Loose usage of the term HUMAN RIGHTS

BY R.M.B Senanayake-2016-08-16

Everything seems to have become a 'right' these days. I read the other day that medicine is a 'right'. This is all a confusion of what constitutes human rights. The latest is medicine. Medicine is said to be a human right. But human rights stem from their recognition in International Human Rights Treaties. There are different treaties and declarations on the subject; it is only those that the international community has recognized are human rights. Nor have all countries signed up to implement them. So human rights recognized by law are not all among what the public may consider as human rights in ordinary usage.

So there is a misunderstanding of human rights in our society. Firstly human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. So it is necessary to use the term with care. There are Human Rights Treaties and not all countries have signed up to accept them all. To be meaningful human rights have to be recognized by the law. Just because medicine is important for human beings who are patients doesn't mean that they have rights, unless such rights are recognized by law or treaty. Most of the essential requirements for human beings existence have been recognized as human rights. There may be other things humans need as for example medicine for sick people. But where does one draw the line for medicine as today there are very expensive life- saving drugs which prolong life of such patients although they may not be able to have the same quality of life as earlier.

These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. Universally human rights are expressed and may be guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts; in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups a distinction must be drawn between certain core human rights needed for human existence and other requirements which are desirable, but not necessarily essential for basic existence. So, just because someone considers medicine as important doesn't mean it is a human right unless it is accepted as such by law or by treaty.

Another point is that recognition of a right does not necessarily cast an obligation on the State to provide it free. The State has to levy taxes to carry on its duties and obligations. So when some duty or obligation is cast on the State and if the State is required to provide it free of charge then it means the cost of the service is being cast on the community. But not all benefits are equally enjoyed by all the citizens. Generally, it is nothing but fair that the beneficiary of the service should bear the costs, although in the case of essential services necessary for life and where the poor may not be able to afford it, there is a case for the State to fund it through taxation for that is what it means when we say a service is to be provided free by the State.

Further human rights have to be recognized by the State and it must uphold them. But all States have not recognized all the purported human rights. Of course they have not signed up for all the treaties.

All States have ratified at least one, and 80 per cent of States have ratified four or more, of the core human rights treaties, reflecting consent of such States which creates legal obligations for them and giving concrete expression to universality. Some fundamental human rights norms enjoy universal protection by customary international law across all boundaries and civilizations. But apart from them to talk loosely about a human right merely because it is an essential need for humans will only create misunderstanding among the ordinary people who may then demand them free from the State as our people are great believers of a free lunch.