of a client but also of satisfying those needs. Even though social workers may perceive human rights as being overly legalistic and a topic more appropriate for lawyers, this belief should not prevent their studying them. By learning more about human rights, social workers will understand why they are important to the profession.

Human rights do not replace principles of social justice, no matter how amorphous the definition of those principles may seem. Rather, the study of human rights complements and broadens the perspective of social workers when carrying out policies and practices. When they recognize the importance of human rights, social workers enhance the profession. A foundation in human rights can provide a much clearer framework and structure with which to connect the social work profession to economic, political, and social aims.

Outline and Purpose of This Book

The first edition of this book established the groundwork for the study and introduction of human rights to the social work profession. Since then (a period of seven years), the social work profession has begun to recognize the importance of human rights as a fundamental pillar of social work policy and practice. Besides incorporating many of the human rights principles explained in the first edition, this later edition expands on areas of human rights that appear more urgent than ever before, especially in respect to economic and social rights. The ongoing global recession not only provides an opportunity to reflect on what societies should view as important but also mandates a new paradigm in social welfare. This paradigm should be based on human rights.

Chapters 1 through  examine important human rights documents that form the foundation of human rights theory. Chapters 5 and  cover issues relating to the diversity of populations; chapter 7 describes the international perspectives of human rights, and chapter 8 addresses social work policy and practices. This second edition has updated all the original chapters of the first edition, particularly by including the results of various studies that have appeared since then. Most important, this edition highlights the need to place economic and social human rights on the same footing as political and civil rights.

Questions and Exercises

1. Distinguish the concepts of social justice and human rights, and define both social justice and human rights.

2. Should every person residing in a country enjoy the same basic rights? Why or why not?

3. What human rights issues have you have encountered personally or professionally?

4. Should culture play a role in determining the validity of a human right?

5. Should some human rights be more important than others?

6. Should we even recognize human rights?

7. What obstacles do you see in promoting human rights as social work policy or practice?

8. How can human rights be enforced on the local, national, and international levels?

References

Benn, C. 1991. Social justice, social policy, and social work. _Australian Social Work_ 44 (4): 33–39.

Carter, J. 2008. U.S. must lead world on human rights. Available at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/jimmy.carter.rights/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=politicker (accessed December 2, 2008).

Charlesworth, H. 1994. What are "women's international human rights"? In _Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives_ , ed. R. J. Cook, 58–84. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

CSWE (Council of Social Work Education). 2008. _Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards_. Alexandria, VA: CSWE.

Flowers, N., ed. 1998. _Human Rights Here and Now_. Minneapolis: Human Rights Educators Network, Amnesty International USA.

Gamble, D., and M. Weil. 2009. _Community Practice Skills_. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hartman, A. 1990. Many ways of knowing (editorial). _Social Work: Journal of the_ _National Association of Social Workers_ 35: 3–4.

Ife, J. 2001. _Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice_. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IFSW (International Federation of Social Workers). 2010. Welcome to IFSW. Available at <http://www.ifsw.org> (accessed September 20, 2010).

Ignatieff, M. 2001. The attack on human rights. _Foreign Affairs_ 80 (November/December): 102–16.

Longres, J. F., and E. Scanlon. 2001. Social work and social justice: A reply to Leroy Pelton. _Journal of Social Work Education_ 37 (3): 441–44.

Mapp, S. 2007. _Human Rights and Social Justice in a Global Perspective: An Introduction to International Social Work_. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mayadas, N., and D. Elliot. 1997. Lessons from international social work. In _Policies and Practices in Social Work in the 21st Century_ , ed. M. Reisch and E. Gombrill, 175–97. London: Pine Forge.

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. _Code of Ethics, as Revised_. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Available at <http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp> (accessed September, 24, 2009).

——. 2009. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements_ , 2009–2012. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Nozik, R. 1974. _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_. New York: Basic Books.

Pelton, L. 2001. Social justice and social work. _Journal of Social Work Education_ 37 (2): 433–39.

_Rachael v. Walker,_ 4 Mo 350 (1837).

Rawls, J. 1971. _A Theory of Justice_. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Reichert, E. 1996. Keep on moving forward: NGO Forum on Women [4th UN World Conference on Women], Beijing, 1995. _Social Development Issues_ 18 (1): 61–71.

——. 1998. Women's rights are human rights: A platform for action. _International Social Work_ 15 (3): 177–85.

——. 2007. _Challenges in Human Rights: A Social Work Perspective_. New York: Columbia University Press.

Reisch, M., and C. Taylor. 1983. Ethical guidelines for cutback management: A preliminary approach. _Administration in Social Work_ 9 (4): 59–71.

Roche, S. 1996. Messages from the NGO Forum on Women, Beijing, 1995. _Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work_ 11: 484–94.

Roche, S., and M. Dewees. 2001. Teaching about human rights in social work. _Journal of Teaching Social Work_ 21 (1–2): 137–55.

Roche, S., M. Dewees. R. Trailweaver, S. Alexander, C. Cuddy, and M. Handy. 1999. _Contesting Boundaries in Social Work Education: A Libratory Approach to Cooperative Learning and Teaching_. Alexandria, VA: CSWE.

Rose-Miller, M. 1994. Evaluation, social justice, and social work. _Australian Social Work_ 47 (4): 21–26.

_Scott v. Emerson_ , 15 Mo 576 (1852).

_Scott v. Sandford_ , 60 US 393 (1857).

Staub-Bernasconi, S. 1998. Soziale Arbeit als Menchenrechtsprofession. In _Profession and Wissenschaft Sozialer Arbeit: Positionen in einer Phase der generellen Neuverortnung und Spezifika_ , ed. A. Woehrle, 305–32. Pfaffenweiler: Cenaurus.

Tyson, K. 1995. _New Foundations for Scientific Social and Behavioral Research: The Heuristic Paradigm_. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

UN (United Nations). 1987. _Human Rights: Questions and Answers_. New York: UN.

Van Soest, D. 1992. Peace and social justice as an integral part of the social work curriculum: A North American perspective. _Australian Social Work_ 45 (10): 29–38.

——. 1994. Strange bedfellows: A call for reordering national priorities from three social justice perspectives. _Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers_ 39 (6): 710–17.

Wakefield, C. 1988. Psychotherapy, distributive justice, and social work. _Social Service Review_ , September, pp. 353–82.

Wetzel, J. 1993. _The World of Women: In Pursuit of Human Rights_. London: Macmillan.

Witkin, S. 1993. A human rights approach to social work research and evaluation. _Journal of Teaching Social Work_ 8 (1–2): 239–53.

——. 1998. Human rights and social work. _Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers_ 43: 197–201.

Wronka, J. 2008. _Human Rights and Social Justice_ : _Social Action and Service for the Helping and Health Professions_. Los Angeles: Sage.
[ 1 ]

[Development and History of
Human Rights](contents.html#ch1)

_Human rights_ is a relatively new term, first used in 1945 after the end of World War II (Morsink 1999), an enormous catastrophic conflict reaching almost every corner of the globe, leaving few countries unscathed. While World War II caused unimaginable destruction, the war did provide an opportunity for peoples and governments everywhere to create a mechanism to prevent such a vast and destructive event from ever happening again. One of the main results of this effort to create a more stable and peaceful world order culminated in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948).

The Universal Declaration was nothing short of a revolution in thought: instead of each nation's being the master of its own domain, all nations would now be governed by universal principles or rules. A higher authority—in this case, the United Nations—issued a set of guidelines that, at least in theory, was meant to inhibit its member nations from violating these agreed-upon human rights. No longer could a nation treat its own citizens or those of other nations simply as it wanted. The Universal Declaration thus set minimum standards of conduct for governments all over the world ( _Economist_ 1998; Press 2000).

The development and eventual fruition of this declaration exemplifies how individuals and groups from diverse backgrounds together produced an extraordinary document that transcends customary borders. One of many challenges regarding the declaration is its nonbinding structure. That is, the Universal Declaration serves more as a guide in the area of human rights, rather than an enforceable tool requiring governments to respect human rights. Although many nations do violate the human rights listed in the declaration, there is international pressure for countries to adhere to the declaration. As a result, governments or individuals who ignore or violate human rights often face diminished reputation, scorn, or harsh criticism ( _Economist_ 1998). Even with its shortcomings, therefore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ranks as an extremely important accomplishment in political and social development.

_The Challenge of Human Rights_

As the readers of this book will understand after reading subsequent chapters, human rights may appear to be arbitrary, vague, hypocritical, and, generally, unrealistic. How could everyone agree on definitions of human rights and whether human rights should even be enforced? Even if they did agree on the definitions, who would enforce human rights? Then there is the question of resources. What will happen if a country does not have the resources to promote all of the declaration's human rights? Would it be all right to give precedence to some of the rights, or is it all or nothing? Should the focus be more on the welfare of a country than on some legalistic tool to punish those who fail to follow the many human rights now being issued by the United Nations?

These are a few of the questions and concerns that inevitably accompany a study of human rights, and they have no clear-cut answers or resolutions. But despite all the inconsistency, complexity, hypocrisy, and other complaints about human rights doctrines, one overriding benefit does emerge: human rights provide a common point of departure for understanding: "Rights are not the universal credo of a global society, not a secular religion, but something much more limited and yet just as valuable: the shared vocabulary from which our arguments can begin, and the bare human minimum from which different areas of flourishing can take root" (Ignatieff 2001, 95).

If countries and individuals had few connections with others, a human rights doctrine would be much less important than it is in an interconnected world like ours today. A language of human rights helps bind individuals, groups, and governments both inside and outside countries. Notwithstanding differences in interpretations or applications of human rights, human rights provide a starting point for discussion.

A knowledge of human rights principles is critical. Social workers cannot assume that they know what human rights are without actually studying the various documents and analyzing fundamental human rights concepts and issues. After doing this, they then can participate in the valuable tool of human rights discourse.

Three Generations of Human Rights

A brief summary of the Universal Declaration (the details of which will be covered in chapter 2) reveals three distinct sets (or generations) of human rights. The first set or generation is _political_ and _civil rights_ : the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and religion, freedom of movement and assembly, and guarantees against discrimination, slavery, and torture (UN 1948, arts. 2–15). These rights are often referred to as _negative rights_ because they restrict the role of government or another authority from carrying out certain acts. This "shall not" set of guidelines thus emphasizes noninterference by government, or a negative position.

The second set of human rights in the declaration is _positive rights_ , whose purpose is to ensure each resident of a country an adequate standard of living based on that country's resources. Based on this second set of human rights, all people have the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of themselves and their family. This standard includes food, clothing, housing and medical care, and necessary social services. In addition, "motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance," and everyone has the right to a free education at the elementary level (arts. 25–26). These rights are labeled as positive in that governments and individuals must take action to preserve them. In other words, governments "shall" provide these rights.

Distinguishing between negative and positive human rights may seem contrived and unnecessary. If the government does not restrict free speech or discriminates against gender or race, who will determine whether it has satisfied these negative rights? Obviously, the government must act affirmatively to prevent violations of free speech and discrimination, which requires positive acts. Contrived or not, discussions about human rights still differentiate between negative and positive human rights.

The third and final set of human rights is _collective rights_ among nations. This set of rights is the least developed of the three, but it represents an area of human rights that now is more prevalent due to greater international connections among countries. According to the Universal Declaration, everyone "is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms" listed in the document can be fully realized (art. 28). In essence, the promotion of collective human rights requires intergovernmental cooperation on world issues (e.g., environmental protection, water management, and economic development). One group of countries should not dictate conditions to another group when these conditions would inhibit the growth or prosperity of that group. Likewise, industrialized countries should not take advantage of less economically developed countries by exploiting their resources and harming their environment. This third set of human rights maintains that solidarity among nations and individuals forms one of the declaration's core values.

Referring to three generations or sets of human rights, however, may actually hinder an understanding of those rights as well as the concept of indivisibility. The reason is that with three different sets, the priority of various rights may lead to disagreement. Are political and civil rights more important than economic, social, and cultural rights or international solidarity? Can human rights even be logically separated into different sets? Unfortunately, the notion of different sets of human rights continues to exist, but a better approach would be to avoid referring to different sets and insist that all human rights are equally important.

Dignity

The Universal Declaration summarizes the basic concept of human rights by affirming that the "inherent dignity" [and "equal and inalienable rights"] of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. Indeed, the first article of the declaration states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

The use of dignity frequently appears in discussions of human rights. Few people would deny that everyone should have dignity or that dignity forms a basis for human rights. The meaning of the term itself, however, is difficult to define. Although dignity can refer to the respect and acceptance of others, it otherwise seems to be used simply as a tool to inspire thinking about human rights. Documents issued by the United Nations often contain language that is intended to inspire and engage the reader, but by itself, dignity adds little to the understanding of specific human rights. More important is the actual analysis of human rights issues and how they can be made part of social work policy and practice.

Historical Beginnings of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not arise from a vacuum. Early civilizations created religious codes establishing standards of conduct for fairly homogeneous groups within limited territorial jurisdictions. By requiring people to treat their fellow humans with dignity and help provide for one another's needs, such religious codes became the precursors of human rights. In varying degrees, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam all stress what now would be called human rights. These religions emphasize the necessity of fairness on the part of political authorities and the distribution of economic resources to those in need (Ife 2008; Laqueur and Rubin 1979; McKinney and Park-Cunningham 1997; Van Wormer 1997).

More than two thousand years ago, great philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, explored the realm of basic, inalienable rights of man, which in those times strictly referred to men (Wronka 1998). (Women's rights as human rights were not acknowledged until much, much later [Reichert 1996, 1998]). According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, an unjust man is a man who is not content to have an equal share with others (Wronka 1998, 43). Since an unjust thing is an unequal thing, there clearly must be a mean between greater and less inequality. If then the unjust is the unequal, the just will be the equal. A bit later, the Romans developed the "Twelve Tables," which stress the necessity for a proper trial, the presentation of evidence and proof, and the illegality of bribery in judicial proceedings (Wronka 1998, 46).

In 1215, a cornerstone of human rights was laid when English nobles, bishops, and archbishops forced the then reigning King John to end all abuses against his subjects. As a record of his agreement, these men drafted a document known as the Magna Carta, which King John was forced to sign. The Magna Carta prohibited a sovereign from taking property without due process and detaining his subjects without a legal judgment by their peers, which was the forerunner of the trial by jury. The document also highlighted the importance of family and provided for safety from abusive treatment.

Another concept behind the development of human rights is natural law, which holds that a certain order in nature provides the norms for human conduct. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote that natural law was humanity's "participation" in the comprehensive eternal law (Hall 1992, 581). That is, people could grasp certain self-evident principles of practical reason, which corresponded to the various goods toward which human nature inclined. Natural law was a standard for human laws: unjust laws in principle did not bind in conscience. During the seventeenth century, European philosophers advocated for what they viewed as the natural rights of the citizens, the idea that by their nature, people have certain basic rights that precede the establishment of any government (Hall 1992, 590).

Two early modern political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, stated that the source of natural law was not a set of naturally ordered ends of human well-being and fulfillment but an innate desire for self-preservation. From this idea, Hobbes and Locke erected a new doctrine known as _natural rights_. The desire for self-preservation in a state of nature then led to the establishment of a social contract, the foundation of civil society. The fundamental duty of government, according to Locke, became the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property. This concept of natural rights went beyond theoretical views of man and society toward the establishment of actual rules of conduct. Initially, these natural rights focused on freedom of the press, with subsequent attention to freedom of thought in politics and religion (Hall 1992, 581). The abolition of slavery and more humane treatment of criminals also formed part of the natural rights movement (Rawls 1993).

Uprisings in the late eighteenth century against the government and royalty in France and the American colonies engendered considerable discussion about how nations should treat their citizens. Until this time, privileged males occupied center stage in the discussion about concepts of human rights, with most, if not all, such rights understood as being solely for men. Them, in 1787 the French philosopher Condorcet published a treatise on the rights of women, maintaining that they had the same "natural rights" as men (Staub-Bernasconi 1998). During the French Revolution, women were extremely active in the fight against an old feudal regime, leading demonstrations that forced the king from his palace at Versailles. Women's groups in Paris also demanded the same political rights as men, as well as changes in marriage laws and women's social conditions. One of the most outspoken advocates for women's rights during the French Revolution was Olympe de Gouges. Two years after the Revolution began, she published a declaration of the rights of women demanding the same rights for women as men. But in 1793, during a backlash, the French government beheaded de Gouges and banned any further political activity by women. The tragic irony of her death becomes evident when reading the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted by the French government in 1789 (Staub-Bernasconi 1998). That declaration referred only to men and specified numerous negative rights, including freedom from excessive punishment, freedom of thought and religion, and freedom to speak, write, and print. Only later were women specifically recognized as entitled to basic human rights and freedoms.

During the French Revolution, American colonists instigated their own uprising against the British, out of which came various documents expounding on the rights of man, including the Declaration of Independence and, later, the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence holds that certain rights—notably, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as being "self-evident." A key part of the U.S. Constitution, placed immediately after the articles defining the mechanical functioning of the newly formed U.S. government, became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the body of the Constitution and specifies certain civil and political rights. For instance, the First Amendment prohibits the government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion or from preventing the free exercise of religion. The government may not abridge the freedom of speech, of the press, or of the people to assemble peaceably. The people also have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Other amendments guarantee the right of the people not to be subjected to unreasonable searches (amend. 4) or to cruel and unusual punishment (amend. 8). Nobody can be forced to testify against herself or himself, and government may not take "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (amend. 5).

The Bill of Rights took a major step in defining and limiting the government's action in political and civil matters. But it and the U.S. Constitution omitted any guarantees or assurances of economic and social needs. Another revolution of sorts was needed to focus on these aspects of human existence.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the age of industrialization began in England, Europe, and the United States when people left their agricultural-based activities to find work in factories, often working long hours in unsanitary conditions. Factory owners frequently exploited their workers, paying them little for their efforts. Children at an early age, too, went to work in the factories. Of course, in those days many people accepted these circumstances as the normal course of events. But then, in the middle of the nineteenth century, opposition to the exploitation of labor in the industrialized world began to emerge. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels produced the Communist Manifesto, which described what they saw as exploitation of the working class by owners of factories and other means of production (Wronka 1998). The manifesto outlined the class struggle against capitalists and the eventual takeover by the workers of the means of production. While many of the predictions of Marx and Engels never came about, the underlying theme of their writings resulted in greater attention to the world's less economically fortunate.

_Ida B. Wells-Barnett: Human Rights Activist_

Although the term _human rights_ was first used only around 1945, human rights activists have existed throughout history. An example is Ida B. Wells-Barnett, an African American woman. Born in 1862, Wells-Barnett became active in fighting discrimination against blacks. In 1883, Wells-Barnett refused to move from a coach reserved for white women and was then evicted from the coach (Peebles-Wilkins and Francis 1990). From that day on, she attacked all types of discrimination against blacks through her writings and participation in campaigns.

In 1892, Wells-Barnett began an antilynching campaign. She viewed lynching as a direct result of blacks' gains in the South and as an attempt to stop that progress. Her attacks against lynching infuriated whites, who then destroyed her printing press while she was on a speaking tour. Wells-Barnett nonetheless continued her campaign and even traveled overseas to raise consciousness against what was happening in the United States.

On her return to the United States in 1893, Wells-Barnett continued her activism against the exclusion of African Americans from society. Her campaign for human rights lasted until 1931, the year she died (Peebles-Wilkins and Francis 1990).

Toward the latter part of the nineteenth century, governments in Europe began to support the development of social welfare as social activists recognized the inadequacy of individual responses to broad economic problems like massive poverty (Wronka 1998). At this time, social workers began to share ideas and experience, to develop their practice, and to form a collective response to the issues they encountered.

In the early twentieth century, World War I and its aftermath brought greater attention to humankind's interdependence, leading to a shared desire to condemn warfare and create institutional frameworks for international cooperation. The establishment of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organization and the inception of social welfare organizations such as the International Conference of Social Welfare reflected this new mood of international, regional, and national collaboration. For social workers, the establishment of intergovernmental organizations such as the International Committee of Schools of Social Work and the International Permanent Secretariat of Social Workers paralleled this collaboration. During this period, social work organizations began to establish the basis for a social work profession and create social work values for their practice. This international promotion of social work formed a key concept that social work values could transcend borders, a notion manifested in the drafting of the Universal Declaration a few years later. Even though concepts of human rights underpinned the value base of social work, there was no formal teaching on human rights issues (Center for Human Rights 1994).

_Alice Salomon: The Jane Addams of Germany_

Alice Salomon has been called the Jane Addams of Germany (Healy 2008, 146), a reference stemming from her social work activism. Another forerunner of human rights promoters before the term became prevalent, Salomon fought for both equal rights for women and other human rights.

Born in 1872 in Berlin, Germany, Salomon soon became interested in the plight of women, especially in the workplace, where women were working in "sweat shops" and suffering from hunger and disease (Wieler 1988). She promoted adult education for women and wrote a controversial paper entitled "Unequal Payment of Men's and Women's Work." Then in 1908, Salomon founded the first school of social work in Germany.

Salomon traveled and lectured extensively in Europe and the United States and spent about equal time on social work and work with councils of women (Kendall 1989, 28). She also became active in an international peace movement with Jane Addams. When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he targeted Salomon as an enemy, since she was Jewish. Moreover, her work on peace and disarmament as well as women's rights conflicted with Nazi doctrines, so in 1937, Hitler's National Socialist government forced Salomon to leave Germany or be put into a concentration camp. She moved to the United States, where she died in 1948.

Despite recognizing the dangers of war, especially after the immense destruction caused by World War I, Europe almost immediately became embroiled once again in armed battle. Budding international organizations faltered, owing to limited support and no real enforcement power. One of these organizations, the League of Nations, encountered obstacles from the start, mainly because the United States withdrew its membership (Alexander 1996). The league thus became little more than a forum in which European countries could discuss world issues, but their decisions could not be enforced.

In 1939, with Hitler's invasion into Poland, World War II began, involving even more countries and areas of the world than in the first global conflict. Because of the extraordinary destruction during this war, many groups began to devote their attention to notions of human rights. Wartime conferences in London, Moscow, the United States, and Yalta by the major countries aligned against Germany issued declarations regarding the failure of the League of Nations, emphasizing the need to develop a "United Nations" to maintain international peace and security. In 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt enunciated four freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want (i.e., economic security), and freedom from fear (e.g., international peace). Three years later, he asked Congress to explore the means for implementing an economic bill of rights, including the rights to a useful and remunerative job; sufficient income to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation; a decent home; medical care; retirement, disability, unemployment security; and a good education. All these concepts contributed to ideas cited in the soon-to-be-formulated Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

_The Second Bill of Rights: An Unmet Challenge_

In 1944, before the end of World War II, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt gave a speech emphasizing the necessity of a decent standard of living for everyone in all countries (Sunstein 2004). He then listed those rights that every American should have:

  * The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines.
  * The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
  * The right of every farmer to raise and sell his produce at a return that will give him and his family a decent living.
  * The right of every businessman to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
  * The right of every family to a decent home.
  * The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
  * The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
  * The right to a good education. (Sunstein 2004, 13)

To Roosevelt, these rights were just as important as any political or civil rights, since they also guaranteed social and economic security, the lack of which had much to do with World War II.

As later chapters of this book will show, the United States has failed to put these goals into practice, and the necessity of this "second bill of rights" remains an urgent challenge.

Drafting the Universal Declaration was not primarily a project of Europe and the United States. Other regions of the world also had developed their own laws, principles, and religions that in many ways had much in common with concepts eventually included in the declaration. In China, elements of Confucian thought formed a basis for modern human rights doctrines (Gangjian and Gang 1995, 36). In South America, nineteenthcentury movements led by Simón Bolívar and others contributed to human rights principles. Even the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution contained numerous references to civil and political rights (even though they were not respected from a Western perspective) and stressed economic and social rights (Wronka 1998).

Indigenous peoples such as Native Americans also contributed concepts of freedom, peace, and democracy to the development of human rights. During the nineteenth century, European countries and, to a lesser extent, the United States began a massive colonial exploitation ("colonization") of indigenous peoples in Africa and parts of Asia. Depending on the colonizer, the degree of political and civil freedoms varied. The "new" citizens of Australia and the United States instigated a massive decimation of their indigenous populations, the idea being that these populations were inferior and had little to contribute to the needs of a modern country (Brown 1970; Hughes 1987). Unfortunately, the colonization and expulsion of indigenous peoples did much to silence the voices of these groups.

Developments After 1945

World War II ended in Europe in May 1945 with the defeat of Germany and in the Pacific in August 1945 with the defeat of Japan. The devastation from the war was so horrendous that at its end, individuals and governments from every corner of the globe realized that another such catastrophe would probably mean the end of humankind. The search for universal principles of conduct now began in earnest.

_Dachau: The Need to Remember_

Not far from Munich, the city where Adolf Hiter began his rise to power over all of Germany and much of Europe, lies a former concentration camp known as Dachau. Every day, tour groups from all corners of the globe visit the camp to learn about the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Dachau did not have the infamous gas chambers used in other concentration camps to exterminate millions of Jews. Instead, Hitler used Dachau to silence unwanted political and other societal groups and individuals. A visitor to Dachau comes away with many impressions, with perhaps the most obvious being how horrible Hitler and the Nazis were. But the more important lesson from this contemporary monument is the recognition of the fine line between "bad and good" that lurks in all of us. Certainly, we must acknowledge the tragedies of those confined in Dachau, but Dachau also represents the unwelcome truth that victims can also become perpetrators. For example, after World War I many Germans viewed the world's economic policies toward them as punitive, which, they believed, made them victims. Indeed, this claim of victim status clearly assisted a tyrant like Hitler to rise to power.

After the attack on the World Trade Center in New York in 2001, the United States reacted with questionable integrity by rounding up alleged terrorists and waging war with Iraq. Even today, the presence of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. It is difficult to explain away those deaths by simply maintaining that "we" liberated those countries from tyrants. It also is difficult to explain the hundreds of alleged terrorists that the United States sent to the prison at Guantánamo without due process. Most of those held there have been released without actually being charged with terrorist activities. Some of the prisoners were released only years after confinement and even torture, as documented by the U.S. government itself (Mazzetti and Shane 2009).

Dachau offers the world with a window from which to view oppression. No visitor there should fall into the trap of believing that only a few could ever commit acts of inhumanity. The unfortunate truth is otherwise.

Until 1945, the notion of state sovereignty dominated international relations ( _Economist_ 1998). Within their borders, states controlled their own affairs and generally did not interfere in the affairs of another state; whatever states did to their own nationals was their business. Of course, this respect for noninterference in the affairs of other states did not prevent the colonization and destruction of those peoples who had no defined national boundaries. African, American, Australian, and other aborigines generally found themselves on the losing end of better-armed Europeans who had arrived to expand their own nation's sovereign reach.

After World War II, however, the principle that a state or nation should have total control over its own affairs encountered resistance. Extreme nationalism then became subordinate to the view that the international community would not remain silent when egregious abuses were committed by a particular country. The primary issue then became one of defining those rights, abuses, and other universal principles to which every country would subscribe.

In June 1945 in San Francisco, the United States, Soviet Union, France, Cuba, Chile, Panama, and many other countries laid the groundwork for the creation of a United Nations, which included a charter, or originating document (Morsink 1999). The UN Charter pledged the organization to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, with article I "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." As part of this charter, the participants agreed to establish a commission on human rights. Before this commission was created in 1946, the term _human rights_ , as previously noted, had not been a commonly used expression, even though human rights principles had been developing for centuries.

A universal declaration of rights ranked high on the United Nations' agenda, but many governments were reluctant to accept detailed provisions concerning human rights. The Soviet Union had _gulags_ , or labor camps, for those who spoke against the government; the United States had numerous racial problems; and the Europeans had colonial empires (Buergenthal 1988), all of which could be viewed as contrary to human rights principles. Consequently, establishing a strong international mechanism for protecting human rights could work against the interests of these major blocs. The Soviets certainly did not want human rights inspectors examining their labor camps and talking with the dissidents living in them. The United States did not want human rights examiners questioning what could be considered near-apartheid conditions, especially in the South. And European countries had no interest in allowing human rights monitors to look into the exploitative activities surrounding their African and Asian colonies.

These reservations concerning a universal declaration on human rights faced a challenge from what might appear as an unlikely source. That is, the impetus for a more detailed and comprehensive set of rights than desired by the major blocs came from private institutions now commonly known as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). According to John Humphrey, the first director of the Division of Human Rights at the United Nations, without the efforts of a few deeply committed delegates and representatives of forty-two private organizations serving as consultants, human rights would have received only a passing reference (Farer 1989, 195). But with the promotion of human rights by NGOs and dedicated government leaders, by 1947 an international consensus to promote universal human rights had evolved.

The Commission on Human Rights held its first session in early 1947, electing Eleanor Roosevelt as its president and René Cassin from France as its vice president. Members of the commission included representatives from Australia, Belgium, the Byelorussian (Belorussian) Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, the Philippine Republic, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. The commission drafted an initial document on human rights that contained numerous articles on the rights and duties of individuals covering political, social, and economic rights, with differing viewpoints on how much influence should be extended to each. In June 1948 the commission completed its draft declaration and the entire General Assembly of the United Nations began debating the draft (Morsink 1999).

At the time the commission submitted its draft declaration on human rights to the General Assembly, the United Nations consisted of fifty-six countries, most of which were in North and South America, Europe, and the Soviet Union. A few Arab countries were members, but Africa and Asia had little representation because of their colonization by European countries. Only later, beginning in the late 1950s, did the colonized territories begin the path to independence and membership in the United Nations.

_What Are Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs)?_

NGOs are organizations formed by people outside government that monitor the proceedings of human rights bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights and are the "watchdogs" of the human rights that fall within their mandate. Some are large and international (e.g., the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Girl Scouts); others may be small and local (e.g., an organization advocating for people with disabilities in a particular city; a group promoting women's rights in one refugee camp). NGOs play a major role in influencing UN policy, and many of them communicate directly with delegates at the United Nations. Without the work of NGOs, human rights in many countries would often remain a minor concern.

Despite the United Nations' limited membership in 1948, a spirited debate surrounded the draft declaration. Many countries agreed to the necessity for enforcement provisions that would ensure compliance with human rights principles, as they did not want an organization as impotent as the League of Nations had been. Obtaining agreement that countries should give human rights more than just lip service was perhaps the easiest point to discuss; the greater difficulties arose in reconciling the different philosophies among member countries. The U.S. contingent focused on political and civil rights and did not want a guarantee to economic and social rights. This viewpoint simply matched common U.S. views of government and society, that nobody owes anybody a job, unemployment benefits, or medical care. Why should governments be responsible for those items? Nonetheless, government should stay out of religion, refrain from censorship, and ensure numerous other safeguards against governmental interference in the liberty of its citizens. In contrast, the Soviet Union viewed free speech and other American-style political rights as anathema to their society. Instead, the Soviets emphasized the distribution of economic and social benefits to all citizens. Other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, weighed in with objections to the right to change religions and to equal rights concerning marriage, believing that these would conflict with marriage laws in most Muslim countries. The Union of South Africa objected to numerous provisions in the draft document that could be used to attack its apartheid system of segregation. Chile, often taking the lead for the commission's Latin American contingent, supported economic and social rights, thereby making impossible a return to fascism.

The final draft of the document that would become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bore the unmistakable stamp of the horrific experiences of the recent war. René Cassin, the French delegate, stated that "the last war had taken on the character of a crusade for human rights" and that the declaration was most urgently needed as a protest against oppression (Morsink 1999, 37). On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration passed unopposed, but the entire Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa abstained from voting because of their objections to certain provisions within the declaration.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not a legally binding document—who could have enforced it anyway against powerful countries like the United States and the Soviet Union?—a common precedent for universal human rights now existed. The significance of this step cannot be underestimated. From this point forward, human rights have made astonishing inroads into the vocabularies of social workers, philosophers, educators, political leaders, lawyers, and many other groups around the world.

_Mahatma Gandhi: Human Rights Activist_

One of the better-known human rights activists from a non-Western country is Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi, who was born in India in 1869. As a young man, Gandhi studied law in London and in the early 1900s moved to South Africa, where he practiced law. In South Africa, Gandhi encountered the inhumane racial laws propagated by its government, which divided nonwhites into various categories and restricted them from all types of endeavors. Gandhi protested against those discriminatory laws, especially as they related to Indian immigrants in South Africa, and frequently served time in jail for his human rights activities.

In 1915, Gandhi returned to India where he became active in the struggle for independence from Britain. Eventually, in 1947, Britain granted India its independence but split the territory it had held into two states: India and Pakistan, with Pakistan made up of two separate land areas. As in many other countries at this time that were having a difficult time moving from a colonial territory to an independent nation, the partition of India and Pakistan led to violent clashes among different groups. Despite spending the remaining months of his life preaching against this violence, in 1948 Gandhi was assassinated.

Gandhi never preached violence as a means to achieve goals; rather, his principles were based on carefully considered philosophical beliefs: cooperation over competition, interdependence over rugged individualism, and compassion for others over the pursuit of self-interest (Walz and Ritchie 2000, 213). These principles of nonviolent civil disobedience, or _satyagraha_ , still are important to the contemporary pursuit for human rights.

The Historical Role of Social Workers in Human Rights

During the historical development of human rights, social workers have been active in international and social justice issues that concern human rights issues, including the following milestones:

  * In 1915, Jane Addams attended the Women's Peace Conference at The Hague and then traveled to Berlin to meet with the German chancellor in an attempt to convince him to end the World War I hostilities.
  * In 1919 social worker Eglantyne Jebb founded the Save the Children Fund in England. Jebb contributed extensively to promoting children's rights, and in 1924 the League of Nations adopted a declaration on the Rights of the Child that Jebb had drawn up.
  * In 1928 social workers formed the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) with forty-six member schools in ten countries. The goals of this association included an improved approach to humanitarian work and closer international cooperation among social workers.
  * In 1931, Jane Addams received the Nobel Peace Prize.
  * During the 1930s, social workers became more active in economic and social justice issues. (Healy 2008)

Although the social work profession began to examine human rights issues in the early 1900s, its involvement slowed or even halted with the advent of World War II. International connections among social workers became increasingly difficult and eventually impossible in the wartime environment. In Germany the Nazis forced Alice Salomon, founder of the German schools of social work and activist in the international peace movement, to leave the country because she was Jewish (Wieler 1988). Salomon had worked closely with Jane Addams in social work issues and was prominent in the social work profession in Europe.

_Eglantyne Jebb: Human Rights Activist_

Eglantyne Jebb was clearly a forerunner of the contemporary human rights scene. Born in 1876 in England, she trained as a teacher but subsequently became involved in social work with the Charity Organization Society. In 1913, Jebb did relief work after the Balkan wars, during which she observed the appalling conditions of refugees displaced by war. That experience led her to her life's work: helping children (Healy 2008, 169). After World War I, Jebb helped establish the Save the Children Fund, which still exists today. Two principles of the fund were that aid should be based on need and that children should not suffer from wars in which they had no part. In addition to helping found Save the Children, in 1923 Jebb also drafted a declaration on the rights of the child, which formed the basis for the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Healy 2008, 170).

Jebb suffered from chronic poor health and died in 1928 at the age of fiftytwo, but the work she did during her lifetime helped shape the human rights movement today.

Figure 1.1

After World War II, social workers once again played a large part in creating the current human rights movement, and their involvement becomes clear when examining goals of the profession. Many of these goals stem from human rights concepts, even though the social work profession in the United States has only now begun to incorporate the term _human rights_ into its policies and practices.

The Terminology of Human Rights Documents

To understand the significance of documents relating to human rights, social workers should be familiar with the terminology found in various documents, including _declaration_ , _covenant_ , _convention_ , _treaty_ , and _customary international law_. Although social workers do not need to study the finer points of international law regarding these terms, they do need a general knowledge of them to understand the significance of a particular document.

_Declaration_

A _declaration_ is a formal, _nonbinding_ statement listing general principles and broad obligations (Center for Human Rights 1994, 14). For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains many statements about human rights, with the goal of encouraging countries to recognize them. The declaration does not, however, impose any specific requirement on a particular country or nation to comply with the declaration.

Although a declaration's nonbinding nature may appear detrimental to promoting human rights, it nonetheless does indicate a position on human rights issues. Any country signing or adopting a declaration is announcing to other countries that it intends to abide by the declaration and make efforts to put its principles into practice. A country that signs a declaration but makes no effort to comply with it is, at a minimum, showing bad faith and running the risk of losing the international community's respect.

Declarations commonly address human rights issues and allow countries an opportunity to gather and discuss current areas of concern. Member countries of the United Nations often schedule conferences on human rights topics with the goal of presenting a declaration on these topics. These conferences may be controversial, as the participants can conflict over particular language in the declaration.

Even if countries pay no more than lip service to statements in the declarations, their importance should not be underestimated. Merely by adopting a specific position concerning human rights issues, a country and its government indicate their intent to follow that position. Individuals and groups then can at least point to the declaration when shaping the policies their government should be pursuing.

_Covenant, Convention, and Treaty_

In contrast to the nonbinding nature of a declaration, the United Nations has adopted the use of various instruments that do impose specific obligations on those countries signing and ratifying them. These instruments are known as _covenants_ , _conventions_ , and _treaties_.

Generally, a _covenant_ on human rights principles is a promise by two or more countries that they will enforce provisions of the covenants by means of specific laws. A _convention_ is an international agreement that contains provisions to promote or protect specific rights ( _Black's Law Dictionary_ 2009). Both covenants and conventions relating to human rights documents generally require a specified number of countries to agree to the document before it can go into effect. A _treaty_ is much like a covenant or convention but may not require a specific number of signatures before going into effect. Human rights instruments other than declarations generally are classified as covenants or conventions but also fall within the definition of a treaty.

A key distinction between a covenant, convention, or treaty and a declaration is that of obligation. Countries signing and formally adopting a covenant, convention, or treaty are signifying that they intend to bind themselves to provisions in the document, whereas countries signing a declaration are merely indicating an intent to follow its provisions. The language of a covenant, convention, or treaty generally imposes an obligation on a state or country to ensure and undertake certain human rights, whereas the language of a declaration focuses more on the need to recognize particular human rights. In the United States, the U.S. Senate must ratify a human rights covenant or convention by a two-thirds vote, something the Senate has rarely done. Even after the ratification of a human rights document, the U.S. Congress usually must pass legislation that incorporates provisions of the document into U.S. law. Without this legislation, the human rights document cannot be enforced.

Furthermore, even when a country approves or ratifies a human rights document, it may place "reservations" on the document. A _reservation_ refers to a section of the document that a country will not enforce, often because the provision conflicts with local laws or culture.

_The Human Right Not to Torture: A Basic Concept_

After the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the United States appeared to throw out all past practices regarding the illegal practice of torture. U.S. government lawyers even wrote legal opinions that broke with past legal authority and allowed various types of "enhanced interrogation practices" (Danner 2009).

Can torture be legal? Should it be used under any circumstances? If the human right not to be tortured has any meaning, then torture can never be used, which may be difficult to understand when torture advocates bring up the "ticking time bomb" example. It seems unlikely that this would ever happen, but the thought seems sufficiently effective to persuade some, including many Americans, that torture is acceptable, at least in some circumstances.

The problem with approving torture under any circumstances lies in the chipping away of what laws and the human right against torture actually mean. To begin making exceptions inevitably leads to abuses, and the exceptions become larger and undefined or unrestrained. The result can easily become widespread abuse. The cruelty and inhumane circumstances under which torture inevitably occurs should be enough to persuade most people of the reasons to outlaw it. For those who insist on the necessity of allowing torture, they should be reminded that in many dictatorships, torture forms the basis of control. Governments that allow torture thus are violating human rights principles and are sowing the seeds for a broader rejection of democratic principles.

_Customary International Law_

In addition to the legally binding nature of covenants, conventions and treaties, a country can be legally bound to follow human rights principles by means of a process known as _customary international law_. It essentially means that a particular rule has become so commonplace around the world that all countries should enforce it. Certain human rights, particularly some of those listed in the Universal Declaration, probably qualify as customary international law and therefore could be enforced in all countries whose courts acknowledge customary international law. For example, in the United States, in _Filartiga v. Pena-Irala_ , 1980, a federal court ruled that a foreign national may sue in a U.S. court for civil damages allegedly caused by torture, in this case by a Paraguayan national, as the court considered the human right to be free from torture as binding on all countries:

For although there is no universal agreement as to the precise extent of the "human rights and fundamental freedoms" guaranteed to all by the [United Nations] Charter, there is at present no dissent from the view that the guaranties include, at a bare minimum, the right to be free from torture. This prohibition has become part of customary international law, as evidenced and defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ( _Filartiga v. Pena-Irala_ 1980, 882)

The court did not state that all human rights contained in the Universal Declaration met the standard of customary international law. Rather, courts would need to examine the particular right at issue and then determine whether that right qualified as part of customary international law.

While the intricacies of international law obviously exceed the scope of this book, social workers should understand the concept of customary international law and how it applies to human rights principles. If almost every country accepts a particular human right as being fundamental to human existence, then it could become part of customary international law and become enforceable. From a social work perspective, going to court to enforce a human right may be distasteful. The point, however, is to recognize the importance of human rights within the social work profession and to understand how some of those rights are basic to the human condition.

Summary

The process of drafting and obtaining acceptance of a covenant or convention on human rights involves numerous factors. The initial wording of the document contains its own set of challenges, with some countries or groups insisting on particular language to satisfy their own political or social agenda. After the inevitable tug-of-war over the language of a covenant or convention comes the vote on the document. Will enough countries in the General Assembly of the United Nations vote to adopt the instrument? If so, then comes the process of putting the instrument into effect, which requires a specific number of countries accepting the instrument as the law of their land. But even acceptance of the convention or covenant as law does not prevent a country from placing reservations on the document. If a country wants to accept the document generally but does not like a particular provision, then that country may reserve enforcement of that provision.

Finally, after the covenant or convention has been accepted or ratified, a country must decide whether the document becomes enforceable without specific legislation requiring its enforcement. The United States has usually viewed UN documents as requiring specific legislation to implement their terms as legally enforceable. In other words, an individual who might be affected by a UN document could not simply refer to the document in a court of law. Rather, he or she would need to refer to specific legislation indicating that the U.S. government has approved the enforcement of the document. Without such legislation, the individual could not rely on that document for support.

With all the complexities relating to human rights documents, social workers might wonder how any document ever sees the light of day. Yet substantial efforts in drafting new documents and revising existing documents continue as a means of improving political, social, economic, and cultural situations around the word. This dedication by many individuals, groups, and governments demonstrates the importance of human rights principles to social workers and their profession.

Questions

1. How would you respond to the claim that "human rights" is a Western concept?

2. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

3. What religious, spiritual, and philosophical values have been incorporated into human rights?

4. What events gave the most impetus to the creation of the Universal Declaration?

5. What is meant by generations of human rights? Should one generation have priority over another?

6. Does the Universal Declaration apply to everyone, including terrorists?

7. What is the major difference between a declaration and a covenant, convention, or treaty?

8. What is a nongovernmental organization (NGO)? What role do NGOs have in promoting human rights?

9. If a country acknowledges the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as all members of the United Nations must do), does that country have an obligation to enforce articles contained in the declaration? Explain your answer.

10. How can a country enforce the Universal Declaration?

11. What is customary international law? How does it relate to human rights? Is torture a violation of customary international law?

References

Alexander, T. 1996. _Unravelling Global Apartheid. An Overview of World Politics_. Cambridge: Polity Press.

_Black's Law Dictionary_. 2009. 9th ed., ed. B. Garner. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Brown, D. 1970. _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West_. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Buergenthal, T. 1988. _International Human Rights Law_. St. Paul: West.

Center for Human Rights. 1994. _Human Rights and Social Work: A Manual for Schools of Social Work and the Social Work Profession_. Training Series no. 1. Geneva: United Nations.

Danner, M. 2009. The Red Cross torture report: What it means. _New York Review of Books_ , April 30. Available at <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614> (accessed April 19, 2009).

_The Economist_. 1998. Human-rights law, December 15, pp. 4–16.

Farer, T. 1989. The United Nations and human rights: More than a whimper. In _Human Rights in the World Community_ , ed. R. P. Claude and B. H. Weston, 194–208. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

_Filartiga v. Pena-Irala_ , 630 F.2d 876 (1980).

Gangjian, D., and S. Gang. 1995. Relating human rights to Chinese culture: The four paths of the Confucian _Analects_ and the four principles of a new theory of benevolence. In _Human Rights and Chinese Values_ , ed. F. Davis, 35–55. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Hall, K., ed. 1992. _The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States_. New York: Oxford University Press.

Healy, L. 2008. _International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World_. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hughes, R. 1987. _The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia's Founding_. New York: Knopf.

Ife, J. 2008. _Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice_. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ignatieff, M. 2001. _Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry_. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kendall, K. 1989. Women at the helm: Three extraordinary leaders. _Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work_ 4 (1): 23–32.

Laqueur, W., and B. Rubin, eds. 1979. _The Human Rights Reader_. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Mazzetti, M., and S. Shane. 2009. C.I.A. abuse cases detailed in report on detainees. Available at http:www.nytimes.com (accessed August 25, 2009).

McKinney, C. M., and R. Park-Cunningham. 1997. Evolution of the social work profession: An historical review of the U.S. and selected countries, 1995. In _Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference_ , New York State Social Work Education Association, 3–9. Syracuse: New York State Social Work Education Association.

Morsink, J. 1999. _The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent_. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Peebles-Wilkins, W., and E. Francis. 1990. Two outstanding black women in social welfare history: March Church Terrell and Ida B. Wells-Barnett. _Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work_ 5 (4): 87–100.

Press, E. 2000. Human rights—The next step. _The Nation_ , December 25, pp. 13–18.

Rawls, J. 1993. _Political Liberalism_. New York: Columbia University Press.

Reichert, E. 1996. Keep on moving forward: NGO Forum on Women, Beijing, China. _Social Development Issues_ 18 (1): 61–71.

——. 1998. Women's rights are human rights: A platform for action. _International Social Work_ 15 (3): 177–85.

Staub-Bernasconi, S. 1998. Soziale Arbeit als Menschenrechtenprofession. In _Profession und Wissenschaft Sozialer Arbeit: Positionen in einer Phase der generellen Neuverortnung und Spezifika_ , ed. A. Woehrle, 305–32. Pfaffenweilerm: Cenaurus.

Sunstein, C. 2004. _The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever_. New York: Basic Books.

UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 1, 1948. GA.Res.217 AIII. United Nations Document a/810. New York: UN.

Van Wormer, K. S. 1997. _Social Welfare: A World View_. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Walz, T., and H. Ritchie. 2000. Gandhian principles in social work practice: Ethics revisited. _Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers_ 45 (3): 213–22.

Wieler, J. 1988. Alice Salomon. _Journal of Teaching in Social Work_ 2 (2): 165–71.

Wronka, K. 1998. _Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st Century: A History of the Idea of Human Rights and Comparison of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights with United States Federal and State Constitutions_. Rev. ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
[ 2 ]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Where, after, all do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in, the school or college he attends, the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, and equal dignity without discrimination.

Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

—Eleanor Roosevelt

When politicians and others discuss human rights, a question frequently arises as to the actual depth of their knowledge about human rights. Do they have in mind a specific document, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If so, to which provision(s) are they referring? Many people simply throw out the term _human rights_ with no real understanding of what it means. Because the nature of human rights and what those rights encompass can be complicated, a simplistic view of human rights often results in a misunderstanding of what they actually represent.

To begin a detailed study of human rights, the inevitable starting point is the Universal Declaration, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and applicable to all countries joining that body (UN 1948). With the UN's adoption of the declaration, a new historical era began in how nations viewed circumstances both inside and outside their borders. While the declaration had no immediate impact on domestic or international policies, over time the human rights principles contained in the declaration have frequently affected governmental policies and individual acts. Thus to say that human rights are simply words on paper does not reflect reality.

Like any basic law or constitution, the Universal Declaration is a living document, subject to interpretations that continually change with the passage of time. But many of the declaration's provisions contain fundamental freedoms and rights that would clearly apply to any set of circumstances.

_Americans Lack Knowledge About the_
 _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_

It appears odd that many Americans know little about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, since the United States had much to do with its founding. Doug Pibel, the managing editor of _Yes!_ magazine, made this point in a special edition of the magazine asking, Is the U.S. Ready for Human Rights?

I am a child of an innocent time and place—the Great Plains in the golden years of the mid-20th century. I learned that the United States is the land of freedom and opportunity: the country that shows the way to rights for all. . . .

But as I've learned our troubled history and seen our troubled present, I have come to question that story. I take no pleasure in my doubts. . . . The ideals I learned as a child are good ones: equality, prosperity for all, government by the people, and commitment to the common good. . . .

Where are those ideals most clearly stated? The Bill of Rights is a good start. But the broadest statement is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]. It's been described as one of the most important documents in human history, been translated into hundreds of languages, and formed the basis for national constitutions, yet it is little known in the United States.

The UDHR was, in large part, a product of American idealism. President Truman appointed Eleanor Roosevelt to head the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. Many considered her high-minded but naïve, and hardly up to the task. But her diplomatic skills and tough-mind moral leadership held the process together until the Declaration was completed. (Pibel 2007, 1)

Pibel does not give up hope that in the United States, knowledge of the Universal Declaration will increase. He asks whether it is idealistic to think that we can make all the rights in the UDHR a reality. "We think not, because one true part of our national story is this: we cherish those ideals we learned as children. History shows that rights are not granted from above, they are claimed by the people. As we work to claim rights for all of us, we take the next steps on our historical journey" (Pibel 2007, 1).

The Purpose of the Universal Declaration

The direct impetus for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the horrors perpetrated in Nazi Germany in the name of racial purity and superiority. Laws in Nazi Germany labeled numerous individuals and groups as non-Germans, undeserving of the rights and benefits granted to citizens. The intent behind these racial purity laws was to exclude those who did not have the "proper" ethnic or religious background from participating in German society. Individuals or groups who spoke out against this discriminatory treatment encountered the wrath of the Nazi government, which tortured and executed many dissidents. Eventually, the Nazi government rounded up Jews and other individuals—including Roma, communists, homosexuals, dissidents, and _Asoziale_ (persons on welfare)—for transport to concentration camps, where many died under German extermination policies. In addition, people with mental illnesses or other disabilities were often killed at hospitals (Hansen 1991; Otto and Sunker 1991; Schnurr 1997). The horrors of Nazi Germany seemed unimaginable, and people all over the world wanted to make sure that they never would happen again.

While Nazi Germany and its genocidal policies against Jews and other groups provided the most immediate rationale for universal rules that would protect vulnerable populations, other factors also played a role. Poverty and unemployment had afflicted many individuals throughout the world during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Should individuals everywhere be entitled to a social security net to help them during hard times? The colonization of African and Asian countries by Europeans also provided fuel for a universal rule against the exploitation of peoples by the more powerful. Should colonized peoples have a right to self-determination? The list of issues concerning the human condition never seemed to end after World War II, and discussion of these issues led inexorably to the need for a broad-based document defining the essence of a human being's existence. Given the vast cultural and other differences among individuals, what common needs and freedoms should everyone share? The outcome of this intensive soul-searching was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While certainly not perfect, the declaration's principles provide a worthy foundation for advancing political and social rights that everyone should enjoy, no matter where he or she resides.

The Universal Declaration does not legally bind any nation to enforce the declaration's human rights. Nor are there formal penalties for nations violating them, but many countries have integrated the human rights specified in the declaration into their own laws. Also, some of the rights in the declaration have become enforceable through customary international law, which means that so many countries have accepted a rule or principle as valid that the rule becomes legally enforceable. In this respect, the declaration has been successful in setting many standards for acceptable conduct in the area of human rights.

One point of contemporary interest concerning the Universal Declaration is its "sexist" nature when viewed from today's standards (Prigoff 2000). Some references in the declaration refer to _man_ and not _woman_ , even though the issue of gender did receive significant attention by the drafters of the declaration (Morsink 1999). Women delegates involved in drafting the declaration, especially those from Denmark and the Soviet bloc, lobbied strongly for including a woman's perspective in all areas of human rights. The outcome of this discussion led to the frequent use of words like _everyone_ , _all_ , and _no one_ to avoid sexist implications. While the framers of the declaration let stand the occasional use of _man_ to refer to all individuals, the inclusiveness of the overall language indicates that the declaration applies to everyone, without regard to gender. Nonetheless, where it occurs, male-oriented language in the Universal Declaration would not be acceptable in many countries today. And despite efforts by the drafters to avoid a sexist document, the subsequent defining of human rights has often become a male-oriented process. This male orientation eventually led to a movement to state emphatically that women's rights are also human rights (discussed further in chapter 5).

_Human Rights Watch: Monitor of Human Rights_

Various international organizations monitor nations' compliance with human rights, including those contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A well-known nongovernmental organization, Human Rights Watch, regularly investigates human rights abuses around the world. Founded in 1978, Human Rights Watch does not accept any funding from governments, and its focus is on political and civil human rights.

Human Rights Watch includes annual, up-to-date surveys on compliance with human rights principles around the world, and sadly, the state of affairs does not appear as positive as in previous years:

A government's respect for human rights must be measured not only by how it treats its own people but also by how it protects rights in its relations with other countries . . . it is a sad fact that when it comes to this international protection of rights, the governments with the clearest vision and strategy are often those that seek to undermine enforcement. The days are past when one would look to Washington, Brussels, or other Western capitals for the initiative in intergovernmental discussions of human rights. Today, those conducting the most energetic diplomacy on human rights are likely to reside in such places as Algiers, Cairo, or Islamabad, with backing from Beijing and Moscow. The problem is that they are pushing in the wrong direction.

These human rights opponents defend the prerogative of governments to do what they want to their people. They hide behind the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and Southern solidarity, but their real aim is to curb criticism of their own human rights abuses or those of their allies and friends. . . .

The reason for their success lies less in the attractiveness of their vision than in the often weak and inconsistent commitment of governments that traditionally stood for the defense of human rights. It is not as if the people of the world are suddenly enamored of dictatorship and repression. Their desire for basic rights remains unchanged. . . . Rather, the vigor of the anti-human rights campaign is, ironically, a testament to the power of the human rights ideal. (Roth 2009, 1)

Even with the 2011 uprisings against dictators in the Middle East, this excerpt from the introduction to a recent Human Rights Watch report still seems valid. Can anyone doubt that those Iranians who demonstrated against their governmental elections in 2009 desired basic human rights to protest and request honest vote counting? The subsequent crackdown on protests by the Iranian government most likely did little to endear most Iranians to the resulting repression. But what authority does a country like the United States have to chastise the Iranian government on human rights?

Many of the traditional defenders of human rights, especially the United States, no longer appear as committed to human rights principles as they did in the past. The dilution of basic political rights and practice of torture by the United States during the endless and often contrived "war on terror" can only have encouraged countries like Iran to ignore fundamental human rights. The economic crisis beginning in 2008 has also led to concerns about the erosion of economic and social rights.

The Human Rights Watch website is essential reading. While not always pleasant to contemplate, the website provides a valuable function: the monitoring of human rights. Without that oversight, the contemporary state of human rights would be even more precarious than it is today.

Specific Provisions of the Universal Declaration

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a lengthy document; it contains only a preamble and thirty relatively concise articles. The language used in the declaration tends to be legalistic, which can detract from its acceptance by social workers. But social workers continually encounter laws regulating many aspects of their profession, and the field of human rights, while based on laws, also incorporates many ideals of the social work profession. The following discussion of the Universal Declaration illustrates the strong connection between human rights and social work.

_Preamble to the Universal Declaration_

The introduction to the Universal Declaration (the preamble) states the general reasons for the declaration. Subsequent articles then list the specific rights for "all members of the human family." The preamble begins with the following statement:

_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

Every human being is entitled to an inherent dignity, one of the foundations of freedom, justice, and peace. An inherent dignity exists merely by virtue of being human. The other foundation is the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Inalienable rights refer to rights incapable of being surrendered or transferred. These rights exist for everyone, and without them, freedom, justice, and peace in the world could be much more difficult to secure.

_Whereas_ disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

This phrase acknowledges that the horrific experiences of World War II and other "barbarous acts" resulted from the "disregard and contempt" of human rights. Based on the desire never to repeat those experiences, the drafters of the declaration proclaimed that the highest aspiration of the common people is to create a world tolerant of different views, respectful of individual freedoms, and mindful of economic security.

_Whereas_ it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

Without legal enforcement of human rights, the world could again be plunged into chaos. This phrase contemplates respect for human rights by governments through legal frameworks. While this provision envisions legal enforcement, the phrase "human rights should be protected" indicates the nonbinding nature of the declaration.

_Whereas_ it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.

This provision highlights the importance of international relations and the necessity of peaceful interaction. Human rights aim to promote amicable dealings among countries and, by extension, individuals from differing countries.

_Whereas_ the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

Regardless of what has happened in the past, all members of the United Nations agree to the need for human rights. Moreover, they believe in human dignity and the equal rights of men and women. The last part of this provision indicates a desire to improve overall living standards in the context of greater individual freedom. This wording reflects the vagueness of certain concepts, such as freedom. Defining terms like _freedom_ always becomes difficult when different cultures and political systems are involved. Therefore, in this context the declaration does not necessarily mean a U.S. system in which individual freedoms tend to be greater in many respects than in many other countries. The term _larger freedom_ could easily refer to both the United States and Saudi Arabia, with the goal being better social and economic conditions in their governmental systems.

_Whereas_ Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

This phrase highlights a pledge by any member of the United Nations to promote human rights and basic freedoms everywhere. In this statement, the declaration adds the term _fundamental freedoms_ to human rights without specifying those freedoms in later articles. Once again, freedom is a relative concept, and any definition of it must take into account numerous factors, including cultural, economic, political, and social traditions.

_Whereas_ a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

A "common" understanding of rights and freedoms plays a key role in realizing universal human rights. Opinions on what human rights and freedoms mean should correlate or at least have some resemblance. This does not mean that every country should define or interpret any particular human right or freedom in the same way. However, all nations must have some common ground for realizing human rights. Otherwise, the Universal Declaration would remain nothing more than a theoretical proposition incapable of being put into practice.

_Now, therefore,_

_The General Assembly_

_Proclaims_ this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

This proclamation obligates member states of the United Nations to teach people about and promote human rights. Clearly, if human rights are to mean anything, those rights must be taught in all countries.

This proclamation about education concludes the declaration's introduction to human rights. The next part, separated into articles, defines the specific rights and goals known as human rights.

_Articles of the Universal Declaration_

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains thirty articles that list the universal rights and goals applicable to everyone. These articles embody human rights that every government and individual should follow, and they also include specific entitlements to rights that every government should strive to fulfill.

ARTICLE 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This article derives from the concept of natural law and natural rights. Unjust acts create inequality. All people are born with the same human status, and because they have reason and a conscience, they should view other individuals as also having the same dignity and entitlement to human rights.

ARTICLE 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

This article specifies an entitlement to all human rights and freedoms without discrimination. At the time of the declaration, this language actually appeared quite radical, in that many countries treated citizens differently on the basis of classification. For instance, in parts of the United States in 1948, whites and blacks often were segregated in their use of bathrooms, drinking fountains, seats in buses, and marriage. How could the United States legitimately subscribe to human rights that contradicted those segregation laws? Other countries also encountered awkward questions about adherence to human rights based on classification. Article 2 reflects the dilemma of many countries in promoting human rights that conflict with past traditions and laws.

The second part of this article emphasizes the universality of human rights. Regardless of an individual's origins, he or she is entitled to human rights and freedoms, and the political system under which the individual resides must accommodate those rights. Many nations find this universality principle difficult to follow. For example, governments occasionally treat legal immigrant residents differently from citizens so that immigrants will not qualify for certain benefits viewed as human rights (Reichert and Mc-Cormick 1998). Favoring citizens over immigrant residents violates the universality principles, since everyone is entitled to human rights without limitation. Even undocumented or illegal immigrants should be eligible for basic humanitarian care while governments process their cases.

ARTICLE 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.

This human right highlights the sanctity of life and the right to be free in most pursuits and the right to be safe. More precise definitions of liberty and security are difficult. In the United States, liberty and security of person take on a political and civil slant, meaning that government should not interfere with most individual activities or arbitrarily threaten to detain someone. In China, this article could mean that government has a duty to prevent crime and ensure the safety of its residents, even if this means restricting activities that would be allowed in the United States. The different interpretations of this article show why it is necessary to have a detailed understanding of cultural, economic, and political circumstances before accusing a country of violating human rights.

ARTICLE 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their form.

No form of human domination can be more evil than slavery, a human rights violation that has had great impact on U.S. society. Treating another human being as inferior or a piece of property can never be sanctioned. As a human right, the prohibition against slavery or servitude ranks as one of the most important.

ARTICLE 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

This human right emphasizes the right of everyone to be free from torture and extreme methods of punishment or treatment. In the last few years, the topic of torture has risen to the forefront in respect to the so-called war on terror. President George W. Bush and his administration supported the U.S. government's use of "enhanced interrogation" methods, for the stated reason of obtaining valuable information to keep Americans safe. The proverbial "ticking time bomb" served as one justification for the degrading treatment of terror suspects: if we do not torture the suspect to obtain information, innocent people may die. A person may challenge the usefulness of torture, wondering whether more useful or the same information could have been gained by not torturing. But what cannot be challenged is the clear language of this article forbidding this type of treatment.

The United States may also violate this human right in regard to the death penalty. Many countries around the world have prohibited the death penalty for crimes committed because they view it as inhumane (Human Rights Watch 2009). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) also advocates the abolition of the death penalty, as there is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent to violent crime. In fact, the number of homicides in the United States has risen despite the reinstitution of capital punishment in most states. The abolition of the death penalty would thus bring the United States in line with other modern societies (NASW 2009, 49).

An example of how countries have seriously considered this article of the Universal Declaration involves domestic violence. Only recently have some countries viewed the battering of women as cruel and degrading behavior and, therefore, a violation of this human right. The acceptance of physical violence against women has been particularly prevalent in the private sphere: what goes on behind closed doors is nobody else's business. Now, however, this separation between the public and private physical abuse of women is disappearing, with special attention to the issue being raised through human rights documents following the Universal Declaration (e.g., CEDAW 1979).

NASW has also specifically addressed the issue of family violence in a human rights context: the acceptance of family violence as a normal way of life, particularly violence against women, children, and animals, is pervasive in American culture. Violence is presented as an acceptable form of behavior in literature, video games, children's stories, advertising, and radio and television programs (NASW 2009, 142–43). In some cases, bias in regard to sex, race, and class even by social workers themselves help perpetuate the problems of family violence:

Without adequate training, professionals may blame the victims, believing that the wife, child, or elderly individual provokes or in some way is responsible for and contributes to the violence. . . . All social workers should recognize the complex economic, emotional, cultural, and societal factors that keep the family member in the violent situation. (NASW 2009, 142)

NASW supports addressing family violence through research, the development of prevention and intervention programs, and advocacy for adequate laws and funding for protective and treatment services (NASW 2009, 143).

The human rights contained in article 5 touch on important social work values. By addressing the issue of torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, and punishment in a human rights context, social workers can be more effective in developing policies to prevent this human rights violation.

ARTICLE 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

ARTICLE 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

This article expands on article 6 by specifically promoting a universal environment of nondiscrimination.

Article 7 resembles equal protection policies in the United States (U.S. Constitution, amend. 14), but it appears to reject any tolerance of discrimination, which is not always the case in the United States. Indeed, U.S. policies may result in the unequal treatment of various groups for which legitimate reasons are given to justify the unequal treatment. Under the human rights article, even if there is a legitimate reason for an action that has a discriminatory effect, that action could violate this human right. To remedy the discriminatory effect, policies would be required to examine how to overcome the discrimination and then to actually address the issue.

ARTICLE 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

This article ensures that everyone has access to courts and other avenues of redress for constitutional and legal violations. NASW supports efforts to protect this human right, especially with respect to immigrants (NASW 2009, 199–200). An earlier NASW policy statement that social workers should oppose federal and state legislative initiatives and actions that discriminate against both legal residents and undocumented individuals has been revised (NASW 2003, 204–5). Instead, the focus now is on the rights of "immigrants," meaning legal residents.

ARTICLE 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.

This article limits governments with respect to criminal prosecution. After coming to power in Germany, the Nazis solidified their grip on the populace by eliminating procedural protections against arbitrary arrest and detention (Hansen 1991; Schnurr 1997). This provision was based on the horrific experiences suffered by victims of the Nazis brought to light while the declaration was being written and was aimed at preventing a similar nightmare.

The practice of detaining "terror suspects" without any type of forum in which the detainees can contest their detention raises comparisons with regimes like that of Nazi Germany. While Americans may feel this practice is justified under the concept of national security, others may disagree.

ARTICLE 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

This human right essentially guarantees to everyone the right to a fair and public hearing or trial, for not only criminal offenses, but also any other proceeding that would affect the individual's rights and duties. Although the vagueness of the wording does allow different interpretations, at a minimum when an important right is at stake, an individual is entitled to an impartial public hearing.

ARTICLE 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

The first part of this article mimics the well-known phrase in the United States that everyone is innocent of a crime until proven guilty. The second part prohibits the prosecution of acts not considered crimes at the time the crimes were committed. For example, if five years ago there was no criminal penalty for driving seventy-five miles an hour but now there is, then no one who drove seventy-five, five years ago can be brought to trial at this time. Nor may a stricter penalty be imposed on a crime than the penalty existing at the time of the crime. The primary purpose of this human right is to prevent unfair tinkering with laws to prosecute unpopular opponents or individuals.

NASW supports measures that safeguard individuals from unlawful detention and imprisonment (NASW 2009, 51), but in its most recent policy statement, it eliminated reference to a "presumption of innocence" as a basic common law principle (for an earlier statement on the presumption of innocence, see NASW 2006, 48).

ARTICLE 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This human right emphasizes the right to privacy and reputation, especially in the family setting. The United States and other countries have laws to protect private e-mail correspondence, written letters, financial transactions, and other dealings. Courts in most countries also allow redress when an individual's reputation has been harmed. This type of action is known generally as _defamation_.

NASW has incorporated elements of this human rights into a policy statement that discusses limits and standards for preserving privacy with clients served by social workers (NASW 2009, 59–61). NASW opposes inappropriate intrusions into the right of privacy, especially in its application to health and human services settings.

ARTICLE 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

An individual has the human right to leave any country and to return to his or her country of citizenship. An individual also has the right to travel freely and reside within his or her country, but this human right does not specifically require a country to allow the entry of any individual.

The second part of this article was grossly violated when Germany existed as two legal entities, East and West Germany. East Germany would not allow its citizens to travel outside its jurisdiction and lined the border with machine guns and minefields for the express purpose of preventing its citizens from leaving. Hundreds of East Germans lost their lives trying to flee. While the East German government tried to justify its restrictions on leaving the country on the basis that it was protecting its citizens from Western intrusion, such obstacles clearly violated the intent of this human right.

ARTICLE 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The right of asylum pertains to individuals who hold a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of political, religious, or racial status. Every country must allow individuals the right to present their case for asylum. A need for this provision arose from the difficulty that Jewish and other individuals had during World War II trying to escape persecution by the Nazi regime. Asylum does not apply, however, to cases in which an individual is being prosecuted in his or her home country for nonpolitical crimes. Consequently, economic crimes or motives for seeking asylum fall short of satisfying the requirements of this human right.

_Human Rights Watch:
Country Summary of United States_

The human rights–monitoring agency, Human Rights Watch (HRW), compiles country and regional reports of human rights abuses throughout the year, with an annual edition summarizing the most relevant abuses. No country or region escapes this overview. What does Human Rights Watch have to say about the United States? Here is an overview from HRW's 2009 report:

US criminal justice policy continues to raise serious human rights concerns. 2008 saw the resumption of executions after a seven-month hiatus and continued growth of the US prison population, already the world's largest. Also, in 2008, Human Rights Watch confirmed that there are more than 2,500 US prisoners serving sentences of life without possibility of parole for crimes committed when they were under 18; no other country imposes this penalty on juvenile offenders.

In positive developments, the US Supreme Court struck down a law that barred Guantanamo detainees from challenging the legality of their detention, and the Department of Justice brought its first prosecution under a 1994 law allowing courts to try torture committed abroad by US citizens or anyone present in the United States. (Human Rights Watch 2009)

While the report notes positive developments regarding the detention of individuals suspected of carrying out terrorist activities, the U.S. government still seems reluctant to close Guantánamo and unequivocally denounce torture.

The Human Rights Watch summary of the United States indirectly raises other important questions about the U.S. criminal justice system, particularly the growth in number of prisoners. Why does the United States imprison so many people relative to those in other countries? What are the reasons for the growth in numbers of prisoners? What happens to the prisoners when they are released into society? Are any attempts made to "rehabilitate" them? Has the prison industry become self-serving, and is it used to boost employment? A recent study showed that one in every thirty-one adults is on probation or parole, with most of them living in communities. Few resources are directed toward those former prisoners, with 90 percent of the states' correction dollars spent on prisons (Pew Center 2009). For many people, this failure to address the needs of former prisoners only makes more likely their return to prison.

The economic and social costs of the current U.S. prison system clearly represent a drain on U.S. society but also raise human rights issues. Human Rights Watch reserves its sharpest criticisms of the United States for its criminal justice system.

ARTICLE 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Every individual has the right to belong to a nation, and no country may take away this right without justification. But if an individual wants to change citizenship, then he or she has that right.

ARTICLE 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This human right promotes marriage and elevates the family to a protected status. At the time this article was written, marriage was clearly intended to mean a union between a male and a female. A family was a household of man, woman, and children. Today, in some countries, the definition of family has broadened and includes single women and men and same-sex families. For instance, in the United States, NASW states that family composition may cover a

range of constellations, including traditional married parents with biological children; divorced, separated, or unmarried parents who have individual, separate, or shared responsibility for the care of children; intergenerational arrangements for child or elder care; gay and lesbian couples with or without the care of children; and adoptive and foster families. . . . Family social policy needs to recognize and respect a variety of family compositions and their respective specific needs. (NASW 2009, 134–35)

This expansion of the traditional view of family is an example of why human rights concepts and documents can never be static.

This human right also states that both prospective spouses must consent to the marriage, another provision that can run afoul of customs in some countries. In some societies, parents or the prospective husband chooses a spouse and arranges the marriage. This provision is an example of how culture comes into play in a human rights context. Why should a society be accused of a human rights violation for a tradition that has existed for centuries? Chapter 7 covers "cultural relativism" in more detail.

ARTICLE 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

This human right guarantees private ownership of assets. Governments may not confiscate someone's property without justification.

ARTICLE 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

This human right guarantees freedom of religion and thought. This right may be suppressed when governments interpret religion as a political statement. Some countries base their government on religious teachings and condemn those who do not practice the dominant religion. Technically, these would be violations of this human right, but the issue becomes murky when religion is closely tied to government.

_Separation of Government and Religion_

What happens when religion conflicts with government policies? Which one controls? In the United States, constitutional and other legal principles require a separation of religion and state, and the government must take a relatively neutral position toward religion. This does not mean that the government must ignore or shun religious perspectives. However, favoring any religion or incorporating religion into official policies generally would be taboo.

In contrast to the separation of religion and state in the United States, religion and government are intertwined in some countries. In those countries, which would include some in the Middle East, religious principles form the basis of public policies. Unquestionably, everyone is pressured to join the dominant religion, allowing little room for other religious practices. Conversely, some countries may discourage or ban the practice of religion, in which case, groups may feel inhibited from joining a religious congregation or even meeting privately with other individuals.

The human right guaranteeing freedom of religion and thought does not contemplate an environment of fear when individuals wish to practice their beliefs. The failure to allow freedom of thought and religion can lead to the repression of human dignity, a fundamental basis of human rights.

ARTICLE 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Freedom of expression without interference by governments or others is a human right. While this right appears to mirror the First Amendment right of free speech contained in the U.S. Constitution, an important distinction is that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with free speech but does not prohibit individuals from restricting opinions or information in a purely private setting. In that sense, this human right appears to be broader than the First Amendment.

ARTICLE 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Every person has a human right to peacefully assemble and meet with others, but no group may force an individual to join the group against his or her wishes.

ARTICLE 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

This human right requires countries to hold free and democratic elections, which shall determine the desires of the people. An individual has the right to run for a government position or support candidates running for office. Governments may not discriminate against individuals in its provision of public services.

While everyone may have the right to take part in government, a lack of financial resources can hinder this participation, especially in the United States. Without adequate funding, an individual in the United States has little chance of being elected, particularly in state or federal elections. And while most U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, many do not, with the result that often a minority of voters actually elects government officials. Does a minority of eligible voters truly represent the will of the people, especially when monetary interests have played a large role in determining electoral candidates? From a human rights viewpoint, this type of election may seem deficient.

ARTICLE 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

This human right introduces the concept of economic and social human rights. By virtue of being human, everyone is entitled to social security and the economic, social, and cultural rights necessary to obtain dignity and pursue individual development. These rights should be realized by national efforts and international cooperation, with consideration of the organization and resources of each state.

A government must try to provide residents with the means to realize economic, social, and cultural rights. To realize these rights, governments should cooperate with one another, especially through international organizations and agreements.

Social workers have significant involvement in these issues, with the NASW supporting a national health care policy that ensures the right to universal medical coverage (NASW 2009, 169). NASW also advocates for the goal that all individuals and families have the right to housing that meets their basic needs for shelter at an affordable level and offers a rewarding community life (NASW 2009, 194). In practicing their profession, social workers should also respect the cultural rights of others (NASW 2009, 345).

ARTICLE 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

This human right elaborates on the generalized economic and social rights stated in article 22 of the declaration. The employment rights listed in article 23 appear utopian in that unemployment seems to be a fact of life the world over, especially in financially difficult times. Can governments really guarantee employment and a wage sufficient to provide an existence worthy of human dignity? Many countries' opposition to "job creation" policies is probably too great to currently meet a job guarantee. Nonetheless, the goal of ensuring that everyone who wants to work has a job with sufficient income has merit.

This article also raises the issue of equal pay for equal work. Women typically earn significantly less than men and encounter numerous obstacles in overcoming wage and salary differentials (NASW 2009, 360–63). NASW thus advocates for remedies to eliminate gender inequity at all levels of traditional social work interventions.

_Paid Vacation as a Human Right?_

In European countries, a paid four-week (or even greater) vacation from work is a sacred human right and is even cited as a human right in human rights documents adopted by countries all over the world. But would the paid vacation have the same human rights status in less economically developed countries that may not be able to pay for vacations? Certainly, leisure time is indispensable to human existence, regardless of culture. But when Western concepts of paid vacation infiltrate human rights principles, resentment and impressions of arrogance might enter into the human rights equation of how non-Westerners view human rights. Perhaps more than most other human rights, the paid vacation principle clashes with economic realities in many countries.

ARTICLE 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

As with the human right guaranteeing a right to work, this right also appears Western oriented and lofty in its realization even if the concept has merit.

ARTICLE 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

This human right addresses key economic and social benefits, including health care, housing, and other social welfare services. Here is where the United States, with its long tradition of political and civil protection, fails to devote equal attention in the area of human rights. While some countries may not have sufficient resources to provide these economic and social rights, the United States certainly could do much better in providing those rights.

Special care and assistance for motherhood and childhood also pertain to cultural and social rights. From contemporary perspectives, the exclusion of fatherhood may seem outdated. However, motherhood, or the act of conceiving a child and bringing that child into the world, does hold unique attributes, and a human right recognizing the special needs of motherhood seems appropriate.

ARTICLE 26

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Under these provisions, elementary or fundamental education is a human right, with parents having the right to choose between religious or secular education. NASW supports public education as a primary institution that shares with the family responsibility for raising and training children and youths. Furthermore, public education is a vital socializing force that, with the family, promotes the total development of the child—intellectually, socially, and physically (NASW 2009, 99–100). These provisions also mandate education of human rights. In a broad sense, education about human rights relates to access to resources, discrimination, and overall treatment in the school environment.

ARTICLE 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in a scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.

Participation in cultural life and benefits relating to technology is a human right. This article also guarantees ownership protection of inventions and productions.

ARTICLE 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

This article addresses what are called third-generation human rights, which promote cooperation among different countries. To fully realize rights and freedoms specified in the declaration, a spirit of working together must prevail. An example of this concept is an environmental treaty to reduce greenhouse emissions, since global warming creates a worldwide problem and is not simply an isolated problem affecting just one country or region. For the treaty to be effective, many countries would have to obey its terms. In other words, international cooperation to realize human rights is the basis of third-generation human rights.

ARTICLE 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This article generally imposes duties on the individual to the community and to other individuals. These duties involve recognition and respect for rights and freedoms of others, as well as adherence to the purposes and priciples of the United Nations. The realization of human rights is a twoway street. Governments must guarantee many of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration, but individuals also must recognize their duty to the community to respect the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 30

Nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This final article acts as a safe harbor against violations of any human right or freedom specified in the declaration. The human rights and freedoms of the Universal Declaration are inviolate, and no state, group, or individual has the right to destroy those rights and freedoms.

Issues Raised by Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers a wide range of fundamental rights pertaining to individuals, groups, and governments, and when putting these rights into action and practice, the challenge presented by the declaration becomes clear. Whose voices are being heard in the interpretations of human rights? Who benefits from the exercise of human rights, and who does not? Who enforces human rights? Who pays for the provision of human rights? Many issues arise simply from the existence of a universal set of guidelines, especially in view of the vast number of nations that have come into existence since the adoption of the declaration.

_Universality of Human Rights_

With a world made up of about two hundred different nations and countless cultural and social divisions, how can human rights ever be universal? The purpose of the Universal Declaration was to provide basic guidelines for individuals and nations in how they act and interact with one another. The declaration establishes a code of conduct, much like a code of ethics for professional organizations. For instance, social workers must subscribe to a code of ethics regarding how they act with clients, colleagues, and the public. Even if social workers may differ over the meaning of a particular statement of ethics, this disagreement does not prevent the existence of a code of ethics. Social workers also come from diverse backgrounds and do not always share a particular position on professional issues. Moreover, a clinical social worker may have little familiarity with the difficulties of a community social worker, administrator, or academic. Does that mean universal themes or principles of social work are not relevant to the social work profession? The profession has many publications relating to social work practice, principles, and ethics that apply to all social workers in many, and diverse, countries.

The Universal Declaration resembles a code of conduct for a professional group, such as social workers. The obvious difference is that the declaration aims to include every individual and nation under its umbrella. If a code of conduct can exist for a professional organization whose members come from vastly different cultural, economic, and political backgrounds, then a code of conduct also is possible for the individuals and nations of the world. There always may be differences in carrying out the code, but a general agreement on its necessity and principles can be established. By viewing the Universal Declaration as a universal code of conduct for nations and individuals, social workers can more readily grasp the significance and importance of the declaration.

As with any code of conduct, violations of the Universal Declaration occur, with many falling into a gray area. But this does not mean the declaration should be ignored. Consider article 5 of the declaration: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, many countries violate this human right, including the United States. Yet few could argue against the intent behind this right: nobody should undergo torture or cruel treatment. Even though countries may differ in how they interpret torture or cruel treatment, the underlying principles concerning torture are universal. For example, should withholding food and water from a prisoner until he confesses to a crime be considered a human rights abuse? Withholding food and water is a life-threatening circumstance and a human rights violation. Its justification is to force a statement that the prisoner most likely does not want to make, especially if he did indeed commit a crime. Should he be made to confess in this manner? What if the prisoner has not committed the crime? Does a culture or society have an interest in treating an accused individual in this manner? If so, does that interest outweigh the harm done to the individual? From a human rights perspective, when a human right is clearly and universally defined, culture or "necessity" may not be used as a pretext to violate that right.

_The Problem with Torture: A Social Work Perspective_

Lawyers and politicians of all stripes have commented on whether President George W. Bush's administration should be investigated for the possible use of torture, an activity clearly illegal under U.S. laws and treaties, as well as human rights documents. The legalistic discussion of torture may seem far removed from the social work profession, but social workers should not ignore the issues surrounding the torture debate. After all, they may find themselves in situations that have everything to do with these issues.

Suppose that a social worker works for the International Red Cross or other nongovernmental organization with the duty to examine practices used by the U.S. military in its questioning of detainees in Afghanistan. The social worker talks to U.S. military officials, who insist that nobody they are detaining has been mistreated. She then talks to some of the detainees and hears a different story. She now must write a report on her findings.

Should the social worker gloss over allegations of torture, leaving it to lawyers and others to debate? Or should she challenge the U.S. military and question their practices, knowing that this may result in a strong backlash against her report? The social worker has an obligation to examine the torture issue from a human rights position, which is clear: _nobody, not even an affirmed terrorist, may be tortured_. This position may seem ill advised, but not from a human rights perspective. Everyone is entitled to basic, minimal rights, regardless of circumstances. The social work perspective must conform to human rights principles, which allow wiggle room in some situations. But when the human rights principle is concrete, like that of torture, the social work perspective must conform to that principle.

While some human rights have clearly been accepted as universal, others are still evolving. For example, even though article 5 prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, only recently have countries interpreted that provision to relate to violence in the domestic or private sphere. For many years, degrading treatment or physical violence here escaped consideration as a human rights violation. Then, through the efforts of many NGOs and individuals, many countries now view the human right prohibiting degrading and inhuman treatment to include circumstances inside the home. By connecting this human right to violence against women and children in a private setting, a universal norm is being established that domestic violence is just as great a human rights abuse as torture against prisoners. In other words, the issue of domestic violence has become a societal and structural concern rather than simply an individual problem. Also, by highlighting the structural wrong of domestic violence, the human right to be free from domestic violence transcends any cultural norm that might tolerate it.

Understanding universality and culture is crucial to the study of human rights. By studying the purpose of particular human rights, social workers can better understand the concept of universality, even when encountering diverse backgrounds and work conditions.

_Enforcement of Human Rights_

Do we have a mechanism for enforcing violations of human rights? Who determines when a violation has occurred? If these rights cannot be enforced, they will have little meaning.

The enforcement of human rights generally depends on the goodwill or interest of individual countries. If a particular country has not enacted laws that incorporate the human rights contained in the declaration, then countries and individuals can easily circumvent the declaration. In recent years, however, countries have grown more sensitive to accusations of violating human rights and do take steps to recognize them. The "power of shame" today thus acts as an indirect enforcement tool ( _Economist_ 1998).

Aside from perhaps the desire of countries and individuals to avoid criticism for abusing human rights, the United Nations has in force a monitoring body, the Commission on Human Rights. The commission evaluates various complaints about human rights practices in different areas of the world, although the commission itself has no direct enforcement powers, and its position often is influenced by politics ( _Economist_ 1998). Although the infiltration of politics into the commission may be unfortunate, one positive aspect is that countries do pay some attention to publicity about human rights concerns.

The United Nations itself can take action against a member state for violating human rights, provided that enough member countries vote to do so. The difficulty of enforcement through the UN is obtaining sufficient support to undertake action against human rights violations. This lack of support often comes as a result of different perspectives on the human rights in question. If powerful countries like the United States, China, Russia, Britain, or France disagree on whether action should be taken to remedy perceived violations of human rights, then there cannot be a united front against the violation. Instead, it will be left to individual countries to take action, which the United States and others have done in some instances (consider the U.S. intervention in Iraq with its "coalition of the willing"). Despite instances in which outside forces have intervened to prevent violations of human rights within a country, the general view appears to be that countries will not directly intervene in the affairs of another country to correct alleged violations.

Local views of human rights often influence attention paid to different rights. In China, government officials may view the American-style freedom of speech as a threat to society and thus place little emphasis on allowing free expression. Instead, Chinese officials may consider human rights involving economic progress to be a greater priority, that satisfying hunger is more important than publicizing antigovernment sentiments. The priorities given to human rights enforcement occurs everywhere. The United States does not provide everyone with adequate education or health care, but it does allow freedom of movement within its borders. This prioritizing of human rights conflicts with the indivisibility concept, meaning that no particular human right is more important than another. Unless governments and individuals acknowledge indivisibility among human rights, the enforcement of those rights will always remain arbitrary and incomplete.

In addition to local politics that address human rights, another method of enforcing human rights lies in individuals and organizations that bring to light different violations. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations focus on aspects of human rights and pressure governments to change their policies and promote respect for human rights. By bringing attention to these concerns, these organizations have had some success in creating an environment in which human rights are better respected.

Enforcement of human rights remains a major issue. Even when countries agree on the interpretation of a particular human right, enforcement can be troublesome. Perhaps the most effective means of enforcing human rights is education. If governments, groups, and individuals consciously strive to understand and practice human rights, enforcement would be much simpler.

Unfortunately, many countries, including the United States, appear hypocritical when promoting human rights. Countries refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it suits them and ignore it at will. This double standard dilutes the meaning and purpose of the declaration. With so many diverse viewpoints surrounding the declaration, differences will always emerge regarding its interpretation. And the stronger voices, meaning those of the United States and other dominant countries, may prevail in imposing their version of the declaration onto the rest of the world.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like any other human rights document, is not perfect. But the declaration still is important and can provide a starting point for discussion of many domestic and international issues affecting different countries.

Social Work Perspective on the Universal Declaration

The Universal Declaration contains numerous rights and freedoms defining what every individual, no matter where in the world he or she resides should have. The challenge of promoting those rights is enormous, but one that social workers can naturally embrace within their profession. For instance, the preamble to the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers could have been lifted right out of the declaration: "The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty" (NASW 1996, 1).

The code adds that social workers should be sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. The profession's core values of the profession are service, integrity, competence, social justice, the dignity and worth of the person, and the importance of human relationships. Even though parts of the code resemble provisions of the Universal Declaration, the code never mentions human rights. This omission of any reference to human rights may not seem important so long as social workers follow human rights principles. But by failing to devote attention to human rights documents and provisions, social workers may not fully understand their significance. Human rights are closely connected to social work, and the study of those rights can only enhance competence with the social work profession.

Questions

1. What are the reasons for having the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

2. Are governments legally required to respect the declaration's principles?

3. Discuss the concept of _universality_ and how that might conflict with culture. Is it possible to have a common interpretation or understanding of human rights?

4. What is the connection of human dignity to human rights?

5. What is meant by different generations of human rights?

6. Which human rights are considered economic, social, and cultural rights?

7. How does article 5 of the declaration relate to domestic violence?

8. A social worker makes an unannounced visit to a recipient of public assistance. Is this a human rights violation? Discuss.

9. Does the Universal Declaration balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community?

10. What is meant by the phrase "the Universal Declaration is a living document"? Give an example of how human rights in 1948 could be interpreted differently in 2011.

11. Is a living wage—meaning a wage adequate to provide respectable housing and other necessities—a human right?

12. A person needs medical attention for a cold. The person has no health insurance and cannot afford to visit a doctor. Discuss the human rights issues raised by these circumstances.

13. What do you see as the main challenges in enforcing the Universal Declaration?

References

CEDAW. 1979. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. G.A. Res. 34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th sess., supp. no. 46 at 193, U.N. Doc.A/34/46, adopted September 3, 1981. New York: United Nations.

_The Economist._ 1998. Human-rights law. December 15, pp. 4–16.

Hansen, E. 1991. _Wohlfahrtspolitik in NS-Staat: Motivationen, Konflikte und Machstrukturen im_ " _Sozialismus der Tat_ " _des Dritten Riches_. Augsburg: Maro.

Human Rights Watch, 2009. _Human Rights Watch World Report 2009_. Available at http//:www.hrw.org-world-report-2009 (accessed August 27, 2009).

Morsink, J. 1999. _The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent_. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. _Code of Ethics, as Revised_. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Available at <http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp> (accessed September, 24, 2009).

——. 2003. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements_ , _2003–2006_. 6th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

——. 2006. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements_ , _2006–2009_. 7th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

——. 2009. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements_ , _2009–2012_. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Otto, H. U., and H. Sunker. 1991. _Politische Formierung und soziale Erziehung im Natinalsozialmus_. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Pew Center. 2009. 1 in 31 U.S. adults are behind bars, on parole or probation. Available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org> (accessed September 1, 2009).

Pibel, D. 2007. Rights at the crossroads. _Yes!_ (spring 2007): 1.

Prigoff, A. 2000. _Economics for Social Workers: Social Outcomes of Economic Globalization with Strategies for Community Action_. Sacramento, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Reichert, E., and R. McCormick. 1998. U.S. welfare law violates human rights of immigrants. _Migration World_ 26: 15–18.

Roth, K. 2009. Taking back the initiative from the human rights spoilers. _Human Rights Watch World Report 2009_. Available at http//:www.hrw.org-world-report-2009 (accessed August 27, 2009).

Schnurr, S. 1997. Why did social workers accept the New Order? In _Education and Fascism_ , ed. H. Sunker and H. U. Otto, 326–88. London: Falmer Press.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 2010. Know Your Rights! Available at <http://www.udhr.org/history/default.htm> (accessed September 21, 2010).

UN (United Nations). 1948. _Universal Declaration of Human Rights_. Adopted December 1, 1948. GA.Res.217 AIII. United Nations Document a/810. New York: UN.
[ 3 ]

[International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights](contents.html#ch3)

As originally intended, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only the cornerstone of human rights principles. Although the United Nations viewed the declaration as a fundamental statement on human rights, it also recognized that future action would be necessary to promote compliance with human rights principles. Legally binding documents would follow the declaration and provide the glue with which to require countries to meet human rights goals.

The declaration usually avoids referring to any nation or state; rather, its point of view generally mirrors that of the individual or group. The use of the word _everyone_ throughout the declaration indicates the intent to include all persons in the area of human rights, but the declaration rarely imposes any obligation on a particular country or government. Although the declaration refers to various "rights" of individuals and groups, it does not specify who must fulfill those rights or how those rights are to be enforced. In sum, the declaration resembles a code of conduct with which everyone should comply. But without allocating responsibility to governments or individuals, the declaration can only be a statement of intent with no power of enforcement.

Understanding that the declaration was only the initial step in promoting a uniform system of human rights, members of the United Nations contemplated the next steps that would lead to greater recognition of human rights. The steps to be taken included the drafting of documents that would require states to recognize human rights as legally binding.

The United Nations imposed no specific time frame for completing the documents that would actually realize the human rights contained in the declaration. Considering that drafting the declaration took only a few years, a similar time frame for drafting documents to enforce the declaration might have appeared reasonable. The countries, however, balked at the thought of surrendering their sovereignty to an instrument that could bind them to a world standard ( _Economist_ 1998). The cold war, with the United States and its allies pitted against the former Soviet Union and its allies, also led to disagreements over the importance of various provisions that were to be part of the enforcing documents. In the United States, debate raged over the provisions concerning racial equality and economic rights. Would the United States have to offer everyone health care if the Universal Declaration became the law of the land? Would it have to provide equal educational opportunities? Other countries had their own agendas to consider. The Soviet Union and other communist countries would have to recognize greater freedom of speech and allow freer movement of its peoples. South Africa would have to tear down its apartheid system.

Eventually, in 1966, after eighteen years of debate, members of the United Nations General Assembly adopted two key documents with which to implement the Universal Declaration: (1) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and (2) the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These documents derive from the declaration and contain standards for judging human rights violations. In contrast to the declaration, countries approving these covenants are required to enforce their provisions.

_The European Union and Human Rights_

An eight-page "special advertising supplement" that the European Union (EU) placed in the U.S. magazine _Foreign Policy_ illustrates the importance of human rights to its current membership of twenty-seven countries ( _Foreign Policy_ 2009). The supplement is entitled "Advancing Human Rights Worldwide, The EU Leading by Example":

Every day throughout the world, human rights are in jeopardy. Authoritarian regimes deny rights to their citizens in their misuse of power. Vulnerable populations and minorities are abused, particularly in conflict-ridden regions. Even in democratic societies, capital punishment, unlawful detention, and torture are employed when fear and insecurity override the enlightened application of the rule of law.

Respect for human rights lies at the heart of the European Union. Bringing together the voice of 27 European nations, the EU is a leader in global efforts to protect human rights. After more than 50 years of peace and prosperity in Europe, the EU is proof of the profound and lasting benefits that can flow from respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. ( _Foreign Policy_ 2009, EUFOCUS 1)

Throughout this paid advertisement, the EU explains and promotes human rights in all aspects of society. Some people might question its motives for posting this advertisement and claim that its real intent is to hold itself above the United States in the promotion of human rights. An equally plausible interpretation of the advertisement is that the EU truly believes that human rights are important and must be practiced at all levels of society.

International Bill of Human Rights

To understand the full scope of human rights, social workers must be familiar with what is known as the International Bill of Human Rights, which includes the Universal Declaration and the two covenants just described. The purpose of the covenants is to ensure that countries take the declaration seriously and make efforts to legally bind their governments to protect the human rights and freedoms outlined in the declaration. An additional document, the Optional Protocol to the covenant on political rights, allows individuals to raise human rights complaints.

In 1976, a sufficient number of member countries of the United Nations had ratified (or approved) the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to put the covenants into force within the approving countries. A UN covenant takes effect only after a specified number of member countries of the United Nations have approved it. Countries approving the covenant are then legally bound to enforce its provisions. Only by signing and then formally approving a covenant does a country indicate its intent to be bound by it. Even then, unless a covenant states that it is "self-executing," a country that has approved it must pass laws to enforce it. Neither the covenant on civil and political rights nor the covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights contains self-executing provisions. Although the United States has ratified the covenant on civil and political rights, the government has not enacted specific legislation to enforce it. Although many provisions in the covenant are similar to already existing laws in the United States, some of the provisions are new. Yet because the covenant is not self-executing, its provisions are not legally binding in the United States and thus makes reliance on the document a tenuous proposition. The remainder of this chapter addresses the provisions of the covenant on civil and political rights.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Historically, the United States has paid much more attention to the human rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights than those in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Indeed, this focus on political and civil rights has often led the United States to take a one-sided view of human rights, without adequately recognizing that human rights go beyond the political sphere. For U.S. social workers, this focus on political human rights may have led to a reluctance to study and integrate human rights into the social work profession. Yet, as will be evident in an analysis of the covenant, political and civil human rights also have a close connection to the profession's interventions and principles.

_Introduction to the Covenant_

The preamble or introduction to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly lists civil and political rights that "derive from the inherent dignity of the human person" (see appendix B). The "ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social, and cultural rights" (preamble). This provision links political and civil rights with economic, social, and cultural rights, thereby making them indivisible. That is, to ensure enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, individuals must also have civil and political rights. The two sets of rights are inseparable.

_Part I_

Part I of the covenant guarantees the human right of self-determination to all "peoples" who may "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development" (art. 1). A state or country may contain numerous peoples within its borders, and this provision recognizes that groups of the same ethnicity, religion, language, and other common traits have the human rights to common association and development.

Self-determination has become a significant development in world politics since the Universal Declaration was drawn up. Beginning in the late 1940s, European colonies in Africa and Asia began dismantling, resulting in dozens of newly formed nations, including India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Ghana, and Cameroon. Other nations formed on principles of self-determination include the Czech Republic, Macedonia, Croatia, and the territories of the former Soviet Union. Native Americans and other aboriginal peoples relied on the right to self-determination to establish their own self-governing nations within Australia, Canada, and the United States. Contemporary struggles involving self-determination include those by Palestinians, Tibetans, and peoples within Indonesia. In connection with the right to determine political status, self-determination allows peoples to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Individuals or groups with common origins have the human right to form societies that promote historical traditions and customs. Groups with common backgrounds might wish to form an organization to discuss the difficulties of assimilating into a dominant culture. The human right of self-determination protects all these activities.

_Self-Determination of First Nations Peoples_

Unlike other ethnic or racial groups in the United States, First Nations Peoples are a political entity. The U.S. government recognizes its indigenous peoples as having a special, legal government-to-government relationship with the United States (Pever 1992). By law, they are "distinct, independent, political communities possessing and exercising the power of self-government" ( _Worcester v. Georgia_ , 1832). As a consequence of sovereignty, indigenous peoples may participate in three levels of citizenship: indigenous, state, and United States. Indigenous families who belong to federally recognized tribes are eligible to receive federal services such as health care, education, and social services.

Sovereign Indigenous Nations have inherent powers of self-government. They have the right to make, pass, and enforce laws, implement taxation, create tribal constitutional codes, license social workers, declare war, and seek remedy in international courts of law. They also possess aboriginal territories (land) that are protected under trust agreement with the United States. Social workers who work with and on behalf of Indigenous Peoples must respect Indigenous sovereignty. They must agree to abide by all laws of the nations just as they would in any other country. . . . Any issues regarding the welfare and protection of indigenous children fall under the province of Indigenous Nations. Sovereignty is essential to the preservation, the rights, and resources of Indigenous Nations and is a powerful protective factor. No other racial group in the United States has a similar sovereign political and legal standing. (Waller and Yellow Bird 2002, 51)

In exercising the human right of self-determination, individuals and groups have an obligation not to violate the rights and freedoms of others, including "just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society" (see appendix A, Universal Declaration, art.29, para. 2). The issue then becomes one of balancing the different human rights and finding a resolution.

Self-determination ranks as a significant human right that states must respect. Yet, can every conceivable ethnic or religious group create its own political entity or state? This issue, perhaps more than any other human right, has most influenced today's world. Like many human rights, self-determination as a concept contains may subtleties and nuances. Not every set of circumstances has a clear-cut option involving issues of self-determination.

_Self-Determination and the Palestinians_

The creation of Israel in 1948 by the United Nations offended most of the Arab countries, which bitterly fought this decision from the beginning. While the UN also contemplated establishing a Palestinian state alongside that of Israel, this never occurred. But the push for a Palestinian state has never stopped.

Under the self-determination principles of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Palestinians would appear to be justified in wanting their own political entity. A claim for self-determination must not infringe on the public order and welfare, however. Accordingly, Israelis could legitimately argue that in seeking self-determination, the Palestinians have no right to use violence against them. The Palestinians might respond that without violence, nobody—especially the Israelis—would pay attention to their plight. The Palestinians might further argue that the Israelis' tactics (e.g., attacks on civilians of Gaza) also constitute violations of their human rights. The end result is a stalemate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with both sides committing human rights violations against the other.

A human rights resolution to this conflict would require both parties to cease the violence against each other and recognize the inherent dignity of both sides. Palestinians have the right of self-determination and political status, and Israelis have the right to be free from violent attacks on their citizens. Infusing human rights principles into this particular situation would require major commitments from both sides, a challenging task.

SELF-DETERMINATION AND SOCIAL WORK

Social workers are familiar with the concept of _self-determination_ in the context of clients. The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) states:

Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals. Social workers may limit clients' right to self-determination when, in the social workers' professional judgment, clients' actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others. (NASW 1996, 1.02)

The social work concept of self-determination in regard to clients is the same principle of self-determination as that contained in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Individuals and groups should be allowed to "identify and clarify" their own goals, with specified limitations. Social workers may intervene and limit a client's right to self-determination when a client is acting in a manner that could be harmful to him or her. This type of self-harm could occur in cases when a client wishes to end his or her life, although social workers may debate the ethics of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (Reamer 1998). Other, more subtle issues arise in cases of self-harm:

How assertive should social workers be with battered women or men who decide to resume a relationship with an abusive partner? Should social workers interfere with hospital patients who want to return home while they are still in very frail condition and acting against medical advice? To what extent should social workers provide clients with access to information about themselves that is likely to be harmful to the clients? (Reamer 1998, 28)

Issues of self-harm within the standard of self-determination also relate to the human rights notion of self-determination. For instance, should a social worker promote a group's right to isolate itself culturally from other groups if this isolation prevents members of the group from receiving proper medical care? Should a social worker accept a cultural practice of touching a child's private areas if that touching would likely violate state laws pertaining to child abuse? These types of self-determination issues fall within the realm of human rights and indicate how difficult it can be to always have clear-cut answers to human rights issues.

A second limitation on self-determination in social work involves potential harm by a client to others. The justification for social workers' placing limits on clients' right to self-determination is based on the social workers' explicit concern for other people whose well-being is threatened by a client's actions (Reamer 1998). If a client credibly states that he intends to kill someone, then a social worker clearly has the duty to report this possible action to the proper authorities. But when the client's actions are ambiguous and may not cause any harm to others, then a social worker encounters one of those gray areas common to both ethical and human rights issues.

Suppose that the Native American parents of a child have been living in a suburb of Los Angeles, where the child does superior work in an excellent school. The parents then decide to move to a reservation to take care of their own elderly parents. The child rebels against reservation life and runs away, back to friends in the suburb. Should the social worker accept the parents' right of self-determination to raise their child on the reservation or question that right because he or she believes the child is being harmed by not being allowed to attend the suburban school? Or should the social worker be guided by what the child or adolescent wants? The social worker would need to carefully evaluate the situation before proposing possible interventions. Just as social workers encounter all types of dilemmas within the ethical standard relating to self-determination, similar dilemmas can be found in the broader, human rights concept of self-determination.

_Part II_

The second part of the covenant requires that states not discriminate in the recognition of rights on the basis of "race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status: (art. 2, para. 1). States are to ensure the "equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights" contained in the covenant (art. 3). In times of true emergency, states may take measures to avoid their obligations under the covenant, provided those measures comply with international law and do not discriminate solely on the preceding stated grounds (art. 4, para. 1). But discrimination during an emergency does not allow restrictions on political or other opinions, national origin, birth, or other status. Even in emergencies, states may not violate certain political and civil rights, including the right to be free from slavery, torture, and religious persecution.

_Part III_

Part III (arts. 6–27) of the covenant contains the specific civil and political rights applicable to those states or countries that have approved the covenant.

• Article 6: Every human being has the inherent right to life. Many countries have interpreted this provision as prohibiting the death penalty for criminal convictions. The covenant has no outright ban on capital punishment, however, except that no sentence of death may be imposed for crimes committed by persons under eighteen years of age and the death penalty may not be carried out on pregnant women.

• Article 7: Prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

• Article 8: Prohibits slavery and forced labor, except when the punishment for a crime includes forced labor.

• Article 9: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention by requiring information about the reasons for the arrest. This requirement is intended to allow prompt challenges to the lawfulness of the detention.

_Capital Punishment in the United States_

The United States remains the only Western country still allowing the death penalty; the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries have abolished the use of capital punishment, no matter how egregious the crime.

A major issue surrounding the use of the death penalty in the United States is the horrendous consequences if the wrong person were executed. Consider the following proposition: "A Columbia University study has found that judges are more likely to overturn death sentences in states and countries that use capital punishment most frequently, prompting the authors to suggest that narrowing the use of executions would cut down on mistakes" (Masters 2002, 34). The admission that mistakes occur in applying death sentences should send chills up anyone's spine. Rather than simply abolishing the death penalty, though, the United States clings to the illusive goal that the system can be fixed. But consider these specific findings from the Columbia study:

• Jurisdictions that spent proportionally less per capita on their court systems had a larger share of cases overturned. This supports the commonly held view that poorly paid and incompetent court-appointed defense lawyers are a major source of error in capital cases.

• States with large black populations also had higher reversal rates on appeal of death sentences. This statistic indicates that jurisdictions where fear of crime might be driven by racial factors could have more trouble conducting fair trials.

• Reversals were more common in states where trial judges are popularly elected and, the authors of the study theorize, more subject to community pressure. (Masters 2002, 34)

The use of capital punishment raises important human rights issues, including discrimination and due process, as the difficulty of ever satisfying those issues creates a strong case against this type of punishment. Even those who support capital punishment may recognize the difficulties inherent in the death penalty. In early 2009, Bill Deeken, a Missouri state representative and supporter of the death penalty, called for a moratorium in Missouri to examine procedures in that state:

A death penalty moratorium is important because there is fear that an innocent person could be executed. While there is much to be proud of in our criminal justice system, it still is a human system. Mistakes can and have been made when it comes to the death penalty. Nationally, 129 people who were convicted and sentenced to death since 1973 have been exonerated. (Deeken 2009, B7)

Deeken's call had little effect, however, for on May 20, 2009, Missouri reinstated its use of the death penalty by executing its first person in four years. The hold on executions was based on the issue of whether lethal injection and, specifically, Missouri's method of lethal injection violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment (Salter 2009). The human rights objection to capital punishment is that the punishment in itself is cruel and inhumane and is certainly becoming unusual.

In Texas, the state executed a man who quite possibly did not commit the crime of murdering his children in a house fire. In fact, a detailed investigation of the case after the defendant's execution found that he most likely did not commit any crime relating to his children's deaths. In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate errors that may have occurred in the defendant's trial concerning scientific evidence presented at the trial. While it seems unlikely, Texas could become the first state that must actually admit that it executed an innocent person (Grann 2009).

Although any call for a moratorium on the death penalty may seem admirable, the admission that 129 people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated places a chilling effect on the death penalty itself. The cost of examining and then creating legal procedures to resolve existing defects in the legal system seems futile, for the criminal justice system will always make errors because it is a "human system." A better alternative would be to abolish the death penalty outright.

• Article 10: Provides that accused persons shall be segregated from convicted persons, and juveniles shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication. Rehabilitation shall be the "essential aim" of the penitentiary system, with humane and dignified treatment for all persons deprived of their liberty.

• Article 11: Prohibits imprisonment simply because someone did not fulfill a contractual obligation.

• Article 12: Provides individuals lawfully living in a country with the right to reside where they want in the country. Except in cases involving national security and public order, everyone shall be free to leave any country. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his or her own country.

• Article 13: Provides those persons lawfully living in the territory of a state that is party to the covenant with legal safeguards, including representation, before expulsion from that state. Only if there are compelling reasons of national security may a state expel a lawful "alien" resident without legal due process.

• Article 14: Provides safeguards for any person charged with a crime. These safeguards include the right to legal assistance, information in detail about the nature and cause of the charge, examination of witnesses against him or her, and the right to remain silent and not be compelled to testify. Nobody shall be tried twice for the same offense, and everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to appeal that conviction to a higher tribunal.

• Article 15: Prohibits "ex post facto" laws. Nobody shall be guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense at the time that he or she committed the act or omission. This prevents a state from prosecuting someone at a later date for an offense that was not criminal at the time of commission.

• Article 16: Prohibits a state from barring certain individuals recourse through that state's courts. For example, a state may wish to unlawfully exclude an individual in the state from obtaining civil damages for personal injuries. The state may believe that an individual living unlawfully in the country should not receive the same legal rights and privileges as a lawful resident. This article prevents a state from singling out individuals as less worthy of legal protection, in either civil or criminal courts.

• Article 17: Prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with the privacy and reputation of individuals and families.

• Article 18: Grants everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The freedom to practice one's religion or beliefs may be restricted only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedom of others. While this article appears to guarantee freedom of religion, states could broadly interpret this limitation to ban any religion (e.g., a particular religion infringes on the public safety and must be banned).

• Article 19: Grants everyone the right to freedom of expression. Restrictions on this freedom may be applied when necessary to protect the rights or reputation of others and to protect national security, public order, or public health and morals. As with the limitation on freedom of religion in article 18, a state could broadly interpret the allowable restrictions to bar essentially any type of expression.

• Article 20: Prohibits war propaganda and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. This article prohibits the practice of racial profiling or adversely singling out individuals because of physical or other characteristics.

_Political and Civil Rights: The Importance of Role Models_

Back in the days of the cold war between the West, led by the United States, and the East, led by the Soviet Union, the West continually charged the East with human rights violations that included media censorship, political prisoners, and a general lack of "democracy." While much of the East has now adopted a more Western outlook regarding political human rights, one country remains in a time warp: Cuba. By most standards, Cubans lack freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and other basic political human rights.

To show its displeasure with Cuban human rights violations, the United States restricts trade with Cuba and does not allow most U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba without authorization. When U.S. reporters, politicians, academics, or other authorized visitors travel to Cuba, they must be careful not to praise the Cuban government, lest they run the risk of being criticized by the media and the U.S. government. When a group of U.S. politicians from the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to Cuba and challenged the trade blockade between Cuba and the United States but sidestepped Cuba's repressive political system, the knives came out. Syndicated columnist Clarence Page criticized the black caucus for its failure to engage the Cuban government over human rights abuses (Page 2009).

From a human rights perspective, Cuba is a gross violator of various political and civil rights. But when the United States criticizes Cuba's human rights violations, some hypocrisy comes into the picture. The United States itself has lowered its standards regarding political rights to the point that it practiced torture and imprisoned detainees without any due process and did this in an area on the Cuban island. The irony and hypocrisy certainly could not have been lost on Cuban officials.

Governments and individuals should speak out against human rights violations whenever they occur. But cleaning up the backyard first goes a long way to gain credibility.

• Article 21: Recognizes the right of peaceful assembly with the customary limitations based on national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health or morals, and the protection of rights and freedoms of others. As with other human rights that are limited, a state can easily restrict any peaceful assembly.

• Article 22: Grants everyone the right to freely associate with others and to form and join trade unions, with the usual limitations (e.g., national security). This article does not prevent a state from placing "lawful restrictions" on members of the armed forces and police. For example, a lawful restriction on police could consist of a "no strike" clause in their labor contract.

• Article 23: Entitles the family as the "natural and fundamental group unit of society" to protection by society and the state. A state shall recognize the right of "men and women" of marriageable age to create a family. Although same-sex marriages do not appear to fall under this human right, the states would be free to enlarge this right to apply to all types of families, including same-sex and singleparent families.

• Article 24: Grants children the right to protection, immediate registration after birth, a name, and a nationality.

• Article 25: Guarantees citizens the right to participate in public affairs and to vote without discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. This article specifies "citizen" and not lawful resident, which would allow states to bar noncitizens from voting.

_Sex Offenders: Branded for Life?_

The human right guaranteeing citizens the right to participate in the community often seems lacking for those convicted of felonies, especially those involving sex abuse. In the United States, many states have laws that forbid sex offenders from living or working near churches, schools, day care centers, parks, or any other place where children may gather. In most states, sex offenders must also be registered on a public database (Chen 2009). Denying convicted felons the right to vote seems harsh enough, but to severely restrict felons from reconnecting with society after serving their sentences can be counterproductive.

Without question, the protection of children is paramount for all societies. But when the penalties imposed on convicted sex offenders, some of whom were convicted for juvenile sex crimes, prevent any realistic integration back into society, a human rights issue arises. (A juvenile sex crime refers to sex between a minor or adult when the minor is under a certain age, usually sixteen. It makes no difference whether the parties agree to the sex.) Sex offenses should not be downplayed, and offenders must be monitored, but to create a total misfit out of every convicted sex offender seems unnecessary, especially when considering the varying degrees of sex offenses.

Everyone has the human right to participate in society, within rational limitations. Simply branding every sex offender as an outcast may violate this right.

• Article 26: Establishes equal protection for all persons before the law. Equal protection refers to the legal concept of not being singled out for different treatment on the basis of some status. This human right resembles an ethical responsibility of social workers: Social workers "should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability" (NASW 1996, 4.02).

• Article 27: Grants minority groups within a state the right to enjoy their "own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to sue their own language." This human right appears to conflict with proponents who favor using only the English language in the United States. Under this article, a Hispanic person in the United States would be allowed to use Spanish as his or her own language.

This part of the covenant contains many civil and political rights that in some countries already exist, at least on paper. Because one state may interpret a particular article differently than another state does, the meaning of a given article can vary. To say that any single state knows and follows the _definitive_ interpretation of human rights is both arrogant and incorrect. Room for differences must be allowed, particularly considering the vast number of states and cultures involved. Nonetheless, these articles have general themes that create principles that social workers everywhere can apply to their practice. Social workers in the United States already have incorporated many of these human rights principles into their association's code of ethics. This connection between human rights and social work ethics and practice can be found throughout the area of human rights.

_The Human Right to Due Process_

After the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York, the United States began to detain many individuals picked up in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places. Many of them were sent to the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo, Cuba, known as Gitmo for short. The United States. denied these detainees any right to contest their confinement, claiming that they were "enemy combatants" captured during combat in the war on terror. As fighters in an armed conflict, they had no right to due process, to know the charges against them, and to defend themselves in a legitimate legal proceeding.

From a human rights perspective, the practices at Guantánamo are improper. The concept of a war on terror that is never ending with no geographical limits clearly violates human rights principles when that concept is used to deny individuals their basic human rights. To simply refer to the prisoners at Guantánamo as terrorists with no chance to contest their confinement violates the essence of human rights principles, which were established to prevent this very situation.

According to Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the time of the attack on the World Trade Center, the United States' response caused harm. Harsh U.S. detentions and interrogations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo gave a dangerous signal to other countries, which could easily follow suit. Based on a report by international law experts, many undemocratic states have referred to the U.S. counterterrorism practices to justify their own abuses, a trend that Robinson found alarming (MacInnis 2009). Clearly, the politics of fear should not be allowed to erode a well-established human rights foundation.

_Part IV_

The fourth part of the covenant establishes a Human Rights Committee with the apparent purpose of monitoring steps that those states party to the covenant have taken in implementing the rights guaranteed by the covenant (art. 28). Part IV requires states to submit written reports to the committee on the measures they have adopted to implement these rights and the progress made in granting these rights (art. 40, para. 1).

_Those Pesky Human Rights Reports: Meaningless?_

The website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights contains all types of reports about each country and its perceived compliance with human rights documents, including the International Covenant on Political and Civil Human Rights. Some of these reports are quite critical of particular countries' various practices. For instance, with respect to the covenant on political and civil human rights, China comes under fire for its labor camps and attempts to indoctrinate prisoners so they will adopt correct political positions. Predictably, the United States is criticized for its detainee policies relating to the "war on terror." No country escapes scrutiny or criticism in regard to its human rights compliance. The longer the reports are, however, the more bones the commission has to pick with the particular country.

Another significant aspect of the human rights–reporting procedures is whether a country offers a "standing invitation" for visits by human rights officials. Most Western countries do offer a standing invitation, with the notable exception of the United States, which does not. Also, the United States has been extremely tardy in providing its own reports required under article 40 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Human Rights. The clear import of this foot dragging is that the United States does not take its obligations under the covenant seriously.

Do reports issued by the United Nations mean anything if a country is then free to do what it wants? Perhaps not, but at a minimum, a country must at least pay some attention to how others view its compliance with human rights. This should be especially important to a country like the United States, which holds itself up as a role model to others in the area of human rights.

Part IV contains provisions for one state to submit to the committee a written complaint about another state for failing to fulfill its obligations under the covenant (art. 41, para. 1). But this is rarely done, as formally charging a country with a human rights abuse before the committee can create problems and countercharges. After all, no country is free from human rights abuses, and the complained-about country can easily retaliate with its own complaint.

_Part V_

Part V states that nothing in the covenant may contradict provisions of the United Nations Charter or constitutions of specialized agencies involved with matters contained in the covenant (art. 46). On a broader level, nothing in the covenant may be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources (art. 47). That is, people are entitled to enjoy natural wealth and resources without interference from a state.

_Part VI_

The final part of the covenant contains procedural points, including who may sign the covenant and when the covenant becomes effective. According to its terms, the covenant became effective in 1976 after thirty-five states had approved it. The United States has approved this covenant but placed certain restrictions on carrying out its provisions.

Under the U.S. Constitution, after the president signs a covenant or treaty, the Senate (with a two-thirds vote of those present) must then ratify it (U.S. Constitution, art. 2). Although the U.S. Senate ratified the covenant, in doing so it placed five reservations on its enforcement. Those reservations modified the covenant in the following manner (Newman and Weisbrodt 1996):

The U.S. Senate

  * Preserved the higher protection of free speech and association guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
  * Ensured that the United States could continue to impose the death penalty as punishment for persons under the age of eighteen convicted of appropriate crimes.
  * Limited the proscription against "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" to definitions under the U.S. Constitution.
  * Preserved the U.S. rule allowing the imposition of any higher penalty in force at the time the offense was committed.
  * Preserved the right to treat juveniles as adults in exceptional circumstances.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that juveniles (those under the age of eighteen) could not be subject to the death penalty, thereby making the second exception unconstitutional ( _Roper v. Simmons_ , 2005).

Even though the United States has ratified the covenant, it has never passed specific legislation to put the treaty into force. In other words, until the U.S. Congress passes a law that specifically puts the covenant into force, an individual cannot rely on it for legal support.

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights

To create a forum for individuals alleging violations of human rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations drafted an additional instrument to give voice to individuals. That instrument is known as the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Optional Protocol contains procedures under which an individual may submit a written communication to the Human Rights Committee. This communication should allege that a state has violated the individual's human rights under the covenant (art. 1). The committee then will bring the complaint to the attention of the relevant state (art. 4, para.1). This protocol, however, is not binding on any state that has adopted the underlying covenant unless that state has specifically approved the protocol.

A second protocol in regard to the death penalty allows an individual to submit complaints alleging human rights violations concerning the death penalty.

The United States has neither signed nor ratified either protocol and is not subject to their provisions.

Social Work Perspective on the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Many provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights directly relate to the ethical standards of social workers as stated in the NASW Code of Ethics and policy statements. The purpose of the covenant is to guarantee that everyone can voice opinions, preserve cultural backgrounds, carry out religious practices, and organize employment unions. The covenant also prohibits torture, slavery, cruel and degrading treatment, discrimination, and other violations of the person. Social workers can easily find common cause with these human rights.

The importance of recognizing that the social work profession is closely tied to human rights is in the additional strength that this connection gives to the profession. By tying particular injustices or circumstances to human rights, social workers can better advocate for clients and fulfill the primary mission of the profession. Promoting human rights attracts more attention than simply saying that social workers are fulfilling their ethical obligations.

_The U.S. Criminal Justice System: A Bigger Role for Social Workers?_

The United States holds the dubious honor of imprisoning more of its population than any other Western country. Sasha Abramsky, an observer of the U.S. criminal justice system, explains that the unique U.S. status of "incarceration central" began in the 1970s, by pandering to badly conceived policies that focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation (Polit 2007). This pandering has included very simplistic "three strikes and you're out" laws that sound good in fifteen-second sound-bytes but that make lousy public policy.

Abramsky also believes that because the United States is at the zenith of its power, it tends not only to project itself onto the world but also to impose order on its own populace. This resembles former great powers like England in the late nineteenth century. Abramsky sees technology as adding to the liberal use of incarceration. That is, the state has the technology to eavesdrop, to control, and to regiment its prisoners so that the country is not creating more jobs simply for prison guards but also for an entire subset of the economy based on the technology of incarceration (Polit 2007).

To end the mass imprisonment supported by politicians who want to be tough on crime, Abramsky suggests that we invest in community mental health services. A large part of the current prison population consists of seriously mentally ill people who should not be in prison in the first place. He also proposes a more sensible dialogue about drugs, which would focus on treatment rather than imprisonment (Polit 2007).

Abramsky's ideas about improving the criminal justice system and reducing the extraordinarily high rate of imprisonment would create a much bigger role for social workers within the criminal justice system. Because social workers already work as counselors in prisons and drug treatment programs, they would find themselves at the forefront of changing the U.S. justice system. This type of change would also be based on the human rights principles contained in the covenant on political and civil rights.

Questions

1. What does the International Bill of Human Rights mean? What documents does the bill include?

2. What is one of the biggest distinctions between a covenant and a declaration in terms of human rights documents?

3. Explain the term _self-determination_ in the context of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4. Explain the term _self-determination_ in a social work context.

5. Do you believe that everyone is entitled to the same political and civil human rights?

6. Is it ever acceptable to torture a prisoner? Is there an exception to the use of torture under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?

7. What is meant by the term _equal protection_? Why is this term important to social work?

8. Should the right to practice one's religion or participate in cultural traditions be allowed without restriction? If not, what restrictions should be permitted?

9. Explain the status of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the United States. Can a U.S. court refer to that covenant as binding law? Why or why not?

10. Why is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relevant to social work?

References

Chen. S. 2009. After prison, few places for sex offenders to live. _W_ _all Street Journal_ , February 19, p. A16.

Deeken, B. 2009. Missouri should stop executions while it examines its death penalty system. _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ , February 3, p. B7.

_The Economist_. 1998. Human-rights law, December 15, pp. 4–16.

_Foreign Policy_. 2009. EUFOCUS: Advancing Human Rights Worldwide (May– June). Eufocus, pp. 1–8.

Grann, D. 2009. Trial by fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man? _New Yorker_ , September 7, pp. 42–63.

MacInnis, L. 2009. U.S. "war on terror" eroded rights worldwide: Experts. Available at <http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE51F36120090216> (accessed February 16, 2009).

Masters, B. 2002. Saved for "the Worst of the Worst." The death penalty is reversed often in states that use it frequently, a review shows. _Washington Post National Weekly Edition_ , February 18–24, p. 34.

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. _Code of Ethics, as Revised_. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Newman, F., and D. Weisbrodt, eds. 1996. _International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process_. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Page, C. 2009. Dialogue with Cuba must include human rights. _Southern Illinoisan_ , April 16, p. 4A.

Pever, S. 1992. _The Rights of Indians and Tribes: The Basic ACLU Guide to Indian and Tribal Rights_. 2nd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Polit, P. 2007. Crime, punishment, and vengeance in the age of mass imprisonment. Available at <http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/50464> (accessed April 14, 2007).

Reamer, F. 1998. _Ethical Standards in Social Work: A Critical Review of the NASW Code of Ethics_. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

_Roper v. Simmons_. 2005. 543 U.S. 551.

Salter, J. 2009. Missouri executes its first person in 4 years. Available at <http://www.readingeagle.com/articleprint.aspx?id=139514> (Associated Press article) (accessed September 21, 2009).

Waller, M., and M. Yellow Bird. 2002. Strengths of First Nations Peoples. In _The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice_ , ed. Dennis Saleebey, 51. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

_Worcester v. Georgia_ , 31 US (6 Pet) 515 (1832).
[ 4 ]

[International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights](contents.html#ch4)

The second major covenant derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, intended to make states responsible for providing human rights falling under what might be termed "quality of life" categories.

Some countries, like the United States, emphasize civil and political rights over economic, social, and cultural rights. The thinking is that without civil and political rights, how can any country promote economic rights? Should the human rights focus be on civil and political guarantees, with other rights then naturally following, with no requirement to "guarantee" those rights? Some countries, whose economic status may be barely above the subsistence level, struggle to guarantee freedom of speech, free elections, and other political rights. How can these countries provide economic rights to their residents? Should they be labeled as violators of human rights if they cannot provide adequate food for all their residents? These are some of the questions and issues that arise when examining the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

_Economic and Social Human Rights:
Mere Distractions?_

_The Economist_ newsweekly has never been a supporter of elevating economic and social needs to the level of human rights. Its view, as well as that of probably many others, is that these types of "rights" dilute the traditional focus of human rights on political and civil rights:

Food, jobs and housing are certainly necessities. But no useful purpose is served by calling them "rights." When a government locks someone up without a fair trial, the victim, perpetrator and remedy are pretty clear. This clarity seldom applies to social and economic "rights." It is hard enough to determine whether such a right has been infringed, let alone who should provide a remedy, or how. Who should be educated in which subjects for how long at what cost in taxpayers' money is a political question best settled at the ballot box. So is how much to spend on what kind of health care.

. . . For people in the poor world, as for people everywhere, the most reliable method yet invented to ensure that governments provide people with social and economic necessities is called politics. That is why the rights that make open politics possible—free speech, due process, protection from arbitrary punishment—are so precious. Insisting on their enforcement is worth more than any number of grandiloquent but unenforceable declarations demanding jobs, education and housing for all. ( _Economist_ 2007, 12)

When discussing economic, social, and cultural human rights, _The Economist_ 's viewpoint should be considered. In the history of contemporary human rights, the lack of economic and social rights had much to do with the creation of dictatorships in Germany and other countries. During the Great Depression, one of the events leading up to World War II, even the United States had to pay attention to its residents' economic and social welfare and consequently created work projects and other economic assistance programs. To use _The Economist_ 's proposed resolution of social and economic necessities, "politics" in the form of government programs laid the foundation for the remedy. Government therefore does have a role in providing social and economic benefits. The extent of those benefits can be minimal but available, with the government being the provider of last resort.

It is difficult to separate economic and social human rights from political and civil rights. _The Economist_ is correct in saying that providing economic and social rights is trickier than providing political and civil rights. But neither group should be subordinate to the other, as the deprivation of one can easily lead to the deprivation of the other. Nonetheless, a more economically and socially secure country may find it easier to allow greater political and civil rights where they have been deficient.

Human rights principles may present conflicting views. The priority of human rights constantly encounters differing opinions, with no area of debate greater than the ranking of various rights. Unfortunately, though, attempts to rank human rights by importance often become meaningless exercises.

Preamble

The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is made up of a preamble and thirty-one articles that cover various human rights relating to economic, social, and cultural conditions. The preamble resembles that in the covenant on political and civil human rights: Those states party to the covenant recognize that the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if the conditions are created in which all people can enjoy their economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as their civil and political rights. These states recognize that the rights under the covenant derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he or she belongs, is responsible for promoting and observing the rights recognized in the covenant.

The preamble makes clear that the covenant is applicable to states and is not a general declaration of intent or aspiration. That is, those countries that accept the document must carry out its provisions. The intent of the covenant is to place economic, social, and cultural rights on the same level as political and civil rights, which has not always been the case in many countries, including the United States.

Initial Articles

Before listing specific human rights concerning economic, social, and cultural conditions, the covenant states that all peoples have the right of self-determination (art.1, para. 1). As part of this self-determination, people can freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. The states shall promote the realization of self-determination but also may monitor human rights violations in other states (art. 3, para. 3). A state criticizing another state for human rights violations can easily be accused of human rights violations itself. Accordingly, evaluation of human rights violations requires thought and knowledge about human rights documents and sensitivity to differing ways of life.

Each state that approves the covenant must take steps to realize its rights by all appropriate means, such as adopting laws to promote these rights (art. 2, para. 1). With due regard to human rights and their national economy, less economically developed countries may determine the extent to which they will guarantee to noncitizens the economic rights recognized in the covenant (art. 2, para. 3). In other words, less economically developed countries may favor citizens over residents in the guarantee of economic rights, provided that those countries respect other human rights. This provision applies only to developing countries and to economic—not social and cultural—rights. Under this article, the public assistance law passed by the United States in 1996 would probably be a human rights violation, as that law favors citizens over legal immigrants in determining qualifications for economic benefits (Reichert and McCormick 1998). The U.S. Senate has not ratified this covenant, however, and legal challenges to the U.S. law have generally failed (Kim 2001).

States may limit rights in the covenant in times of economic crisis, but only if the limitation promotes the general welfare (art. 4). If a state's economic resources are insufficient to satisfy all economic rights listed in the covenant, it may limit its guarantee of those rights.

_The Covenant's Approach to Economic Human Rights_

Those who criticize the covenant on economic and social rights should examine the initial articles allowing exceptions to the provision of economic rights when resources are insufficient to satisfy those rights. The idea that a country must bankrupt itself trying to provide all types of economic rights just to meet its obligations under the covenant is pure nonsense. The writers of this covenant knew that economic times could be difficult and that countries could, and most likely would, have difficulty satisfying economic rights during these times.

Countries are free to develop their own economic systems, whether capitalism, socialism, or, most prevalent, capitalism, with some government regulation and intervention. The view that government must impose a heavy hand in providing housing, health care, education, and other benefits listed in the covenant does not match reality. Rather, what the covenant aims to do is create a mind-set that individuals and their economic security are important. Promoting economic security often requires public assistance for those individuals who are unable to meet their basic needs, and distinguishing between deserving and undeserving individuals should have no part in meeting basic human rights.

Articles Listing Specific Rights

The covenant lists the following as economic, social, and cultural human rights:

• Article 6, para. 1: Everyone shall have the opportunity to gain his or her living by work that the person freely chooses or accepts. States need to take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

• Article 6, para. 2: States must provide technical and vocational guidance, training programs, and policies and techniques to achieve economic, social, and cultural development and full and productive employment. In taking these steps, the states must safeguard individual political and economic freedoms.

Obviously, resources must be available to establish and staff programs to enhance development and employment. The difficulty is that world economic conditions may not be conducive to providing the items listed in this article. A global recession may inhibit employment possibilities in any country.

• Article 7: States must recognize the right of everyone to enjoy just and favorable conditions of work. These conditions require fair and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction. Women are guaranteed conditions of work equal to those enjoyed by men, and workers should receive a "decent living." Additional rights include safe and healthy working conditions; equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to seniority and competence; and rest, leisure, and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.

States with insufficient resources may have difficulty promoting these rights. Even in the United States, requiring an employer to pay a "living wage" would meet with resistance from employers, many of which would probably shut down rather than increase wages. In some countries, many of these rights may not be part of the culture. In a society whose leaders are chosen based on family lineage, cultural norms would obviously clash with the requirement to promote workers only on the basis of seniority and competence. Even so, promoting safe working conditions, reasonable compensation within local economic circumstances, and equal pay are worthwhile goals for all countries.

_Human Right to Productive Work_

The human right to productive work raises all types of issues, with perhaps the most obvious being the ability to pay an individual a wage sufficient to live within his or her means. For instance, in 1996 the U.S. government enacted new welfare laws that focused on work as a requirement to receive governmental assistance (Reichert and McCormick 1997). In addition, with some exceptions, those laws limited many individuals to only five years of public assistance during their lifetime. The overall effect of the new U.S. welfare laws has been a significant reduction in welfare recipients, even during the 2009 economic downturn (Deparle 2009).

U.S. welfare laws have indeed decreased the number of welfare recipients, but this "success" story has an inescapable irony. Although the number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has dropped significantly, the number of enrollees in other programs, such as Medicaid, food assistance, and disability benefits, has increased (Ohlemacher 2007). Many of the jobs taken by those who no longer receive cash assistance do not offer health care benefits or pay enough to meet day-to-day living expenses. Therefore, to assist those individuals, governments have expanded eligibility for programs like Medicaid and food assistance. Moreover, the number of Americans living in extreme poverty has never been higher. This growth in extreme poverty demonstrates how hard it is for low-skilled workers to earn their way out of poverty in a job market that favors skilled and educated workers (McClatchy Newspapers 2007).

The failure to earn enough to increase living standards is not merely a U.S. phenomenon. In Britain, a study found that even though the majority of children living in poverty have at least one working parent, he or she is not earning enough to raise the family above the poverty line (Gentleman 2009). This raises the question: Does the move to get people off welfare actually result in individuals' obtaining work that provides sufficient income to survive? Some groups would say no.

The Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign and other groups have charged the U.S. government with human rights violations caused by the 1996 welfare "reform" act (Bricker-Jenkins, Young, and Honkala 2007; Zucchino 2001). This campaign is a national effort led by poor and homeless women, men, and children to make the issue of poverty in the United States a human rights violation. The campaign fights for "basic human rights" as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to a decent job at a living wage, the right to a suitable home, the right to food, the guarantee of quality education and quality health care, and a future for individuals and families. The purpose of this movement is to provide sufficient resources to the poor in order to fulfill basic human rights. Perhaps the most important part of this movement is providing what is known as a "living wage"—in other words, an income that is sufficient to support the family or household. Merely being able to obtain work does not mean that an individual can make ends meet.

Does paying a higher wage to individuals reduce the availability of jobs? Fears that substantial pay increases would lead to a decrease in employment may not always be justified (Wood 2002). The Public Policy Institute of California examined thirty-six cities in the United States that have imposed a living wage on contractors doing business with those cities. This study found that the slight job losses caused by living wage laws were more than compensated by the decrease in family poverty (Wood 2002, 4). More study of the living wage issue is necessary, however, before concluding that higher wages do not lead to job losses. The type of employment (e.g., employment not easily shifted to other countries) may help determine whether or not a living wage is feasible.

Welfare laws that require work should try to satisfy the human rights to productive work and other related human rights. Simply obtaining any type of work would not necessarily be regarded as a success: indeed, work that did not provide sufficient income to meet basic human needs would fall far short of the intended mark.

• Article 8: States must "undertake to ensure" that everyone has the right to form and join a trade union, subject to restrictions necessary in a democratic society to preserve national security, public order, and the rights of others. Union members have the right to strike, with allowable restrictions on members of the state's armed forces, police, and administration.

• Article 9: States recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance. The article does not define social security or social insurance but certainly intends that states provide a level of security sufficient to enable an individual to maintain a basic existence.

• Article 10: States should protect the family, "which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society." The article also declares that marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses. Before or after childbirth, working mothers should be "accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits." States should protect children from economic and social exploitation and prohibit the paid employment of children below a set age.

• Article 11: States recognize the right of all people to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. In satisfying these human rights, states should recognize the "essential importance of international co-operation." They must establish programs to improve methods of food production and attempt to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.

_Different Approaches to Social Welfare:
United States and Europe_

When a German factory worker lost his job in the economic downturn of 2008/2009, his unemployed status did not stop him from taking a Mediterranean vacation. The German government provided sufficient benefits that allowed the worker to maintain a standard of living that did not differ much from that he enjoyed while working. These benefits would continue for more than a year. In the United States, a worker who lost a similar job would have no comparable government assistance and could not expect to keep her medical coverage or even her unemployment benefits for more than several months (Walker and Thurow 2009).

A drawback to Europe's generous social welfare benefits is that employers, who must help fund these benefits through individual payroll taxes, are more reluctant to rehire workers than are employers in the United States. But from a human rights viewpoint, the European system is clearly more humane and within the spirit of the covenant on economic rights.

• Article 12: States recognize the right of "everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." The states should take steps to reduce infant mortality; improve environmental and industrial hygiene; prevent, treat, and control diseases; and create conditions that would ensure medical services for everyone in the event of sickness.

Although these goals are laudable and should not be objectionable to any country, guaranteeing health care to all citizens and residents remains a difficult issue in the United States.

_Failing to Provide Health Care to All_
 _Violates Human Rights Principles_

The United States remains the sole industrialized country that does not guarantee basic medical care to all its citizens and legal residents. Some people may point out that everyone can receive care by simply going to a hospital's emergency room. Of course, anyone who relies on emergency rooms for routine medical care knows the absurdity of this notion. Waiting times, extraordinary costs—the patient still must pay—and no follow-up treatment are only some of the drawbacks. The reality is that because of these and other obstacles, many uninsured peole fail to seek medical treatment when they should. Indeed, one study has found that 45 million Americans die each year because of a lack of health insurance (Wilper et al. 2009).

The U.S. Medicaid program for low-income residents does cover medical treatment for some, including many children. But many do not qualify for this medical coverage, and even if they do, some aspects of medical treatment, like dental and mental health care, are deficient.

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday. A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.

If his mother had been insured.

If his family had not lost its Medicaid.

If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.

If his mother had not been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.

By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, [Deamonte] died. (Otto 2007)

This incident highlights not only the deficiency of medical coverage but also the limits of that coverage. Yet because the U.S. system requires public hospitals to treat everyone, costs that could be minimal if treated early become major expenses when treated later. Deamonte's final medical and hospital costs were estimated to be as much as $250,000, an amount that does not even begin to consider the cost of Deamonte's life and what his death meant to his family.

The failure of the United States to establish universal, basic medical coverage defies reason. Even from a purely economic cost analysis, the lack of universal coverage can increase the ultimate medical cost. But the real tragedy lies in the human suffering caused when the uninsured individual fails to obtain timely and necessary health care. Most cases do not end so tragically as Deamonte's, but this does not excuse ignoring the human right to adequate medical care.

• Article 13: States are to provide education, which has the primary goal of fully developing "the human personality and the sense of its dignity" and enabling everyone to participate effectively in a free society. Primary education shall be compulsory and free, with secondary and higher education being accessible to all, subject to available means. While not requiring free secondary and higher education, states should progressively introduce free education on these levels. States also should allow parents the freedom to place their children in private schools that meet minimum educational standards.

The human right of education occupies a central position in human rights principles. Without education, an individual's full development is not possible.

_The Human Right to Education:
Are All Things Equal?_

The United States prides itself on offering everyone a decent primary and secondary education. The purpose of the so-called No Child Left Behind law is to increase the educational achievement of elementary and high school students to a uniformly high level so that no pupil is at a disadvantage in his or her workplace after school. Although many students continue their education after secondary school, those who do not should still be able to use their educational skills to find employment and, on a broader scale, to integrate well into society.

On an international level, a disturbing trend is appearing in regard to U.S. students' educational performance. Every three years, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) measures fifteen-year-olds' performance in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy. In 2006, fifty-seven countries participated in the PISA assessment for science and mathematics. Science literacy is measured by a student's ability to identify scientific issues, apply his or her knowledge of science to a given situation, interpret scientific evidence, and make reasonable conclusions. Mathematics literacy refers to an understanding of mathematics and the ability to use it constructively (National Center for Education Statistics 2007).

How did the United States fare in the science and mathematics part of the 2006 PISA? Fifteen-year-old students in the United States had an average score of 489 on the combined science literary scale, which was below the 500 point average of all the countries tested. The results for mathematics were similar: the average U.S. score in mathematics literacy was 474, lower than the country average of 498. Within the United States, white, non-Hispanic students scored the highest, with African Americans and Hispanic students scoring the lowest.

There are many reasons for their relatively poor performance. Resources and methods of teaching may have the greatest relevance in improving educational outcomes. The unequal distribution of resources for elementary and secondary education in many parts of the United States give wealthy suburban schools a head start in education, as well as a home life that nurtures education. In Illinois, the state government guarantees a minimum level of state funds per pupil, with local support primarily from property tax assessments providing additional funding. This system practically guarantees an economic class–based form of funding for education. Schools located in wealthy Chicago and suburban areas allocate around 50 percent more funding per pupil than do the schools in the lower-income areas of southern Illinois (Illinois Kids Count 2009). This discrepancy in funding most likely affects the quality of equipment, books, and other teaching tools that a school district can afford. Teaching facilities may also be in disrepair where funds are lacking. But money is not the only difficulty. Better teachers, school administrators, and teaching techniques are required as well.

The economic loss to the United States from its failing primary and secondary education is enormous: If the country had raised its educational performance between 1983 and 1998 to that of countries like South Korea or Finland, its output in 2008 would have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher, a gain of about 9 to 16 percent of the gross domestic product (Crook 2009).

Aside from any economic benefits, a focus on improving educational facilities for all students is a human right imperative. Every child should receive a decent education, a human right that the United States has failed to achieve.

• Article 14: States that have not been able to provide free and compulsory primary education are allowed time to accomplish this human right.

• Article 15: States recognize that everyone has the human right to "take part in cultural life" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." Everyone has the right to benefit from the "protection" of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production that a person has created.

Article 15 raises important issues concerning the provision of benefits from scientific progress. The protection of material benefits from scientific inventions can conflict with other human rights that guarantee medical care and food. For example, the states must respect patents on medicines to prevent or treat HIV/AIDS, but they also have an obligation to prevent and control diseases. If a country cannot afford to purchase patented drugs to treat a high incidence of AIDS, should that country then try to duplicate the patented drugs without respecting the patent? This issue pits countries whose corporate citizens have produced and patented drugs to treat AIDS against countries that must purchase those drugs, often at great cost. Generally, this results in a conflict between corporations from wealthy countries and governments of less economically developed countries where AIDS affects many individuals. To resolve this and similar conflicts, countries need to cooperate in the scientific and cultural fields.

In summary, economic, social, and cultural benefits focus on five main areas: employment; protection of the family; social security, including adequate food, housing, and medical care; education; and participation in cultural and scientific endeavors. Fulfilling many of the human rights in this covenant present challenges. In fact, some people may question whether these human rights even belong under the human rights umbrella ( _Economist_ 2001a, 2001b). The reality, though, is that economic, social, and cultural human rights are just as important as political and civil human rights.

Many countries around the world recognize the need to provide a basic economic and social existence for its residents. The United States stands nearly alone in its insistence on viewing economic rights as goals, not rights. When an American demands a decent standard of living, he or she is viewed as a freeloader begging for an undeserved handout, even though this is simply asking for a basic right to which all humans are entitled by consensus of the international community (Estes 2007). With economic conditions becoming increasingly perilous for many Americans, recognition of economic human rights is imperative.

Final Parts of Covenant

The remaining parts of the covenant address reports and methods of informing others about steps to be taken to ensure its economic, social, and cultural human rights. Compared with the covenant on civil and political rights, this covenant's monitoring provisions are less stringent. States adopting the economic covenant appear to have more leeway or acceptance in whether they will fulfill its provisions, This additional leeway implicitly acknowledges that many countries, including wealthy countries, may have difficulty fulfilling these human rights.

Social Work Perspective on the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

Many of the human rights listed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights mirror the goals and ethical principles of social workers, although the status of these human rights has never matched that of civil and political rights ( _Economist_ 2001b, 18–20). Some Western countries, especially the United States, have never subscribed to the notion that universal rights should include a job, housing, and social security. While many countries promote these human rights as goals, they do not guarantee them.

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, although the Senate has never ratified the treaty, as required under the U.S. Constitution, for the covenant to become effective. The difficulty in accepting the covenant is in the guarantee of economic benefits that the United States has traditionally not accepted as a right. For example, the United States does not guarantee health care to every U.S. national and resident. By not providing medical care to every individual, the United States could immediately find itself accused of violating human rights principles. Should this be the case? _The Economist_ magazine made the following response to a movement by Amnesty International to incorporate economic rights into its existing mission of ensuring political rights:

Even if economic and social rights appear to have the same status on paper as civil and political rights, their philosophical grounding is often questioned. Designating a good as a universal human right means that reasonable people believe that under no jurisdiction, and under no circumstances, may that good be justly denied to anybody. Although freedom from torture certainly now falls into this category—arguably due to the efforts of groups like Amnesty—goods such as food and a decent home do not. Governments may intentionally torture their citizens; they do not usually intentionally inflict on them poverty and ill health. The moral imperative to stop poverty or disease is therefore not as convincing as the moral imperative to stop torture. ( _Economist_ 2001b, 19)

Perhaps the moral imperative to stop poverty or disease is not as convincing as the moral imperative to stop torture, a position that itself is a question of values. If government policies inflict unnecessary physical suffering on its citizens by not providing adequate food, shelter, or health care, then why should those policies not be condemned as strongly as those permitting torture? The United States has sufficient resources with which to provide every child and adult with adequate health care. Germany and other Western countries do make health care a right, with government policies that provide health care to everyone (Reichert and McCormick 1997). If the United States rarely allowed torture, but many children failed to receive basic health care, would the "moral imperative" be less convincing than if it were the other way around? If U.S. policies intentionally deprive children of basic medical care, what is the moral difference between those children being free from torture but not given adequate medical care?

Elevating the status of economic, social, and cultural rights to those of civil and political rights presents challenges to all countries:

To guarantee civil and political rights is relatively cheap, whereas to guarantee economic and social rights is potentially enormously costly. The cost of ensuring the right to vote, for example, is well-defined: the nature of universal franchise is set out in a century of case law and statute, and the costs of staffing and equipping the ballot are easy to assess. Even when an election turns out to require independent observers, extended court sessions, and a lot of recounting . . ., it is still relatively easy for a democratic government to protect its citizens' right to vote. Endorsing a universal right to health care, by contrast, seems a sure start to an expensive ride down a slippery slope. Who is to say when a person has had enough money spent on keeping him fit? ( _Economist_ 2001b, 20).

Although this position sounds reasonable, what about the costs of not providing sufficient economic and social rights? The United States has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world by far, and running those prisons costs billions of dollars each year. Additional expenses arise from operating courts, an extensive parole/probation system, and law enforcement agencies, as well as providing restitution to victims of crime (Pew Center on the States 2009). If there is a link between failing to provide economic benefits (such as education, housing, and health care) and a life of crime, then can it really be said that it is cheaper to guarantee mainly political and civil rights? Would it not be less expensive to provide better educational facilities and social assistance programs during the formative years of a person, who, owing to poverty, might grow up to engage in criminal activities, than to fund the huge infusion of government money necessary to run the legal and prison systems?

Social workers should understand the connection between civil and political human rights and economic, social, and cultural human rights. The failure to provide one type of human right can lead to the deprivation of another type. This symbiotic relationship among different sets of human rights contradicts the notion that one set of rights should be favored over another.

Questions

1. Are the human rights listed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights as important to an individual as those in the covenant on civil and political rights? Explain your answer.

2. Should "developing countries" receive special treatment in promoting human rights? Give reasons for your answer.

3. Should the U.S. Senate ratify and enact laws to mandate human rights in the covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights?

4. Why is education a human right? Does the method of funding public schools in the United States discriminate between wealthy and less wealthy neighborhoods? If so, should the method of funding be changed? Explain.

5. According to the human rights principles in the covenant on economic rights, should wealthy countries be required to help developing countries?

6. Should everyone have the right to a living wage? Give reasons for your answer.

7. Should legal immigrants in a country be entitled to the same social benefits as its citizens? Does the covenant on economic and social rights require equal treatment?

8. Is the covenant on economic and social rights relevant to the social work profession?

References

Bricker-Jenkins, M., C. Young, and C. Honkala. 2007. Using economic human rights in the movement to end poverty: The Kensington Welfare Rights Union and the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign. In _Challenges in Human Rights_ , ed. Elisabeth Reichert, 122–37. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crook, C. 2009. America's classroom equality battle. _Financial Times_ , May 11, 9.

Deparle, J. 2009. Welfare aid isn't growing as economy drops off. Available at http:www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/us/02welfare.html (accessed February 2, 2009).

_The Economist_. 2001a. The politics of human rights. August 18–24, p. 9.

——. 2001b. Special report on human rights: Righting wrongs. August 18–24, pp. 18–20.

——. 2007. Stand up for your rights. March 24, p. 12.

Estes, C. 2007. Who's afraid of economic human rights? _Yes!_ (spring 2007): 32–34.

Gentleman, A. 2009. Majority of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work, says study. Available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/18/child-poverty-research/print> (accessed February 17, 2009).

Illinois Kids Count. 2009. _Education for the 21st Century_. Available at http:www.voices4kids.org/library/kcog_education.html (accessed May 26, 2009).

Kim, R. 2001. Welfare reform and "ineligibles": Issues of constitutionality and recent court rulings. _Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers_ 46 (4): 315–23.

McClatchy Newspapers. 2007. 16 million Americans live in deep poverty, census analysis finds. _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ , February 25, p. A7.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2007. Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an international context. Available at <http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/PISA> (accessed May 26, 2009).

Ohlemacher, S. 2007. AP impact: Assistance rolls increase. Available at <http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070225/D8NGSP600.html> (accessed February 25, 2007).

Otto, M. 2007. For want of a dentist. Available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116_pf.html> (accessed February 28, 2007).

Pew Center on the States. 2009. One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Available at <http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=49382> (accessed September 22, 2009).

Reichert, E., and R. McCormick. 1997. Different approaches to child welfare: United States and Germany. _Journal of Law and Social Work_ 7 (1): 17–33.

——. 1998. U.S. welfare law violates human rights of immigrants. _Migration World_ 26 (3): 15–18.

Walker, M., and R. Thurow. 2009. U.S., Europe are ocean apart on human toll of joblessness. _Wall Street Journal_ , May 7, pp. A1, A14.

Wilper, A., et al. 2009. Health insurance and mortality in US adults. _American Journal of Public Health_. Available at <http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.157685v1> (accessed September 22, 2009).

Wood, D. 2002. "Living wage" laws gain momentum across U.S. _Christian Science Monitor_ , March 15, pp. 1, 4.

Zucchino, D. 2001. Streetfighting woman: The activist issue. _Ms. Magazine_ , April– May, pp. 62–67.
[ 5 ]

[Diversity Within a
Human Rights Perspective](contents.html#ch5)

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights each address many fundamental aspects of the human existence. Together, these documents constitute the International Bill of Human Rights. Because human rights continually require evaluation and refinement, the United Nations and other groups propose supplemental human rights documents that address particular issues. For example, human rights groups have focused on so-called vulnerable populations, those segments of society that human rights activists believe need special attention. Reference to these segments of society as vulnerable populations, however, creates an undesirable and inappropriate impression of impairment. A more appropriate description is to refer to these segments as diverse groups that sometimes may require special attention within a human rights framework.

Human Rights and Diversity

Before analyzing human rights documents dedicated to particular segments of the population, we should ask, Do we need human rights documents specifically dedicated to a particular group? The general answer is that certain population groups have traditionally encountered discrimination on the basis of gender, national origin, ethnicity, age, or another classification. In addition, some of these population groups (such as children) require special attention to avoid potential exploitation.

In virtually all societies, women encounter an array of obstacles in obtaining many of the same rights and benefits as those held by men. For instance, those who hold political and economic power are more likely to be male than female. The male domination of power tends to omit a woman's perspective on particular issues, which can often lead to discriminatory results.

Along with women, children also receive special attention in the area of human rights. The maturity level of children cannot match that of their elders, who must make sure to protect children.

Other diverse groups include cultural, ethnic, and religious minorities living in the mainstream of their societies. Native Americans, Roma in Europe, Palestinians in Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, and Catholics in Northern Ireland all are groups outside the mainstream or dominant society. They thus may need special attention regarding human rights, especially when their diversity leads to discrimination or other negative outcomes.

The realities of age and disabilities also require special attention. The older an individual is, the more likely he or she is to face discrimination and exploitation because of the frailties associated with advanced age. An individual with a physical or mental disability also needs special protection when that disability inhibits activities readily available to those without the disability.

Certainly, governments are aware of this increased likelihood of oppression or exploitation and have enacted laws to help level the playing field for those needing special attention. In the United States and other countries, laws prohibit discrimination in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and availability of public accommodations on the basis of gender, national origin, age, disability, and other classifications (e.g., Illinois Human Rights Act 1992). These laws are intended to protect diverse groups in situations most likely to affect significant events encountered by individuals who belong to the listed segments of society. Children receive special protection in laws prohibiting abuse and neglect.

Many of these laws, however, address only certain situations and do not provide a sufficiently broad and coherent approach to those groups in a human rights context. Laws in the United States prohibiting discrimination against gender and other classifications often do not apply to small employers or private clubs (see Illinois Human Rights Act 1992). This exclusion allows many acts of discrimination to continue without consequence. Even when laws prohibiting discrimination apply, filing complaints can be time-consuming and cumbersome and are often beyond the complainant's expertise. Furthermore, large companies and organizations typically have the resources to hire legal professionals and often go to considerable expense in contriving responses to allegations of discrimination. In other words, charges of discrimination may fail in countering unlawful practices and instead may promote defending and upholding current practices. Occasionally a law firm might undertake a class action case against a mighty icon of corporate enterprise on behalf of a large group of plaintiffs, but few individuals have the necessary resources to battle large corporations. As Richard Grossman, a historian of corporations, law, and democracy, observed:

There's a corporate class that has enormous wealth, and the power of law behind it, and it dominates the way issues are framed. I mean, is it really true that the majority of the American people over the last twenty-five years didn't want a major transition in energy to move to efficiency and solar, didn't want universal health care, but wanted pig genes in fish? (Conniff 2002, 34)

To counter existing power structures, particularly those relevant to various segments of society, a different way of approaching discrimination and other violations of the human existence should be established. Human rights principles provide a means with which to alter the overall structures that allow discrimination and other violations. Unfortunately, laws can sometimes harden attitudes if compliance with them requires significant economic and political change. Instead of always relying on laws to assist vulnerable populations, attention should be directed to the mind-set of those who control societal institutions. Regardless of the circumstance, every individual is entitled to an existence that encompasses human rights. The starting point for any government, corporation, school, religious group, and other entity should be to focus on satisfying human rights, without feeling coerced into doing this. This initial step is particularly relevant to diverse populations.

_The Department of Human Rights: Hazardous to Health?_

Many states have formed agencies to investigate violations of "human rights." For instance, Illinois has the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which investigates certain complaints relating to alleged discrimination on the basis of age, gender, national origin, disability, religion, and sexual orientation.

To claim discrimination, a "complainant" must allege facts indicating that some action, usually by an employer, resulted in the loss of a benefit. The complainant must also present facts showing that the action taken was based on the complainant's age, gender, national origin, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. The authority of the Illinois Department of Human Rights to investigate complaints of discrimination is limited to employers that have at least ten employees, but it may also investigate complaints against public facilities and landlords. Private clubs are exempt from investigation.

The department's effectiveness in preventing discrimination may be minimal. Large companies often make it extremely difficult to purse these complaints unless the complainant has a lawyer (which costs money). In addition, investigators usually demand hard facts as to the alleged discrimination, which generally is subtle in nature and not obvious.

An unintended result of the department's activities may be to entrench discriminatory practices, especially when the complaints are dismissed or settled with no significant consequence to the alleged offender. Unless employers and other entities find it costly to discriminate, the discriminatory practices most likely will continue. Government agencies assigned to investigate discriminatory practices may not have sufficient resources to actually do the job they are required to do. In addition, complainants may find it easier to abandon their cause once they discover how difficult (and expensive) it can be to prove discrimination and to persevere against an employer or other entity. Of course, anyone who files a complaint must be prepared to face the wrath of his or her employer (and perhaps even of coworkers), even though retaliation by an employer is prohibited.

The bottom line for those who wish to file complaints of discrimination is to be prepared for a struggle, for discrimination in the eyes of the complainant is not the same as discrimination in the eyes of the alleged offender.

While the International Bill of Human Rights frequently addresses these different groups, additional human rights documents provide greater context and detail. This chapter looks at women as a segment of society that requires special attention, and the next chapter considers additional groups and specific documents relating to those groups.

Women and the Human Rights Framework

A primary goal of the social work profession is to work with diverse populations, the largest being women and girls. Historically, this population has encountered significant discrimination:

Throughout history, with rare exceptions, women have been relegated to second-class status, their lives controlled, regulated, and limited. In the United States, women were denied the right to vote, attend school, own property, keep their wages, or obtain custody of their children. Although gains have been realized, largely because of the first and second waves of the women's movement, much remains to be done. (NASW 2009, 367)

Women perform two-thirds of the world's work but earn only one-tenth of all income and own less than one-tenth of the world's property (Human Rights Watch World Report 2001, 456). Two-thirds of the 110 million children in the world who are not receiving an education are girls. Women constitute the majority of the world's poor as defined by income level. Seventy percent of the world's 1.3 billion people living in poverty are women. The number of women living in absolute poverty (i.e., life-threatening poverty) has risen by 50 percent over the last two decades, as opposed to 30 percent for men (Human Rights Watch World Report 2001, 456). Because of their greater incidence of poverty, women do not always receive adequate health care. Socioeconomic factors, as well as chance genetic inheritance and the geographical availability of nutritional resources, determine an individual's health status. Relatively affluent people and those content with their lives enjoy better health status than do impoverished—and oppressed—people who suffer a poor self-image in addition to the disrespect they may encounter in their own communities.

Today, women remain economically disadvantaged in most countries, which makes them both vulnerable to violence and unable to escape it (Shah 2007). The correlation between gender and poverty is a problem for all countries. Even when women have jobs, many obstacles make their lives more difficult than men's. Working women often are also responsible for child care and management of the household, which effectively requires them to do double duty (Rosen 2007). And then there is the pay gap, with average hourly wages for women in low-skilled industries being generally much less than those for men (Goldstein 2009).

_Reverse Gender Discrimination: A Human Rights Perspective_

Consider the typical situation of what the legal profession in the United States calls reverse discrimination as it relates to gender. A male applies for a well-paid job at a major company or applies for a coveted spot as a student at a prestigious university. The company or university denies the application but accepts a candidate who is female with apparently "lesser" qualifications. The male cries foul. "How can this be? I am more qualified. Just look at my experience, excellent test scores, and other attributes."

Even if the male can justify his belief of superior credentials, a difficult matter to evaluate, does he have a claim to the job or university placement? Past discriminatory practices relating to gender should not create a basis for deciding who gets a job or university placement. But continuing practices that exclude women and girls from being considered on an equal footing with males violates human rights principles. If those in control of companies, universities, and other organizations fail to welcome gender or other diversity, then that is a human rights violation. At times, it may appear that the male has reason to claim that his human rights are being violated because of reverse discrimination. In most instances, though, this will not be the case, since human rights principles require the inclusion of women and girls in societal organizations. It is not a question of reverse discrimination but a question of fulfilling a human rights obligation to include women and girls in structures in which they traditionally have been absent or minimally present.

This is not to say that the male never has a claim of discrimination. When women dominate a profession or occupation, males should also be given the same opportunity to participate in those fields. Of course, many of those fields are low paying or have insufficient prestige to attract males (e.g., secretaries, receptionists, nannies). But males should certainly be welcome in areas dominated by women and not encounter discrimination.

_Women's Subordination and Exclusion_

In societies around the world, female-gendered status is viewed as inferior and subordinate to male-gendered status (Bunch 1991). In fact, societies have modeled their gender-role expectations on these assumptions of the "natural order" of humankind. Historic social structures reflect this gender difference of male dominance and female subordination, including

  * The organization and conduct of warfare.
  * The hierarchical ordering of influential religious institutions.
  * The attribution of political power.
  * The authority of the judiciary.
  * Influences that shape the content of the law. (Bunch 1991)

In most, if not all, societies, women assume inferior, servile social roles. The historic subordination, silencing, and imposed inferiority of women is in fact not simply a feature of society but a condition of society (Cook 1995). Legal precepts traditionally exclude women from centers of male-gendered power, including legislatures, military institutions, religious orders, universities, medicine, and law. In social work, although women constitute the majority of social workers, men hold the vast majority of leadership positions in teaching social work (Bricker-Jenkins, Hooyman, and Gottlieb 1991).

_Focus on Upper-Class Women Misses the_
 _Larger Human Rights Issue_

"To hear the media tell the tale, the central problem facing working women today is the question of whether they should leave their professional careers to raise children" (Friedman 2009, 18). The reality, though, is that at least in the United States, women who can "opt out" of the working world account for only about 10 percent of working women aged twenty-five to forty-four years (Friedman 2009, 18).

Most families do not have the option of either parent not working, especially considering the number of single-parent families, most of which are headed by women. For newspapers and other media to focus on professional women who can afford to stay at home is simply irresponsible journalism, as it ignores significant human rights issues concerning social welfare.

While women can readily understand their lack of power in relation to men, women also encounter diversity of power within their own gender. For instance, an upper-class married woman will likely have greater privileges in society than will an unmarried or even a married woman reliant on public assistance. The upper-class woman obviously has many more doors open to her in regard to housing, education, esteem in the community, and other opportunities. Such an imbalance of power does not occur simply at the individual level; society, government, religious institutions, and other forces maintain this imbalance, which is frequently directed against particular groups, including those based on income.

A woman's access to resources, work, housing, education, and other advantages often determines her level of power. For that reason, when considering the application of human rights, social workers should always recognize that differences in power among and between groups can result in discrimination and inequality.

Women throughout the world share many experiences of violations of their rights. A human rights perspective helps illuminate the complicated relationship between gender and other aspects of identity such as race, class, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, culture, and immigrant status. The types of discrimination and violence against women and girls are usually shaped by how gender interfaces with those aspects of identity (Bunch and Frost 2000). The absence of women in public office and decision-making positions may indicate cultural discrimination. The norms of a society may dictate that women do not belong in those positions. Class distinctions may also determine whether a girl child has access to health care or education. While the particular issue concerning women's rights might vary from country to country, the theme remains the same: women and girls have less value than men and boys.

The notion that human rights are universal and belong to all people is centrally connected to principles of equality. Everyone, everywhere, is born with the same human rights, and women should have the same opportunities to enjoy them. In a human rights context, equality does not necessarily mean treating everyone in the same manner. When people are in unequal situations, treating them in the same manner invariably perpetuates, rather than eradicates, injustices (Van Wormer 2001). Women often require different treatment than men in order to enjoy the same rights. To enjoy the human right to work, women may require child care and recognition of the work they typically do in the home. A woman's right to work would then require measures to balance the unequal situations between men and women. Emphasis on the role of men in raising children and doing work at home could help women achieve this human right. Merely enacting a law stating that women have the same right to a job as men does little in helping women exercise their human right to work. Consequently, human rights are not gender neutral. In addressing violations of human rights against women, social workers should recognize the unequal positions of women and men in society and that they have become the cultural norm.

_The Financial Crisis of 2008:_
 _A Male-Only Affair?_

Media coverage of the financial crisis beginning in 2008 illustrated the subordination of women to men in the area of what makes the world go 'round. The bankers, government officials, corporate and union leaders, and other leading figures involved in the financial downturn were nearly always men. Rarely did a woman appear on television, radio, or in newspapers to discuss the financial crisis. It was as if men controlled all the levers in discussions about the crisis.

This lopsided gender view of a major world event said much about the reality of affairs in financial markets: Men call the shots.

_Women's Rights Are Human Rights_

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not contain any provisions specific to women. The language of the declaration refers to _man_ and uses the pronoun _he_ when referring to individuals. But during the three years in which representatives of countries drafted the declaration, they exchanged thoughts about women and the rights of women (Morsink 1999). Although the declaration introduced innovative and progressive rights for everyone, the articulation of those rights still reflects a male-dominated world by incorporating generally male perceptions and priorities. After the Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948, central concerns about the male focus persisted. The concept of human rights had not been expanded sufficiently to account for the social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances in which a woman's identity is shaped and experienced (Human Rights Watch World Report 2001, 455). Essentially, the failure of human rights documents and principles to sufficiently highlight the equal status of women to men led to a need to specifically recognize that "women's rights are human rights."

The movement to promote women's rights as human rights began in the years following the Universal Declaration. In 1966 the United Nations adopted two international covenants that gave more force to human rights as specified in the declaration: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These documents did not highlight, however, the pressing need to address women's rights as human rights. Countries ratifying those treaties signified a greater commitment to human rights, at least on paper, but their commitment did not include the specific recognition of women's entitlement to human rights.

In 1975, for the first time, the United Nations held a world conference on women in Mexico City (UN 1976), at which those attending linked the oppression of women to their inequality. Leaders at the conference also urged governments to eliminate violence against women, acknowledging that to improve their status, much needed to be accomplished. Therefore, the UN proclaimed the next ten years as the Decade of Women (Reichert 1998).

Five years after its first world conference on women, in 1980 the UN held the second UN World Conference on Women in Copenhagen (Reichert 1998). At this conference, delegates from the UN endorsed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (CEDAW 1979; UN 1980). The purpose of this convention was to place women on an equal footing with men in any field, including the political, economic, social, and cultural arenas. Social workers have called this convention the Magna Carta for women's human rights (Wetzel 1993). Under its provisions, thirty days after the twentieth country approved the convention, CEDAW would come into force, which happened on September 3, 1981. At least 185 states have now approved the convention.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, focuses on elevating the status of women to that of men in the area of human rights. Those states approving the convention acknowledge that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent international covenants all aim to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender. But despite these various instruments, extensive discrimination against women continues to exist and "in situations of poverty women have the least access to food, health, education, training, and opportunities for employment and other needs" (CEDAW 1979). Those states party to CEDAW are convinced that the full and complete development of a country, the welfare of the world, and the cause of peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields. They acknowledge that a change in the traditional roles of men and women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between men and women. Thus those states approving CEDAW agree to adopt measures that would eliminate gender discrimination in all forms and manifestations.

CEDAW defines gender discrimination as follows:

Any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field. (CEDAW 1979, art. 1)

Any distinction, exclusion, or restriction having the "effect" as well as "purpose" of discriminating would include unintentional as well as intentional discrimination.

CEDAW also requires states to take appropriate measures in all fields, particularly the "political, social, economic, and cultural fields, to ensure the full development and advancement of women." States also must take all appropriate measures to "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and . . . other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women" (art. 5[a]). States must suppress all "forms and traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women" (art. 6).

_Other Provisions of CEDAW_

In addition to general goals of achieving gender equality, those states party to CEDAW are to specifically address issues in the fields of education, employment, health care, and economic benefits. Men and women must have equality in civil matters, including the right to conclude contracts and administer property. Women shall also have the same rights as men with regard to freedom of movement and choice of residence. The states shall also eliminate discrimination in marital and other family matters, allowing women equal rights with respect to choosing a spouse, choosing a family name or profession, and owning and disposing of property.

CEDAW established its Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to evaluate the progress made in implementing the convention (art. 17). States should submit periodic reports on measures taken to effect provisions of CEDAW to the secretary-general of the United Nations for consideration by the committee (art. 18). There is an optional settlement provision for resolving disputes between two or more states concerning the interpretation or application of CEDAW (part VI). Another optional provision allows individuals to submit complaints of alleged violations of rights to the committee. Under this optional provision, the committee could initiate an inquiry into alleged serious violations of rights protected by CEDAW against a state party to CEDAW.

_Status of CEDAW_

Most countries of the world have now approved CEDAW, thereby obligating their government to enforce the convention's provisions, except for any reservations cited by the government. One notable holdout in approving CEDAW is the United States. Even though President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty in 1980, the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify it. As an indication of how popular this human rights document was among some senators, on International Women's Day in 2000, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina publicly vowed never to allow the Senate to vote on CEDAW. Instead, he promised to leave the treaty in the "dustbin" for several more "decades" (Human Rights Watch World Report 2001, 457). Senator Helms's vow seems to have become reality.

Why do U.S. senators oppose CEDAW? The answer is that acceptance of the convention would require significant changes in the current laws concerning discrimination against women. For instance, CEDAW goes further than many U.S. laws in prohibiting discrimination within the private sector. That is, private entities often enjoy loopholes in current discrimination laws, which CEDAW would end. In fact, CEDAW would actually require governments to take positive measures to eliminate discrimination. This broad-based approach to ending gender discrimination does not always find favor among lawmakers. What would be the cost to businesses and agencies if they had to comply with every relevant provision of CEDAW? What would be the cost to government? What would be the cost to individuals? How could these costs be met? Complying with several layers of government regulations against discrimination would require substantial resources. But this cost analysis also overlooks key points in regard to any type of discrimination: What are the economic, political, social, and cultural costs if a society allows discrimination to continue, particularly against a group as numerous as women? Is this cost any less than that required to take positive steps against discrimination? Not allowing one-half the world's citizens to fully use their intellectual and social potential because of obstacles imposed by social or cultural norms causes tremendous damage to world societies. Recognition of that fact is the basis on which the drafters of CEDAW approached the issue of discrimination against women.

Other U.S. objections to CEDAW pertain to birth control, abortion, and other family-planning issues. Even though President Barack Obama has expressed his desire to see CEDAW ratified, obtaining the approval of sixty-seven senators to ratify the convention in a time of financial difficulties does not appear likely.

Even though most countries have approved CEDAW, many have placed "reservations" or conditions on their acceptance of the provisions (Division for Advancement of Women 2009). For instance, Algeria has adopted CEDAW but reserves the right to enforce its family code over CEDAW's provisions. One place in which the Algerian family code may conflict with CEDAW is the code's restrictions on the residence of women. Australia has placed a reservation on the enforcement of CEDAW regarding paid maternity leave: it will not always provide paid maternity leave, even though CEDAW requires this benefit. Ireland reserves the right to provide more favorable benefits to women than men when Irish law requires this different treatment. Malaysia restricts the application of CEDAW when it would conflict with Malaysia's federal constitution and _sharia_ law. Mexico has agreed to enforce CEDAW in line with its economic resources. The United Kingdom places a reservation on CEDAW so that it will not apply to its royalty, including determination of succession.

Many of the stated reservations to CEDAW preserve cultural or religious traditions or require consideration of economic resources. Some countries also reserve the right to favor women for social welfare benefits and determination of child custody. The positive aspect of so many countries adopting CEDAW is the clear recognition that discrimination against women is not right. But by placing reservations on the enforcement of CEDAW, those countries that have formally approved CEDAW may not actually enforce key provisions of the convention.

Developments After CEDAW

Events after CEDAW continued to highlight its goals. In 1985, the third World Conference on Women was held in Nairobi, with the purpose of evaluating the current status of women. The conference delegates concluded that much still needed to be done and devised strategies for improving conditions for women. The final document of the Nairobi conference, known as the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women, identified areas of concern to women and children, including violence, poverty, health, and education (Reichert 1996, 1998). Key points of this documents state that

• Women's universal oppression and inequality are grounded in a patriarchal system that ensures the continuance of female subservience and secondary status everywhere.

• Women do two-thirds of the world's work, yet two-thirds of the world's women live in poverty. This work is usually unpaid, underpaid, and invisible. Women's fiscal dependency thus is perpetuated, even though women do almost all the world's domestic work, as well as work outside the home, and grow half the world's food.

• Although women are the world's peacemakers, they have no voice in arbitration. War takes a heavy toll on them and their families as they struggle to hold them intact in the face of physical and mental cruelty that leaves more women and children tortured, maimed, and killed than men in combat.

• Sexual exploitation of girls and women is universal, often resulting in sexual domination and abuse throughout women's lives.

• Women provide more health care (both physical and emotional) than all the world's health services combined. Women are the chief proponents of preventing illness and promoting health. Yet women enjoy fewer health care services, are likely to experience chronic exhaustion due to overwork, and are likely to be deprived emotionally and physically by their men, their families, their communities, and their governments (Wetzel 1993).

• Women are the chief educators of the family; yet women out-number men among the world's illiterates at a ratio of three to two. Even when educated, women generally are not allowed to lead.

The Forward-Looking Strategies document also viewed domestic violence as a learned behavior that would harm future generations. Delegates urged governments to increase antiviolence services for women and to hold perpetrators of violence legally accountable.

After the conference in Nairobi, the notion that "women's rights are human rights" became the central tenet of thousands of advocates all over the world. In 1993, at a world human rights conference in Vienna, women from all over the world presented UN delegates with a petition that demanded the recognition of violence as an abuse of women's rights. The final declaration at the Vienna conference affirmed that women's rights are human rights (Heise 1995), which for the first time, many governments officially recognized (Bunch 1995). Gender-based violence and all forms of sexual harassment and exploitation, including those resulting from cultural prejudice and international trafficking, were acknowledged as incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and thus must be eliminated (Vienna Declaration 1993). While many statements flowed from the Vienna conference, its overriding significance clearly was the recognition that "the human rights of women and the girl child are an inalienable, integral, and indivisible part of universal human rights."

Two years later, in 1995, at the World Summit for Social Development, governments acknowledged that to combat poverty and social disintegration, women would have to attain equality and that poverty was a form of violence against women (UN 1995).

Finally, in September 1995, the much-publicized fourth UN World Conference on Women took place in Beijing. At that conference, delegates realized that many of the strategies developed ten years earlier at Nairobi to promote the status of women and children had not been effective. Women continued to be affected disproportionately by violence, poverty, illiteracy, and poor health, and they still occupied only a small minority of leadership positions. In the hope of accelerating progress in advancement of women's rights, delegates adopted a final document, referred to as the Platform for Action (PFA), which expressly states that women's rights are human rights. The platform covers twelve areas of concern affecting the well-being of women and girls. In addition to violence, the platform addresses poverty, health, armed and other conflicts, education, economic participation, power sharing and decision making, national and international mechanisms, mass media, environment and development, and the social role and treatment of girls (UN 1996). The PFA is the most supportive official statement on women ever issued by the United Nations and reflects the sentiment that all issues are women's issues.

The PFA reflects an extensive grassroots effort by nongovernmental organizations and women from all areas of the world, not simply economically developed countries. The platform addresses the oppression of women at all societal levels and provides a comprehensive strategy for the advancement of women. One of its major positions is elevating women's rights over cultural norms. Nonetheless, it has a nonbinding legal status and often cumbersome and unclear wording, and no government is obligated to follow its directives or strategies. Despite these shortcomings, the platform still is an admirable effort to present an agenda for the advancement of women in society.

After the Beijing conference, countries began to address areas of critical concern listed in the PFA. An evaluation process known as the Beijing + 5 Review was created to determine whether progress had been made five years after the conference. The Beijing + 5 Review involved a multitude of voices and perspectives, with the primary importance attached to actions, as opposed to words. In this respect, governments became aware that they had made little progress toward fulfilling the Beijing promises and were reluctant to make more commitments. The assessment of women's status also became more complex, with significant improvements in some areas for some women offset by economic decline and growing violence in others (Meillon and Bunch 2001, 134). Backlash may have entered into the governments' reluctance to pay greater attention to the PFA. Political leaders may have tired of hearing about women's difficulties and acted accordingly. The aspect of "globalization" also played a more significant role in the Beijing + 5 Review, with women in less economically developed countries encountering more conflict with women in wealthy countries. When resources are insufficient to implement even basic human rights, how can the focus be on equality in the workplace or other concerns typically found in wealthy societies?

Overall, the Beijing + 5 Review reaffirmed the Platform for Action, and governments pledged to implement areas of concern in the PFA. As with any area of human rights, women's rights can be enshrined in gold but will have little meaning if those rights are not recognized. Without understanding human rights and their importance, laws simply are not enough to ensure the actual recognition of human rights, especially for a vulnerable population like women.

Social Work Symposium on Human Rights and
Violence Against Women

From their inception, the UN's world conferences on women were structured to include both governmental and nongovernmental groups. Parallel to each of those conferences, nongovernmental organizations have held their own forums from which to present recommendations to conference delegates. The NGO Forum on Women at the Beijing conference included more than 30,000 participants, mainly women, from every corner of the world.

Earlier UN conferences on women had no organized meeting of social workers (Reichert 1998), even though the conferences' underlying themes addressed issues of great importance to social workers. To emphasize the importance of the social work profession in issues presented at the 1995 conference, Dr. Janice Wetzel organized a social work symposium on human rights to meet at the NGO forum. Joining Dr. Wetzel in sponsoring the symposium was the Women's Caucus of the International Association of Schools of Social Work, an NGO having consultative status with the United Nations. This symposium represented the first organized gathering of social workers in conjunction with a UN world conference on women (Reichert 1998), and its main goal was to bring together social workers from all parts of the world to exchange ideas and information.

Two hundred women and men from twenty-seven countries attended the symposium, which highlighted a human rights approach to counter the view that violence against women is a cultural norm. By emphasizing women's rights and human rights, participants hoped to create a common thread among social workers in response to violence. The symposium also encouraged governments to consider cultural background when taking measures against violence. Following the symposium, volunteers drafted a resolution to schools of social work and delegates attending the UN conference. This resolution consisted of a synthesis of programs initiated by women for personal, social, and economic development (Wetzel 1993, 1996):

1. _Look to the women: listen to the women_ : Always begin with the personal experiences of indigenous and local women, generalizing them to state, national, and international policies so that the connections between all forms of violence become clear.

2. _Require economic self-determination_ : Women must lead and define economic and development policies and programs that affect communities. Current policies leave women with a heritage of destruction in health, environment, education, livelihood, culture, and autonomy. Investment priorities must be in the human community.

3. _Free women from fear and domination_ : War, dislocation, and state-sponsored violence, as well as violence in the street and in the home, feed the epidemic. It is a fundamental human right of all women and children to live with respect and without fear.

4. _Value all women_ ' _s work_ : The invisibility and undervaluing of women's work inside and outside the home lead to women's status as the poorest, least educated, and most vulnerable to health problems, both physical and mental. Overwork and lack of pay impede human progress.

5. _Place women in decision-making positions_ : With women's personal development, relevant social development and action are not only possible but also appropriate and successful.

6. _Promote shared responsibilities in all forms of family and social partnerships_ : Human rights include equal sharing of home care and family care. Respect for all forms of human families is basic to promoting human rights and building healthy communities.

7. _Invest in health care and education_ : The prevention of women's physical and mental illness requires access to appropriate and affordable health services. Literacy, numeracy, and other forms of basic education improve women's economic status, delay pregnancies, and better educate future generations.

8. _Educate all women regarding their legal rights and other laws pertinent to them_ : Include in legal education the execution of critical analyses and the development of corrective laws and policies.

9. _Promote positive perceptions of and by women_ : Within the context of human rights, provide opportunities for women to share experiences, acknowledge differences, and recognize the value of diversity.

10. _Press for relevant gender-specific data collection and research:_ Consider new models, such as participative action research, in which women themselves select the issues and guide the design, analyses, and implementation of results.

These ten elements guide social workers all over the world in addressing women's issues and human rights. In conjunction with CEDAW, the Platform for Action, and other human rights documents, the resolution offers schools of social work a valuable tool in addressing human rights of women.

Figure 5.1

The Importance of Women's Human Rights to the
Social Work Profession

In bringing a gender perspective to the understanding of rights, women have struggled to ensure that all human rights—civil, political, economic, social, and cultural—are equally guaranteed to women. The promotion of gender perspective has resulted in increased recognition of interdependence among all human rights. By examining human rights through women's eyes, critical questions emerge: Who in society is a citizen? What are the criteria for consideration as a citizen? Are issues and themes accepted as "legitimate" political debate truly representative of the concerns of the majority of its citizens? All these questions relate to the recognition that women's rights are human rights.

How is the movement to recognize women's rights as human rights relevant to the social work profession? The profession's primary mission is to advocate and work on behalf of vulnerable populations. In regard to women, a human rights perspective helps illuminate the complicated relationship between gender and other aspects of identity such as race, class, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, culture, and refugee or migrant status.

Viewing women's and girl's lives within a human rights framework provides a new perspective. For example, the movement to draw attention to violence against women and girls came from article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The concept of human rights has helped define and articulate women's and girls' experiences of violations such as rape, female genital mutilation, and domestic violence. Understanding such violence in terms of human rights establishes that states and individuals are responsible for such abuse, whether committed in the public or the private sphere. A human rights perspective also addresses the issue of how to hold governments and individuals accountable when they are indifferent to such abuses. Human rights give women all over the world a common vocabulary by which they can define and articulate their specific experiences, entitling each person to human dignity.

The National Association of Social Workers recognizes the importance of human rights to women's issues and supports the following:

  * Ratification by the United States of CEDAW.
  * International programs that address women's rights as human rights, including involving women in each country in defining their needs, identifying their oppressions, and developing programs that meet their needs.
  * Increased attention by social work education to problems facing women around the world, often due to the effects of globalization and colonization, as well as traditional patriarchal structures. (NASW 2009, 371)

To be relevant to women or any group, human rights need official recognition by governments. Knowing about human rights is only the first step toward recognizing those rights. Legal processes must also actively enforce those rights. Unless women's rights are established as human rights, the role of women will always be secondary in overall societal structures. By promoting human rights for women, the social work profession will be working toward its mission of assisting vulnerable populations.

Questions

1. Should women be entitled to special human rights considerations?

2. What is meant by the phrase "women's rights are human rights"?

3. Give an example of how the difference of power can lead to gender discrimination.

4. What is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Do you believe this convention is necessary to eliminate discrimination against women? Discuss.

5. Should the United States become a party to CEDAW? Why or why not?

6. What is the significance to social work of the Social Work Symposium held in China during the fourth UN World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995?

7. Discuss the Platform for Action. Is the PFA important to the social work profession?

8. Do you believe the status of women has improved since the 1995 Beijing conference?

9. How can a human rights perspective promote the understanding of women's issues from a global perspective?

References

Bricker-Jenkins, M., N. Hooyman, and N. Gottlieb, eds. 1991. _Feminist Social Work Practice in Clinical Settings_. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bunch, C. 1991. Women's rights as human rights: Toward a re-vision of human rights. In _Gender Violence: A Development and Human Rights Issue_ , ed. C. Bunch and R. Carrillo, 3–18. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Women's Global Leadership.

——. 1995. Beijing backlash and the future of women's human rights. _Health and Human Rights: An International Quarterly Journal_ 1 (4): 449–53.

Bunch, C., and S. Frost. 2000. Women's human rights: An introduction. Available at www.cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/whr.html (accessed September 21, 2010). Originally published in _Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge_.

Conniff, R. 2002. _The Progressive_ interview: Richard Grossman. _The Progressive_ , March, pp. 32–36.

CEDAW. 1979. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. G.A. Res. 34/180, U.N. GAOR, 34th sess., supp. no. 46 at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, adopted September 3, 1981. New York: United Nations.

Cook, R. 1995. Gender, health, and human rights. _Health and Human Rights: An International Quarterly Journal_ 1 (4): 350–66.

Division for Advancement of Women. 2009. Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. CEDAW, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations-country.htm> (accessed June 11, 2009).

Friedman, A. 2009. When opting out isn't an option. _American Prospect_ , June, p. 18.

Goldstein, D. 2009. Pink-collar blues. _American Prospect_. June, pp. 19–21.

Heise, L. 1995. Violence against women: Translating international advocacy into concrete change. _American University Law Review_ 44: 1207–11.

Human Rights Watch World Report. 2001. _Events of 2000_. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Illinois Human Rights Act. 1992. 775 ILCS 5/1–101 et. seq.

Meillon, C., and C. Bunch, eds. 2001. _Holding on to the Promise: Women's Human Rights and the Beijing + 5 Review_. Rutgers, NJ: Center for Women's Global Leadership. Available at <http://www.cwgl.rutgers.edu/globalcenter/publications/holding.pdf> (accessed September 21, 2010).

Morsink, J. 1999. _The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent_. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 2009. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012_. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reichert, E. 1996. Keep on moving forward: NGO Forum on Women [4th UN World Conference on Women], Beijing, China [1995]. _Social Development Issues_ 18 (1): 61–71.

——. 1998. Women's rights are human rights: A platform for action. _International Social Work_ 15 (3): 177–85.

Rosen, R. 2007. Why working women are stuck in the 1950s. _The Nation_ , February 27. Available at <http://www.alternet.org/story/48370> (accessed February 27, 2007).

Shah, A. 2007. Women's Rights. Available at <http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights> (accessed March 17, 2009).

UN (United Nations). 1976. _Report of the World Conference of the International Women's Year_. June 19–July 1975, Mexico City. United Nations Publication no. E.76. IV.I (E/Conf.66/34). New York: United Nations.

——. 1980. _Report of the World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development, and Peace_. July 14–30, 1980, Copenhagen. United Nations Publications no. E.80.IV-3 (A/CONF. 94/35). New York: United Nations.

——. 1995. _World Summit for Social Development_. Washington, DC: U.S. State Department.

——. 1996. _The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action_. 4th World Conference on Women, September 4–15, 1995, Beijing. New York: UN Department of Public Information.

Van Wormer, K. 2001. _Counseling Female Offenders and Victims: A Strengths-Restorative Approach_. New York: Springer.

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. 1993. Second World Conference on Human Rights. New York: UN Department of Public Information.

Wetzel, J. 1993. _The World of Women: In Pursuit of Human Rights_. London: Macmillan.

——. 1996. On the road to Beijing: The evolution of the international women's movement. _Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work_ 11 (22) (summer): 221–36.
[ 6 ]

[Human Rights and Children,
Persons with Disabilities, Persons with
HIV-AIDS, Gays and Lesbians, Older
Persons, and Victims of Racism](contents.html#ch6)

Prejudice is a burden which confuses the past, threatens the future, and renders the present inaccessible.

—Maya Angelou, 1986

In addition to women, human rights documents address other specific groups, including children, persons with disabilities, persons with HIVAIDS, gays and lesbians, older persons, and victims of racism. These documents parallel the primary mission of the social work profession, which is assisting groups that may need particular interventions. An analysis of documents concerning specific groups gives social workers a basic understanding of how human rights principles relate to those groups.

Children and Human Rights

From a social work and human rights perspective, children need special protection because of their fragile state of development. Compared with most adults, children are much more susceptible to abuse and neglect, and in many countries, they occupy a special status in need of protection because of their earlier stage of development. Individual states within the United States have created agencies with the specific goal of protecting children from abuse and neglect. For example, the Department of Children and Family Services in Illinois oversees the safety of children and views the following as their basic rights:

  * The right to be protected against neglect, cruelty, abuse, and exploitation.
  * The right to safe housing, health care, and education that prepare them for the future.
  * The right to be a unique person whose individuality is protected from violation.
  * The right to prepare for the responsibilities of parenthood, family life, and citizenship.
  * The right to maintain relationships with people who are important to them.
  * The right to a stable family.
  * The right to safe, nurturing relationships intended to last a lifetime. (Illinois Department of Children and Family Services 2001)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN documents echo a similar need to protect children, who, by reason of physical and mental immaturity, need special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, both before and after birth (UN, General Assembly 1989). In view of this need for special protection regarding children, the United Nations drafted the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Convention on the Rights of the Child

On November 29, 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, General Assembly 1989), which specifies the basic rights that every child should enjoy. To date, almost every member country of the United Nations is a party to the convention, with the United States being the sole, conspicuous, holdout.

_Preamble_

In the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, countries that are party to the convention recognize that "in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration." States acknowledge the "importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child" and further recognize the "importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries." As with any human rights document, merely adopting the document does not mean that a country will actually fulfill the duties specified in the document. But the hope is that a country will take human rights obligations seriously, especially when it legally commits to doing so.

_Specific Rights in the Convention_

Many of the convention's rights appear to be Western oriented, but in general, few countries could legitimately quibble about their universality.

• _Definition of child_ : Every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, his or her majority is attained earlier (art. 1). This definition of a child leaves open the possibility that a particular state may define a child as having reached adulthood before the age of eighteen. In the United States, one example of a child being treated as an adult before the age of eighteen is the prosecution of a child under that age as an adult in serious felony cases.

• _Nondiscrimination_. States shall not discriminate against a child, regardless of the child's—or the child's parents or guardians—"race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic, or social origin, property, disability, birth, or other status" (art. 2, para. 1). This nondiscrimination provision includes property status as a prohibited circumstance. In other words, lower-income families are entitled to nondiscriminatory treatment regarding education, medical coverage, and other basic human rights.

• _Best interests of child_. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1).The convention does not define the "best interests" of a child, however, which leaves open all types of interpretations by the parties to the convention. A reasonable interpretation would be that the interests or needs of the child must be considered in all matters concerning custody, guardianship, juvenile detention, and other institutional arrangements. These provisions do not appear to affect decisions by parents or guardians in a private family situation as long as those decisions do not harm the child.

• _Economic, social, and cultural rights_. With regard to economic, social, and cultural rights, states shall take measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, when needed, within the framework of international cooperation (art. 4).

• _States to respect parents and guardians_. States shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents, legal guardians, and, when applicable, members of the extended family or community, in the provision of rights recognized by the convention (art. 1). This provision clearly requires states not to interfere with parents or guardians in raising their children. However, parents and other responsible parties are to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child." This qualification allows states to intervene when parents are not able, for whatever reason, to take care of their child.

• _Inherent right to life_. Every child has the inherent right to life, and states shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child (art. 6).

• _Right to name and nationality_. Every child has the right to a name, nationality, and, as far as possible, to know and be cared for by the child's parents (art. 7, para. 1). This provision imposes a duty on parents to care for their children. States must also respect the right of a child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name, and family relations, without unlawful interference (art. 8). Past examples of stripping a child of his or her identity include the forced relocation of Native American and aboriginal children to adoptive families outside the child's birthright culture. In Australia, this practice—with its obvious purpose of ridding the country of future aboriginal generations—lasted until the 1970s.

• _Separation from parents._ States may not separate a child from the child's parents unless competent authorities subject to judicial review determine that separation is necessary for the best interests of the child (art. 9, para. 1). Separation may be necessary in cases of abuse or neglect and in cases when the parents live separately and a decision must be made as to the child's residence. A child separated from one or both parents has the right to maintain personal relations and direct, regular contact with both parents, unless that contact is contrary to the child's best interest (art. 9, para. 3). This right to maintain contact with both parents also applies when the parents reside in different countries (art. 10, para. 2). To prevent the improper or illegal nonreturn of a child, the convention requires states to "take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad" (art. 11, para. 1). But what one country considers "illicit" may not be the same as another country's view of that term.

• _Right to express views._ A child "capable of forming his or her own views" shall have the right to express those views with due weight given in accordance of the child's age and maturity (art. 12, para. 1). This rule particularly applies to any judicial or administrative proceeding affecting the child (art. 12, para. 2).

• _Right to freedom of expression._ A child shall have the right to "freedom of expression," which includes the freedom to "seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of child's choice" (art. 13, para. 1). A state may restrict this broad grant of freedom of expression in regard to the respect of the rights or reputations of others and to the protection of national security, public order, public health, or morals (art. 13, para. 2). States should encourage the mass media to make available to children all types of information, especially that promoting children's social, spiritual, and moral well-being (art. 17). This availability of information will vary from country to country. Should a fifteen-year-old child be free to view violent films, as is common in the United States? Under the convention, a state could restrict this freedom by claiming the restriction necessary to protect public morals.

• _Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and association._ The convention provides that a child has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (art. 14). A child also has the right to freedom of association an assembly (art. 15). While these rights appear broad enough to allow all types of mischievous activity, they are not open-ended. Reference to these rights should always mean that countries may protect the public order, health, and morals. Therefore, a child cannot simply do whatever he or she wants in regard to expression and association when his or her country has reasonable policies against actions that would violate the public order, health, and morals.

• _Right to privacy._ A child has the right to be free from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family home, or correspondence (art. 16). The terms _arbitrary_ and _unlawful_ restrict this provision to what is reasonable and lawful. In other words, children do not have unrestricted privacy in the family home, which essentially would allow them to dictate their parents' living conditions.

_Does the Convention on Rights of the Child Go Too Far?_

The idea that children would turn into unmitigated monsters if the United States ratified and implemented the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child seems to be the United States' major objection to the convention. Family psychologist and syndicated newspaper columnist John Rosemond presented this view of the convention:

In February 1993, President Clinton signed an international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It extended to children a host of privileges, including freedom of association, freedom of access to information (of all sorts, without restriction), and in essence, freedom from punishment.

Needless to say, the document sent me into apoplexy. Thankfully, it was immediately assigned to legislative limbo by Sen. Jess Helms. (Rosemond 2002, D5)

Comparing the convention's actual provisions with Rosemond's comments makes it clear why negative publicity can be instrumental in determining the outcome of human rights conventions in the United States. Rosemond has a broad audience but unfortunately does not portray the child convention accurately. His language is lively and easy to grasp and persuasive, but it exaggerates the convention's actual provisions. Under the convention, parents retain responsibility for their children, who do not have the right to dictate conditions of their upbringing. This failure to critically analyze language in UN human rights documents can lead to unfounded conclusions.

• _Parental responsibility_. Provisions of the convention may appear to favor children's having free rein in their development (art. 18, para.1), but parents and guardians have the primary responsibility for their children's upbringing, with their basic concern being the children's best interests. To help the parents with their responsibilities, the states should offer them appropriate assistance and ensure the development of "institutions, facilities, and services for the care of the children," including child care (art. 18, para. 2–3).

• _Protection against abuse_. States shall take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, neglect, maltreatment, or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians, or caretakers (art. 19). Many countries already have provisions relating to abuse and neglect that are similar to those in the convention, although the level of state assistance may vary (Reichert and McCormick 1997).

• _Adoption_. For those states that recognize or permit the adoption of children, the convention provides guidelines to ensure that the adoption proceedings take into account the best interests of the children (art. 21). With respect to intercountry adoption, the convention requires countries to ensure that the placement of a child does not result in "improper financial gain" for those involved (art. 21[ _d_ ]. The convention also requires countries to take appropriate measures to protect children seeking refugee status (art. 22).

_Children with disabilities_. Children with mental or physical disabilities "should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions, which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community" (art. 23).

_Education and training_. States must provide education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment, and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child's achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development (art. 23, para. 3). States shall exchange information relating to the treatment of children with disabilities, with the purpose of helping countries, particularly developing countries, improve their capabilities and skills in this area (para. 4). While the convention lists admirable goals of assisting children with disabilities, the difficulty of achieving these goals obviously depends on sufficient resources, which often are lacking. States agree that the education of the child shall include the _development_ of the child's personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential (art. 29, para. 1[ _a_ ]); _respect_ for human rights and fundamental freedoms (1[b]); _respect_ for the child's parents, cultural identity, language, values, country, and other civilizations (1[ _c_ ]); preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society (1[ _d_ ]); and development of respect for the natural environment (1[ _e_ ]).

_The Hague Convention on Adoption_

To put into effect the convention's provisions for rights of children regarding adoption, the United Nations drafted a document known as The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption. The United States and numerous other countries have enacted this convention into law, which provides oversight on international adoption proceedings.

The Hague Convention:

  * Requires those countries party to the convention to establish a central authority to be the authoritative source of information and point of contact in that country. In the United States, this central authority is the U.S. State Department.
  * Aims to prevent the abduction, sale of, or traffic in children and works to ensure that intercountry adoptions are in the best interests of the children.
  * Recognizes intercountry adoption as a means of offering the advantage of a permanent home to a child when a suitable family has not been found in the child's country of origin.
  * Provides a formal international and intergovernmental recognition of intercountry adoption (U.S. Department of State 2009).

The Hague Convention on Adoption is an important step in ensuring that intercountry adoptions take place under conditions that safeguard the child to be adopted. Both the prospective parents and the biological parents of the child also obtain important rights under the convention by requiring a detailed analysis of the adoption situation from all sides. While this may require additional funding by governments and agencies subject to the convention, the result may be less abuse of adopted children.

• _Social welfare_. Children are entitled to adequate health care (art.24); treatment for mental health (art. 25); social security (art. 26); an adequate standard of living, including nutrition, clothing, and housing (art. 27); and primary education (art. 28).

• _Right to culture and religion._ Children belonging to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority or children of indigenous origin shall be allowed to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language (art. 30). This protection guards against children's being deprived of important attributes of their development. This right would prevent a child's parents from removing him or her from an indigenous culture without the child's mature and educated consent. Children should also be allowed to use their native language, which may not always be the country's prevailing language.

• _Right to rest and recreation._ A child has the right to rest and leisure, recreation, and participation in cultural and artistic life (art. 31). This right should be viewed in conjunction with age-specific activities, meaning that the activity must match the age of the child.

• _Ban against exploitation of children._ States may not exploit children and must protect them from performing work likely to be hazardous or harmful to them or work that interferes with their education (art. 32). States must take measures to protect children from improper drug use and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of prohibited drugs (art. 33). States undertake to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse (art. 34), including the abduction or sale of children for any purpose (art. 35). These human rights appear self-evident, and few countries would disagree with them.

• _Ban against torture or other inhuman punishment._ No child may be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 37[ _a_ ]). Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release may be imposed for an offense committed by persons younger than eighteen years of age (art. 37[ _a_ ]). Children in detention or "deprived of liberty" shall be separated from adults unless it is in their best interests not to do so (art.37[ _c_ ]). Children deprived of liberty shall have the right to maintain contact with their family through correspondence and visits, unless exceptional circumstances restrict this contact (art. 37[ _c_ ]). Every child deprived of liberty shall have the right to legal and other appropriate assistance (art. 37[ _d_ ]).

• _Armed conflicts._ States must uphold and ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts and relevant to children (art. 38, para. 1). States must take all "feasible" measures to ensure that persons under fifteen years of age do not directly participate in "hostilities" (art. 38, para. 2). States shall refrain from recruiting into their armed forces any person who has not reached the age of fifteen (art. 38, para. 3). Even though these provisions apply to states and their governments, rebel groups or nongovernmental forces have no qualms about recruiting children under fifteen to fight in their conflicts (Beah 2007).

• _Right to dignity._ When a child is accused, or has been convicted, of violating a "penal law," states must recognize the child's right to be treated with dignity and worth and the desirability of promoting his or her reintegration into society (art. 40, para. 1). Specific safeguards are listed to ensure this right to dignity, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by law (art. 40, para. 2–3).

_Is the Convention on the Rights of the Child Necessary?_

Even before the United Nations drafted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, many countries had enacted laws to protect children from abuse and neglect. Why, then, would a country adopt the convention? Wouldn't the convention be seen as unnecessary and intrusive into the private matters of child rearing?

A significant majority of countries have adopted the convention and its expansive list of rights granted to children. Although some countries may place reservations or claim exceptions to the convention, governments all over the world clearly view the convention as an important benchmark for the treatment of children. The convention preserves cultural differences in child rearing and does not diminsh the primary role of parents or guardians in raising children. Uniformity in children's basic rights gives countries basic guidelines for protecting them. This uniformity serves to highlight the importance of children and brings attention to their needs. For those reasons, the convention has great value as a document that most countries have embraced rather than shunned.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child contains many human rights with the intent of protecting children and promoting their well-being. To satisfy these human rights, states would have to expend considerable resources, so they also should consider whether not devoting sufficient resources to children's rights could result in greater long-term costs to society.

_Other Provisions in Child Convention_

Other parts of the convention on the rights of child provides for a systematic evaluation of progress made by countries that have adopted the convention toward meeting their human rights obligations to children. This evaluation includes the submission of reports every five years to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. But as with many UN obligations, enforcement rests primarily with the member countries. If a country approves the convention but provides no means of legally enforcing its provisions, the purpose of the convention will have failed. The committee can report this noncompliance to the UN General Assembly, and perhaps the affected country will be shamed into doing better. But the UN has no sanctions for countries that approve the convention and then fail to enforce its provisions.

_U.S. Position on Child Convention_

The United States is one of only two countries that has not ratified or approved the convention on the rights of the child. (The other country is Somalia.) Certain provisions in the convention clearly contradict U.S. political and social policies, although the U.S. Supreme Court removed a major hurdle by banning capital punishment for minors ( _Roper v. Simmons_ , 2005). Perhaps as much as political reservations, though, the U.S. Senate would frown on guarantees of health care and other social welfare benefits. The existing legal framework concerning children in the United States may also contribute to the Senate's reluctance to even consider the convention. U.S. states generally enact their own laws regarding children and, in most circumstances, are not under the thumb of the federal government. If the United States ratified the convention, the federal government would have to enact laws to ensure that each state complied with its terms. In some countries, like Australia and Germany, laws affecting children already tend to be federal or uniform throughout the country. Undoubtedly, the U.S. federal government is reluctant to introduce a new set of laws covering a broad range of human rights that the states must then follow. For those and undoubtedly other reasons, even though President Bill Clinton signed the convention in 1993, the Senate continues to ignore the convention.

Yet the United States would have much to gain by ratifying the convention. At a minimum, state and local governments would have to pay more attention to children and their needs. While certainly the economic and social status of children in the United States is better than that in many countries, among similarly situated countries the United States does not fare so well. The poverty and infant mortality rates of children in the United States are much higher than those in other industrialized countries. The infant mortality rate, meaning the death of children in the first year of life, is higher in the United States than in any other industrialized country. And within the United States itself, infant mortality rates differ among racial groups, with African American infants' mortality rate being more than twice that of non-Hispanic whites (MacDorman and Mathews 2008). In addition, the U.S. child poverty rate in 2007 actually increased to 18 percent, from 17.4 percent in 2006 (Denavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2008). But by ratifying the convention, the United States would at least be acknowledging that children are entitled to special protection within a human rights framework.

_Social Work Position on Children's Rights_

The social work profession in the United States has a historic commitment to protectimg children through its comprehensive efforts to ensure their safety and healthy development. To promote these efforts, the National Association of Social Workers supports the following principles:

  * Children have the right to be treated with respect as individuals and to receive culturally sensitive services.
  * Immigrant children should have the same righs and protections as children who are citizens of the United States.
  * A comprehensive approach to the prevention of child abuse and neglect should include increased public awareness and availability of family support services, parenting education, and training for staff in identifying risk factors for children and families. Community-based services to enhance and support healthy family life include day care, recreation and leisure activities, parent education, counseling, case management, job training, physical health and mental health services, and adequate financial support for families.
  * Social work education and training should emphasize effective treatment for victims of child abuse and neglect, the psychological impact of trauma on a child's development, the specialized treatment needs of abused children, family-focused intervention, and community-based approaches to prevention.
  * The United States should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. (NASW 2009, 42–48)

The NASW now specifically supports ratification of the UN child convention and essentially follows the convention's human rights principles.

Racism

Perhaps no violation of human dignity and human rights ranks as high as racism or racial prejudice. In the 1950s and 1960s, many countries were formed through a decolonization process in which Western powers relinquished control over their colonies in Africa and Asia. Much of this colonization had resulted from racial and ethnic divisions, with the West often assuming a position of superiority over the people in their colonies. In recognition of this type of human rights violation, the UN drafted the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UN 1965). Racial discrimination means

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (art. 1)

As with most human rights conventions countering a violation, the intent or purpose of the action is only one factor making it a human rights violation. In addition to purpose, the effect of an action can also be a violation, without regard to the underlying purpose or intent.

The convention contains numerous articles that focus on preventing racial discrimination as just defined. While many countries have supported the convention, including the United States, racial discrimination clearly remains a major international human rights issue.

In 1978, a branch of the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), adopted the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (UN 1978), which addresses the importance of acknowledging racial and cultural diversity.

The UNESCO declaration notes that "all human groups, whatever their composition or ethnic origin, contribute according to their own genius to the progress of the civilizations and cultures." However, "racism, racial discrimination, colonialism, and apartheid continue to afflict the world in ever-changing forms," a result of government and administrative practices "contrary to the principles of human rights." In addition, "injustice and contempt for human beings" leads to the "exclusion, humiliation, and exploitation, or to the forced assimilation, of the members of disadvantaged groups." The declaration specifically notes that

• All human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock. They are born equal in dignity and rights, and all form an integral part of humanity (art. 1, para. 1).

• All individuals and groups have the right to be different, to consider themselves as different, and to be regarded as such. However, the diversity of lifestyles and the right to be different may not, in any circumstances, serve as a pretext for racial prejudice; they may not justify any discriminatory practice nor provide a ground for the policy of apartheid, which is the extreme form of racism (para. 2).

• Differences among the achievements of different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social, and cultural factors. Such differences can in no case serve as a pretext for any rank-ordered classification of nations or peoples (para. 5).

The intent behind these provisions is clear: No race or group may elevate itself over another.

Other provisions of the UNESCO declaration attack racial theories that promote an inherent superiority or inferiority of particular racial or ethnic groups. These theories have no "scientific foundation" and are "contrary to the moral and ethical principles of humanity" (art. 2, para. 1). Racial prejudice, historically linked with inequalities in power and reinforced by economic and social differences between individuals and groups, has no justification (art. 2, para. 3). Racial segregation and apartheid "constitute crimes against the conscience and dignity of mankind and may lead to political tensions and gravely endanger international peace and security" (art. 4, para. 3).

The declaration also addresses culture as a means to allow women and men to affirm that they are born equal in dignity and rights and to recognize that they should respect the right of all groups to their own cultural identity (art. 5, para. 1). The declaration then notes that it "rests with each group to decide in complete freedom on the maintenance, and if appropriate, the adaptation or enrichment of the values which it regards as essential to its identity" (art. 5, para. 1). Does this mean that, for example, if a culture approves the practice of genital mutilation in young girls, other cultures should not contest this practice as cruel and degrading treatment? What about spouse battering, infanticide, honor killings, or the death penalty? At some point, a balance between culture and human rights has to be achieved. But where do cultures draw the line between human rights violations and culturally acceptable practices that infringe on generally accepted human rights provisions? This dilemma is more fully explored in chapter 7 in regard to cultural relativism.

States have a responsibility to see that educational resources of all countries are used to combat racism (art. 5, para. 2). Mass media are urged to promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among individuals and groups within "due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly the principle of freedom of expression" (para. 3). The declaration also places on the state the "prime responsibility for ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms" for all individuals and groups (art. 6, para. 1). States should take steps to prohibit and eradicate racism and to encourage dissemination of knowledge and the findings of appropriate research on the causes and prevention of racial prejudice and racist attitudes (para. 2).

The UNESCO declaration makes no pretenses about merely relying on laws to fight racial prejudice and racism. "Since laws prohibiting racial discrimination are not in themselves sufficient," states must supplement them with

  * Administrative machinery for the systematic investigation of instances of racial discrimination.
  * A comprehensive framework of legal remedies against acts of racial discrimination.
  * Broadly based education and research programs designed to combat racial prejudice and racial discrimination.
  * Programs of positive political, social, educational, and cultural measures calculated to promote genuine mutual respect among groups. (para. 3)

When circumstances warrant, states should establish programs to promote the advancement of disadvantaged groups and, in the case of nationals, to ensure their effective participation in the community's decision-making processes (para. 3). States should also try to contribute to the restructuring of the international economy on a more equitable basis (para. 4). This particular statement appears to be aimed squarely at the United States and European countries. The haves, meaning the Western countries, contribute to racism and racial prejudice by excluding the have-nots from a more equitable global economy.

The declaration also places responsibility on individuals to combat racism. Individuals have duties to their fellow human beings and are obligated to promote harmony among peoples, to combat racism and racial prejudice, and to assist in eradicating racial discrimination (art. 8, para. 1).

Unquestionably, declarations like the UNESCO document on racism are controversial. Why are Western countries always singled out for criticism? These countries may argue that their governments are the most diligent in enacting laws against racial and ethnic discrimination. The problem seems to lie in the historical background to the current imbalance in the West's economic positions versus those of other regions of the world. The World Conference against Racism held in 2001 issued the following statements:

We acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, were appalling tragedies in the history of humanity not only because of their abhorrent barbarism but also in terms of their magnitude, organized nature, and especially their negation of the essence of victims. . . .

We also acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the trans-Atlantic slave trade. . . .

Slavery and the slave trade are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, and that Africans and people of African descent, Asians and people of Asian descent, and indigenous peoples were victims of these acts and continue to be victims of their consequences.

The World Conference also recognizes that colonialism led to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and that Africans and people of African descent, people of Asian descent, and indigenous peoples were victims of colonialism and continue to be victims of its consequences. The World Conference, aware of the moral obligation by all concerned states, calls on them to take appropriate and effective measures to halt and reverse the lasting consequences of those practices (Associated Press 2001).

While this wording may appear harsh to those who trace their roots to colonial ancestors, some Africans felt that it did not go far enough and demanded an explicit apology and specific promises of compensation from Europe to make up for past wrongs (Swarns 2001). The Europeans, however refused to apologize explicitly, fearing an apology might open the door to lawsuits. They also refused to endorse unconditional debt cancellation and compensatory foreign aid.

In 2009, a review conference met in Switzerland to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of measures adopted at the 2001 World Conference (Durban Review Conference 2009). The conference then produced an outcome document reaffirming the goals of the 2001 conference and encouraging countries to continue taking measures to counter racism, xenophobia, and related human rights violations. The 2009 conference acknowledged that some measures had been taken to combat racism since the Durban conference but that much more needed to be done in this area.

Issues of racism also resonate throughout the social work profession. Social workers everywhere will inevitably face this ugly phenomenon. The profession supports an inclusive society in which racial, ethnic, social, sexual orientation, and gender differences are valued and respected. NASW advocates policies aimed at reducing racism: policies focusing on education, employment, housing and community, health care and mental health services, public welfare services, social services, criminal justice, and political activity. NASW believes that the profession should develop guidelines to emphasize social work as a profession that strives to empower those with less power because of racial or ethnic identification (NASW 2009, 281–90).

Persons with Disabilities

Another group that has received specific protection in the area of human rights is that of persons with disabilities. In 2006, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was ready for signing in March 2007 (UN 2009). On the opening day for signatures, eighty-two countries signed the convention, the most for any UN convention on the first day of signing. This convention is also the first human rights convention opened for signature by regional organizations.

The convention marks a major shift in attitudes and approaches to persons with disabilities by moving away from the view that persons with disabilities are objects of charity and social protection. Instead, persons with disabilities are viewed as persons who have rights and who are capable of claiming those rights and making decisions for their lives based on free and informed consent (UN 2009).

A previous 1975 declaration by the United Nations on persons with disabilities contained language that now might now be frowned on (UN, General Assembly 1975). For instance, contemporary terminology now prefers "persons with disabilities," not "disabled persons." It is not the person who is disabled. Rather, the person simply has a disability. The 2006 convention makes this clear.

Specific guiding principles of the 2006 convention relating to persons with disabilities are

  * Respect for inherent dignity of persons with disabilities, including individual autonomy and freedom of the person to make his or her own choices.
  * Nondiscrimination provisions intended to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities.
  * Full and effective participation and inclusion in society.
  * Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity.
  * Equality of opportunity.
  * Accessibility to social and cultural institutions.
  * Equality between men and women with disabilities.
  * Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities. (UN 2009)

Even before the convention, many countries had already attempted to follow at least some of these guiding principles. As a matter of policy and practice, social workers in the United States should advocate for the rights of people with disabilities to participate fully and equitably in society. These rights include the right to live independently, enjoy the rights of full societal membership, exercise self-determination, and have full participation in issues related to education, housing, transportation, work, health care, social services, and other public accommodations (NASW 2009, 247–51).

Typically, the U.S. federal government has taken no action toward ratifying the UN convention on disabilities. The government may consider itself already in the forefront in providing more humane treatment for persons with disabilities. But this does not excuse its failure to ratify the convention. The United States would only enhance its standing by recognizing the UN convention on persons with disabilities. This go-it-alone mentality among U.S. politicians serves no valid purpose from a human rights perspective.

In addition to the convention on disability, other human rights documents address persons with mental disabilities, including the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Care (UN, General Assembly 1991), which emphasize the need to protect the dignity and respect of those with mental illness. As with most human rights issues, NASW also has issued a detailed statement on mental health. Its position is that everyone residing in the United States shall be entitled to mental health care. Social workers play a key role in educating the public about mental illness, in order to foster prevention, encourage early identification and intervention, promote treatment, and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness (NASW 2009, 229–37).

Persons with HIV-AIDS

One of the more troubling developments in the world since the early 1980s has been the spread of HIV-AIDS. This disease now afflicts people in all parts of the world, particularly in sub-Saharan African and regions of Asia. Persons with HIV-AIDS often encounter discrimination, especially because the disease is associated with gays and prostitutes.

Recognition that HIV-AIDS is now a world problem and that persons with the disease are deserving of protection came in June 2001 when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to combat AIDS (UN 2001). Highlights of that resolution were a wide range of proposals to help those with HIV-AIDS in areas of discrimination, treatment, education, prevention, and funding of programs. The 2001 resolution to combat HIV-AIDS incorporated key concepts of human rights to assist society, including international cooperation to provide adequate medical care. This use of human rights to acknowledge and address the suffering caused by this worldwide disease demonstrates the attention that the human rights approach can bring to an issue. In 2006, the United Nations made a political declaration on HIV/AIDS that reaffirmed the 2001 resolution and also underscored the need to provide universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support (UN 2006).

Because HIV-AIDS has become a mainstream disease, NASW believes the social work profession in the United States should make efforts to mitigate the overwhelming psychological and social effects of the disease. These efforts should aim to eliminate the inequality of access to medical care and lack of education and prevention in the United States and other countries (NASW 2009: 171–76).

Gays and Lesbians

At present, the United Nations has had great difficulty finding a unified voice on adopting a human rights document specifically addressing issues involving gays and lesbians, other than in the context of HIV-AIDS. The most recent attempt to address homosexuality in the United Nations was in December 2008 when France sponsored a nonbinding declaration seeking to decriminalize homosexuality. The declaration condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, stating that such measures contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. About one-third of the countries in the UN supported the declaration. But an opposing statement supported by sixty countries rejected the proposed declaration on the basis that decriminalization of homosexuality undermined the international framework of human rights by trying to normalize pedophilia and other acts. The United States refused to support the declaration on the basis that it would infringe on the right of individual U.S. states to pass their own laws relating to issues like gay marriage (Macfarquhar 2008).

As this proceeding shows, protection from abuse has remained elusive for lesbians, gay men, and bisexual or transgendered people, despite the underlying premise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. In the United States, prejudice against lesbians, bisexual people, and gay men remains prevalent. Discrimination based on sexual orientation in critical areas of employment, education, credit, and housing remains lawful in most jurisdictions, and several states do not allow lesbians or gays to adopt children. NASW's position is that the same-gender sexual orientation should be afforded the same respect and rights as the other-gender orientation. Discrimination and prejudice directed against any group are damaging to the social, emotional, and economic wellbeing of the affected group and of society as a whole (NASW 2009, 218–22).

The irony concerning gays and lesbians is that the United Nations generally tends to be in the forefront in promoting human rights for various segments of society, though this is not the case concerning gays and lesbians. Many countries' religious and cultural practices frown on or even condemn homosexuality. Countries often claim that homosexuality is against religion and culture and, therefore, is not entitled to protection under any human rights theory. Certainly, the Universal Declaration emphasizes that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. How, then, can a country, group, or individual justify discrimination against gays and lesbians without violating human rights? Once again, the concept of cultural relativism comes into play: When culture conflicts with human rights principles, the idea that culture should always prevail is a simplistic way of settling the matter. Yet, cultural relativism can inflict serious harm on the affected individual or group.

Older Persons

A large part of society consists of persons sixty years or older. While many "older persons" live in well-off conditions, many do not. In 1999, the UN General Assembly issued a document entitled Principles for the Older Person (UN 1999), intended to ensure that priority would be given to circumstances relating to older persons, with particular reference to the following areas:

• _Independence_ : Older persons should have access to adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care through the provision of income, family and community support, and self-help. They should have the opportunity to work and to participate in deciding when to retire, and they should be able to live at home for as long as possible.

• _Participation_ : Older persons should remain integrated in society, participate actively in the formulation and implementation of policies that directly affect their well-being, and share their knowledge and skills with younger generations. They should be able to serve as volunteers in positions appropriate to their interests and capabilities and to form associations.

• _Care_ : Older persons should benefit from family and community care and have access to adequate and appropriate health care. They should have access to social and legal services to enhance their autonomy, protection, and care. When living in a shelter, care, or treatment facility, older persons should be able to enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms.

• _Self-fulfillment_ : Older persons should be able to pursue opportunities for the full development of their potential, and they should have access to their society's educational, cultural, spiritual, and recreational resources.

• _Dignity_ : Older persons should be able to live in dignity and security and be free of exploitation and physical or mental abuse. They should be treated fairly, regardless of age, gender, racial or ethnic background, disability or other status, and be valued independently of their economic contribution.

The social work profession supports policies that promote the well-being of older adults, including the promotion of health care, income resources, and government oversight of older persons (NASW 2009, 14–21). These policies are similar to the preceding principles.

_Distorted View of Elderly Could Promote Stereotype_

In many countries, the income and social status of older persons does not conform to the view of them as decrepit and destitute. Government programs like Social Security and Medicare help many elderly persons maintain a dignified lifestyle even if they have little or no private retirement income. Nonetheless, many elderly are capable of supplementing their government assistance with substantial private income invested during their working years. In other countries, similar income and support systems allow the elderly to maintain lifestyles and status unavailable to many nonelderly.

From a human rights viewpoint, it is important to acknowledge that many elderly persons actually have fewer obstacles to economic, social, and cultural security than other societal groups do. The stereotype of the frail, incapable older person is not correct, and such a distorted view has no place in society.

Summary of Human Rights and Particular Groups

The continual growth and importance of human rights becomes clear when considering the many areas in which the United Nations has already addressed specific human rights. The UN has frequently supported groups through declarations and other statements. While many of these documents can appear utopian or unrealistic, the intent is to raise awareness of particular groups and issues. Over time, greater attention to these groups can lead to improved conditions and relations within the overall society.

Questions

1. Should the United States ratify and implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Give reasons for your answer.

2. Should children receive special attention within a human rights framework?

3. Is it reasonable to devote the same level of resources to persons over age sixty as to those under age eighteen? Base your reasons on human rights principles.

4. Do UN documents concerning persons with disabilities expand the concept of human rights as listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

5. How does the treatment of HIV-AIDS fit under the umbrella of human rights?

6. Should a person's religious views that condemn gays and lesbians have priority over a legal ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians?

7. Should any group be entitled to special protection within a human rights context?

8. Do you believe the world has made progress in fighting racism during the last fifty years? Explain your answer.

References

Angelou, M. 1986. _All God_ ' _s Children Need Traveling Shoes_. New York: Vintage.

Associated Press. 2001. Excerpts from the documents adopted by the World Conference Against Racism. _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ , September 9, pp. A1, A10.

Beah, I. 2007. _A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier_. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Denavas-Walt, C., B. Proctor, and J. Smith. 2008. Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2007. Available at http://www.census.gov/prod/.2008pubs/p12–13 (accessed June 16, 2009).

Durban Review Conference. 2009. Available at www.un.org/durbanreview2009 (accessed September 21, 2010).

Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. 2001. Fostering Illinois: Linking families together for children's futures. _Our Kids_ , September 5, p. 3.

MacDorman, M., and T. Mathews. 2008. Data brief: Recent trends in infant mortality in the United States. Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs (accessed June 16, 2009).

Macfarquhar, N. 2008. In a first, gay rights are pressed at the U.N. _New York Times_ , December 19. Available at www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/world/19nations.html?r=1&ref=todayspaper (accessed June 19, 2009).

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 2009. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012._ 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reichert, E., and R. McCormick. 1997. Different approaches to child welfare: United States and Germany. _Journal of Law and Social Work_ 7 (1): 17–33.

Rosemond, J. 2002. Children's rights should include hearing "no" frequently. _Southern Illinoisan_ , March 17, p. D5.

_Roper v. Simmons_ , 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed. 2nd (2005).

Swarns, R. 2001. Conference calls for reversing consequences of slavery: UN meeting on racism ends in controversy. _St. Louis Post-Dispatch_ , September 9, pp. A1, A10.

UN (United Nations). 1965. General Assembly. International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Res. 2106 (XX), December 21.

——. 1978. Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. November 27. Available at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html1/menu3/b/d_prejud.htm> (accessed June 19, 2009).

——. 1999. Principles for the Older Person. Available at <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/un_principles.html> (accessed September 23, 2009).

——. 2001. Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS. UN resolution S-26/2.

June 27. Available at www.unaids.org (accessed June 19, 2009).

——. 2006. Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS. UN resolution 60/262. Available at www.unaids.org (accessed June 19, 2009).

——. 2009. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available at www.un.org/disabilities (accessed June 18, 2009).

UN (United Nations), General Assembly. 1975. Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. Res. 3447(XXX), December 9. Available at www.unhchr.ch/html1/menu3/b/72.htm (accessed June 19, 2009).

——. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child (U.N. Document A/Res/44/23). New York: United Nations.

——. 1991. Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. Res/46/119. December 17. Available at <http://www.unhchr.ch/html1/menu3/b/68.htm> (accessed June 19, 2009).

U.S. Department of State, Adoption. 2009. Overview. Available at <http://adoption.state.gov/hague/overview.html> (accessed September 21, 2010).
[ 7 ]

International Aspects of Human Rights

The future of our earth may depend on the ability of all [of us] to identify and develop new . . . patterns of relating across difference. The old definitions have not served us, nor the earth that supports us.

—Audre Lorde, 1995

The focus of the preceding chapters has been on human rights and social work in a single country, with particular emphasis on the United States. Since most social workers will not be working in other countries, it may seem that knowledge about human rights in a global perspective would have little importance, but nothing could be further from reality.

At the international level, the social work profession places great importance on the concept of human rights (Ife 2008). The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) states that social work is based on respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all people and on the rights that follow from this. Human rights documents particularly relevant to social work include

  * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  * The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  * The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights
  * The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
  * The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
  * The Convention on the Rights of the Child
  * The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention. (IFSW 2004)

From this statement by the IFSW, social workers must respect the basic human rights of individuals and groups as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights documents.

Human rights principles contemplate international cooperation and knowledge sharing as a means of realizing human rights for everyone. By recognizing the international aspect of human rights, social workers can establish connections to foreign counterparts and gain important knowledge about common social work issues.

The Global Perspective of Human Rights

Human rights do not exist in a vacuum or simply in a particular country. When considering human rights, it matters what happens in other countries because human rights do not stop at their borders. Therefore, what occurs in China is relevant to the exercise of human rights in the United States and other countries, just as what occurs in the United States is relevant to China and elsewhere.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses the interconnectedness of countries by stating that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which human rights can be realized (art. 28). This entitlement to a social and international order of human rights imposes obligations on all member countries of the United Nations. Countries must do what they can to promote human rights and create conditions in which human rights can flourish. As a member of the United Nations, the United States has a duty to help establish international norms that allow the exercise of human rights. With its enormous economic, military, and technological strength, the United States is better positioned than most countries to help achieve this goal. In addition to a social and international order that promotes human rights, the Universal Declaration states that everyone is entitled to the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable to dignity through national effort and international cooperation (art. 22). The United States, with its greater resources, has a duty to cooperate with other countries in bringing about this dignity.

_U.S. Law Requires Human Rights Reports on Other Countries_

A U.S. federal law requires the U.S. State Department to prepare annual human rights reports on almost every country. The State Department must then submit these reports to leaders of Congress (U.S. Department of State 2009).

Recent reports addressed "internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (U.S. Department of State 2009). The reports discussed the status of human rights in a particular country, with the focus on political and civil rights, including workers' rights. Other than whether a country practices free trade as interpreted by the United States, economic human rights rights are not otherwise evaluated.

The U.S. State Department has been issuing these human rights reports for years and not without some irony or hypocrisy. During the term of President George W. Bush (2000–2008), the reports highlighted words like _freedom_ and _democracy_. No acknowledgment of any U.S. shortcomings was evident in those reports. The most recent reporting period has come under President Barack Obama's watch, and the tone is more considerate of how other countries may view the U.S. practice of issuing human rights reports on other countries:

As we publish these reports, the Department of State remains mindful of both domestic and international scrutiny of the United States' record. . . . We do not consider views about our performance voiced by others in the international community . . . to be interference in our internal affairs, nor should other governments regard expressions about their performance as such. We and all other sovereign nations have international obligations to respect the universal human rights and freedoms of our citizens, and it is the responsibility of others to speak out when they believe those obligations are not being fulfilled. (U.S. Department of State 2009)

Would the United States really be so charitable to criticisms of its human rights records by others? Suppose the European Union each year prepared human rights reports on the United States, from not only a political perspective but also an economic and social viewpoint. The list of human rights violations could be quite lengthy, undoubtedly accompanied by outcries of "mind your own business" from U.S. politicians.

What exactly goes into the U.S. country reports on human rights practices? If a country tends to satisfy most human rights principles from a U.S. viewpoint, then the report will state that the country generally respects human rights. Inevitably, though, criticism follows. Consider the report on Germany:

The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens. The government limited the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association for groups deemed extremist. There was governmental and societal discrimination against some minority religious groups. Harassment of racial minorities and foreigners, anti-Semitic acts, violence against women, and trafficking in persons were problems. (U.S. Department of State 2009)

That is about as good as the reports get. Woe to a country like Iran, which can do nothing right:

[The] government of Iran intensified its systematic campaign of intimidation against reformers, academics, journalists, and dissidents through arbitrary arrests, detentions, torture, and secret trials that occasionally end in executions. Executions of defendants who were juveniles at the time of their arrest continued [something the United States also did until 2005—author's statement]. (U.S. Department of State 2009)

No doubt Iran deserves this criticism. But the problem with issuing all these reports is that members of Congress may become shielded from the human rights violations within their own backyard. If all they read are violations by others, a myopic viewpoint may become even more myopic and critical of other countries' human rights records. Indeed, this type of reporting could actually inhibit human rights, especially in the United States.

The right to an international order in which human rights can be realized poses great challenges to social workers. Many of them are not involved with international issues, but as a human rights profession, social work inevitably crosses paths with global concerns. Increasing contacts between governments and individuals of other countries have created significant areas of international responsibility for social work, as well as new challenges, by reshaping the social work environment in the following ways:

  * International social forces and events—most dramatically, the movement of populations—have changed the makeup of social agency caseloads and affected domestic practice in many countries, including the United States.
  * Both more and less economically developed countries now share social problems far more often than in previous decades, making mutual work and exchange increasingly desirable.
  * The actions of one country—politically, economically, and socially—now affect other countries' social and economic well-being as well as the overall social health of the planet.
  * Rapidly advancing technological developments in areas such as communications provide enhanced opportunities for the international sharing and exchanging of information and experiences. (Healy 2008, 4–5)

The changing social work environment provides numerous opportunities for social workers to reshape the profession into a more diverse and internationally oriented field. The NASW's code of ethics specifically notes that social workers should encourage respect for cultural and social diversity both in the United States and "globally" (NASW 1996, 6.04c). Other ethical responsibilities require social workers to extend their efforts to assist diverse populations both inside and outside the United States.

The increasing relevance of international issues to the social work profession creates a need for social work students to learn more about the international aspect of the profession. Human rights play a significant role in this area of study.

The Right to Development

Historically there has been strong resistance to the idea of a collective right to development: the right of people in poorer countries to a fairer share of global wealth and resources. The right to development means that wealthier countries, as well as international development agencies and financial institutions, are held accountable for the impact of poverty on human rights. Increasingly, the right to development is also understood to encompass the rights of people in poor and marginalized communities in developed countries.

From a U.S. or European perspective, the right to development may seem irrelevant or unimportant, but conditions in less economically developed countries often affect conditions in Western countries. Consider the circumstances surrounding the sale of illegal drugs brought from Mexico to the United States. If the U.S. demand for these drugs creates gangs or drug cartels that control these drugs, violence can easily affect not just Mexico but also the United States. Furthermore, the cultivation or manufacture of those drugs may be more profitable for those people living south of the U.S. border than other, more legitimate, types of employment. Without serious consideration by the United States of development issues and its own illegal drug use, the impact of the drug trade can cause great harm to U.S. society.

Another example of the interconnectedness of development issues was the threat of widespread anthrax attacks after the September 11, 2001, attack on New York's World Trade Center. Before that time, the United States usually insisted that poorer countries respect patents on HIV-AID drugs and pay premium prices for those drugs. But because a German company held a key patent on anthrax antidotes, the United States considered ways to avoid the patent and obtain the drugs more cheaply (Ford 2001). After September 11, the "United States and its allies finally gave in to Third World demands that poor countries facing epidemics such as AIDS should be allowed to sidestep international patent law so as to make or buy cheap generic drugs" (Ford 2001, 10).

Unless the haves of the world pay more attention to the have-nots, a system of "global apartheid" may be inevitable. Global apartheid refers to an

international system of minority rule whose attributes include: differential access to basic human rights; wealth and power structural racism, embedded in global economic processes, political institutions, and cultural assumptions; and the international practice of double standards that assume inferior rights to be appropriate for certain "others," defined by location, origin, race or gender. (Booker and Minter 2001, 11)

The wealthiest countries in the world have only a small part of the total world population but control the majority of its resources in cash terms and also dominate all major decision-making bodies (Alexander 1996). With this discrepancy in the distribution of resources, it is probably not a question of if, but when, the voices of the have-nots will become much louder.

Human rights principles require attention to the plight of the Third World and to obligations that wealthy countries have to the Third World. A right to development in a fair and equitable global system lies at the heart of human rights. In 1986 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development (UN 1986), which highlighted the human right of everyone to participate in economic, social, cultural, and political development. In addition, the declaration outlined countries' obligations to create national and international conditions favorable to the right to development. Specific parts of the declaration provide that

  * The right to development is an inalienable human right (art. 1, para. 1).
  * The right to development implies the full realization of peoples to self-determination, including the right to full sovereignty over natural wealth and resources (para. 2).
  * The human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development (art. 2, para. 1).
  * All human beings have a responsibility for development, and they should promote and protect an appropriate political, social, and economic order for development (para. 2).
  * States have the primary responsibility for creating national and international conditions favorable to the right to development (art. 3, para. 1).
  * States have a duty to cooperate with one another in ensuring development and obstacles to development. States should promote a new international order based on sovereign equality, interdependence, mutual interest, and cooperation. States should encourage the observance and realization of human rights (para. 3).
  * States have a duty to formulate international development policies that facilitate the right to development (art. 4, para. 1).
  * Sustained action is necessary to promote more rapid development of developing countries (para. 2).
  * States shall take steps to eliminate massive and flagrant violations of human rights resulting from apartheid, racism, racial discrimination, colonialism, foreign domination and occupation, and aggression (art. 5).
  * All human rights are indivisible and interdependent; states should give equal attention and urgent consideration to promotion of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights (art. 6, para. 2).
  * All states should promote international peace and security and do their utmost to completely disarm under effective international control (art. 7).
  * States shall ensure equality of opportunity for all concerning access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment, and the fair distribution of income. Effective measures should be undertaken to ensure that women have an active role in the development process (art. 8, para. 1).

Provisions of this declaration tend to be general and difficult to measure. For instance, "sustained action" to promote the more rapid development of developing countries does not specify what action should be taken. International aid programs often do little to improve the conditions of developing countries, yet a wealthy country providing international aid may believe that it is actually making sustained and effective efforts to develop other countries.

In September 2000, the United Nations passed a resolution known as the Millennium Declaration (UN 2000). This declaration incorporated concepts of the previous declaration on development but stressed broader goals in improving conditions around the world, particularly in less economically developed countries. The Millennium Declaration specifically mentioned the special needs of Africa, such as preventing and treating HIV/AIDS. In putting the declaration into practice, the UN defined eight goals to achieve by the year 2015:

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

2. Achieve universal primary education.

3. Promote gender equality and empower women.

4. Reduce child mortality.

5. Improve maternal health.

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.

7. Ensure environmental sustainability.

8. Develop a global partnership for development.

While few could object to provisions contained in the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Millennium Declaration, difficulties arise in actually measuring progress toward development and other conditions. Generally accepted statistics—such as gross domestic product (GDP)—do not adequately measure distribution and access to resources. Inequality of resources could be rampant within a country, even though its GDP ranks high among developing countries. To better indicate success in world development _and_ an end to global apartheid, the following ten targets provide specific objectives to measure success:

1. Everyone has enough to eat.

2. Everyone has access to clean water and sanitation.

3. Average life expectancy is equal, wherever you are born.

4. Everyone has access to adequate housing, learning, and health care.

5. Adult literacy is universal for men and women.

6. Everyone has an income sufficient to sustain life; income inequality is less than 1:15 worldwide—in other words, nobody earns more than 15 times what another person earns on a worldwide basis.

7. Average annual carbon dioxide emissions are below the sustainable level, estimated to be between 0.46 and 1.7 tons per person in every country.

8. All adults have a say in their government and equal representation in international institutions.

9. All have equal protection of the law.

10. All have equal freedom of movement worldwide. (Alexander 1996, 272)

Instead of relying on impersonal and misleading economic figures to measure a country's development, these measures provide a more complete picture of how a society is faring. In economic performance, the United States always comes out on top or close to the top when measured by such traditional yardsticks as GDP. But how does the United States perform when measured by the preceding ten targets? Certainly, it meets many of those goals—but not all. When measured on a worldwide basis, these targets appear almost impossible to achieve, but they are commendable and worthy of consideration.

The danger of not seriously addressing human development issues lies in the consequences of this neglect: Famine, disease, violence, civil war, terrorism, and many other ills have roots in the global apartheid just mentioned. Social workers thus have a great incentive to broaden their interests and devote their attention to international development.

_Millennium Development Goals: A Work in Progress_

After passing the Millennium Declaration, the United Nations has made a relatively sustained effort to define goals and implement measures to reach those goals. However, progress toward those goals has not been sufficient to meet all the commitments contained in the declaration. According to Ban Kimoon, the UN's current secretary-general,

Nine years ago, world leaders set far-sighted goals to free a major portion of humanity from the shackles of extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease. They established targets for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women, environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development.

We have made important progress in this effort and have many successes on which to build. But we have been moving too slowly to meet our goals.

We cannot allow an unfavorable economic climate to undermine the commitments made in 2000. On the contrary, our efforts to restore economic growth should be seen as an opportunity to take some of the hard decisions needed to create a more equitable and sustainable future.

The global community cannot turn its back on the poor and the vulnerable. We must strengthen global cooperation and solidarity, and redouble our efforts to reach the MDG's and advance the broader development agenda. Nothing less than the viability of our planet and the future of humanity are at stake. (UN 2009, 3)

The most recent global economic slowdown has made advancement toward the millennium goals even more difficult. And some of the progress that has been made is less evident in sub-Saharan Africa.

Despite concerns that the millennium goals will not be met by the target date of 2015, perhaps the most important aspect of the declaration has been the worldwide commitment to meeting those goals. This commitment reflects concern by the global community that inequality among countries works to the detriment of all.

International Human Rights Issues Relating to Social Work

In contrast to the broad issues of economic aid and social development, specific international human rights issues relating to the social work profession include cultural relativism, globalization, self-determination, social exclusion, and global apartheid. This list of issues is by no means complete, and social workers may encounter many other circumstances that involve cross-cultural issues of human rights. But by understanding concepts like cultural relativism, social workers will be better positioned to address other international human rights issues.

_Cultural Relativism_

In a strictly technical sense, human rights promote the idea of universality, which, in its extreme form, means that human rights apply to every country and individual without exception. This technical view of human rights has limitations, however, as difficulties often arise when applying or interpreting human rights in a particular cultural setting. Obviously, not all cultures are the same, which presents the dilemma of determining the role that culture should play in promoting human rights. If a country's cultural norm prevents women from holding political office, should human rights principles of nondiscrimination overrule that cultural norm? Supporters of cultural relativism would claim that culture should prevail over any universal application of human rights. Yet the Platform for Action adopted by the United Nations in 1995 elevates human rights above cultural norms when those norms inhibit or hinder the human rights of women (UN 1996). For example, it is a human right that women not be discriminated against, on the basis of gender, in the workplace and participation in government. Therefore, if local custom frowns on women holding political positions, enforcement of this custom could be a human rights violation.

Cultural relativism received its greatest prominence as a means to counter colonialism. In the 1800s, colonizers believed that their culture was superior to those of their colonies. But in the 1900s, anthropologists questioned this cultural superiority and insisted that each culture had value in itself, a view that at the time appeared innovative and progressive (Roth Pierpont 2004).

In cultural relativism, all points of view are equally valid, and any truth is relative; that is, the truth belongs to the individual or her or his culture. All ethical, religious, and political beliefs are truths related to the cultural identity of the individual or society. Cultural relativism is appropriate in some aspects; for instance, language, food, clothing, art, and architecture differ from one culture to another, and it is desirable to maintain these differences (Pasamonik 2004). Also, cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that none of them can be understood or evaluated without reference to the others and to the cultural whole, the so-called pattern of culture (Lawson 1998, 13).

The phrase "cultural relativism" often creates confusion when discussing human rights. Simply stated, cultural relativism refers to a view that all cultures are equal and that universal values are secondary when examining cultural norms. No outside value is superior to that of the local culture. If the local culture allows female genital mutilation, then the human right prohibiting cruel or degrading treatment should not prevent it. If the culture accepts genital mutilation, then no outside principle should overrule the cultural norm.

When an uninsured American does not receive adequate medical treatment for an illness because he or she cannot afford it, the local culture and legal system should accept that, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to adequate medical care. This is another example of cultural relativism.

The problem with an uncritical acceptance of cultural relativism is the reluctance to examine the societal structure that creates the cultural norm. In discussing cultural relativism, a key question to ask is, Who defines culture and cultural norms (Rao 1995). Whose voices contribute, or are allowed to contribute, to the definition of culture and activities appropriate to that culture? Using the example of not allowing women to participate in policymaking, some might claim that women are not harmed or human rights are not violated under this cultural norm. However, exclusion from a vital societal function can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement, which does violate human rights principles. The claim that women have not participated in policymaking for centuries or decades does not necessarily justify this cultural norm, especially if women have never been allowed to voice their opinions of this norm.

The following are other examples of dilemmas that social workers could encounter in the cultural relativism versus universality debate on human rights:

• A female Cambodian immigrant living in a U.S. city asks for help at a shelter for battered women. The local Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association criticizes this shelter, charging that its focus on counseling the woman on her rights and on preparations for independence are destroying the fabric of Cambodian family and social life.

• Iranian social work educators were instrumental in bringing family planning services to Iran in the 1970s. Were the mullahs right that this represented a fundamental threat to the Islamic way of life, or was it essential practice to meet the needs of women and their families?

• West Indian politicians in a U.S. city speak out against the child protection agency's investigations of child abuse in families using corporal punishment, asserting that West Indians don't want their children to grow up undisciplined.

• Local community development workers in Bangladesh encounter a group of enraged local leaders, charging that their micro-enterprise and literacy programs for women are destroying family roles and violating the Koran [Qur'an].

• Efforts to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment for gays and lesbians encounter hostility in Jamaica, Zimbabwe, the United States, and elsewhere. (Healy 2008, 242)

For a Western-oriented social workers, their positions on these situations may seem obvious: Men should not beat women; women should have the family-planning information available if desired; parents should not hit children as a form of discipline; women should be permitted to learn how to read and to have their own business; and gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination. Yet in applying human rights principles, social workers should consider and learn about the cultural aspect of any given particular situation. To do this, a knowledge of culture is crucial.

Like universality, cultural relativism has limits. Balancing of divergent interests is key to addressing these concepts of human rights. The usual criticism of cultural relativism focuses on "Westerners" trying to impose their views on "non-Westerners." But when Western societies use cultural relativism as a mitigating factor within their own societies, a backlash can occur. "In Germany, in August 1997, an 18-year-old woman was burnt to death by her father for refusing to marry the man he had chosen. A German court gave [the father] a reduced sentence, saying he was practicing his culture and religion" (Namazie 1998).

According to one speaker, cultural relativism promotes this type of crime because it legitimizes and maintains savagery. It says that people's rights are dependent on their nationality, religion, and culture. It says that the human rights of those of various cultures differ (Namazie 1998). This criticism of cultural relativism is clearly aimed at non-Western cultures. But for many years, southern U.S. states and their representatives strongly opposed the equality and integration of whites and blacks. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United States in 1948, the idea of equality for all and the notion of African Americans' inferiority led to great conflict in certain segments of U.S. society. Many white southerners strongly opposed the universalism of human rights (McDougall 2004). Promoting cultural relativism in this situation would have defeated the purpose of human rights, since cultural relativism would have legitimatized racism.

_Guidelines for Balancing Universalism and Cultural Relativism_

The following guidelines can be used to analyze the preceding example of cultural relativism from a human rights viewpoint:

• _Examine closely the history of the cultural practice_. What is the background or history leading to the cultural norm that conflicts with a particular human right as established by a declaration or other human rights document? What apparent rationale or reasons have created the cultural norm?

• _Examine the power brokers who determine the cultural norm_. Has a democratic process of any kind been instrumental in establishing the cultural norm in question? After analyzing the history and background of a cultural practice, the next step in placing the practice into a human rights context is analyzing who actually determined the cultural norm. Have many voices been included in the establishment of the cultural norm, or does it appear to have been established by only a few segments of society?

• _Analyze the cultural practice within a contemporary human rights standard_. What are the contemporary human rights standards against which the cultural practice should be compared? Over time, cultural norms that have existed for many years may appear incompatible with contemporary human rights standards. By analyzing a particular policy or practice by reference to its historical background, relevant democratic factors, and contemporary human rights standards, social workers can better understand the role of cultural relativism in human rights. This analysis also enables social workers to determine whether cultural relativism should control when the policy of practice conflicts with human rights (Reichert 2006, 104–7).

These guidelines can be applied to any conflict between universalism and cultural relativism, regardless of country or society. The resulting analysis often finds that cultural relativism rests on an outdated or oppressive foundation.

The human right to participate in an individual's culture has the same importance as any other human right. Cultural relativism serves as a check on an unrestrained view of human rights but should be viewed critically and not be given an illegitimate priority over established human rights principles. The human right of culture does not validate practices that clearly cause physical, severe emotional, or other harm to another.

_Globalization_

One of the most widely discussed issues relating to human rights is that of globalization. Although it has not been well defined, globalization is widely used to connote a process of global integration in which diverse peoples, economies, cultures, and political processes are increasingly subjected to international influences.

People in small American towns watch television news reports about conflicts in Africa, maker international calls to family members on vacation in Europe, drive cars manufactured in Japan, or go out to eat foods originating in other countries without even thinking about it. Exposure to international events is not limited to the Western industrial nations. Today, rural villagers in India are familiar with the latest trends in European pop music, know about sensational murder trials in the United States, and are in regular communication with family members who work in other countries. (Midgley 1997, xii)

Although many governments and people have benefited from globalization, the key human rights issue is who benefits the most from globalization and who defines its goals or rules.

Assume that a shoe company in the United States decides to shift its production to China. The U.S. company has made this decision because of lower costs and fewer workplace regulations in China than in the United States. On the surface, China benefits from this new investment because the inflow of funds to establish a shoe factory creates jobs. In a similarly superficial fashion, by paying workers less and not being subject to strict employment conditions, the U.S. company benefits. The downside is that the U.S. company takes advantage of less stringent employment and environmental laws and low wages, and by allowing the U.S. company to invest in its territory, China may increase pollution and abuses in the workplace that the United States has escaped. In the United States, those who worked at the company lose their jobs and most likely their health care, pension, and other benefits. The bottom line is that globalization often creates both winners and losers. The winners in this example are the executives and possibly the shareholders of the U.S. company and those in China who receive profits from the investment. Chinese workers may now have jobs, but if their working conditions are hazardous or abusive, their health may suffer. The losers are definitely the employees at the now closed U.S. factory and, as noted, possibly the Chinese workers if their employment conditions affect their health.

In addition to asking who benefits from globalization, we might ask, Who defines the goals or rules of globalization? In this example, the Chinese government defines the rules of foreign operations within its territory. The decision to locate a U.S. factory or investment in China belongs to the executives of the U.S. company. In neither instance do workers play a significant role in the decision.

Does the establishment of a factory in China to make shoes for the U.S. market meet human rights principles, according to which everyone is entitled to a social order that promotes the Universal Declaration's human rights? Unless the U.S. company helps its now unemployed workers find alternative employment and continues giving them their benefits until they find other work, then closing the factory would not promote human rights for those individuals. Also, unless the Chinese government required the U.S. company to provide a safe working environment, a nondiscriminatory hiring procedure, and fair wages, the establishment of a factory in China would not promote human rights for Chinese workers. And if China allowed the U.S. company to pollute the environment, this would be another violation of human rights.

Other aspects of globalization concern international organizations that set rules for international economic development and trade, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO). To receive benefits from these organizations, their members must follow rules. For instance, the WTO sets rules that may not always be in a member's best interests:

Public health is a stark example. Diseases that are under control in the developed world cause millions of premature deaths in the developing world. One of the main reasons is a group of WTO patent-protection laws that have had a substantial impact on the price of drugs within the developing world where people's need for drugs is great and their ability to pay is not. (Levinson 2001, 5)

The HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa illustrates how WTO patent rules can benefit wealthy countries and punish developing countries. Under these rules, all WTO member states are required to grant at least a twenty-year patent protection in all fields of technology, including drugs. These rules prevent other member countries from producing or importing cheap generic copies of otherwise patented drugs. If a country violates these rules, it may be subject to harsh penalties (Levinson 2001). The inability to afford drugs for treating HIV-AIDS becomes a life-or-death matter. If countries that cannot afford to purchase high-cost patented drugs for treatment are not allowed to produce those drugs or to import generic substitutes without incurring a severe penalty, then most likely no treatment will be available. The result is a knowing complicity in the deaths of millions of HIV-AIDS victims just for the sake of protecting the profits of Western drug companies that own the patents to these desperately needed drugs. Within the last few years, in a concession to this criticism of protecting patents, Western drug companies have agreed to provide needed HIV-AIDS drugs to countries at substantially reduced prices. But even at reduced prices, many countries may not be able to afford the drugs without financial assistance.

Even with restrictions on membership in international organizations, however, developing countries generally do increase the overall wealth of their citizens ( _Economist_ 2001, 67). In countries that have not "globalized" their economies as much as others, income per head has shrunk, and the number of people in poverty has risen. In countries that increased their international trade, income per head rose, as did levels of life expectancy and schooling. These comparisons can also be misleading, however, because they do not address progress among specific groups, such as women or minorities. Greater national wealth may not be a reliable indicator of a uniform benefit to society, since certain groups can fall through the cracks in the distribution of that wealth.

Globalization presents the social work profession with significant human rights and ethical challenges. It can bring many benefits to all countries, but at the same time, globalization can be disruptive and lead to human rights violations of individuals and communities.

_Self-Determination_

The concept of self-determination appears prominently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN documents. In the context of human rights and the individual, self-determination refers to the right of an individual to freely develop his or her own personality and essentially make his or her own choices in life (UN 1948, art. 22). Self-determination also refers to the right of "peoples" to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development" (art. 1, para. 1).

Social workers frequently encounter self-determination in "end-of-life" decisions. The social work profession strives to enhance the quality of life; to encourage the exploration of life options; and to advocate for access to options, including providing all information to make appropriate choices. Competent individuals should be able to make their own choices, but only after being informed of all options and consequences (NASW 2009, 114–20). Whereas self-determination in this situation focuses on the individual, human rights issues of self-determination tend to focus on groups or countries.

On a group level, peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Social workers may encounter a minority group within a state that feels totally estranged from the majority. How much freedom should the minority group be given in determining their political status? Should every minority group be allowed to secede from a country and create a separate state? In the United States and other countries, government has given indigenous and aboriginal peoples some authority to develop their own political entities and to create a nation within a particular area. To some extent, Native Americans have been allowed to determine their own policies within what is known as a reservation. Even though Native Americans may be allowed to "freely pursue" their economic, social, and cultural development on their reservations, the economic and social conditions there frequently result in high unemployment and alcoholism (Van Wormer 1997). The reservation concept might appear to be a proper method of achieving self-determination, but Native Americans might also feel trapped on the reservation. Indeed, Native Americans, especially younger ones, may view the reservation as nothing more than a sop to appease them and a cruel trick played on them by the U.S. government.

_Native Americans: A Forgotten Minority_

People traveling through the United States often encounter areas "reserved" for Indians, or Native Americans. Many of these areas are in desolate, off-the beaten-path locations that do not interfere with more economically developed regions. While some might say that these reservations allow the Native Americans to shape and run their own communities, others could say that their primary purpose is to keep Native Americans "out of sight and out of mind."

Regardless of how we interpret the reservation system, what seems particularly noticeable is how some regions of the country incorporate Native American history into memorials and parks. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, the figure of General George Custer is legendary. By any interpretation, Native Americans would not view General Custer as one of their friends, for in the late 1800s, Custer led an expedition to remove Native Americans from the Black Hills in order to allow unrestricted gold mining there by white settlers. In the famous Battle of Little Big Horn, the Indian chief, Crazy Horse, and his followers killed Custer and his men. The U.S. Army later defeated the Native Americans and took Crazy Horse into custody, where he himself was killed in a purported escape attempt.

But instead of viewing Custer as a questionable figure, the state of South Dakota celebrates him, naming a park, town, and other sites after him. Custer State Park even offers a rewriting of history in its main visitors' center. On the wall, various plaques summarize the history of how settlers came to the Black Hills looking for gold. Because the intrusion of whites into this area violated the agreements between the Native Americans and United States, the U.S. government "renegotiated" those agreements with the Native Americans to legalize the gold rush. In other words, the U.S. government made the Native Americans an offer they could not refuse. This unlikely version of history takes no account of the Native American viewpoint.

Attempts to encourage self-determination among Native Americans and other groups can be self-defeating if the purpose or result is merely to isolate the group. When promoting self-determination, the dominant group should do this in a manner that retains the dignity of the minority group.

Taken literally, the human rights concept of self-determination can result in any group qualifying as a "people" and being allowed to establish their own country or self-governing unit. Palestinians, Macedonians, Albanians, Native Hawaiians, French Canadians, and numerous other ethnic groups the world over all could claim the human right to determine their own political status and freely pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.

The logic of this human right is compelling but also seems to challenge the universality principle. Granting political status to individuals and groups with a common ancestry, religion, language, history, and other attributes has merit. But if human rights apply to all, regardless of origin or culture, then should self-determination occupy a primary role in human rights? Should the focus not be on ensuring the economic, social, and cultural rights of everyone rather than encouraging "peoples" to separate themselves from mainstream society? Should government policy not encourage Native Americans to adopt customs and language of the dominant culture, a policy that would most likely facilitate their achievement of economic, social, and political rights? If only the minority group would become more like the dominant group, then human rights would become much less messy. Cultural relativism concerns would diminish, and universality would become much easier to accomplish.

The drawback to ignoring the issue of self-determination becomes evident when considering assimilation into the dominant culture. While all peoples are entitled to economic and social human rights, without self-determination those in authority can belittle or diminish the importance of individuals and minority groups. Drafters of human rights documents clearly recognized the danger of promoting a dominant culture over a less prominent group. On both an individual and group level, self-determination contains important human rights principles in international social work.

_Social Exclusion_

Another social work concept closely linked to human rights is _social exclusion_ , a term describing segments of the population who cannot take advantage of the opportunities available in society (Gore 1995). Social exclusion can lead to destructive consequences if allowed to fester.

Reference to social exclusion originated in France in the 1970s and was originally applied to disadvantaged or marginalized social groups, such as people with mental illness, drug problems, or family difficulties. In the 1980s, social exclusion evolved to refer to the new poverty associated with technological change and economic restructuring (Gore 1995, 1–2; Healy 2008, 363). Social exclusion expresses the loss of social opportunities available in the society and can be found at any level of society, both national and global:

The growing gap in wealth between the richest and poorest nations and between the richest and poorest segments of the population within nations is a major indicator of social exclusion. Refugees, migrants, and the displaced are often excluded from all benefits of citizenship—sometimes for their lifetime and even the lifetimes of their children. This is especially true of the undocumented. In the globalization of economies and institutions, social exclusion can be applied to analysis of trade, aid, migration, debt policies, and the like. The concept also is linked to other concepts: the socially excluded include those who are excluded from human rights and those who are excluded from security (Healy 2008, 364).

Social exclusion represents the opposite of what human rights mean. The goal of human rights is to give everyone a minimum basis for existence, which includes economic security and human dignity, political participation in society, and protection of the minority culture. Social exclusion violates all these human rights.

The consequences of international social exclusion can be devastating. Individuals who have no outlet to voice grievances or who receive inadequate compensation for their labor can never lead full lives. Some individuals may turn to violence as a reaction to their exclusion from society. In any case, those who fail to obtain a stake in the fruits of society will always lead a marginal existence.

Social workers should examine the circumstances of social exclusion. Viewing social exclusion in a human rights context can help them understand the actual and potential harm caused by this phenomenon. Human rights are meant to give everyone with political, economic, social, and cultural rights that ensure the participation of society's marginal individuals and groups. Social exclusion violates the entire premise of human rights. By promoting human rights, social workers challenge circumstances of social exclusion.

_Global Apartheid_

The development of the world into different societies poses extraordinary challenges for both current and future generations of social workers. Perhaps the term that best encompasses these challenges is _global apartheid_ :

Global apartheid, stated briefly, is an international system of minority rule whose attributes include: differential access to basic human rights; wealth and power structured by race and place; structural racism, embedded in global economic processes, political institutions, and cultural assumptions; and the international practice of double standards that assume inferior rights to be appropriate for certain "others," defined by location, origin, race, or gender. (Booker and Minter 2001, 11)

The concept of global apartheid brings home underlying issues prevalent in international social work. Is one society or culture more deserving than another? What obligations do those in relatively wealthy countries have with respect to less wealthy countries? From a human rights perspective, social workers have a duty to learn about social issues affecting other cultures and societies. The social work profession must work toward a cooperative world society, one in which global apartheid has little or no part.

Summary

Most social workers will probably not work outside their own country of origin. Nonetheless, all the concepts described here—globalization, cultural relativism, self-determination, and social exclusion—address issues common to human rights. Understanding these concepts is crucial to a familiarity with human rights.

While this chapter has focused on the international perspective of human rights, it is true that viewing human rights as an international concept simply misses the point. No distinction should be made between human rights in the United States and human rights somewhere else. Although differences in culture may require diverse applications of human rights, their underlying significance transcends borders and cultures. Human rights belong to everyone, wherever they live.

Questions

1. "Human rights involve only those events happening in other countries." Do you believe this statement is correct? Give reasons.

2. Is there a distinction between international social work and domestic social work?

3. How would you measure "development?"

4. What does the term _global apartheid_ mean?

5. Overall, do you believe that globalization has benefited the world? What are some negative aspects of globalization? Positive aspects?

6. What is meant by "cultural relativism?" Should cultural practices take precedence over human rights principles?

7. Explain the concept of self-determination on both an individual and a national level, including the connection to human rights principles.

8. Does social exclusion conflict with human rights?

9. The International Code of Ethics specifically refers to human rights, but the NASW's code of ethics makes no mention of human rights. What might be the reasons for the presence of human rights in the international code and the absence of human rights in NASW's code?

10. Why is it important for social workers to learn about social work in other countries?

References

Alexander, T. 1996. _Unravelling Global Apartheid. An Overview of World Politics_. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Booker, S., and W. Minter. 2001. Global apartheid. _The Nation_ , July 9, pp. 11–17.

_The Economist_. 2001. Globalisation and prosperity: Going global, December 8–14, p. 67.

Ford, P. 2001. Injustice seen as fertile soil for terrorists. _Christian Science Monitor_ , November 28, pp. 7, 10.

Gore, C. 1995. Introduction: Markets, citizenship, and social exclusion. In _Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality, Responses_ , ed. G. Rodgers, C. Gore, and J. B. Figueiredo, 1–40. Geneva: International Labor Organization/International Institute for Labor Studies.

Healy, L. 2008. _International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World_. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ife, J. 2008. _Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice_. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ISFW (International Federation of Social Workers). 2004. Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles, para. 3. Available at www.ifsw.org, under the heading ethics (accessed September 21, 2010).

Lawson, S. 1998. Democracy and the problem of cultural relativism: Normative issues for international politics. _Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations_ 12 (2): 251–71.

Levinson, M. 2001. Mismanaging globalization. _Dissent_ , fall, pp. 5–7.

McDougall, G. 2004. Shame in our own house: How segregation and racism have fed U.S. resistance to international human-rights treaties. _American Prospect_ , October, pp. 21–23.

Midgley, J. 1997. _Social Welfare in Global Context_. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Namazie, M. 1998. Cultural relativism—This era's fascism. Available at <http://www.hambastegi.org/english/selectedarticles.culturalr.htm> (accessed October 30, 2003).

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. _Code of Ethics_. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

——. 2009. _Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012_. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Pasamonik, B. 2004. The paradoxes of tolerance. _Social Studies_ 95 (5): 206–11.

Rao, A. 1995. The politics of gender and culture in international human rights discourse. In _Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives_ , ed. J. Peters and W. Wolper, 167–75. New York: Routledge.

Reichert, E. 2006. _Understanding Human Rights: An Exercise Book_. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roth Pierpont, C. 2004. The measure of America: How a rebel anthropologist waged war on racism. _New Yorker_ , March 8, pp. 48–63.

UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 10, 1948. GA.Res.217 AIII. United Nations Document a/810. New York: United Nations.

——. 1986. Declaration on the Right to Development. GA Resolution 41/128. Adopted December 4, 1986.

——. 1996. The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action. Fourth World Conference on Women, September 4–15, 1995, Beijing. New York: UN Department of Public Information.

——. 2000. Millennium Declaration. Resolution A/55/L.2. September 8, 2000. Available at <http://www.un.org.millennium/bkgd.shtml> (accessed September 11, 2009).

——2009. The Millennium development goals report. Available at http.www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports (accessed September 11, 2009).

U.S. Department of State. 2009. Diplomacy in action: Human rights. Available at <http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt> (accessed September 11, 2009).

Van Wormer, K. 1997. _Social Welfare: A World View_. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
[ 8 ]

[Applying Human Rights to the
Social Work Profession](contents.html#ch8)

The mortal choice which every German had to make—whether or not he knew he was making it—is a choice which we Americans have never had to confront. But personal and professional life confronts us with the same kind of choice, less mortally, to be sure, every day.

—Milton Mayer, 1955

The preceding chapters of this book have examined the concept of human rights and various documents that seek to guarantee the application of those rights by governments. Without government and other support of human rights, little progress can be made in actually incorporating them into the policies and practices of everyday life. In order to apply human rights to social work policies and practices, social workers should understand that knowledge alone is not sufficient to apply human rights. In addition to acquiring specific knowledge of the terms and definitions used in human rights, social workers need to understand how to translate human rights into the social work profession, which requires an understanding of government agencies, clients, and social work concepts.

Everybody Supports Human Rights

A curious aspect of human rights is that few governments or individuals would openly oppose human rights or denigrate the importance of human rights. No president of the United States would ever state, in public at least, that he or she is violating human rights principles. The head of a social work agency would never want to be accused of violating an individual's human rights. Social workers do not want to violate the human rights of their colleagues or clients. The National Association of Social Workers' policy statement on human rights aligns the social work mission with that of human rights:

The aim of the human rights edifice created during the past half century, which includes United Nations' declarations and treaties; . . . is to root out oppression and to establish conditions in which human beings can meet their needs, develop their humanity, and flourish. This aim is closely akin to social work's mission. (NASW 2009, 204–5)

Social workers should

  * Promote U.S. ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as critical UN treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  * Be especially vigilant about human rights violations related to children's rights and exploitation such as child labor, child prostitution, and other crimes of abuse and take leadership in developing public and professional awareness regarding these issues.
  * Advocate for the rights of vulnerable people and must condemn policies, practices, and attitudes of bigotry, intolerance, and hate that put any person's human rights in grave jeopardy. The violation of human rights based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, immigration status, or religion provide a few examples.
  * Support the right to a standard of living that is adequate for the health and wellbeing of all people and their families, without exception.
  * Advocate for the elimination of the death penalty.
  * Collaborate with governmental and nongovernmental organizations and other community groups to become a leading force for the health and welfare of all people, including the world's most vulnerable.
Become partners with the United Nations in advancing human development and human rights, including economic human rights, and work toward closing the economic gap.
  * Advocate for the elimination of torture.
  * Advocate for U.S. homeland security and anti-terrorist policies that are consistent with human rights and ethics. (NASW 2009, 205–6).

In summary, NASW states that the struggle for human rights remains a vital priority for the social work profession in the twenty-first century.

The stigma attached to violating human rights looms large in the public consciousness, even if many people do not fully understand the concepts and definitions of human rights. When actually applying human rights to everyday existence, however, all types of obstacles arise. To apply human rights to social work practice, social workers must be aware of these obstacles and avoid merely giving lip service to human rights.

The following example illustrates the difficulty in defining a human right and subsequently realizing that right:

Human rights instruments state that government must not discriminate against individuals on the basis of gender, race, age, religion, and other standards. Discrimination in all its forms presents a formidable barrier to the application of human rights. To realize this human right of an existence free from discrimination, governments generally enact laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the above standards, especially in respect to the workplace. Yet how effective are those laws in accomplishing a neutral, nondiscriminatory workplace or other environment?

To give substance to antidiscrimination laws existing in the United States, federal and state governments have established watchdog agencies such as the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission and various Departments of Human Rights to investigate complaints of discrimination. Yet filing a complaint with one of these entities can be intimidating and, without adequate legal resources, futile. An employer will usually devote significant resources to contest any complaint of discrimination—after all, discrimination is bad business and creates a negative impression among staff and public. Even if an employee can weather the storm and convince the government investigator that evidence of discrimination exists, the employer can then offer to settle the matter and escape any consequence whatsoever. The charge of discrimination generally is obliterated from governmental files after a relatively short period of time, usually one year. In other words, to avoid any finding of a human rights violation, the employer simply offers the victim compensation that should have been provided in the first place. A settlement may often cost the employer less than what it should have been providing, in which case the employer actually ends up benefiting from the investigative process.

Many governments, companies, groups, and individuals do take human rights obligations seriously and consciously try to prevent discriminatory practices from ever occurring. Nonetheless, the lack of education and resources, and the inclination to play politics and inflate economic results, can easily blur the desire or need for ensuring human rights. All these factors can affect social workers when they try to apply human rights to practice.

_The Case of Wal-Mart:
Cutting Prices Versus Cutting Wages_

Possibly no other icon of U.S. business represents the dilemma of human rights principles than the large retailer Wal-Mart, which symbolizes "bargains" and "roll-backs" and just about everything positive for the individual pocketbook. In practically every country where Wal-Mart does business, it thrives on the low-cost formula (with Germany being a notable but rare exception to Wal-Mart's success).

Roll-backs, though, come with a price: low wages and costly health benefits. Wal-Mart may offer its customers great deals, but its employees can have a hard time making their own ends meet, especially when health care options offered by Wal-Mart take out a substantial amount from the employee's pay check (Lichtenstein 2009). In fairness to Wal-Mart, many service industry jobs pay no more or even less than Wal-Mart and may not even offer a health care plan. Still, it is Wal-Mart, with its enormous financial might, that bears much criticism for its employment policies.

A human rights approach by Wal-Mart and other large retailers would help ensure that employees receive a living wage, including benefits. This would cut into Wal-Mart's net profit of many billions of dollars. But at least Wal-Mart could then legitimately claim that it recognizes the importance of economic human rights and is trying to satisfy its human rights obligations.

Foundation of the Social Work Profession

Historically, the social work profession has challenged inequities among individuals and groups. Social work originated from humanitarian and democratic ideas, which prompted the profession to challenge discrimination and the unequal distribution of resources. This core value of challenging inequities and promoting democratic ideals now forms part of the social worker's code of ethics.

The profession focuses on both the individual or group and her or his environment with the acknowledgment that environment plays a key role in fulfilling an individual's needs (Compton and Galaway 1994). Social workers try not only to help individuals, but they also try to bring about change on a broader, more global level (Goldstein 1992). This dual focus distinguishes the social work profession from other helping professions, like psychology and nursing, which generally address individual issues but without a mandate to challenge environmental impediments to resolving those issues.

_The Changing Face of Social Work Ethics Around the World_

In 2004, at a major gathering of the International Association of Schools of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Workers in Adelaide, Australia, there was a major shift in social work ethics: human rights became the dominant theme.

In its "old ethical document" from 1994, the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) did not even mention human rights as a social work principle (IFSW 1994). Ten years later, with its adoption of a "new ethical document" at the Adelaide conference, the IFSW definitively announced that social work was a profession based on human rights principles (IFSW 2004). The 2004 document incorporates human rights documents and principles into the definition of social work and its core mission. Social work units in individual countries belonging to the ISFW (e.g., NASW) are expected to follow the ISFW ethical document and educate social workers on the new ethical standards.

Because the foundation of the social work profession centers on assisting those in need, the profession has developed interventions for that assistance. These interventions are closely tied to human rights.

Major Interventions in the Social Work Profession

The social work profession has established various interventions to promote its dual focus: assisting individuals and attempting to bring about change with respect to social problems. These interventions include challenging oppression, empowerment, and the strengths perspective. By understanding these interventions, social workers can more easily recognize the link between their profession and human rights.

_Challenging Oppression_

Social workers have traditionally considered the oppressed and marginalized as part of their constituencies. _Oppression_ is an unjust use of authority or power over an individual or group. The different forms of oppression may be based on race, ethnicity, class, wealth, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Each form of oppression creates a unique injustice and an inequitable power structure that allows it to both exist and perpetuate. Common to each form of oppression is the individual's or group's social reality (Appleby, Colon, and Hamilton 2007). Oppression, like racism or sexism, frequently appears in both individual and institutional acts.

Repeated exposure to oppression may lead to internalized oppression, in which a person or group has internalized negative self-images projected by the external oppressor. Individuals often experience rage from internalized oppression, whose repression can lead to self-destructive behavior or destructive behavior toward others (Shulman 2008).

Social workers have the responsibility to challenge individual and social relations that create and maintain oppression (Pinderhughes 1989). They must try to reduce oppressive power structures, which require both micro-and macrolevel skills (Simon 1994).

Challenging oppression clearly is related to exercising human rights. Humanitarian and democratic ideals are anathema to oppression, which stems from inequitable distributions of power. In the struggle to reduce oppression, social workers must promote human rights.

_Empowerment_

Another intervention used by social workers that is tied to human rights is empowerment. This intervention examines circumstances that contribute to differential treatment concerning ethnicity, age, class, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation. The empowerment tradition responds to the individual's and group's experiences of oppression (Saleebey 2005). Empowerment focuses on how an individual is treated in society and is given access to resources and power (Cowger 1994; Roche and Dewees 2001). Reducing inequitable power structures is a foundational basis for empowerment (Lee 2001).

Two interdependent and interactive dynamics characterize empowerment. Personal empowerment resembles the clinical notion of self-determination, in which clients direct the helping process, take charge and control of their personal lives, get their "head straight" by learning new ways to think about their situation, and adopt new behaviors that result in more satisfying and "rewarding outcomes" (Cowger 1994, 263). Personal empowerment also is related to opportunity, for without opportunity the process of self-determination becomes difficult. For instance, an individual who has no medical coverage and no legal or economic means to obtain that coverage will find it difficult to adequately meet his or her health care needs.

The social empowerment dynamic recognizes that an individual's characteristics cannot be separated from the context in which the individual exists (Cowger 1994). An individual's behavior or traits are connected to those of others through social involvement (Falck 1988). An individual with resources and an opportunity to play an important role in his or her own environment can more easily shape outcomes. For example, a person who has influence in the community may persuade medical practitioners to provide low-cost or free medical services to those without health care benefits. Without that contextual influence, this person would most likely find it difficult to persuade medical practitioners to provide those services.

Personal empowerment and social empowerment are mutually inclusive. When an individual achieves personal empowerment, he or she also achieves social empowerment (Cowger 1994). Helping individuals and groups empower themselves to overcome inequitable treatment is a key part of the social work profession. This empowerment tradition goes hand in hand with the achievement of human rights, which center on equitable treatment for everyone, regardless of status.

_Strengths Perspective_

The strengths perspective is another social work intervention closely related to human rights, which states that an individual's or group's strengths are central to the helping relationship. This intervention acknowledges that structural injustices have isolated many individuals and groups from necessary resources and fair treatment. The strengths perspective focuses on resiliency and ways in which people cope despite many obstacles and injustices. Without the strengths perspective, social workers may fall in to the trap of viewing an individual or group as being pathological and may focus on "what is wrong" with that individual or group.

By acknowledging the strengths of individuals and groups, social workers are better positioned to tie human rights principles to a particular situation. For example, when confronted with an HIV-positive person who has been injecting heroin with used needles, a social worker using the strengths perspective would focus on other elements of that person's circumstances. By learning about his background and own personal obstacles, the social worker would seek his strengths, which the social worker could use to address the human rights issues related to his circumstances.

The social work profession's interventions are essential to promoting the link between the profession and human rights. The interventions just described are in no way the only interventions that promote human rights. All the profession's interventions relate to human rights issues and address ways in which to apply human rights to practice. In addition to understanding interventions and their role in human rights, social workers can relate human rights to practice by focusing on the connection between the NASW's code of ethics and human rights.

Mission of the Social Work Profession

The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human wellbeing and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of all people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty.

—NASW 1996

In applying human rights to practice, social workers should understand the concept of human rights and be familiar with human rights documents, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition to human rights documents, ethical documents by the U.S. organization known as National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) can help social workers better understand the connection between their profession and human rights.

_NASW Code of Ethics_

Professional ethics are at the core of social work. The profession has an obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. The NASW Code of Ethics sets forth these values, principles, and standards to guide social workers' conduct. The Code is relevant to all social workers and social work students, regardless of their professional functions, the settings in which they work, or the population they serve.

—NASW 1996

The National Association of Social Workers has drafted its own code of ethics for U.S. social workers to follow (NASW 1996). While many provisions of the code pertain to individual conduct, such as confidentiality and personal interaction with clients, other provisions contain numerous examples of human rights and can serve as a point of departure for connecting the profession to human rights.

The code's provisions encourage social workers to work toward fulfilling the human rights of clients. While the code never specifically mentions the term _human rights_ , its language does resemble that of important human rights documents.

The concept of ethics refers to a set of principles that help an individual or group to determine the correct course of action, or what is morally necessary in a particular situation, considering all aspects of that situation (Reamer 1995). The development of the first social work code of ethics began with the Flexner Report, which in 1915 raised the concern that social work could not be considered a profession unless it had a code of ethics. The first NASW code, ratified in 1960, was only one page long and listed fourteen broadly worded "proclamations" (Congress 1999). For instance, it was every social worker's duty to give precedence to professional responsibility over personal interests; respect the privacy of clients; and offer appropriate professional public service.

In 1979, the NASW code incorporated procedures to enforce certain parts of the code, so that social workers now were required to cooperate in implementing the code and abide by any disciplinary ruling (Congress 1999). As part of its revision in 1996, the code expanded social workers' ethical responsibilities to the broader society. The 1996 code also adopted an international perspective by stating that "social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally" (Congress 1999, 27). Since 1996, NASW has made minor revisions to the 1996 code but has not replaced it.

_Criticism of the NASW Code_

The NASW Code of Ethics provides general guidance in handling numerous situations. The code also explains responsibilities arising from ethical obligations, including human rights issues that social workers have an obligation or responsibility to pursue. Some have criticized the code by stating that those in power have written the code in order to regulate their conduct with clients (Ife 2008; Witkin 2000). Because those in power can dictate enforcement and interpretations of the code, clients may not receive adequate consideration when ethical issues arise.

This criticism would apply to any code of ethics for any professional group. Regulatory boards for lawyers and doctors undoubtedly want complaints about lawyers and doctors to be resolved without damaging the profession. Nonetheless, ethical guidelines do apply and professionals ignore them at their peril. A social worker charged with an ethical violation must, at a minimum, answer the charge and defend his or her action. The regulatory board overseeing the ethical charge may indeed favor the member over the complainant, but discussion of the issue is forced into the open. Although this may not result in "adequate compensation" to the complainant, the regulatory board at least must consider the issue.

Like any professional code of ethics, the NASW code has drawbacks, particularly when overseeing ethical violations that involve a client. Yet, within a broader human rights framework, the code provides a worthy frame of reference for the profession.

_Ethical Principles of NASW Code_

The NASW's code cites six values, each of which translates into a separate and worthy ethical principle:

1. The value of _service_ translates into the ethical principle that a social worker's primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems.

2. The value of _social justice_ translates into the ethical principle that social workers should challenge social injustice. Efforts by social workers to effect social change focus primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. Challenging social injustice promotes sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression in the context of cultural and ethnic diversity.

3. The value of the _dignity and worth of the person_ translates into the ethical principle that social workers should respect the inherent dignity and worth of every single individual. Social workers should treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, with special consideration for an individual's cultural and ethnic diversity.

4. The value of _the importance of human relationships_ translates into the ethical principles that social workers should recognize the central importance of meaningful human relationships in everyone's life.

_The Importance of Group Ethics_

The importance of social workers acting ethically cannot be understated. In their pursuit of human rights, social workers must create an environment in which ethics flourish. However, in a group context, individual virtues may actually take a backseat to the overall professional situation in which social workers find themselves.

According to Randy Cohen, who has studied ethics, group dynamics can often dictate how the individual acts:

In his profound and moving book, _The Face of Battle_ , the British military historian John Keegan considers the question of why, when faced with the horror and suffering of combat, most soldiers don't simply run away. He concludes that they are motivated not by high ideals of patriotism, not by ideology, not by anything one would identify as ethics. Keegan sees these soldiers standing fast so as not to be the least worthy among those assembled. And by that, he does not mean the entire army, but those few men nearby. Keegan suggests that even under the most extreme and appalling conditions, most of us will behave about as well as our neighbors. (Cohen 2002, 22)

The same tendency to act in the same way as their neighbors could also lead to soldiers running from battle, if that is what other, nearby soldiers are doing.

This tendency to follow the crowd also applies in other situations, where something

similar has been observed in the early careers of police officers. If a rookie cop is assigned to a corrupt station house, he stands a good chance of being corrupted himself. Put the same young officer in a clean station, and there's a very good chance he'll turn out to be an honest cop. His or her personal ethics hardly come into it. (Cohen 2002, 22)

Cohen's point is that individual ethics generally are insufficient to create an ethical environment:

Just as individual ethics can be understood only in relation to the society within which it is practiced, it is also true that individual ethical behavior is far likelier to flourish within a just society. It might be argued that to lead an ethical life one must work to build a just society. . . . Every community is dynamic—Sparta or the precinct house. We not only live in it, but by our actions we create it. And as important, our community exists not only in the world but in our minds. It forms our values even as we shape its structures. (Cohen 2002, 22)

Attention to ethics clearly relates to the pursuit of human rights, but the focus of ethics should be on the environment, as well as the individual.

5. The value of _integrity_ translates into the ethical principle that social workers should behave in a trustworthy manner. They should act honestly and responsibly while promoting worthwhile ethical practices by the organizations with which they are affiliated.

6. The value of _competence_ translates into the ethical principle that social workers should develop and enhance their professional expertise and competence to the best of their abilities within their own areas of social work practice.

From these values and implied ethical principles derive concrete ethical standards that apply to the professional activities of all social workers. The code expresses these standards as social workers' ethical responsibilities to various groups, clients, colleagues, their profession itself, and the broader society (NASW 1996).

Social workers' ethical responsibilities include both those that are enforceable and those that are aspirational. Ethical responsibilities that relate to human rights tend to be aspirational and are not specifically enforceable. The aspirational nature of ethical responsibilities concerning human rights pertains to the more general difficulty of legally enforcing human rights. The basis for fulfilling human rights relies to a great extent on education and goodwill, so even with supportive laws, human rights remain tenuous and dependent on the aspirations of individuals and groups.

_International Federation of Social Workers_

Alongside the NASW Code of Ethics is a more globally oriented set of principles, the ethics of the International Federation of Social Workers. Whereas the NASW code does not specifically refer to human rights, the IFSW's ethical statements take their core principles from human rights. Together, the NASW's and IFSW's ethical statements mandate the use of human rights within the social work profession.

In 2004, drawing on the available literature, feedback from colleagues, and commentary on the international definition of social work, the IFSW identified the core purposes of social work in various parts of the world:

  * Facilitating the inclusion of marginalized, socially excluded, dispossessed, vulnerable, and at-risk groups of people.
  * Addressing and challenging barriers, inequalities, and injustices in society.
  * Forming short- and longer-term working relationships with and mobilizing individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities to enhance their well-being and their problem-solving capacities.
  * Assisting and educating people to obtain services and resources in their communities.
  * Formulating and implementing policies and programs that enhance people's well-being, promote development and human rights, and promote collective social harmony and social stability, insofar as such stability does not violate human rights.
  * Encouraging people to advocate with regard to pertinent local, national, regional, and/or international concerns.
  * Acting with and/or for people to advocate the formulation and targeted implementation of policies that are consistent with the ethical principles of the profession.
  * Acting with and/or for people to advocate changes in those policies and structural conditions that maintain people in marginalized, dispossessed, and vulnerable positions, and those that infringe on the collective social harmony and stability of various ethnic groups, insofar as such stability does not violate human rights.
  * Working to protect people who cannot do so themselves, for example, children and youth in need of care and persons with mental illness or mental retardation, within the parameters of accepted and ethically sound legislation.
  * Engaging in social and political action to influence social policy and economic development and to effect change by critiquing and eliminating inequalities.
  * Enhancing stable, harmonious, and mutually respectful societies that do not violate people's human rights.
  * Promoting respect for traditions, cultures, ideologies, beliefs, and religions among different ethnic groups and societies, insofar as these do not conflict with the fundamental human rights of people.
  * Planning, organizing, administering, and managing programs and organizations dedicated to any of the purposes just listed. (IFSW 2004)

Both the NASW and IFSW rely on human rights principles to carry out their missions, a reliance on human rights that forms the core of social work today.

Applying Ethics to Human Rights: Case Studies

After understanding the strong connection of ethical standards to human rights, social workers can then take the crucial step of applying human rights to the profession through ethical principles and responsibilities. Because social workers practice in many different settings with diverse individuals and groups, analysis of the particular setting is important. The following case study illustrates this point.

Maya is forty years old, with three children ages five, seven, and eleven, and has been living with a white Anglo male for the past three years. Maya immigrated to the United States from an Asian country four years ago. The children's father has little contact with them. One of Maya's children has a serious illness, and Maya has incurred large medical debts from the cost of treating the illness. Maya has worked regularly as a secretary, earning $25,000 a year, but now she is unemployed. Maya's partner has become physically abusive, but she has stayed in her relationship with him, partly for economic reasons. However, she recently went to a women's shelter with her children because she fears her partner. Maya now feels that she has few options. If she returns to her partner, she will fear for her safety and that of her children. But if she does not return, she will have nowhere else to go and insufficient resources to obtain shelter on her own.

This case study represents both human rights issues and ethical responsibilities for a social worker. To form an appropriate intervention for the client (Maya), the social worker needs first to identify the relevant human rights issues and then to connect those issues to her ethical responsibilities. The intervention process would follow these guidelines:

_Human Rights Issues_

• No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The physical abuse of Maya clearly falls within the prohibition against cruel and degrading treatment.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security (article 3). Maya has a human right to feel safe as a person.

• Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of herself and her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, and necessary social services (article 25). Maya should have available adequate medical care, food, and housing for both herself and her family.

Maya's circumstances pertain to the preceding human rights. The next step is to connect those human rights to ethical responsibilities.

_Ethical Responsibilities_

• Social workers should understand culture and its function in human behavior and society (NASW 1996, 1.05a). A social worker should familiarize herself with, and be sensitive to, Maya's cultural issues.

• Social workers should promote the general welfare of society and advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs (NASW 1996, 6.01). A social worker should advocate for Maya's basic need for food, medical care, and housing.

• Social workers should work to prevent the domination or exploitation of, and discrimination against, any person or group based on national origin, sex, or ethnicity (NASW 1996, 6.04d). In Maya's situation, a social worker should intervene to protect her against physical abuse from her partner, as this abuse appears to be linked to gender and ethnicity.

• Social workers should try to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and to encourage respect for cultural and social diversity (NASW 1996, 6.04c). A social worker viewing Maya's circumstances could view the situation as one involving not simply individual issues but also broader structural issues.

This case study illustrates the technique of connecting human rights to social work ethics. By seeing and analyzing particular circumstances through the prism of human rights and ethical principles, social workers can readily recognize the importance of human rights to their profession.

Additional Case Studies

All the following case studies raise issues regarding human rights and ethics. Analyze each by referring to the following questions:

1. What human rights issues are relevant to the case study? Cite specific provisions within human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration and international conventions.

2. What ethical issues are involved? Cite specific parts of the NASW's code of ethics.

3. Is there a link between the ethical issues and human rights issues? If so, what is it?

4. What controversy or conflict might arise from the human rights and ethical issues relevant to the case study? For instance, are there issues of cultural relativism that might conflict with human rights?

CASE STUDY 1

Stephanie, age eighty-six, lives by herself in a home she has occupied for fifty years, but she now finds it difficult to take care of herself and does not want to leave her home. Stephanie's grown children are now considering placing her in a nursing home. As a social worker, you have been asked to assess Stephanie's ability to remain at home and outside the nursing home.

CASE STUDY 2

Raymond, currently age fifteen, joined a gang at the age of ten. The gang is involved in all types of criminal activities, including drug dealing. Recently, the police arrested Raymond, and he was convicted as an adult of a serious drug offense. He is now serving a ten-year prison sentence in an adult facility. As a social worker employed at the prison where Raymond is serving his sentence, you provide counseling for him.

CASE STUDY 3

Reah has recently gotten off public assistance and now works at two different jobs. She has three children, ages four, five, and seven. While Reah earns more income than she received from public assistance, her overall government benefits, including housing and health care, were greater. Reah and her children live in a low-income area with a high crime rate. Schools in the area have significantly fewer resources than those in most other areas. Reah has begun counseling with you to help cope with her depression.

CASE STUDY 4

Jenny and Alice are a lesbian couple that would like to adopt a child. As a social worker, you have performed a home study and recommended approval of the proposed adoption. But during the legal adoption proceedings, the judge refuses to allow the adoption, saying that he did not believe homosexuals could be fit parents.

CASE STUDY 5

Mark has lost his job and is currently unemployed. He is fifty-seven years old and has few prospects for new employment. Mark has a spouse, Judith, but they have no children living at home. Mark currently receives $300 every two weeks in unemployment benefits, which will expire in six months, but has no medical coverage. Judith has only a part-time job with no benefits. The couple has always relied on Mark's health care benefits from his employment to cover their medical needs. Judith has diabetes and needs regular medical care. As a social worker, you are employed by the local public benefits office. Mark and Judith come to your office for assistance.

CASE STUDY 6

Anna is a Hispanic woman employed as an accountant by a large accounting firm. For the past three years, Anna has received significantly lower merit increases than all of her colleagues. She files a complaint with the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission against her employer on the basis of discrimination. Anna and her employer settle the complaint, but six months later her employer dismisses her, saying that she did not work as hard as the others. Anna comes to you, a social worker, for counseling in coping with the situation.

CASE STUDY 7

A ten-year-old girl in an Islamic country is married to a thirty-year-old man, which is not uncommon in that particular country. The girl is worried about becoming pregnant and possibly dying from childbirth. You work for an international family–planning agency in the country. A group of local women comes to you for assistance in challenging the cultural tradition of girl brides.

CASE STUDY 8

Azza, an Ethiopian immigrant who moved to the United States thirteen years ago and now lives in Florida, plans to take her ten-year-old U.S.-born daughter back to Ethiopia in a few months to have her circumcised. "They say it helps us control our emotions," she says. The thirty-five-year-old mother is confused about whether or not she want to put her daughter through the procedure, first saying that she and her husband are not sure what they are going to do, and finally saying that it is up to him and the Ethiopian doctors to decide.

Conclusion

Human rights issues, such as freedom from physical abuse and a right to medical care and housing, are social workers' ethical responsibilities. By emphasizing the human rights aspect of social work, social workers can enhance their own fulfillment of ethical responsibilities.

Social workers who connect human rights issues with ethical principles can also better identify issues that go beyond individual circumstances. From a human rights perspective, a social worker would not view domestic violence as simply an issue involving the dynamics of the individual or couple but also as a national or international issue. If it is a human right to be safe and secure, then this right would apply to everyone at any place anytime, irrespective of circumstances. Ethical principles in the social work profession support this view of domestic violence as a structural issue that social workers should address on a broad scale.

Individuals alone may not always be capable of overcoming oppression, especially when obstacles arise from broader structural difficulties. Adopting a human rights and ethics perspective can help social workers more readily identify structural difficulties in planning appropriate interventions. By recognizing structural difficulties as human rights and ethical issues, social workers can only enhance the primary mission of their profession.

Questions

1. Discuss a human rights issue you have experienced in your social work practice.

2. How do human rights principles relate to different interventions used in social work practice?

3. Why is it important to analyze power structures when applying human rights to a particular situation?

4. How is the NASW's code of ethics similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How does it differ from the declaration?

5. What are the difficulties in applying human rights to social work practice?

6. Discuss the human rights concept of universality in relation to social work ethics. Is universality compatible with social work ethics?

7. How does the social work profession differ from other helping professions?

8. Can social work practice benefit from a human rights perspective?

References

Appleby, G., E. Colon, and J. Hamilton. eds. 2007. _Diversity, Oppression, and Social Functioning: Person In-Environment Assessment and Intervention_. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cohen, R. 2002. The politics of ethics. _The Nation_ , April 8, pp. 21–23.

Compton, B. R., and B. Galaway. 1994. _Social Work Processes_. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Congress, E. 1999. _Social Work Values and Ethics: Identifying and Resolving Professional Dilemmas_. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Cowger, C. 1994. Assessing client strengths: Clinical assessment for client empowerment. _Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers_ 39 (3): 262–67.

Falck, H. 1988. _Social Work: The Membership Perspective_. New York: Springer.

Goldstein, H. 1992. If social work hasn't made progress as a science, might it be an art? _Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Human Services_ , January, pp. 48–55.

Ife, J. 2008. _Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice_. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

IFSW (International Federation of Social Workers). 1994. Old document: The ethics of social work principles and standards. Available at <http://www.ifsw.org/p38000020.html> (accessed September 24, 2009).

——. 2004. Ethics in social work, statement of principles. Available at <http://www.ifsw.org/p38000324.html> (accessed September 24, 2009).

Lee, J. 2001. _The Empowerment Approach to Social Work Practice_. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichtenstein, N. 2009. _The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business_. New York: Metropolitan Books.

NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. _Code of Ethics, as Revised_. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Available at <http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp> (accessed September, 24, 2009).

——. 2009. _Social Works Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012_. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Pinderhughes, E. 1989. _Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Power: The Key to Efficacy in Clinical Practice_. New York: Free Press.

Reamer, F. 1995. _Social Work Values and Ethics_. New York: Columbia University Press.

Roche, S., and M. Dewees. 2001. Teaching About Human Rights in Social Work. _Journal of Teaching in Social Work_ 21 (1–2): 137–55.

Saleebey, D., ed. 2005. _The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice_. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Shulman, L., ed. 2008. _Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups, and Communities_. 6th ed. Itasca, IL: Cengage Learning.

Simon, B. 1994. _The Empowerment Tradition in American Social Work_. New York: Columbia University Press.

Witkin, S. 2000. Ethics-R-Us. Social Work: Journal of the National Association of Social Workers 45 (3): 197–200.
Conclusion

The social work profession has begun to integrate principles of human rights into its policies and practices. Since the appearance of the first edition of this book in 2003, the International Federation of Social Workers has highlighted human rights as its core principles, and the U.S.-based National Association of Social Workers has integrated human rights principles into numerous policy statements. The U.S.-based Council on Social Work Education now requires the teaching of human rights as part of social work education, and schools of social work will need to reflect this requirement in their curricula.

These developments certainly should encourage those who view human rights as integral to social work. Nonetheless, human rights are no panacea or cure-all for social problems. Human rights principles continually raise questions concerning definitions, applications, and enforcement, and cultural relativism remains important to how to view human rights. Still, at the end of the day, human rights principles provide context and guidance to the social work profession.

Human rights offer many challenges to social work students, educators, and professionals, and I hope that this book makes at least some of those challenges more manageable.
Appendix A

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

_Whereas_ recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,

_Whereas_ disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

_Whereas_ it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

_Whereas_ it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

_Whereas_ the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

_Whereas_ Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

_Whereas_ a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

_Now, therefore,_

_The General Assembly_

_Proclaims_ this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

_Article 1_

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

_Article 2_

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

_Article 3_

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.

_Article 4_

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

_Article 5_

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

_Article 6_

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

_Article 7_

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

_Article 8_

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

_Article 9_

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.

_Article 10_

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

_Article 11_

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

_Article 12_

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

_Article 13_

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

_Article 14_

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

_Article 15_

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

_Article 16_

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

_Article 17_

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

_Article 18_

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

_Article 19_

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

_Article 20_

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

_Article 21_

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

_Article 22_

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

_Article 23_

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

_Article 24_

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

_Article 25_

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

_Article 26_

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

_Article 27_

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts, and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.

_Article 28_

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

_Article 29_

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

_Article 30_

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Appendix B

[International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights](contents.html#appB)

PREAMBLE

_The States Parties to the present Covenant,_

_Considering_ that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,

_Recognizing_ that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

_Recognizing_ that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social, and cultural rights,

_Considering_ the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

_Realizing_ that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

_Agree_ upon the following articles:

PART I

_Article 1_

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

_Article 2_

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

( _a_ ) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

( _b_ ) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative, or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

( _c_ ) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies where granted.

_Article 3_

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

_Article 4_

1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion, or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16, and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

_Article 5_

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group, or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations, or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.

PART III

_Article 6_

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon, or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

_Article 7_

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.

_Article 8_

1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.

2. No one shall be held in servitude.

3. ( _a_ ) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;

( _b_ ) Paragraph 3( _a_ ) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court;

( _c_ ) For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:

(i) Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph ( _b_ ), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;

(ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;

(iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;

(iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

_Article 9_

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

_Article 10_

1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

2. ( _a_ ) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons;

( _b_ ) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.

3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.

_Article 11_

No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

_Article 12_

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order ( _ordre public_ ), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

_Article 13_

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled there from only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.

_Article 14_

1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. The Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public), or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

( _a_ ) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

( _b_ ) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;

( _c_ ) To be tried without undue delay;

( _d_ ) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;

( _e_ ) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

( _f_ ) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;

( _g_ ) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure shall be such as will take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.

5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.

6. When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the nondisclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.

7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

_Article 15_

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.

2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.

_Article 16_

Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

_Article 17_

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

_Article 18_

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

_Article 19_

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

( _a_ ) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

( _b_ ) For the protection of national security or of public order ( _ordre public_ ), or of public health or morals.

_Article 20_

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law.

_Article 21_

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

_Article 22_

1. Everyone shall have the right of freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order ( _ordre public_ ), the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.

3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

_Article 23_

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

_Article 24_

1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society, and the State.

2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name.

3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.

_Article 25_

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

( _a_ ) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

( _b_ ) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

( _c_ ) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

_Article 26_

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

_Article 27_

In those States in which ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.

PART IV

_Article 28_

1. There shall be established a Human Rights Committee (hereafter referred to in the present Covenant as the Committee). It shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided.

2. The Committee shall be composed of nationals of the States Parties to the present Covenant who shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, consideration being given to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.

3. The members of the Committee shall be elected and shall serve in their personal capacity.

_Article 29_

1. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons possessing the qualifications prescribed in article 28 and nominated for the purpose by the States Parties to the present Covenant.

2. Each State Party to the present Covenant may nominate not more than two persons. These persons shall be nationals of the nominating State.

3. A person shall be eligible for renomination.

_Article 30_

1. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of the present Covenant.

2. At least four months before the date of each election to the Committee, other than an election to fill a vacancy declared in accordance with article 34, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a written invitation to the States Parties to the present Covenant to submit their nominations for membership of the Committee within three months.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all the persons thus nominated, with an indication of the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Covenant no later than one month before the date of each election.

4. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at a meeting of the States Parties to the present Covenant convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the Headquarters of the United Nations. At that meeting, for which two thirds of the States Parties to the present Covenant shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those nominees who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.

_Article 31_

1. The Committee may not include more than one national of the same State.

2. In the election of the Committee, consideration shall be given to equitable geographical distribution of membership and to the representation of the different forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems.

_Article 32_

1. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the terms of nine of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these nine members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the meeting referred to in article 30, paragraph 4.

2. Elections at the expiry of office shall be held in accordance with the preceding articles of this part of the present Covenant.

_Article 33_

1. If, in the unanimous opinion of the other members, a member of the Committee has ceased to carry out his functions for any cause other than absence of a temporary character, the Chairman of the Committee shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall then declare the seat of that member to be vacant.

2. In the event of the death or the resignation of a member of the Committee, the Chairman shall immediately notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall declare the seat vacant from the date of death or the date on which the resignation takes effect.

_Article 34_

1. When a vacancy is declared in accordance with article 33 and if the term of office of the member to be replaced does not expire within six months of the declaration of the vacancy, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify each of the States Parties to the present Covenant, which may within two months submit nominations in accordance with article 29 for the purpose of filling the vacancy.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of the persons thus nominated and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Covenant. The election to fill the vacancy shall then take place in accordance with the relevant provisions of this part of the present Covenant.

3. A member of the Committee elected to fill a vacancy declared in accordance with article 33 shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the member who vacated the seat on the Committee under the provisions of that article.

_Article 35_

The members of the Committee shall, with the approval of the General Assembly of the United Nations, receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as the General Assembly may decide, having regard to the importance of the Committee's responsibilities.

_Article 36_

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under the present Covenant.

_Article 37_

1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee at the Headquarters of the United Nations.

2. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.

3. The Committee shall normally meet at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United Nations Office at Geneva.

_Article 38_

Every member of the Committee shall, before taking up his duties, make a solemn declaration in open committee that he will perform his functions impartially and conscientiously.

_Article 39_

1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be reelected.

2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that:

( _a_ ) Twelve members shall constitute a quorum;

( _b_ ) Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.

_Article 40_

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to submit reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights:

( _a_ ) Within one year of the entry into force of the present Covenant for the States Parties concerned;

( _b_ ) Thereafter whenever the Committee so requests.

2. All reports shall be submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit them to the Committee for consideration. Reports shall indicate the factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the implementation of the present Covenant.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations may, after consultation with the Committee, transmit to the specialized agencies concerned copies of such parts of the reports as may fall within their field of competence.

4. The Committee shall study the reports submitted by the States Parties to the present Covenant. It shall transmit its reports, and such general comments as it may consider appropriate, to the States Parties. The Committee may also transmit to the Economic and Social Council these comments along with the copies of the reports it has received from States Parties to the present Covenant.

5. The States Parties to the present Covenant may submit to the Committee observations on any comments that may be made in accordance with paragraph 4 of this article.

_Article 41_

1. A State Party to the present Covenant may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the present Covenant. Communications under this article may be received and considered only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:

( _a_ ) If a State Party to the present Covenant considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of the present Covenant, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication, the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter, which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.

( _b_ ) If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee, by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.

( _c_ ) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it only after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged.

( _d_ ) The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.

( _e_ ) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph ( _c_ ), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the present Covenant.

( _f_ ) In any matter referred to it, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph ( _b_ ), to supply any relevant information.

( _g_ ) The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph ( _b_ ), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered in the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.

( _h_ ) The Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph ( _b_ ), submit a report:

(i) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph ( _e_ ) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;

(ii) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph ( _e_ ) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.

In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when ten States Parties to the present Covenant have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

_Article 42_

1. ( _a_ ) If a matter referred to the Committee in accordance with article 41 is not resolved to the satisfaction of the States Parties concerned, the Committee may, with the prior consent of the States Parties concerned, appoint an _ad hoc_ Conciliation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The good offices of the Commission shall be made available to the States Parties concerned with a view to an amicable solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the present Covenant;

( _b_ ) The Commission shall consist of five persons acceptable to the States Parties concerned. If the States Parties concerned fail to reach agreement within three months on all or part of the composition of the Commission, the members of the Commission concerning whom no agreement has been reached shall be elected by secret ballot by a two-thirds majority vote of the Committee from among its members.

2. The members of the Commission shall serve in their personal capacity. They shall not be nationals of the States Parties concerned, or of a State not party to the present Covenant, or of a State Party which has not made a declaration under article 41.

3. The Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its own rules of procedure.

4. The meetings of the Commission shall normally be held at the Headquarters of the United Nations or at the United Nations Office at Geneva. However, they may be held at such other convenient places as the Commission may determine in consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the States Parties concerned.

5. The secretariat provided in accordance with article 36 shall also service the commissions appointed under this article.

6. The information received and collated by the Committee shall be made available to the Commission and the Commission may call upon the States Parties concerned to supply any other relevant information.

7. When the Commission has fully considered the matter, but in any event not later than twelve months after having been seized of the matter, it shall submit to the Chairman of the Committee a report for communication to the States Parties concerned:

( _a_ ) If the Commission is unable to complete its consideration of the matter within twelve months, it shall confine its report to a brief statement of the status of its consideration of the matter;

( _b_ ) If an amicable solution to the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as recognized in the present Covenant is reached, the Commission shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached;

( _c_ ) If a solution within the terms of subparagraph ( _b_ ) is not reached, the Commission's report shall embody its findings on all questions of fact relevant to the issues between the States Parties concerned, and its views on the possibilities of an amicable solution of the matter. This report shall also contain the written submissions and a record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned;

( _d_ ) If the Commission's report is submitted under subparagraph ( _c_ ), the States Parties concerned shall, within three months of the receipt of the report, notify the Chairman of the Committee whether or not they accept the contents of the report of the Commission.

8. The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Committee under article 41.

9. The States Parties concerned shall share equally all the expenses of the members of the Commission in accordance with estimates to be provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

10. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be empowered to pay the expenses of the members of the Commission, if necessary, before reimbursement by the States Parties concerned, in accordance with paragraph 9 of this article.

_Article 43_

The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 42, shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges, and immunities of experts on mission for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

_Article 44_

The provisions for the implementation of the present Covenant shall apply without prejudice to the procedures prescribed in the field of human rights by or under the constituent instruments and the conventions of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies and shall not prevent the States Parties to the present Covenant from having recourse to other procedures for settling a dispute in accordance with general or special international agreement in force between them.

_Article 45_

The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly of the United Nations, through the Economic and Social Council, an annual report on its activities.

PART V

_Article 46_

Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and of the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the respective responsibilities of the various organs of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies in regard to the matters dealt with in the present Covenant.

_Article 47_

Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources.

PART VI

_Article 48_

1. The present Covenant is open for signature by any State Member of the United Nations or member of any of its specialized agencies, by any State Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State which has been invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a party to the present Covenant.

2. The present Covenant is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. The present Covenant shall be open to accession by any State referred to in paragraph 1 of this article.

4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed this Covenant or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.

_Article 49_

1. The present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Covenant or acceding to it after the deposit of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Covenant shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

_Article 50_

The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

_Article 51_

1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.

2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

_Article 52_

Irrespective of the notifications made under article 48, paragraph 5, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in paragraph 1 of the same article of the following particulars:

( _a_ ) Signatures, ratifications, and accessions under article 48;

( _b_ ) The date of the entry into force of the present Covenant under article 49 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 51.

_Article 53_

1. The present Covenant, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Covenant to all States referred to in article 48.
Appendix C

[Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights](contents.html#appC)

_The States Parties to the present Protocol,_

_Considering_ that in order further to achieve the purposes of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and the implementation of its provisions it would be appropriate to enable the Human Rights Committee set up in part IV of the Covenant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant,

_Have agreed_ as follows:

_Article 1_

A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Covenant which is not a party to the present Protocol.

_Article 2_

Subject to the provisions of article 1, individuals who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration.

_Article 3_

The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under the present Protocol which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

_Article 4_

1. Subject to the provisions of article 3, the Committee shall bring any communications submitted to it under the present Protocol to the attention of the State Party to the present Protocol alleged to be violating any provision of the Covenant.

2. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.

_Article 5_

1. The Committee shall consider communications received under the present Protocol in the light of all written information made available to it by the individual and by the State Party concerned.

2. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that:

( _a_ ) The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;

( _b_ ) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies.

This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged.

3. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under the present Protocol.

4. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

_Article 6_

The Committee shall include in its annual report under article 45 of the Covenant a summary of its activities under the present Protocol.

_Article 7_

Pending the achievement of the objectives of resolution 1514 (XV) adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 14 December 1960 concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the provisions of the present Protocol shall in no way limit the right of petition granted to these peoples by the Charter of the United Nations and other international conventions and instruments under the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

_Article 8_

1. The present Protocol is open for signature by any State which has signed the Covenant.

2. The present Protocol is subject to ratification by any State which has ratified or acceded to the Covenant. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. The present Protocol shall be open to accession by any State which has ratified or acceded to the Covenant.

4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

5. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States which have signed the present Protocol or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession.

_Article 9_

1. Subject to the entry into force of the Covenant, the present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the tenth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

2. For each State ratifying the present Protocol or acceding to it after the deposit of the tenth instrument of ratification or instrument of accession, the present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or instrument of accession.

_Article 10_

The provisions of the present Protocol shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

_Article 11_

1. Any State Party to the present Protocol may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Protocol with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.

2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Protocol in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Protocol and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

_Article 12_

1. Any State Party may denounce the present Protocol at any time by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation shall take effect three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.

2. Denunciation shall be without prejudice to the continued application of the provisions of the present Protocol to any communication submitted under article 2 before the effective date of denunciation.

_Article 13_

Irrespective of the notifications made under article 8, paragraph 5, of the present Protocol, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in article 48, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the following particulars:

( _a_ ) Signatures, ratifications, and accessions under article 8;

( _b_ ) The date of the entry into force of the present Protocol under article 9 and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 11;

( _c_ ) Denunciations under article 12.

_Article 14_

1. The present Protocol, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.

2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the present Protocol to all States referred to in article 48 of the Covenant.
Appendix D

[Resolution Adopted by the
General Assembly](contents.html#appD)

[ _without reference to a Main Committee (A/55/L.2)_ ]

55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration

_The General Assembly_

_Adopts_ the following Declaration:

United Nations Millennium Declaration

I. Values and principles

1. We, heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 6 to 8 September 2000, at the dawn of a new millennium, to reaffirm our faith in the Organization and its Charter as indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world.

2. We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world's people, especially the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to whom the future belongs.

3. We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which have proved timeless and universal. Indeed, their relevance and capacity to inspire have increased, as nations and peoples have become increasingly interconnected and interdependent.

4. We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence, resolution of disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for the equal rights of all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion and international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character.

5. We believe that the central challenge we face today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world's people. For while globalization offers great opportunities, at present its benefits are very unevenly shared, while its costs are unevenly distributed. We recognize that developing countries and countries with economies in transition face special difficulties in responding to this central challenge. Thus, only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future, based upon our common humanity in all its diversity, can globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable. These efforts must include policies and measures, at the global level, which correspond to the needs of developing countries and economies in transition and are formulated and implemented with their effective participation.

6. We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international relations in the twenty-first century. These include:

  * Freedom. Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people best assures these rights.
  * Equality. No individual and no nation must be denied the opportunity to benefit from development. The equal rights and opportunities of women and men must be assured.
  * Solidarity. Global challenges must be managed in a way that distributes the costs and burdens fairly in accordance with basic principles of equity and social justice. Those who suffer or who benefit least deserve help from those who benefit most.
  * Tolerance. Human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. Differences within and between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity. A culture of peace and dialogue among all civilizations should be actively promoted.
  * Respect for nature. Prudence must be shown in the management of all living species and natural resources, in accordance with the precepts of sustainable development. Only in this way can the immeasurable riches provided to us by nature be preserved and passed on to our descendants. The current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption must be changed in the interest of our future welfare and that of our descendants.
  * Shared responsibility. Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.

7. In order to translate these shared values into actions, we have identified key objectives to which we assign special significance.

II. Peace, security and disarmament

8. We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war, whether within or between States, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade. We will also seek to eliminate the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction.

9. We resolve therefore:

  * To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties.
  * To make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction. In this context, we take note of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations and request the General Assembly to consider its recommendations expeditiously.
  * To strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter.
  * To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
  * To take concerted action against international terrorism, and to accede as soon as possible to all the relevant international conventions.
  * To redouble our efforts to implement our commitment to counter the world drug problem.
  * To intensify our efforts to fight transnational crime in all its dimensions, including trafficking as well as smuggling in human beings and money laundering.
  * To minimize the adverse effects of United Nations economic sanctions on innocent populations, to subject such sanctions regimes to regular reviews and to eliminate the adverse effects of sanctions on third parties.
  * To strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers.
  * To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
  * To call on all States to consider acceding to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, as well as the amended mines protocol to the Convention on conventional weapons.

10. We urge Member States to observe the Olympic Truce, individually and collectively, now and in the future, and to support the International Olympic Committee in its efforts to promote peace and human understanding through sport and the Olympic Ideal.

III. Development and poverty eradication

11. We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.

12. We resolve therefore to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.

13. Success in meeting these objectives depends, inter alia, on good governance within each country. It also depends on good governance at the international level and on transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems. We are committed to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system.

14. We are concerned about the obstacles developing countries face in mobilizing the resources needed to finance their sustained development. We will therefore make every effort to ensure the success of the High-level International and Intergovernmental Event on Financing for Development, to be held in 2001.

15. We also undertake to address the special needs of the least developed countries. In this context, we welcome the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries to be held in May 2001 and will endeavour to ensure its success. We call on the industrialized countries:

  * To adopt, preferably by the time of that Conference, a policy of duty- and quota-free access for essentially all exports from the least developed countries;
  * To implement the enhanced programme of debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries without further delay and to agree to cancel all official bilateral debts of those countries in return for their making demonstrable commitments to poverty reduction; and
  * To grant more generous development assistance, especially to countries that are genuinely making an effort to apply their resources to poverty reduction.

16. We are also determined to deal comprehensively and effectively with the debt problems of low- and middle-income developing countries, through various national and international measures designed to make their debt sustainable in the long term.

17. We also resolve to address the special needs of small island developing States, by implementing the Barbados Programme of Action and the outcome of the twenty-second special session of the General Assembly rapidly and in full. We urge the international community to ensure that, in the development of a vulnerability index, the special needs of small island developing States are taken into account.

18. We recognize the special needs and problems of the landlocked developing countries, and urge both bilateral and multilateral donors to increase financial and technical assistance to this group of countries to meet their special development needs and to help them overcome the impediments of geography by improving their transit transport systems.

19. We resolve further:

  * To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world's people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water.
  * To ensure that, by the same date, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education.
  * By the same date, to have reduced maternal mortality by three quarters, and under-five child mortality by two thirds, of their current rates.
  * To have, by then, halted, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS, the scourge of malaria and other major diseases that afflict humanity.
  * To provide special assistance to children orphaned by HIV/AIDS.
  * By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the "Cities Without Slums" initiative.

20. We also resolve:

  * To promote gender equality and the empowerment of women as effective ways to combat poverty, hunger and disease and to stimulate development that is truly sustainable.
  * To develop and implement strategies that give young people everywhere a real chance to find decent and productive work.
  * To encourage the pharmaceutical industry to make essential drugs more widely available and affordable by all who need them in developing countries.
  * To develop strong partnerships with the private sector and with civil society organizations in pursuit of development and poverty eradication.
  * To ensure that the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communication technologies, in conformity with recommendations contained in the ECOSOC 2000 Ministerial Declaration, are available to all.

IV. Protecting our common environment

21. We must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs.

22. We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

23. We resolve therefore to adopt in all our environmental actions a new ethic of conservation and stewardship and, as first steps, we resolve:

  * To make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, preferably by the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 2002, and to embark on the required reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.
  * To intensify our collective efforts for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.
  * To press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa.
  * To stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management strategies at the regional, national and local levels, which promote both equitable access and adequate supplies.
  * To intensify cooperation to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters.
  * To ensure free access to information on the human genome sequence.

V. Human rights, democracy and good governance

24. We will spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development.

25. We resolve therefore:

  * To respect fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  * To strive for the full protection and promotion in all our countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all.
  * To strengthen the capacity of all our countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights, including minority rights.
  * To combat all forms of violence against women and to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
  * To take measures to ensure respect for and protection of the human rights of migrants, migrant workers and their families, to eliminate the increasing acts of racism and xenophobia in many societies and to promote greater harmony and tolerance in all societies.
  * To work collectively for more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all our countries.
  * To ensure the freedom of the media to perform their essential role and the right of the public to have access to information.

VI. Protecting the vulnerable

26. We will spare no effort to ensure that children and all civilian populations that suffer disproportionately the consequences of natural disasters, genocide, armed conflicts and other humanitarian emergencies are given every assistance and protection so that they can resume normal life as soon as possible.

We resolve therefore:

  * To expand and strengthen the protection of civilians in complex emergencies, in conformity with international humanitarian law.
  * To strengthen international cooperation, including burden sharing in, and the coordination of humanitarian assistance to, countries hosting refugees and to help all refugees and displaced persons to return voluntarily to their homes, in safety and dignity and to be smoothly reintegrated into their societies.
  * To encourage the ratification and full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

VII. Meeting the special needs of Africa

27. We will support the consolidation of democracy in Africa and assist Africans in their struggle for lasting peace, poverty eradication and sustainable development, thereby bringing Africa into the mainstream of the world economy.

28. We resolve therefore:

  * To give full support to the political and institutional structures of emerging democracies in Africa.
  * To encourage and sustain regional and subregional mechanisms for preventing conflict and promoting political stability, and to ensure a reliable flow of resources for peacekeeping operations on the continent.
  * To take special measures to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development in Africa, including debt cancellation, improved market access, enhanced Official Development Assistance and increased flows of Foreign Direct Investment, as well as transfers of technology.
  * To help Africa build up its capacity to tackle the spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and other infectious diseases.

VIII. Strengthening the United Nations

29. We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities: the fight for development for all the peoples of the world, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation and destruction of our common home.

30. We resolve therefore:

  * To reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations, and to enable it to play that role effectively.
  * To intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.
  * To strengthen further the Economic and Social Council, building on its recent achievements, to help it fulfil the role ascribed to it in the Charter.
  * To strengthen the International Court of Justice, in order to ensure justice and the rule of law in international affairs.
  * To encourage regular consultations and coordination among the principal organs of the United Nations in pursuit of their functions.
  * To ensure that the Organization is provided on a timely and predictable basis with the resources it needs to carry out its mandates.
  * To urge the Secretariat to make the best use of those resources, in accordance with clear rules and procedures agreed by the General Assembly, in the interests of all Member States, by adopting the best management practices and technologies available and by concentrating on those tasks that reflect the agreed priorities of Member States.
  * To promote adherence to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.
  * To ensure greater policy coherence and better cooperation between the United Nations, its agencies, the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization, as well as other multilateral bodies, with a view to achieving a fully coordinated approach to the problems of peace and development.
  * To strengthen further cooperation between the United Nations and national parliaments through their world organization, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in various fields, including peace and security, economic and social development, international law and human rights and democracy and gender issues.
  * To give greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society, in general, to contribute to the realization of the Organization's goals and programmes.

31. We request the General Assembly to review on a regular basis the progress made in implementing the provisions of this Declaration, and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic reports for consideration by the General Assembly and as a basis for further action.

32. We solemnly reaffirm, on this historic occasion, that the United Nations is the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development. We therefore pledge our unstinting support for these common objectives and our determination to achieve them.

_8th plenary meeting_
8 September 2000
Appendix E

[Suggested Internet Websites
for Further Research](contents.html#appE)

The following websites provide resources to help you keep up to date with developments in human rights around the world:

• Human Rights Watch: <http://www.hrw.org>. Human Rights Watch (HRW) serves primarily to monitor how well countries are observing political and civil human rights. Each year, it issues a report on countries around the world and discusses the status of political and civil rights within those countries.

• Human Rights First: <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org>. The Human Rights First website provides all types of information about human rights and even offers opportunities for employment, fellowship, and internships, although the intern positions do not offer funding.

• Amnesty International: <http://www.amnesty.org>. Amnesty International (AI) is one of the first human rights groups to address political and civil rights. Today, AI has expanded its human rights focus to include economic, social, and cultural human rights.

• United Nations: <http://www.un.org>. The United Nations website offers a wealth of information on human rights, with a specific tab labeled "human rights."

• The People's Movement for Human Rights Learning: <http://www.pdhre.org>. The People's Movement for Human Rights Learning website has links to a number of human rights developments across the United States.

This is only a short list of websites that address human rights. But they offer access to detailed information on almost all human rights issues relevant today.
Index

Addams, Jane

adoption

Amnesty International

Aristotle

asylum, as human right

Beijing + 5 Conference (1995)

Beijing Declaration. _See_ Platform for Action

Bill of Rights: International, United States, second Bill of Rights

capital punishment. _See_ death penalty

Carter, President Jimmy

Cassin, Rene

children: basic rights, best interests of, Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), cultural rights, education, death penalty, exploitation of, foster care and adoption, freedom of information, freedom of thought, medical care, separation from parents, social work position on human rights of, special care

China

civil and political rights: compared to economic rights, as human right ( _see_ International Convention on Civil and Political Rights)

_Code of Ethics_ (NASW): application to human rights, based on human rights principles, criticism of, ethical principles, ethical responsibilities, respect for cultural diversity, relevance to social workers, self-determination

collective human rights

Commission on Human Rights

_Communist Manifesto_ (1848)

Condorcet

convention: approval and ratification, definition, reservations on

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): developments after CEDAW, provisions, U.S. position on, _See also_ Platform for Action; Social Work Symposium

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): provisions, social work position, U.S. position on

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Council of Social Work Education (CSWE)

covenant: definition, ratification by U.S. Senate, reservations on, _See also_ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

Cuba

cultural relativism

customary international law

Dachau

death penalty: human rights perspective, U.S. position on

declaration: as a human rights term

Declaration of Independence (U.S., 1776)

Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice (1978)

Declaration on the Right to Development

Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons

defamation

Department of Human Rights, as state agencies

development: as human right, goals

disability: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, persons with disabilities, as a social construct, social work position

discrimination

diversity

domestic violence: as violation of human rights

Dred Scott case

due process

economic and social human rights: as inferior to political rights

education

employment

empowerment

Engels, Friedrich

equal protection

ethics: application to social work and human rights, importance of

Europe: approach to social welfare

European Union, human rights

_Filartarga v. Pena-Irala_

four freedoms, as basis for human rights

French Revolution

Gandhi, Mahatma

gays and lesbians

global apartheid

globalization

group ethics

Guantanamo Bay detention center

Hague Convention on Adoption

health care: as a human right, in the United States

HIV-AIDS, patent on HIV-AID drugs, UN resolutions on

Hobbes, Thomas

human rights: application to social work ethics, arbitrary and unlawful detention, asylum, case studies, challenges, children, civil and political rights, collective rights, concept of, cultural life, definition, dignity, diversity, due process, economic, social, and cultural rights, education, employment, enforcement of, European Union, freedom of expression, generations or sets, health care, Guantanamo Bay detention center, gender issues, generations of, historical development, indivisibility of, international aspects, leisure, living wage, monitoring, natural law, negative rights, persons with disabilities, positive rights, privacy, racism, religion, reports, role in social work profession, sex offenders, support by social workers, teaching of, terminology, third generation, universality, voting, women's rights, _See also_ Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Human Rights Committee

Human Rights Watch: human rights reports on U.S., mission statement, torture

immigrants

indivisibility of human rights

International Association of Schools of Social Work

International Bill of Rights

International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, complaints, compliance with, death penalty, discrimination, Optional Protocol, reservations by United States, self-determination, social work perspective, specific civil and political rights

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, education, employment, health care, insufficient resources to provide, social work perspective, subordinate to civil and political rights, U.S. position on

International Federation of Social Workers

international issues and human rights

international ethical principles

Jebb, Eglantyne

League of Nations

leisure and vacation, as human right

Locke, John

Magna Carta

Marx, Karl

Millennium Declaration

National Association of Social Workers (NASW): _Code of Ethics_ , policy statement on human rights, _See also Code of Ethics_

Native Americans

natural law and rights

Nazi Germany

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

older persons

Olympe de Gouges

oppression

Optional Protocol to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

persons with disabilities

Platform for Action (1995): Beijing Declaration, Beijing + 5 Review

political and civil rights: importance of role models

Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign

racism

religion

reverse gender discrimination

right to development

Roosevelt, Eleanor

Roosevelt, President Franklin D.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Salomon, Alice

self-determination: First Nations Peoples, as human right, Palestinians, social work concept

sex offenders

slavery

social exclusion

social justice, egalitarian theory, libertarian theory, as outdated concept, utilitarian theory

social work profession: application of human rights, children's rights, code of ethics, criminal justice system, ethics, historical role in human rights, human rights position, international human rights issues, interventions, mission, older persons, perspective on civil and political rights, perspective on economic and social rights, racism, reluctance to integrate human rights in U.S., self-determination, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, women's rights

Social Work Symposium (1995): 4th World Conference on Women

strengths perspective

torture, as violation of human right, social work perspective

treaty, as human rights document

United Nations, creation of, Charter

United States: Bill of Rights, criminal justice system, death penalty (capital punishment), education, health care, Human Rights Watch, country summary, reservations to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Senate's refusal to ratify child convention, Senate's refusal to ratify women's convention (CEDAW), social welfare, State Department

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): adoption by UN, articles, historical development, lack of knowledge by Americans, purpose, social work perspective

U.S. Constitution

U.S. State Department

U.S. Supreme Court: Dred Scott case

universality (also universalism)

Wal-Mart

Wells-Barnett, Ida B.

women's rights

World Conference against Racism

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook