Some people are sceptical about the inclusion of socio-economic rights (eg health, education, housing) in "human rights" instruments. They're mistaken . [short thread] theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
The rhetoric of human rights is that they're rights we have simply by virtue of being human in all times and places. This rhetoric is helpful as it is a lever to induce compliance. Which government wants to deny rights so basic?
Unfortunately, this leads to confusion as the rights in the international instruments are simply not rights we all have in all times and places.
Cavemen had no right to education, or to a police force to protect them from being killed for example.
Cavemen had no right to education, or to a police force to protect them from being killed for example.
So, should 'human rights' be confined to the (quite different) set of rights that we have simply by virtue of being human (eg the rights not to be killed, lied to, defamed etc)?
No.
No.
We have an *international* law of human rights because it is in all states interests that other states maintain certain minimum standards in the treatment of citizens. If they don't, chaos and violence ensue.
It is in UK's interest that our neighbours have a functioning legal system. ensure citizens have access to housing and healhcare, don't discriminate against minority groups etc.
Socioeconomic rights central to idea of 'human rights' as contributing to a stable world order.
END
Socioeconomic rights central to idea of 'human rights' as contributing to a stable world order.
END
