HUMANITARIANISM: Human Rights and Refugees

HUMANITARIANISM

A concern about the well-being of humanity as a whole, typically expressed through

acts of compassion, charity or philanthropy. Humanitarianism is a moral kindness, benevolence,

and sympathy extended to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept

historically but universality is a common theme in its evolution. No distinction is to be made on

the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, caste, age, religion, ability or nationality.

DEFINITION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS

Human rights are generally defined as those rights, which are inherent in our nature, and

without which, we cannot live as a human beings. Human rights and fundamental freedoms

allow us to develop and use our human qualities, intelligence, talents and conscience, and to

satisfy our spiritual and other needs. The dignity of man and human life is inviolable. From the

dignity of man is derived the right of every person to free development of his personality. The

denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms not only is an individual and personal

tragedy, but also creates social and political unrest, sowing seeds of violence and conflict within

and between societies and nations. As the first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights states, “respect for human rights and human dignity is the foundation of freedom, justice

and peace in the world.” 1 Human rights are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of being

human; they are a modern and secular version of ‘natural rights’. Human rights recognize the

dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality,

race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. As

1
a result, they assert the moral and legal primacy of the individual over other entities that have

“rights,” such as the family and the state.

“All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they

are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured. . . . We must, therefore, insist on a global consensus,

not only on the need to respect human rights worldwide, but also on the definition of these

rights . . . for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and

dignity, and they have an equal right to achieve that.”- The Dalai Lama

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are generally characterized as inherent, fundamental, inalienable,

imprescriptible, indivisible, universal and interdependent.

Human rights are universal in the sense that they belong to human beings everywhere,

regardless of race, religion, gender and other differences, fundamental in that a human being’s

entitlement to HR cannot be removed otherwise,their life and dignity will be meaningless,

indivisible in that civic and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights are

interrelated and co-equal in importance. They are not capable of being divided. Human rights

are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority. They do not need any

event for their existence. Examples of these are right to life and right to dignity. Human rights

are inalienable because they cannot be rightfully taken away from free individual. An example is

the freedom from torture. Human rights are imprescriptible because they cannot be lost even

by a long passage of time. Man doesn’t lose his rights even if he fails to use or assert them.

Human rights are interdependent because the fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be had

without the realization of the other.The respect of human rights necessarily includes the

realization of man's dignity.

First-generation human rights, often called "blue" rights, deal essentially with liberty and

participation in political life. They are fundamentally civil and political in nature: They

serve negatively to protect the individual from excesses of the state. First-generation rights

include, among other things, the right to life, equality before the law, freedom of speech,

the right to a fair trial, freedom of religion and voting rights. They were pioneered by the United

States Bill of Rights and in France by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in

the 18th century, although some of these rights and the right to due process date back to

the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Rights of Englishmen, which were expressed in the English Bill

of Rights in 1689.

Second-generation human rights are related to equality and began to be recognized by

governments after World War II. They are fundamentally economic, social, and cultural in

nature. They guarantee different members of the citizenry equal conditions and treatment.

Secondary rights would include a right to be employed in just and favorable condition, rights

to food, housing and health care, as well as social security and unemployment benefits. Like

first-generation rights, they were also covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

and further embodied in Articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration, and the International

Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Third Generation of Human rights covers collective rights. Third-generation human rights

are those rights that go beyond the mere civil and social, as expressed in many progressive

documents of international law, including the 1972Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, and other pieces of generally inspiration "soft law." Because of the present-day
tilting toward national sovereignty and the preponderance of would-be offender nations, these

rights have been hard to enact in legally binding documents.

REFUGEE

According to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as

amended by its 1967 Protocol (The Refugee Convention), a refugee is a person who is outside

their country and has well-founded fear of persecution due to his/ her race, religion, nationality,

member of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable or unwilling to return.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that at the end of

2012 there were 15.4 million refugees in the world.

A person displaced because of war (usually) or other political or economic causes. Refugees

may flee or be forced to leave a country, or they may be internally displaced persons within their

own state.

The United Nations recognizing the social and humanitarian nature of the problem of

refugees, has adopted the convention relating to the Status of Refugee in 1954 and its protocol.

The Philippines acceded the Convention in 1967.

The Convention on Refugees does not apply to a person who committed a crime against

peace, war, crime or a crime against humanity or, has committed a serious non-political crime

outside the country of his residence.

RIGHTS OF REFUGEES
 The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee obliges state parties to accord refugees all

freedoms accorded to aliens. The refugee enjoys the civil rights, economic, social and cultural

rights. The refugees shall be accorded freedom of movement, rights of association and trade

unions which are non-political in character, access to courts, gainful employment, and exercise

of professions.

The country of refuge shall not expel a refugee except on the grounds of national security

and public order.

The Philippine Experience on Refugees

As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the flight of Vietnamese Communist rule confronted

the international community of the plight of the so-called “boat people” attempted to seek

refuge in the countries in Southeast Asia, many of whom were refused and subjected to abuses.

In response of the crisis, the Philippines entered into an agreement with the United Nations

Commission for refugees whereby the Indo-Chinese refugees were accommodated in the

province of Bataan. The refugee center at Morong, Bataan was managed by the International

Catholic Migration Commission, a non-governmental entity. Since then, most of the Vietnamese

refugees immigrated to other countries. A few of them opted to remain and be integrated into

Philippine society. The Philippines is grateful to the International Catholic Migration

Commission, a non-governmental organization that volunteered to manage and operate a

refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. The Supreme Court decided that as a recognized

NGO performing humanitarian activities, its officials enjoy diplomatic privilege and immunity.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN CONDITION

human condition. Yet the human condition is beset by widespread abuses related to inter-

communal strife, politically oppressive regimes, and deeply set prejudices within and across

different societies and cultures.

Human rights violations became one of the reasons why human conditions nowadays are in

risk. These various violations hinders the progress or the development of some sectors of our

community.

These are the following human rights violations that can be identified in international

aspect:

1. Racial and ethnic discrimination

Racial and ethnic discrimination have had a long history in the United States, beginning wit

h the importation of African slaves in the seventeenth century. The U.S. Civil War and thirteenth

amendment may have ended Slavery, but they

did not end racial discrimination. In fact, the U.S. legal system embraced for over 70 years

a system of state-sponsored

racial Segregation in schools, transportation, and public accommodations. In addition, blacks an

d other minorities were

denied the vote. Ethnic discrimination has also been common, beginning with the first wave of I

rish immigration in the1830s. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, discrimination bas

ed on race and ethnicity developed with the first

arrivals of each alien group. Thus, the Chinese, the Japanese, Italians, Jews, Hispanics,Vietnames

e, Somalis, and other

groups have encountered hostility and bias when they tried to find jobs or places to live. Since t
he 1960s, federal Civil

Rights laws and Supreme Court decisions have sought to combat illegal discrimination based on

race or ethnicity.

2. Gender discrimination

Widespread gender discrimination also denies equal rights to women. The term gender

discrimination hardly captures the nature of the existence for the vast majority of women in the

Third world, where a combination of culture, laws, religion not only deprive women of basic

human rights but also relegate them in some places to almost subhuman status. In parts of Latin

America, Asia, and Africa, women suffer from endless discrimination that begins even before

birth with forced abortions of female fetuses in some countries. Infanticide, the practice of

killing newborn girls, is a common rural phenomenon in India and China. For cultural as well as

economic reasons, boys are preferred.

Genital mutation, a severely damaging ritual often referred euphemistically as “female

circumcision”, is widely practiced in parts of Africa. Women also are provided with less medical

care and are much less likely to be taken to a hospital for treatment compared to their brothers.

The largest obstacle to the advancement of women is lack of education opportunities.

Throughout the Third world, even if girls are allowed to attend school, they can carry water,

work in fields, raise younger siblings, and do other domestic chores. In Pakistan, where schools

are segregated by sex, only one-third of those have no building. Three out of four women

cannot read or write.

LAWS THAT PROTECTS THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN

states parties to the Convention are obliged to implement this principle of equal protection

of men and women and their national constitutions, and adopt legal measures to prohibit

discrimination against women.

 The Convention on the Political Rights of Women

 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic of Persons and Exploitation of the Prostitution

of Women

JUSTICE: The Universality of Human Rights versus State Sovereignty

Separate from the issue of how we feel about Human Rights is the issue of what we can do

about it. International actors who wish to act in support of Human Rights often come into

conflict with state sovereignty. Any intervention in another state possibly violates state

sovereignty.The question is, up to what extent, then, can we be concerned with the welfare of

others in foreign states? Another issue arises due to the fact that there is no universal consensus

on Human Rights around the world.

There is a quarrel in terms of the Universality of Human Rights and the State sovereignty

because some country do not recognize the universality of Human Rights because of their

sovereign power.

EXAMPLE # 1:

The laws and policies of Saudi Arabia restrict religious freedom, and in practice, the

government generally enforced these restrictions. Freedom of religion is neither

recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice.
 The country is an Islamic state governed by a monarchy; the king is head of both

state and government. According to the basic law, Sunni Islam is the official religion and

the country's constitution is the Qur'an and the Sunna (traditions and sayings of the

Prophet Muhammad).

The public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited, and there is no

separation between state and religion. The government did not respect religious

freedom in law, but generally permitted Shia religious gatherings and non-Muslim private

religious practices. Some Muslims who did not adhere to the government's interpretation

of Islam faced significant political, economic, legal, social, and religious discrimination,

including limited employment and educational opportunities, under representation in

official institutions, restrictions on religious practice, and restrictions on places of

worship and community centers.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) and

security forces of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) conducted some raids on private non-

Muslim religious gatherings, and sometimes confiscated the personal religious materials

of non-Muslims. However, there were fewer reported charges of harassment and abuse

at the hands of the CPVPV. Although many intolerant statements had been removed,

some school textbooks continued to contain overtly intolerant statements against Jews

and Christians and intolerant references by allusion against Shia and Sufi Muslims and

other religious groups. For example they stated that apostates from Islam should be

killed if they do not repent within three days of being warned and that treachery is a

permanent characteristic of non-Muslims, especially Jews. There were reports of

societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice.

Conservative vigilantes sometimes harassed and assaulted citizens and foreigners.

Saudi government of their sovereign power. With this, a quarrel between the character of

Human Rights as being universal against the power of the sovereign state. We could say that

Justice cannot be completely observe. But, if the character of the universality of Human Rights is

generally observe then justice can likewise be universally available. Their justification why they

do not allow the enjoyment of some Human Rights is a way of exercising their sovereign power.

Justice is sometimes illusive in a state that would always want that their state sovereignty will

always prevail over the universality of human rights. It might be that the universality of human

rights when it come to justice, would be dependent on the sovereign power of the state. If they

declare that everybody is allowed to enjoy their human rights, that make that very true that

human rights is universal and justice is served as well as the sovereign power of the state is

yielding to the enjoyment of Human rights as a universal right. The Universality of Human Rights

depends on the exercise of sovereign power of every state.

Example #2:

In his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 25, Duterte said that human rights

should never be used to protect drug offenders.

“Human rights must work to uplift human dignity. But human rights cannot be used as a

shield or an excuse to destroy the country – your country and my country,” he stressed.

“We will not stop until the last drug lord, the last financier and the last pusher have

surrendered or been put behind bars or are below the ground if they so wish.”

Since President Rodrigo Duterte’s campaign against illegal drugs started, 402 drug

suspects had been killed nationwide from July 1 to August 2, according to the Philippine
National Police (PNP). At the same time, around 114,800 people surrendered as either

drug addicts or illegal drug dealers.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released a statement on

Wednesday,  Aug. 3, condemning the “apparent endorsement of extrajudicial killing,

which is illegal and a breach of fundamental rights and freedom.”

According to President Duterte, he is ready to face any sanctions or trial before the

United Nations regarding concerns about extrajudicial killings in connection with the

government’s war on drugs.

He also challenged the UN to instead recommend actions on how to stop the drug

menace in the country, which has been the anchor of the President’s platform for change.

“I am ready to face the UN, if you are ready to solve it for us. I am ready for you,”

he said

Duterte reiterated that he is bound by duty to protect Filipinos from the drug scourge.

“I am not fighting a crisis. I am fighting a war (to) exterminate the apparatus,” he said in

a speech.

Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said that international and local human rights

groups can express their concerns in the spirit of democracy and the right to free speech.

“I don’t have a personal comment on that. But they are very free, in other words, it’s

also their prerogative to make their own call,” Abella said.

“The government knows exactly where it stands, okay. It knows exactly where it

stands, it knows its position and… knows exactly the next moves that it needs to make.

The government stands on principle,” he said.

Abella, nevertheless, said the President is “looking” into allegations that law

enforcers are resorting to extrajudicial killings in the war against narcotics.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LIBERAL TRADITION

In the United States, there is a tendency to view human rights in very individualistic terms

because of history of liberal, or individualistic thinking.

Liberalism is a political philosophy with origins in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

that emphasizes individual liberties through a minimal state.

Views in the United States are based on the idea of equal protection under the law. Even

ideas such as eminent domain, which grant the states rights, do so with provisions protecting

the individual. Not everyone in the world agrees with this individualistic view of Human rights.

Some culture view rights less as individualistic and more tribal, group, or class oriented.

There is thus some disagreement about what rights should be accepted. Due process is

important in the United States, but not so in other states. The focus on legal and political rights

in America means less of a focus on social, cultural, and economic rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one of the most translated

documents in the world. Its promotion of freedom, justice and peace provides a set of

standards that were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and with the

support of forty-eight countries. Despite this doctrine of international values, indigenous

societies often resist attempts to implement such law when it threatens to constrain

traditional norms that are deeply embedded into the realm of cultural identity.

An array of practices integral to indigenous livelihood—such as a society’s religion,

subsistence methods, marriage practices, and healing techniques—provides threads of

fabric that weave together a communal way of life. In such societies, adherence to

rituals and customs are fundamental; they create a structure of distinctiveness and

provide a dimension with which citizens can face the issues of day-to-day living in a

meaningful way.

This cultural framework serves as fragile terrain through which global citizens must

learn to navigate with caution. Traditional practices that are inconsistent with universal

doctrine encounter increased opposition from UDHR advocates. When international

development initiatives connect with a resistant traditional society, international

standards and local culture collide. Therefore, in order for the UDHR to be utilized

effectively, it needs to adopt a relative framework in areas of Sub-Saharan Africa—one

that more accurately assesses needs by first increasing freedoms and self sustainability

as necessary platforms for human rights. Until these basic needs are acknowledged and

adopted, human rights have no foundational support upon which to build incremental,

profound change.
 One example of a cultural practice that conflicts with progressive international

norms is the observance of polygamy. Although it occurs throughout the world, African

males, traditionalists in particular, maintain multiple partnerships, especially in areas

with scarce environmental resources. Polygamy is believed to increase productivity and

survival among children, to provide economic security to women, and to maintain strong

religious values. Yet it also represents a highly contested debate between those who

uphold the societal norms of traditional African communities, and those who call for

implementing human rights norms. Polygamy is legally recognized in Chad, the Congo,

Gabon, the Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo,

Uganda, and Zambia, to name a few. Senegal in particular has the highest rate of

polygamy in Africa, with estimates ranging from fifty to seventy percent.

Despite this regional widespread recognition of multi-partnerships in Sub-Saharan

Africa (SSA), polygamy directly clashes with Western norms that consider bigamy a

crime. Several countries have prohibited the polygamous lifestyles and some states

condemn it through criminalization. As a result, polygamists often encounter difficulty

with US governmental agencies while securing visas for legal immigrant status in the

United States. There is also strong sentiment that polygamy creates societal problems

responsible for the continuance of gender inequality, the spread of sexually transmitted

diseases, marital strife, family discord, and the transmission of AIDS. Numerous

organizations, such as the Campaign Against Polygamy and Women Oppression

International (CAPWOI) actively discourage polygamy through education, advocacy and

support.

To such advocates, polygamy represents a highly emotional issue that perpetuates

the inferiority of women. Yet many African men maintain that multiple-partnership is

“tradition,” suggesting deeply interwoven principles of power and priority that are not
easily broken. Instead of condemning the practice, some African states have opted to

provide legal protection to polygamous marriages by enforcing legal responsibilities that

ensure the rights of women and children. In Namibia, for example, the constitution holds

men accountable for a multitude of legal obligations favoring proper treatment of family

members (Ovis 2005). Though this solution does not eradicate polygamy, many see it

as a step in the direction towards acknowledging, and perhaps one day changing, the

deeply ingrained traditional role polygamy signifies in many African societies.

CULTURALLY SPECIFIC RIGHTS AND VALUES

It is sometimes tempting to adopt a moral or cultural relativism and assert that rights

or any other values can be understood only within their separate cultural contexts.

Cultural relativist reject claims to human rights as universal, arguing that such universal

claims are artificial constructions. To a relativist, values cannot be separated from

cultural context. Who is to say which culture’s values should supersede another?

It is not hard to show that different cultures (and subcultures within a given society)

have different ways of thinking about doing things.

Example:

The time, day and size and content of different meals considered appropriate varies

across cultures and subcultures.

How one eat: Some with one hand, some with chopsticks, some with fork, some

with knife and some with spoon. We refer to such practices as customs, or manners.

Even though there may be a correct way to act in a particular cultural context, we

usually do not understand the values associated with manners or customs as having

moral content. Other values in a particular cultural context be part of its moral code.
Thus, respecting the elderly as a group or as individuals may be seen as a moral

obligation in some cultures but not in others, at least not to the same degree. Thus,

many societies hold governments, whether democratic or authoritarian in character,

responsible for assuring at least a basic level of living and welfare for their people, but

this is not a universally held view. In American society, for example, there may be higher

value placed on equality of opportunity rather than on fairness of socioeconomic

outcomes. Although Americans disagree among themselves on such matters, many who

are well off may not feel there is any individual or societal obligation to assist to those

who are not. This perspective views charity as properly a voluntary effort undertaken

primarily by individuals, not by governments. Value is often placed on the marketplace

as the best mechanism for allocating goods and services, a view challenged, of course,

by Americans with greater social-liberal (or social-democratic) commitments.

BOOKS:

Human Rights An Introductory Course

International Relations and World Politics (Security, Economy, Identity) Fourth Edition by Paul R.
Viotti and Mark V. Kauppi

INTERNET:

http://bigstory.ap.org/tags/racial-and-ethnic-discrimination

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racial+and+Ethnic+Discrimination

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171744.pdf

http://asianjournal.com/news/un-condemns-extrajudicial-killings-duterte-ready-to-face-

intl-rights-group/

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/08/04/1609952/duterte-ready-face-un-over-

extrajudicial-killings