The Universal Affirmation Of Human Rights

The universal affirmation of human rights

“Human rights are a set of principles, of universal acceptance, constitutionally recognized and legally guaranteed, aimed at ensuring human being their dignity as a person, in its individual and social, material and spiritual dimension."

In history, the struggle for human rights has been the search for the dignity of the person as such against the State, trying to break the system of slavery and contempt of the individual. France with the initiative in 1789 proclaimed the rights of man. In the nineteenth century a large number of countries put aside the retrograde practice of slavery seeking to form a state of democracy.

In this way in 1948 after World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was given through the United Nations with this came an importance to the human being in all aspects and deep attention to the most vulnerable groups such as them are:women, children, older adults, ethnic groups, among others.

The universal affirmation of Human Rights (doubt), resolution of the General Assembly 217 A (III) is constituted of a preamble and thirty articles, which collect civil rights;The comments shown after each article collect in general visualizations carried out by the committees made up of the appointed agreements, namely: the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which have theability to verify compliance, by states, of these international commitments.

With respect to human rights a legal-political system is linked. A political system is considered legitimate if it respects and illegitimate and even tyrannical if it violates them. It is considered fair if you recognize and protect them, and unfair if you do not do it. They also became the transport used to express any requirement of justice and any kind of claim or political demand;which ratifies colossal prestige. It can be said that today they play a role similar to the one that the initiative of natural law performed once. In fact, he assured, not without reason, that human rights make up the natural right of our time.

Human rights can be analyzed from a triple dimension: an ethical dimension, which leads us to act with respect to the quality of the value that identifies each one as a person;A political dimension is the force that is exerted on each citizen so that each regulations of human rights are fulfilled in the different areas;Finally a legal dimension, this allows these rights to be a rule to be complied with and can be claimed in front of the State in any situation.

The universal criterion is a very used term when talking about human rights since this refers to an idea or belief in which there is a universal truth that determines everything taking into account that it must be applied equally in all theHumans. Therefore, it can be said that universality is of the utmost importance since it mainly affects the central point of human rights.

Universality in the Genesis of Human Rights.

We identify human rights as a contribution of illustration in the legal and political field. Two doctrinal addresses that support the idea of giving man of respect to man are rationalist iusnaturalism and contractualism. The first, postulates that every human being enjoys a natural right This is a value or principle that comes from the consciousness of man and has been granted by nature are determined universal and eternal, and in turn they are recognized by the political power of thepositive law whose norms dictated by the State regulate the relationship of the human being in society.

Contractualism, is a modern current of philosophy and law, determines the individual before the State then we can say that it should be concerned with the interests of each individual as such. The theories that arise lead to a rationalization of the State and a critical analysis of power and legitimacy.

Both addresses are assimilated by postulating basic legal faculties common to all men. The main characteristic that we can see in human rights is that these must be applied with universal character, recognize all men without any exclusion. The thesis of the legal-political evolution of humanity advanced by Hegel, dates about the oriental empires when only the highest authority was the one that enjoyed freedom, then we can refer to human rights from the moment the man had the opportunity toclaim them, the great legal-political invention of modernity is based on developing the ownership of active legal positions for human being after obtaining the concept of human rights.

Entering a little in the context of declaration of the rights of man and the citizen promulgated by the French Constituent Assembly in 1789, it is dated that men from birth already have rights such as equality and freedom that cannot be revoked even byThe State, from here a series characteristic of human rights is derived.

Human rights are innate or inherent, we are all born with the belonging of rights that do not come from a law, the State, title or decree, but from the very nature or dignity of man. When violating human rights, he is going against the nature of man himself.

Human rights are universal, this concept leads us to equality in which no human being can be deprived of enjoying their rights. No matter his race, his religion, his nationality, his language, there is only one man with the same opportunities.

Human rights are inalienable and non -transferable, man cannot reject or give up his rights even less negotiate them, neither can the State dispose of them.

Human rights are cumulative, imprescriptible or irreversible, as time progresses, the struggle of man to claim his rights to fully given many results by increasing the heritage of human dignity which will not expire, but will always improve.

Human rights are inviolable, nobody has the power to attempt against human rights, not even the State, therefore, no social or economic laws or policies that go against man and their natural dignity can be placed. Human rights are mandatory, according to the UN, human rights must be fully respected, even if there is no law or regulation that provides for it.

Human rights transcend national borders, at this point it refers to the fact that the international community can and is mandatory that intervenes in the fulfillment of rights if a foreign state is violating them over a migrant citizen.

Human rights are indivisible, interdependent, complementary and non -hierarchable, all human rights are related to each other for a enjoyable inhabit of man as an individual and in a social context that is why no right can be denied and try to fully live withothers, because this will be reason to unbalance the dignity of the citizen and there will be no development in their environment.

The political meaning of the rights of man becomes apparent, then, at the moment in which the differences between democratic and totalitarian society are conceived. To carry out this distinction, Lefort offers to break with some prejudices that have contaminated the confrontation of human rights. First of all, the French philosopher suggests going to take distance from the interpretation that Karl Marx achieved from human rights in the Jewish issue, announced in the Franco German Years in 1844, the German philosopher native to Tréveris, points out that the rights ofman are not others than those of the selfish man, of the member of society.

Marx’s explanation of this point deserves to rigorous with the objective of entering into the matter: for Marx, human rights are simply a "political illusion" in fact, the German philosopher retains from the bourgeois revolution what he calls "political emancipation”, Oséa, the delimitation of a sphere of politics as a sphere of the universal, at a distance of the true society, which results from the conjunction of interest and private stocks. Marx considers this political emancipation as a primary but transitory and insufficient moment in the development of human emancipation.

The analyzed political dimension of the rights of man has caused, for example, unique changes in the strategy and allegation of the struggles inspired by the notion of rights. First of all, these struggles no longer aspire to a global satisfaction of social conflicts through the conquest or the devastation of political power. The Winter Palace is for them an easy literary metaphor. A countercurrent of some Marxist idea, which supposed the determining reconciliation of man with himself at the end of the story, the ultimate purpose of these struggles is not the overthrow of the ruling class, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and, consequently, theState extinction and the abolition of private property. Its purpose is less ambitious, but more effective: the establishment of a popular power that forever puts into question the legitimacy of the State.

Precisely, the State can resort to any occasion to the legitimate monopoly of cruelty to use coercion, but it is no less true that the legitimate foundation of cruelty makes increasingly questioned appearance and the value of using it rises to the leaders. Power can denied, by way of facts, the application of law.

Universality cannot be a dogma or an empty ideal, of such ethereal contours that they end up not means anything, not after so many struggles to change ideologies that went against the rights of the human being. It is true that human rights have their strongest foundation, not in our law but in morals, in the moral value of human dignity, but it is also true that between morals and law there are several connections as intimate as primordial.

Legal positivism denies such connections and for that reason it will hardly be able to speak effectively of the human rights initiative. A concept that has an indisputable weight in law, even before the legislator has expressly incorporated human rights into current positive laws. This weight of the rights of man in some legal system, before and regardless of whether they have been expressly recognized by the legislator, is taught precisely by that interpenetration or reciprocal and necessary communication that is always intermediate between the moral and the legal or, the legal or,What would be the same for the effects that attract us here, between the natural or moral rights of man and the positive law in force in each country.

Finally, man has left the paradigm of mental slavery in order to demand respect for his integrity and natural dignity, which is why today there are human rights that provide universal recognition and protection giving ethical and legal value to the human being as part as partFundamental of society. We can call this as a very relevant conquest for man, since he is not only respected in a moral plane, the laws protect him and the State cannot claim much less violate his rights. To this we can consider freedom and equality.

Bibliography

• UNESCO Office Santo Domingo, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences. (2003). Human Rights Education Guide. Santo Domingo: Buho.
• Kaufmann, a. (1998). The Universality of Human Rights. A foundation trial. Person and Law Magazine, (38), 11-34.
• Luño, a. AND. P. (1998). On the universality of human rights. Yearbook of Philosophy of Law, (15), 95-110.
• Easter, j. A. (1998, October). Criticism of the idea of human rights. In II International Congress for Human Rights (pp. 872-891).
• Lio, f. The Political Dimension of Human Rights.
• Nikken, p. (1997). On the right of human concepts. Venezuela: Inter -American Institute for Human Rights.
• Jacquemin, j. P. (1993). Essay on human rights. U Studies Center.A.AND.M: Codhem.