Introduction to Political Theory

religions and cultures tackle the climb from different sides of the mountain, such

that they cannot see one another or recognise that they are engaged in a common

pursuit. Only once they have reached the mountain top will they be able to

acknowledge their shared history. This is an attractive metaphor, the force of which

depends on ignoring the reasons advanced by different religious and philosophical

systems for respecting ‘universal’ human rights.

Human rights conventions

Literature on human rights tends to fall into two groups, with limited cross-over

between them: human rights law and philosophical discussions of human rights.

While respecting the difference between these approaches it is useful for students

of political theory to establish the connections between them, because legality and

morality are both important in debates about the relationship between the state and

citizen. To this end we will look at two human rights documents: the UDHR and

the ECHR. There are important differences between these two documents, and the

aim of our study is to draw out the philosophical and political implications of each

document.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

The UDHR consists of a Preamble and 30 articles. The Preamble asserts that 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’. Without

specifying the events it acknowledges the ‘barbarous acts which have outraged the

conscience of mankind’, and asserts that human rights must be protected through

law.

The 30 articles are reproduced in summary form below. We have grouped them

together for purposes of discussion; they are not, in fact, grouped in this way in

the UDHR.

Several important points can be drawn from this document:

1. Although reference is made to the importance of legal protection, the document
   provides for no legal mechanisms, such as courts, to enforce human rights. And
   the linguistic style of the document lacks the precision a good legal document
   should possess.


2. Many of the rights themselves can be grouped: (a) rights that essentially amount
   to being left alone; (b) rights to participate in the political structure of the
   country, and to enjoy the protection of its laws; (c) rights to associate with people
   of your own choosing; (d) social rights, such as employment protection and a
   minimum level of resources. The first three groups clearly reflect the ethos of
   a liberal democratic society, whereas the last was a concession to the realities
   of power politics in the post-war period, where the Soviet Union was keen to
   stake out a distinct moral position, one that stressed social goods.


3. The rights are limited by articles 29 and 30, which talk of the duties of individuals
   
   
   • the reference to the ‘requirements of morality’ leaves open the possibility that
     the rights could be interpreted in significantly different ways in different cultures.
   
   
   
   

406 Part 4 Contemporary ideas