If you could invent one new human right, what would it be? What gave you the idea for this right and how would you justify it to other people? What steps would you take to get it adopted?

In the next chapter on Human rights system we will look briefly at the historical development of human rights. The important thing to note here is that the concept of human rights is not a static one. Changes are being made to existing human rights standards all the time - usually by new rights being added.

In order to get a new right adopted, it is important to win widespread support for the idea. In practice, new rights get made at the level of the United Nations by powerful governments.

But the origin of rights lies in the rather subversive idea of protecting the collective interests of the poor and weak in society against the rich and powerful.

Consider the following three historical examples. In some of them, the right was not recognised as existing when the struggle for it began. It was only when the struggle was successful that the right was enshrined in law.

In other cases, the right was recognised, but it was not thought to apply to the people who were demanding it.

The struggle against the Atlantic slave trade

Here is Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This would seem to be the least controversial of all human rights. Yet until very recently in human history, slavery was thought to be a natural underpinning of civilised society.

In 1776 the American Founding Fathers made their famous Declaration of Independence:

Yet most of those who signed the declaration owned slaves and presumably saw no contradiction between their ringing words and their actions.

In 1798 slaves on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola (modern-day Haiti) took the contemporary rhetoric about the Rights of Man seriously. They rebelled, freed themselves and set up a short-lived democratic republic. Before the rest of the world accepted the idea, they held that slavery was a violation of their rights.

But history was moving in their direction. In 1833 Britain abolished the slave trade. It had made its wealth from the Atlantic slave trade, but no longer needed it as its industrial power grew.

At the same time, religious people and philanthropists campaigned for an end to the trade in people. The abolition of slavery in the United States in 1865 was a similar combination of idealism and cynical self-interest.

The modern curse of racism is to a large extent a legacy of slavery. But the universal revulsion towards slavery itself is a vindication of the Caribbean slaves of the eighteenth century who asserted their own human rights.

The struggle for women's rights

Less than a century ago it was almost unknown for women to enjoy equal political rights with men. In Britain, the movement for women's right to vote - the suffragettes - adopted a number of different tactics.

To start with it tried to influence the Liberal government, which it thought would support its demand. This did not prove successful and the suffrage movement tended then to support the Labour Party, the only political party that unconditionally stood for votes for women.

Yet the most influential campaign took place outside parliamentary politics. After all, women could not participate in politics, so they needed to adopt other tactics. The most militant wing of the suffragettes organised attacks on property. When suffragettes were sent to prison they went on hunger strike.

The beginning of the First World War in 1914 split the movement. The government released imprisoned suffragettes. In exchange many leaders of the movement supported the war effort. But other suffragettes opposed the war and campaigned against it.

The employment of women in war industries - in jobs previously done by men - no doubt speeded the campaign for the vote. In 1918 women won the right to vote subject to a property qualification. By 1928 there was a universal franchise.

The struggle for the right to self-determination

The principle of self-determination became important during and after the First World War of 1914-1918. The principle was established that 'no government or group of governments has the right to dispose of the territory or to determine the political allegiance of any free people'. The implementation of this principle led to the independence of several states in central and eastern Europe.

However, the colonies held by European powers were not included under the principle. So, the right to self-determination was not given the status of a legal right but it was accepted as a political principle that would apply when it suited the dominant powers.

When the United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945, the colonial powers made sure that the charter did not provide for independence of dependent peoples. It was only in the 1960s with increasing numbers of newly independent states joining the UN and putting pressure on the UN that the principle was expanded to include the right of dependent peoples to be independent.

In 1960, the UN adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This Declaration was important because it established the link between self-determination and human rights.

In 1966 when the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were adopted they had a common first article which dealt with the principle of self-determination.

Article 1 says:

Since then, the right has been adopted by the UN in the Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in the African Charter on Human and People's Rights.

The principle of self-determination is not without its complexities. However, it is not necessary to go into these here. For more information on this right, you can read Ravindran 1998, pages 74-78.

Reflecting on a local example

Time: 1 hour

Think of a struggle for human rights in your own country. Was it successful? What lessons can you learn from its success or failure that might be applied to future attempts to develop new rights?