UDHR: The Core of Human Rights Law

The author of this blog is Ritika Sharma. She is the Founder of the blog, HUMAN.DROITS, and is also an LL.M. Graduate from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She can be reached at ritika4523@gmail.com. 

Every human has rights

Introduction

74 years ago, on 10th December, this UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly in response to the severe human rights violations during World War II. The aim was to ensure peace and justice in the world. This move was an important milestone in the development of human rights, and therefore, 10th December is celebrated as 'Human Rights Day'. The theme of Human Rights Day 2022 is 'Dignity, Freedom and Justice for All'. 

However, several questions arise around the enforceability and success of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("UDHR"). Given today's deadly circumstances of armed conflicts in some parts of the world, and famine and malnutrition prevalent in some other regions, why do the provisions of UDHR seem unresponsive? On the face of it, it appears that people residing in some parts of the world are not covered even within the first Article of UDHR that says "WE ARE ALL BORN FREE AND EQUAL".

This follow-up piece aims at illuminating and providing answers to these questions along with discussing the history, nature, and criticisms of this 74-year-old Declaration.

Origin and development of human rights

The origin of human rights can be traced back to 539 B.C. when the rights were entitled only to the members of a group or family. In 539 B.C., the Persian king Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon (in present-day Iraq) and declared racial equality, the right to freedom for the slaves, and the right to religion for every person. This marked the beginning of the concept of universal human rights. The decrees by King Cyrus were recorded on baked clay and this is known as the 'world's first charter of human rights'. Other documents that shaped human rights law include the Magna Carta, 1215, The Petition of Rights, 1628, the US Declaration of Independence, 1776, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789, and UDHR, 1948.

In response to the barbarous and heinous crimes on a massive scale in World War II, the prominent leaders decided to draft a universal document containing the rights and freedoms available to a person for being a human being. 

On 26 June 1945, UN Charter was signed for the promotion of international peace and security and in order to 'complement' the UN Charter, the idea of constituting UDHR came into being. The draft of the UDHR was discussed in the year 1946 at the time of the first session of the General Assembly. It is interesting to note that UDHR is the result of the drafting of not just one but multiple bodies which include the General Assembly, the Drafting Committee, the Commission of Human Rights, and the Economic and Social Council. The Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, consisted of 18 members, and the first draft of UDHR was prepared by René Cassin. When the final draft was completed, it was handed over to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva and it was called the 'Geneva Draft'. It was sent to the UN member states for their comments. The whole process of preparing the draft of the UDHR took less than 20 years. 

How does UDHR work?

Article 25 of the UN Charter reads, "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". UN Security Council passes resolutions for human rights abuses and it is through this body that the provisions of UDHR are applied in the international arena. Additionally, the Human Rights Committee has been established under the ICCPR which examines the reports of countries and tackles the issue of human rights violations. Thus, UDHR works in consonance with ICCPR and ICESCR. 

Why is UDHR considered ineffective?

This 30-Articles Declaration is criticised on many grounds, primarily for being a weakling as it is a 'Declaration' and not a 'Treaty' and hence, is non-binding. The nature of UDHR is considered its major drawback, since many countries show their reluctance while providing the fundamental rights that UDHR contains, citing reasons such as religious and ethnic sensitivities of their territories. 

Secondly, it is not accepted as an instrument of global consent and is regarded to be of a western perspective. This is because the model draft was prepared by leaders belonging to more civilised and developed nations, leading to the emergence of debate around its 'generic and universal' character. 

Thirdly, the Declaration does not provide answers to specific questions of interpretation as the contents or definitions of most of the terms are oftentimes contested, thereby creating obstacles in taking decisions in the courts or on other matters of international importance. Fourthly, the Declaration seems insufficient in covering every aspect of human rights, especially civil and political rights and freedoms. For example, it does not lay the required emphasis on certain rights such as the right to seek asylum. 

The Way Forward

UDHR was the first document through which the seeds for EQUALITY AND FREEDOM, regardless of religion, race, caste, and sex, were sown on a global scale. There are 193 member states of the United Nations and UDHR is binding on them. Apart from serving as one of the grounds on which the arguments are based in the International Court of Justice and domestic courts, this instrument is a sanctum of universal human rights. Moreover, multifarious countries have adopted the provisions of UDHR in their national constitutions. Thus, a number of jurists and international lawyers give it the status of customary international law. Furthermore, it has also influenced the formulation of various other international instruments such as ICCPR and ICESCR, which together with UDHR form the International Bill of Human Rights. Consequently, this has nullified the drawback of UDHR which considered it to be insufficient for not giving the requisite attention to every human right. 

The major criticism of UDHR for being a 'soft law' makes it one of the significant instruments of international human rights law as time and again it has acted as a base or trigger for various domestic as well as international justice machinery and legislatures. Undeniably, reforms are required in international human rights mechanisms on various levels but taking into account the motive and spirit of UDHR, it cannot be undermined for being 'inoperative' as history reflects the innumerable instances where the provisions of UDHR were invoked successfully. In a nutshell, this mother-law has backed the 'hard laws' (the binding laws) for 74 years now and has proved to be a victory on several levels. 

References

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/udhr/history-of-the-declaration 

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/preparatory-years#:~:text=The%20UN%20Charter%20was%20signed,UN's%20original%2051%20Member%20States.

https://www.unitedforhumanrights.in/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/

Read More

Confused Democracies Say No To Same-Sex Unions

The author of this blog is Simran Kaur, a member of the HUMAN.DROITS Community.

The year 2023 stands out as a remarkable year as India took the Presidency of G20, emerging as the new global leader for inclusive growth and gender equality. Yet an irony unfolds as India, the flagbearer of democracy, denies thousands of LGBTQIA+ individuals the right to marry. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment held that there is no fundamental right for LGBTQ individuals to marry and left the matter in the hands of Parliament to decide. The same parliament where same-sex marriage is often referred to as a “westernised concept” and is believed to cause “complete havoc in the society”. The “inclusive” agenda was not so inclusive to include the rights of queer individuals.  

While countries like Nepal and Andorra are paving the way for the recognition of marriage rights of the LGBTQ community, India took a step backwards by not taking any measures to protect the fundamental rights of these individuals. The Supreme Court’s recent judgement puts a big question mark on India’s democracy.

The Relationship Between Democracy and Human Rights

In one of the greatest speeches in history, Abraham Lincoln described ‘democracy’ as the “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”. It provides people the freedom to govern themselves through the leaders they choose. After World War II, a cold war started between the US and the Soviet Union. It was an ideological war with capitalist democratic nations on the western block and communists on the eastern block. Eventually, when binding documents on human rights were to be signed in 1966, separate treaties were made to accommodate the requirements of both ideologies as the western block gave preference to civil and political rights and the eastern block emphasized social, cultural, and economic rights. And hence, two separate covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted. 

India is a signatory to both the documents and its fundamental rights reflect both civil, and political rights and; cultural, economic, and social rights. India declared itself a democratic country in 1947. The roots of democracy can be found in ancient texts and practices of various kingdoms, which is why India is often called the ‘mother of democracy’.

Democracy comes with certain rights or to put it another way, some rights are inalienable for the exercise of democracy. According to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. Preservation and promotion of the dignity and fundamental rights of the individual is one of the core values of democracy irrespective of the social and cultural settings of the country following it. In its 2002 resolution 2002/46, the Commission asserted that integral aspects of democracy involve recognizing human rights, the fundamental freedoms, including the right to express opinions, freedom of expression, and the right to associate.

What rights do the people from LGBTQIA community have?

Gay rights are often seen as something culturally clashing with the religion and morality of a society. Some believe that such unions have a bad impact on children as they are different from conventional family rules and allowing such unions will disrupt the social balance. Therefore, the rights of these individuals are sometimes not treated as important as the rights of other individuals. Only in the past 50 years, we've seen progress with many countries decriminalizing same-sex unions. However, it's disheartening that some still go to the extreme of imposing death penalties for homosexuality. 

Human rights are available to all humans irrespective of their gender, sex, and sexual preferences. Such rights are inherent to human existence and are indivisible and inalienable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the earliest international agreement on ‘human rights’, the term which is mentioned in the UN Charter but isn’t explicitly elaborated. Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 16 of the UDHR address, respectively, the rights to equality; freedom from discrimination; life, liberty, and personal security; freedom from torture and degrading treatment; recognition as a person before the law; equality before the law; and the rights to marry and have a family. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his support in August 2003 for LGBT non-discrimination, stating, “the United Nations cannot condone any persecution of, or discrimination against, people on any grounds.”

Additionally, the ICCPR provides the right to equality, right to privacy, and freedom of thought and expression. The right to marry and have a family is explicitly mentioned in the Covenants of 1966. Article 23 of ICCPR states “The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized”. Similarly, Article 11 of ICESCR states that “The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society…”. 

The Indian constitution also recognises the right to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression. The Supreme Court in various cases has held the right to marry as a fundamental right. However, ignorance of such rights and existing precedents when it comes to LGBTQ rights has made the community vulnerable to abuse, torture, and police brutality, and has led to discrimination in housing and jobs, ill-treatment in schools, harassment, stress, profound impact on mental and physical health, and isolation. 

Democracy and Same-Sex Unions

According to the Print’s analysis of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2022, robust democracies favour legal recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions, flawed democracies do not fully accept same-sex unions, whereas authoritarian regimes do not accept such unions. 88% of robust democracies showed legal acceptance towards such unions. In flawed democracies, these unions are deprived of legal acceptance in about 60 per cent of countries. About 90% of hybrid and authoritarian regimes do not provide any legal protection to LGBTQ individuals. However, some countries which are placed in the category of hybrid regimes like Mexico, Ecuador, and Bolivia provide legal recognition to such unions. 

The primary argument against legally recognising same-sex unions is often rooted in the belief that these relationships are considered abnormal in our society, and permitting them would disrupt societal harmony. However, if the government restrains a significant portion of individuals from exercising their fundamental rights simply because some members of society are not ready, how can we claim ourselves to be a democratic nation? Isn’t it the same as saying that women should not work because their in-laws are not ready for such a change? 

Another concern is the perceived notion that such unions have a bad impact on children. Even if this were true, children are equally impacted by divorces, domestic abuse in heterosexual marriages, neglect etc. However, we do not advocate for a stop to heterosexual unions based on these challenges. Furthermore, studies show that same-sex unions per se do not impact children in a bad way. According to Forbes, “growing up with sexual minority parents “may confer some advantages to children,” possibly because they are more “tolerant of diversity and more nurturing towards younger children” than heterosexual parents.” 

Nations committed to democratic ideals generally prioritize civil liberties over religious and societal opinions. Religion and morality are personal opinions just as an individual's sexual preferences. Data indicates that where democracy is dominant, majority views do not encroach upon the rights of minorities. However, as democratic values decline, there is a tendency for majority viewpoints to assert themselves, resulting in bias towards majority opinions above individual rights. As Aiyar said, “The fundamental basis of modern democracy, as opposed to say Athenian democracy, is that individuals have inalienable rights that must not be trodden on by the majority,” Referring to the history of democratic reforms in the US and similar democracies, he adds that “the same fundamental democratic emphasis on individual rights that led inexorably to votes for women and slaves are today leading to the recognition of same-sex marriages in democracies”.

Conclusion 

India’s stance towards same-sex unions indicates its weaker commitment towards democracy. Especially when parliament shows such distaste towards the rights of individuals. Although Indian laws permit romantic homosexual relationships, they fall short of granting these individuals the opportunity to lead a conventional domestic life. Many times, individuals who pursue homosexual relationships are not accepted by their families and their partners are left with no decision-making authority in critical situations, such as medical or financial emergencies.

It's paradoxical and somewhat ironic that in the marriage equality judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the discrimination and hardships faced by the LGBTQ community, yet refrained from granting any rights, despite its duty and power to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens. 

The state’s decision to deprive individuals of basic rights such as marriage and rather declare marriage as a non-fundamental right is a big question mark on India’s commitment to uphold democracy. It is disgraceful that while even less established democracies like Mexico and Nepal are acknowledging same-sex unions, India's refusal appears inconsistent with its historical reputation as the 'mother of democracy’. What example are we setting as the G20 president with such human rights violations? 

Read More

Conscription in Armed Conflicts

The author of this blog is Ritika Sharma. She is the Founder of the blog, HUMAN.DROITS, and is also an LL.M. Graduate from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She can be reached at ritika4523@gmail.com. 

A soldier with rifle

Several international conventions and protocols lay down the rights of civilians who get trapped while being present in a location prone to armed conflict. In armed conflicts, whether international or non-international, the livelihood of civilians i.e., their mental and physical well-being is in great peril. Undoubtedly, this risk to life is more when they have to stand against the enemy group, carrying arms and weapons in their hands. We all know that each country has professional servicepersons or military who step-in in the cases of conflicts. However, there is another category of persons who are called upon to give their service whenever the laws or authorities require them to do so. They are called 'conscripts', called upon for the service of 'conscription'. 

Members who serve in armed conflicts
Evidently, armed conflicts are not just limited to the service from the professionally trained service persons who take up arms to directly involve in the conflicts. Apart from the professional servicepersons, the following are some other categories of persons who back the military:

• Civilian workforce- They include the ones who indirectly take part in the armed conflicts by aiding the armed groups. Examples are medical professionals, cooks, etc.

• Reservists- These are the civilians who get specialised training with the armed forces. They take part in the combats in case of shortages of army personnel. 

• Conscripts- Conscripts are the civilians, with or without any special training, who are called upon to take part in the armed conflict. This is also another way of filling up the positions of combatants when there aren't enough professional servicepersons in the army. Some of the nations which have mandated conscription include Russia, Israel, Brazil, Eritrea, North Korea, South Korea, Sweden, etc. 

Human Rights of Conscripts
A case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights where a conscript claimed that he was ill-treated during his military service. He alleged the following acts of 'ill-treatment':

• Stripping off his clothes,
• A threat by placing the gun on his head,
• Forced to wear a military uniform in extremely hot weather,
• Physical abuse of the belt buckle,
• Received the threat of rape, etc.

The name of the case is Lyalyakin v. Russia (2015). The Court held that the act of undressing the conscript comes within the parameters of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and declined to examine other aspects of the torture on account of the ineffective investigation into the case. 

At this juncture, it is crucial to illuminate some of the essential economical and political rights that are available to conscripts under different conventions. Following are some rights that are available to the conscripts:

• Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment- The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment, UDHR (Article 5), and ICCPR (Article 7) are the instruments that ensure this right to every person including the conscripts. 
• Right to life- Apart from the domestic and regional conventions, the right to life is guaranteed under UDHR (Article 3) and ICCPR (Article 6). 
• Freedom of Expression- This right is granted under UDHR (Article 19), ICCPR (Article 19), and regional conventions such as American Convention on Human Rights (Article 13), European Convention on Human Rights (Article 10), and Banjul Charter (Article 9). 
• Right not to be forced into compulsory labour- The provisions that advocate this right include European Convention on Human Rights (Article 4), and ICCPR (Article 8). The obligation to provide services as conscripts itself seems to be a violation of this right. However, compulsory military service is expressly excluded from the ambit of 'forced labour'. For example, clause 3(c) of Article 8 of the ICCPR stipulates, "forced or compulsory labour shall not include any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by the law of conscientious objectors". Therefore, within the ambit of this right, the conscripts raise complaints claiming their right to freedom of religion encompassing the right to conscientious objection to military service, freedom from discrimination, etc.
• Freedom of conscientious objection- In the case of Feti Demirtas v. Turkey (2012), since the applicant was not given an opportunity to perform alternative service, his act of forcible conscription was considered to be a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This right is based on the right to the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. 
• Right to respect for private and family life and correspondence- This right includes the right to the security of personal details of the conscripts such as photographs, sexual orientation, medical records, etc. UDHR ( Article 12), and European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) encapsulate the right to private life. 

Other rights include the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security, the right to freely assemble and form associations, and the right to marry and build a family.

Apart from arguments that there is the absence of extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Conventions such as the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or  Degrading Treatment, these rights fail to reach the conscripts when they are engaged in special missions as army personnel. 

Not every case is Lyalyakin's case where the conscript gets some relief. In many instances, the unavailability of proper justice and redressal mechanism for the conscripts result in grievous injuries or even their death. 

Impact of Ukraine-Russia conflict on Conscription
Due to the current scenario of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, several countries have discerned the need for a robust military. This has augmented the inclusion of the concept of conscription for a few nations, while some others who were on the path to renouncing this mode of filling up their armies are now backtracking. 

One example of such a country is Switzerland, which is now stepping over the idea of making service in the military a compulsion for their women too. Another example is the Scandinavian nation- Sweden. The conscription approach in Sweden was abolished in the year 2010, however, was re-introduced in 2017 owing to the surging military activities of Russia. 

Can children become conscripts?
In armed conflicts, often the rights of vulnerable sections of society are overlooked. To address this problem, the General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Protocol aims at prohibiting the inclusion of children (anyone below 18 years of age) in conscriptions.

Currently, 172 countries have ratified the Optional Protocol. Countries that have signed but not ratified the Protocol are Haiti, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Nauru, Solomon, Somalia, and Zambia. There are 17 nations that have not even signed the Protocol. Some of these include UAE, Trinidad and Tobago, Palau, Barbados, etc.

Role of women in conscription
With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there are discussions around the conscription of Ukrainian women by the government of Ukraine. However, it is pertinent to note that women are not eligible to be conscripted in most countries. They are exempted from conscription in countries such as Brazil, Iran, etc. In Cuba also, military service is compulsory for men, while it is voluntary for women to get themselves enroll in professional military service. Men are given military training and then get the status of reservists. 

The countries where military service is compulsory for women are Israel, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Norway, etc. Some countries adopt the policy of selective conscription for women, North Korea being one of them. 

Final Remarks
Conscriptions are the consequence of rising instances of armed conflicts and fear of growing these destructive combats. Citizens of the countries such as Israel and Switzerland have voiced their opinions against mandatory conscriptions, yet the burgeoning concerns around rifts between the countries shift their focus back to the adoption of conscriptions as a means to expand the armies.

When they have to (involuntarily) render their services as recruits in armies, it should be the bare minimum that they are not denied their human rights. The following lines by the European Court of Human Rights in Beker v. Turkey (2009) emphasise the importance of the duty of government and relevant authorities in this regard. 

"Conscripts are entirely in the hands of the State and any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities. Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to account for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army".

References:
https://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/course/view.php?id=5842 
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/tools-for-action/opac/ 
https://www.indiatoday.in/interactive/longread/11-countries-where-military-service-is-compulsory-129-17-06-2022

Read More

Democracy and its Relation to the Rule of Law

The author of this blog is Shreya Chakravarty, a law student at SVKM's NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai, India.

Reads 'Democracy'; Picture by  Marija Zaric

As Winston Churchill once said, “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” While his cynicism might’ve been justified, being that he was voted out of his position as the Prime Minister merely weeks after winning the Second World War, democracy had proven to be an effective form of governance for many countries around the world.

However, now, following a protracted period of democratic expansion from 1973 to 2005, data from key democracy barometers show that a rising number of new and established democracies feel a loss in democratic quality. The Bertelsmann Transformation Index lists instances of this type of governance in most parts of the world, including the European Union, when Victor Orban of Hungary used the pandemic as justification to impose the continent's first Corona dictatorship.

The Asian region has the highest population density in the globe as well as the strongest economy. India and Indonesia, two of the three biggest democracies in the world, are located in this region. Non-democracies in Asia and the Pacific, as opposed to extremely predatory autocracies in the Middle East, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa, frequently succeed in strong communal goods provision and fiscally responsible government. The People's Republic of China has developed into an authoritarian global player with distinct "sharp power" since the early 2000s. Experts emphasise China's function as a global supplier of cutting-edge techniques for autocratic control and repression. Thus, it should come as no surprise that academics speculate about the potential for a new Asian, primarily Chinese alternative to liberal capitalism and democracy.

There has always been a rivalry between economic models for the hearts and minds of people in the Global South. One of the main questions driving the Cold War was whether nations freeing themselves from colonial rule would choose to embrace the Communist authoritarian model put forth by the Soviet Union or the “free enterprise” model put forth by the newly formed capitalist hegemony in the United States. Billions of foreign aid dollars were disbursed, massive propaganda campaigns were launched, and multiple hot wars and insurgencies were waged throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America between the late 1940s and the early 1980s to see which of these models would be more appealing to nations attempting to figure out how best to improve their economic conditions.

Democratic Regression in Asia

A democracy is a system of governance in which the people of the nation have sovereign power. Governmental institutions can be described as non-democratic in addition to democratic. These include structures like oligarchies, theocracies, and monarchies. Therefore, the power granted to the ordinary people is the main difference between democratic and non-democratic governance; under a democratic system, power is granted to the people, but in a non-democratic government, authority is vested in the rulers.

There are conflicting messages coming from the Asia-Pacific area in the discussion of the global loss of liberal democracy. In the area, democracy has long been the exception. Asia's hurried socioeconomic progress since the 1960s has left the region with a "compressed modernity" that has "strained the social fabric of the societies" and "neglected the democratic process," according to a recent report by the Bertelsmann Stiftung. 

There is considerable evidence to suggest that Asia is slowly but surely joining the wave of democratic regression. While Taiwan is widely hailed as a shining example of the third wave of democracy, South Korea has just lately recovered from a protracted period of democratic regression under conservative governments that lasted from 2008 to 2016. Given the conditions, the democratisation of Timor Leste and Mongolia has been comparatively effective; nonetheless, recent constitutional crises indicate that democracy in both nations is still unstable, prone to corruption and major conflicts amongst political institutions. Since the 2000s, there has been a significant decline in democracy in other Asian countries. Older democracies like Sri Lanka and—most concerning, considering its significance as the greatest democracy in the world—India are also examples.

The Philippines, whose politics may have already veered into dictatorial territory, and Indonesia, while less so, are experiencing a fall in the quality of democracy. The democratic crisis in countries like Thailand, Bangladesh, and Pakistan resulted in military putches and coup d'états. Many democracies are currently experiencing a democratic recession, but authoritarianism is also hardening in places like Hong Kong and Cambodia. Additionally, countries like Malaysia and Myanmar, which recently started political liberalisation processes, are witnessing the failure of democratic reforms and the collapse of reform governments. Ultimately, it appears that the hard-line autocracies in North Korea, China, and Vietnam have no plans to relinquish power over the state and society.

Human Rights Issues in Asia

One in five people on the planet lives in South Asia. There are significant racial, religious, linguistic, and cultural differences. It has gone through colonialism, partition, immigration and emigration, invasion, and conquest. The epicentre of the globalisation movement, it now finds itself embroiled in conflict, territorial issues, and terrorism. It demonstrates and condones the extremes of power, money, poverty, and social marginalisation. It is also a region where, in spite of the de jure protection afforded at the national level under State Constitutions and by an intricate web of laws, regulations, statutory and constitutional bodies and institutions, the human rights of its citizens are routinely violated and remedies for such violations are all too frequently denied.

The lives of Afghan women, girls, journalists, and human rights advocates have all suffered greatly under the Taliban regime. "With no end in sight, the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan is becoming more dire. The skills and talents of the female half of the population are one of the most valuable resources the country has, but Taliban policies have quickly turned many women and girls into virtual prisoners in their homes, according to Heather Barr, associate women's rights director at Human Rights Watch, who wrote this report.

Although Bangladesh has made economic strides and was moved from the least developed to the developing category by the UN last November, the nation is still frequently in the news due to enforced disappearances, kidnappings, torture, and extrajudicial killings carried out by its security forces with impunity.

The UN Department of Peace Operations is being urged by 12 organisations in a letter to Under-Secretary-General Jean-Pierre Lacroix to forbid the UN from deploying Bangladesh's infamously abusive paramilitary Rapid Action Battalion (RAB).

Human Rights, Democracy, The Rule of Law, and Governance in a Divided Society

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy, and progress are all interrelated and reinforce one another. To ensure that every person can enjoy universal human rights, national governments must fortify national laws, institutions, and infrastructures that support democracy and the rule of law. 

In India, the foundation for a pluralistic, multicultural, secular, democratic society was established by the Indian Constitution of 1950. A government free from corruption, nepotism, favouritism, communalism, and inefficiencies; an economy based on equity, egalitarianism, and prosperity for all; a society based on freedom, justice, equality, social security, and nondiscrimination; and an education system that should be universal, free, and mandatory were to be its cornerstones. Economic and social rights were classified as "Directive Principles of State Policy," whilst civil and political rights were declared "Fundamental Rights" and made legally enforceable in Articles 12-35 of the Indian Constitution. 

Right to Life

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” Article 21 therefore establishes both the right to life and personal liberty. 

In India, the idea that every person, including animals, has the right to life and, in particular, that no one else should be able to take their life is known as the right to life. Discussions about the concept of a right to life often centre on the following topics: euthanasia, where ending one's life without using natural means is viewed as wrong; capital punishment, where some view it as immoral; abortion, where some view the foetus as a human being in an early stage of development whose life should not be ended; and meat production and consumption, where some view the breeding and killing of animals for their meat as an infringement on their rights, as well as in police-performed killings, which some view as violating a person's right to life. People may differ as to which of these situations the right-to-life concept should be applied.

Mass Murders: the State's Role and the Judiciary's Accountability

Mass murders of the kind that have recently taken place in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are not unheard of in India. Since Partition in 1947, there have been annual communal riots that have claimed countless lives. Sectarian violence, like the 1984 Sikh massacre in Delhi and the recent communal violence in Gujarat that has claimed over 3,000 lives and destroyed property and businesses valued at billions of rupees, regularly violates the right to life of religious minorities. A catastrophe on par with the death toll and destruction of property is the psychological harm inflicted upon minorities by discrimination, fear, and hatred.

Due to the upheaval caused by communal violence, tens of thousands of Indian citizens are now refugees inside their own nation. In India, Muslims make up the largest religious minority with over 14.2% of the total population. An estimated 500,000 Muslims are thought to have fled their homes during the riots in Gujarat in 2002. The State offered temporary camps for relief, but they closed, leaving the displaced without assistance. They were also afraid to return to their destroyed houses and businesses because of the hostile environment and socio-economic marginalisation they would face.

The 1993 World Conference on Human Rights determined that the creation of strong national legal frameworks was essential to the realisation of human rights. The lengthy examination and discussion of the state of the human rights apparatus worldwide came to an end with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. A General Assembly resolution declaring 1968 to be the International Year for Human Rights kicked off this process in 1961. Vienna also signalled the start of a fresh initiative to enhance and expand upon the body of human rights instruments that had been laboriously built since 1948 on the pillar of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Conclusion

Since the rule of law foreshadows the restraint of authority and colonialism implies the exercise of power, examining the relationship between colonialism and the rule of law may appear paradoxical. However, examining the historical procedures of the British colonial administration reveals how the establishment of an uneven international legal, political, and economic system involved the rule of law. Given the relationship between colonial governments and the principles of the rule of law, some commentators regard the rule of law as a corrupting force. This chapter makes the case that, in the context of British colonialism, concentrating on the practices of the rule of law rather than its ideals might shed light on how the rule of law influences global political regimes.

In Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India, communalism is a major social problem. Since the British colonial era, there have been religious tensions in India between various populations, particularly between Hindus and Muslims, which have periodically resulted in major intercommunal bloodshed. Following the first partition of Bengal in 1905, when Lord Curzon imposed religiously-based segregation and unequal political and economic rights on Muslims and Hindus, the incidence of communal violence in South Asia rose. Bengal's partition and reunification in 1911 were the consequence of a series of communal rioting caused by the perception on both sides of the colonial authority that the other side was being favoured.

Read More