and legitimized to allow measurement. Clearly, this function is better suited to
international human rights, as it may be illegitimate to judge freedom of speech in
China using the United States Constitution as a frame of reference, but it might be
legitimate to judge freedom of speech in both countries using UN treaties as the
point of reference. One of the main benefits of the UN human rights system is the
wealth of information it produces about the state of human rights across the globe.
12.3.4 Rights as a Political Language
Finally, the vocabulary of human rights also functions as a political language.
Individuals, groups, and organizations that aim to reach a particular objective
often adopt the rhetoric of rights. They do so not because they are convinced that
they legally have that right or because they feel it illustrates a deep moral principle.
Rather, they adopt the language of rights because they believe it is more effective
than other forms of political posturing.
In an appeal to the United Nations in 2002 to pressure Iraq into various political and
military concessions, George W. Bush repeatedly stressed human rights:
“The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war, the hope of a world
moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. [...] Last year, the UN
commission on human rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave
violations of human rights and that the regime’s repression is all-pervasive. The history,
the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and
gathering danger. [...] Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us by making
clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.”
Arguably, the main motive for this exercise was not humanitarian but rhetorical; the
politician thought that the language of international human rights made his claims more
powerful. Examples such as these can be found across the whole range of the political
spectrum.12.4 The Right Holders
In this section, two questions will be addressed: (1) in what sense only human
beings can have human rights, (2) whether all human beings have (the same) human
rights.
12.4.1 What Counts as Human?
Human Rights for the Unborn? If we are talking about human rights, it seems
obvious that the right holder must be a human being, but such simplicity is hides
pervasive disagreements. For one, there is considerable debate about when life
starts and ends, a debate that has significant consequences for human rights. For
example, if life starts with conception, then abortion would be prohibited by the
right to life. Likewise, it is questionable at what point severely injured individuals
are really dead and cease to be holders of rights.
268 G. Arosemena