Human Rights and Social Justice
Author: [Divya Mandlik]
Human Rights and Social Justice
Neil (2017) presented that Human rights have become a very important political tool in a short amount of time. They are now the main way people challenge political systems and claim their rights to fair treatment. Human rights are often seen as a universal language that connects ideas of equality and justice to the way societies treat their members. In this sense, human rights don’t necessarily address new issues compared to past claims of citizenship rights, but they emphasize that all humans are equally deserving of moral respect, no matter where they live.
One key development in human rights is the increasing focus on addressing different forms of inequality and exclusion. This includes looking at the various places and groups where unfair treatment happens. As human rights evolve, they are becoming more closely related to ideas of social justice—meaning they focus not just on basic survival or well-being, but on fairness, equality, and how people are treated in society.
The main point of this paper is that human rights don’t have to be limited to just basic needs or well-being. Instead, they can be expanded to support broader ideas of social justice. The idea is that human rights can be part of creating a fair political system where all people are treated equally. The paper also addresses concerns about limited resources and the challenge of justifying fairness across different cultures and societies. It argues that human rights, as an international concern, should help guide a global idea of equality and fairness, without being restricted by narrow or local views.
Human Rights Pathways to Just Sustainabilities
LaDawn (2019) presented that Collaborative efforts to achieve sustainability—finding a balance between humans and nature—are essential. But we must also face the reality of conflict and injustice that exists in the world today. If we want to fix the damaging trends in society and the environment, we need to directly address these issues. Human rights can help by shining a light on harmful social relationships and inequalities between people. They can reduce risks, help define ways to solve conflicts, and create a foundation for justice and accountability, which are necessary for building a sustainable future.
Human rights are clearer and more established than the broader concept of “justice” and have a strong presence in law and policy. This makes them a useful tool for pushing forward meaningful changes, especially in situations where there are entrenched power dynamics or resistance to change.
Researchers in sustainability often work at a crossroads between different areas of social science, and they can make a big difference by combining human rights with sustainability efforts. This approach helps to clarify the goals of both fields, build wider support, and create opportunities for collaboration across different regions and disciplines. By linking environmental issues to human rights, these efforts can be more grounded in real-world contexts, making it easier to address the root causes of sustainability challenges.
There is a need for more research on how human rights can expose and challenge unsustainable practices, especially since human rights cover not just individual freedoms but also economic, social, and environmental aspects. Even though it may seem like a big step for scientists to embrace human rights fully, it’s necessary given the urgent state of the world. This is not the time to hold back.
The right to social security in international documents
Keihan & Fatemeh (2017) presented that After World War II, governments began to recognize that social rights, like social security, are essential for preventing conflict, poverty, and injustice. They understood that poverty can threaten international peace and security, so addressing it became crucial for achieving lasting peace. Social security is seen as a way to prevent people from being excluded and to help them participate in society.
The key idea in this paper is to understand who is responsible for ensuring social rights, particularly the right to social security. Social rights are part of the “second generation” of human rights, which are different from the “first generation” rights. First-generation rights focus on freedoms, like freedom of speech, and limit government interference. In contrast, second-generation rights, like social security, require active government involvement and responsibility.
These rights emphasize that governments must ensure their citizens have access to social benefits like healthcare, education, and financial support, without discrimination. Governments are held accountable for providing these rights, and if they fail to do so, they must be held responsible. Even if some responsibilities are handed over to private institutions, the government remains accountable for making sure its citizens’ rights are met.
In short, second-generation human rights, like social security, require governments to intervene and provide these services to their citizens, and they must be held accountable if they fail to do so.
The Social Component of The Community Justice Reform
Emilian & Tiberiu (2011) presented that As a member of the European Union (EU), Romania is required to inform the European Commission about the steps it takes to implement EU rules and directives. The European Affairs Department in Romania has created a program to make sure these directives are properly followed and reported.
On October 8, 2007, the European Commission reported that Romania had a small issue with not fully implementing some EU rules—about 0.37% of the directives were not properly followed (which was much better than the 2.8% problem seen earlier in July 2007). Romania still needed to notify the Commission about its actions on 185 directives. This gap was in line with the average for all EU member countries. However, because Romania did not meet all of its obligations, the EU started legal action to ensure Romania followed the rules. The next step in the legal process was an advisory opinion, which is the final warning before Romania could be taken to the Court of Justice.
When it comes to the EU’s justice system, it’s quite complex. There are three main areas that shape it: the European institutions, the EU treaties, and ongoing reforms to the justice system. The system is complicated because there are many institutions, long and complex treaties, and thousands of pages of laws that are hard to apply in member states.
To make this process easier, the suggestion is to:
- Simplify how the EU institutions work and are organized.
- Create a much simpler European Constitution, similar to the U.S. Constitution.
- Develop programs to help all EU citizens better understand what “European citizenship” means and how it applies to them.
In short, the goal is to make the EU’s rules and structures easier to understand and apply for everyone in the member countries.
4. As a member of the European Union (EU), Romania has a responsibility to inform the European Commission about the steps it takes to implement EU rules and directives. Romania has created a National Program to help ensure these rules are followed and reported.
5. In October 2007, the European Commission reported that Romania had a small problem with implementing some EU rules—about 0.37% of them were not fully applied (this was an improvement from 2.8% in July 2007). Romania still needed to inform the Commission about its actions on 185 directives, which was about the same as the average for other EU countries. Because Romania didn’t meet all of its obligations, the EU began legal action. The next step was an advisory opinion, which is the final warning before Romania could be taken to court.
6. The process of EU justice is complicated. There are three main parts: the system of EU institutions, the system of EU treaties, and ongoing reforms in the justice system. The problem is that there are many institutions, complex treaties, and over 80,000 pages of laws, which make it hard for member countries to apply these rules.
7. To make things simpler, the suggestions are:
8. Simplify how the EU institutions work and are organized.
9. Create a simpler European Constitution, similar to the U.S. Constitution.
10. Develop programs to help all EU citizens better understand what it means to be a “European citizen” and how it affects them.
11. In short, the goal is to make the EU rules easier to understand and apply for everyone across its member countries.
Justice for All in the Americas? A Quantitative Analysis of Admissibility Decisions in the Inter-American Human Rights System
Simon (2021) presented that This analysis expands on previous research by looking at both the admissibility phase (when a case is accepted or rejected) and the merits phase (when the actual details of the case are considered) of the Inter-American human rights system. The research shows that many accusations of bias against the system are either outdated or not true. For example:
- US bias: Some people have claimed that the system serves as a tool for “US imperialism,” but the research shows that, in fact, the system has been more biased against the US in some cases.
- Economic, social, and cultural rights: While the system used to focus less on these rights, recent changes have made sure they are now given more attention.
- Freedom of speech: While the system often emphasizes freedom of expression, most people would consider this a positive feature, not a flaw.
These findings are important because they suggest that there is little reason to call for major changes to the system, like those proposed during the 2011–13 “strengthening” process. However, the research did find evidence of bias against leftist governments. Claims against countries with leftist governments were more likely to be accepted for review. This finding is different from earlier studies, which found no political bias during the later stages of the system’s decision-making. It suggests that personal attitudes of those deciding which cases to accept may play a bigger role in the admissibility phase.
Overall, the study highlights the importance of ensuring the system remains impartial, especially since it plays a key role in protecting human rights in the Americas. Future research should dive deeper into these findings to understand them better.
Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice
Emily (2019) presented that Using algorithmic tools in child protection systems raises some serious concerns when combining technical ideas of fairness with social justice. Here are the key issues:
- Bias in Data: The data used by these algorithms may not accurately reflect how often problems actually happen. For example, the child protection system may disproportionately target poor or ethnic minority families, even if they are not at higher risk. This happens because the system might be influenced by biases in the data, not real differences in how often children are at risk.
- Incorrect Assumptions: If the database is flawed, the algorithm may wrongly predict that certain children are at high risk when they aren’t, or it might assume other children aren’t at risk when they actually are. This happens because the system uses group data (e.g., for a whole neighborhood or group) to make decisions about individuals, which doesn’t always match the person’s actual situation.
- Inaccuracies in Decisions: Because child protection decisions often involve complicated situations, the data might be inaccurate or incomplete. This can lead to incorrect conclusions about a child’s safety and well-being.
- Reinforcing Existing Biases: Even though algorithmic tools aim to improve decision-making, studies show that they don’t significantly change how decisions are made. In fact, they often just continue the same biases and patterns that were already in place, such as over-policing certain communities.
- Unintended Consequences: The feedback loop in the system (where decisions influence future decisions) can get worse over time, as incorrect or biased data keeps being used. This could make problems like racial bias and unfair treatment worse, not better.
- Social Workers’ Role: Social workers are in a tough spot because they need to follow ethical guidelines, but these could be challenged by relying too much on algorithmic scores. There’s a risk that the algorithms may not always support the best interest of children, especially when the data behind the algorithm isn’t perfect.
- Need for More Research: More research is needed to understand how social workers, families, and algorithms work together, as well as to investigate where the data comes from and how it’s used. This will help ensure that the child protection system is fair and just, rather than simply reinforcing existing inequalities.
In simple terms, while algorithms are intended to help make better decisions, they can end up causing unfair treatment, especially for already marginalized communities. More careful study and improvements are needed to make sure these tools truly help protect children without creating new problems.
The Metrics of Human Rights: Complementarities of the Human Development and Capabilities Approach
Sakiko (2010) presented that Philip Alston, an expert on economic and social rights, pointed out in 2001 that the international human rights system is one of the most important achievements of the 20th century. He emphasized that accountability (being responsible for actions and decisions) is a key part of this system. However, Alston noted that the biggest challenge in the 21st century is to create ways to make this accountability more meaningful and effective. He argued that new ideas are needed at both the national and international levels to improve this system.
To meet this challenge, the Human Development (HD) and Capabilities (C) approach, which combines economics and social science, can be very helpful. One tool in this approach is the ESRF Index, which helps assess how well countries are doing in terms of human rights. While many new tools focus on creating specific indicators (like measuring individual aspects of rights), the ESRF Index provides an overall summary of how well a country is performing in terms of human rights, which helps in holding them accountable.
The ESRF Index uses economic ideas (like the “production possibilities frontier,” which looks at how resources can be used to achieve the best outcomes) and human development concepts (recognizing that more resources don’t always automatically lead to better human outcomes). It creates a clear way to measure a country’s progress in achieving human rights goals. This is based on evidence and aims to create objective standards for assessing how countries are doing in terms of human rights.
Both the HD/C approach and human rights share the same goal of improving human dignity and freedom, and both are concerned with ensuring people have their basic rights. However, they use different methods to analyze these issues. The methods of the HD/C approach can be used to improve human rights assessments, and the approach can be applied to many different areas, not just this one example.
In simple terms, the ESRF Index is a tool that helps measure and track how well countries are doing in protecting human rights. It uses a mix of economic and development ideas to make this measurement more accurate and meaningful.
Problem Faced by Transgender and Gender Diverse people
Maria & Jesus (2019) presented that Historically, transgender and gender diverse people have been faced with social and legal barriers towards their freedom and dignity. United Nations international human rights principles provide protection for people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status [28]. Over the last decade, international activism has emerged for trans and intersex depathologization with the historical antecedent of the depathologization of homosexuality. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 978 9 of 11 The primary reason for the discrimination and poor access to healthcare of trans-people lies in the stigma associated with mental illness. There is an obvious connection between pathologization and the difficulties to obtain a change in name or legal gender because a psychiatric diagnosis is needed [24]. It seems contradictory that for a civil, legal, and administrative matter there must be a medical diagnosis. Defining gender diversity as an illness or otherwise abnormal is unfounded, discriminatory, and without demonstrable clinical utility. The fact that only gender diverse people are pathologized constitutes unequal treatment, resulting in a violation of the right to non-discrimination. Another major concern is childhood pathologization. This diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” in children in DSM-V or “gender incongruence” in childhood in ICD-11 has no clinical utility because children do not need treatment. Countries have certain obligations such as to not discriminate and to protect the right to healthcare of their citizens. Thus, trans depathologization as a human right implies the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health; that is access to trans-specific healthcare. So, the right to access trans-specific healthcare serves as a justification to claim the right to depathologization. Author Contributions: M.E.C.-P.: she has been the main author for all aspects of the work. J.M.G.-A. and R.L.-S.: they have made substantial contributions to conception and design, and analysis of data reviewed; A.M.P.-H., M.I.S.-A. and N.D.: they have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; N.D.L.-R.: she has given final approval of the version to be published. Funding: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the help provided by Transboys, Transgirls and Chrysallis. The advice given by the members of these associations have been very valuable in the construction of this paper.
Human Rights Abuses, Justice and Peace within Developing Democracies
Elias &Felix (2020) presented that the gap between what a people expect as being just and fair and what they actually have can heighten a sense of unfair treatment and so develop a sense of deprivation, feelings of deprivation, provide fertile grounds for mobilising opposition and the affected group with the real potential for collective violence and social instability. Economic, social and political institutions that are perceived to have failed to address the conditions producing deprivation become victims of vicious campaigns that can lead to violence. The fear of unemployment and the strain of reduced economic security in people’s private lives can create tremendous anxiety and agitation. Conceivably, the fear of social instability may increase the potential for violence. The tensions between justice vs peace are real and debates have matured overtime in that it is generally agreed that both concepts can actually work hand in hand for durable solutions. Efforts to view human rights, justice and peace, more broadly and in more positive ways may help bridge some of the gaps that have formed between different types of human rights organisations. Furthermore, as policymakers become increasingly concerned with matters of religious extremism, conflict defined partially in religious terms, or human rights violations and the perseverance for justice, with how groups conceptualise the relationship between human rights and peace could provide fruitful insight. Strengthening of government institutions and agencies responsible for safeguarding and promotion of human rights should be considered inevitable. Within developing democracies, leaders should be knowledgeable, sensitive and pro-active to the issue of human rights. Knowledge ability can relatively guarantee citizen-oriented policy. Respect for human dignity. There should be emphasis for the leaders and citizens to see themselves as ―Imago Dei‖ image of God, a transcendental subject, an end in his/her self. Every obstacle to educational, economic and cultural development must be removed. All levels of government must encourage universal Basic Education. Military coup/rule should not be allowed or tolerated. Military has been known to be the worst in abusing human rights of citizens. Efforts must be put in place to checkmate their incursion into politics. Their duty is to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the nation and not to rule.
Human Rights Pathways to Just Sustainabilities
LaDawn (2019) presented that Collaborative approaches to sustainability that strive to achieve balance between humans and the natural world are important and necessary. However, we must directly acknowledge and soberly address the ever-present reality of conflict and injustice if we are to reverse destabilizing trends. Human rights—in particular where they meet sustainability challenges—can sharpen the focus on destructive social relations and imbalances among humans, mitigate risk, and help define the boundaries of conflict resolution, thereby laying the ground for justice and accountability so that sustainable futures have a better chance of emerging. Their relative clarity (compared to the more amorphous Sustainability 2019, 11, 3255 14 of 19 “justice”), institutionalization in law and policy, and “broad support within the community of political philosophy and ethics” [107] (p. 5) provides a structure that can give “teeth” to transformational efforts stymied by inertia or unyielding power dynamics. Sustainability scientists and scholars conduct their research at a unique nexus where engaging with questions raised by sociological theory can contribute substantially to “just sustainabilities” [131]. Bringing human rights and sustainability praxis together can clarify the objectives of both fields, widen their shared bases of support, lay the groundwork for trans-disciplinary and trans-border collaboration, further concretize potentially abstract environmental issues in human contexts, and strengthen efforts to change more fundamental dynamics at the root of our sustainability challenges. Research that explores the strengths and limitations of human rights for exposing and challenging unsustainable social relations is especially needed. Embracing the full scope of human rights—including their economic, social, and environmental dimensions—may seem like a bold step for scientists, but there are good scholarly reasons for doing so. This is not a time for timidity, given the precarious state of our world.
Reference:
1.Neil Hibbert, 2017.” Laws, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, June.
2. LaDawn Haglund, 2019. ” Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
3. Keihan Barzegar & Fatemeh Sarreshteh Izadmoosa, 2017. Juridical Tribune – Review of Comparative and International Law, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 39-52, June.
4. Emilian M. Dobrescu & Tiberiu-Viorel Popescu, 2011. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, “1 Decembrie 1918” University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(13), pages 1-13.
5. Simon Zschirnt, 2021. Laws, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, July.
6. Emily Keddell, 2019.” Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
7. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, 2010., Economic Rights Working Papers 14, University of Connecticut, Human Rights Institute.
8. Maria Elisa Castro-Peraza & Jesús Manuel García-Acosta & Naira Delgado & Ana María Perdomo-Hernández & Maria Inmaculada Sosa-Alvarez & Rosa Llabrés-Solé & Nieves Doria Lorenzo-Rocha, 2019 IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-11, March.
9. Elias Nankap Lamle & Felix Ogbewe Aigbovbioisa, 2020. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 4(6), pages 499-506, June.
10. LaDawn Haglund, 2019. Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.