Data and Information Privacy as a Human Right: A Qualitative Study of its Perceived Impact on Mental Health.

The Quest for Information Privacy in Africa: A Review Essay

The article is devoted to the investigation of scientific views of Lviv University alumni Louis Sohn on the formation of institution of human rights defense. Attention has been paid to impact of United Nations on the formation of intergovernmental cooperation to ensure basic human rights and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights development. The common scientific positions of Louis Sohn, Volodymyr Koretskyy and Hersh Lauterpacht about the meaning of this fundamental international legal act have been underlined. Lauterpacht was one of the few international lawyers actively campaigning for human rights. He gave idea and prepared actually first draft of this important document in the sphere of human rights. Koretskyy had participated in the meeting of the working committee of the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He has been argued need for creating a system where the individual is not opposed to society and the state. The Declaration thus is now considered to be an authoritative interpretation of the U.N. Charter, spelling out in considerable detail the meaning of the phrase «human rights and fundamental freedoms» which Member States agreed in the Charter to promote and observe. In a parallel development, individuals gained rights under international law and, to some extent, means for vindication of those rights on the international plane. This development entailed four different lawbuilding stages: assertion of international concern about human rights in the U.N. Charter; listing of those rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; elaboration of the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Louis Sohn has been investigated International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those documents contain clear commitments binding on all States Parties. Key words: Louis Sohn; Volodymyr Koretskyy; Hersh Lauterpacht; human rights defence; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; United Nations.

The urgency of the study is stipulated by the necessity to cover the process of project preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which will allow a comprehensive study of the nature of human rights, to understand their universal nature. The choice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an object of the study is determined by the special nature of this international soft law act. It is emphasized that the process of adopting this international act remains somewhat unclear among lawyers. The preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is hardly covered in the legal literature, which does not contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the Western human rights concept and relativism in the interpretation of human rights as a phenomenon within various legal cultures. Some aspects of project preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are described. The activities of the Human Rights Commission, which consisted of 18 members representing various political, cultural and religious groups, are noted. It is emphesized that starting with Art.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the words “All people are born free and equal…”, the developers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reproduced the idea of the universality of human rights, their global nature, that is not limited to a state or even a region. It is summed up that representatives of various groups of the population were involved in the work on the text of the document, creating an international act that was to consolidate human rights, to embody the ideas of equality of human rights, and their universal character. However, while adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not all states voted in its favor. Eight states have refrained from supporting it which is stipulated by a number of religious and political factors. At the same time, different interpretations of human rights by various states do not deny their universal nature. Covering the issue of human rights, it is advisable to disclose the process of preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which will allow systematically and clearly understand the nature of human rights, differences in the activities of various states concerning human rights ensuring.

Human Dignity and Fundamental Freedoms - Global Values of Human Rights: A Response to Cultural Relativism

IntroductionOngoing global conflicts have led to increasing forced migration and displacement. This rising numbers’ trend has fueled discriminatory policies in the EU and UK, resulting in detrimental mental health consequences for refugees and asylum seekers (RAS) caused by post-migration stressors. These policies sharply contrast ratified treaties and conventions based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).ObjectivesThe review examines the infringement of RAS’ right to health, focusing on the mental health consequences of post-migration stressors faced upon arrival in the EU and the UK. It analyses how these post-migration stressors reflect a violation of human rights (HR), tracing the evolution of human rights theory from natural law to contemporary universal principles. It investigates how post-migration stressors exacerbate psychiatric symptoms in an already vulnerable population present in the EU and UK. It seeks to understand whether the EU faces a moral cosmopolitan duty of humanitarianism towards RAS, exploring the ethical and legal obligations of the EU and UK under key international HR frameworks.MethodsA systematic search was conducted across several databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, and GoogleScholar. The search comprised keywords such as human rights, cosmopolitanism, health justice, post-migration stressors, refugees and asylum seekers, common european asylum system and mental health. Boolean Operators AND and OR were applied. Exclusion criteria included non-English/German/Italian publications, papers focused on non-european asylum policies or refugee populations outside the EU and UK, and study protocols. Studies were synthesised to provide a comprehensive overview of post-migration stressors in the EU and UK and a philosophical deduction of human rights.ResultsBoth the EU and UK violate international HR law by failing to ensure the right to health for RAS. Empirical studies from Greece, Italy, and Germany document that post-migration stressors—such as inadequate housing, poor living conditions, and delays in asylum procedures—exacerbate mental health conditions like depression, post-traumatic-stress disorder, and anxiety. The recent reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) demonstrates the gap between legal commitments in international law and current migration policies. This further restricts access to asylum and (mental) healthcare, subjecting RAS to violence and inadequate care.ConclusionsThe EU’s and UK’s political and legal responses violate basic human rights of RAS, particularly their right to health, despite legal commitments to international HR treaties. This further exacerbates mental health conditions in RAS. A human rights-based approach, integrating mental health into migration policies, is crucial to protecting RAS’ dignity and mental health. Until then, the EU and UK will continue to fall short of their moral and legal obligations.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

The Global Citizenship Commission was convened, under the leadership of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the auspices of NYU’s Global Institute for Advanced Study, to re-examine the spirit and stirring words of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The result – this volume – offers a 21st-century commentary on the original document, furthering the work of human rights and illuminating the ideal of global citizenship. What does it mean for each of us to be members of a global community? Since 1948, the Declaration has stood as a beacon and a standard for a better world. Yet the work of making its ideals real is far from over. Hideous and systemic human rights abuses continue to be perpetrated at an alarming rate around the world. Too many people, particularly those in power, are hostile to human rights or indifferent to their claims. Meanwhile, our global interdependence deepens. Bringing together world leaders and thinkers in the fields of politics, ethics, and philosophy, the Commission set out to develop a common understanding of the meaning of global citizenship – one that arises from basic human rights and empowers every individual in the world. This landmark report affirms the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seeks to renew the 1948 enterprise, and the very ideal of the human family, for our day and generation.

The last Hajj performed by the Messenger of Allah is called the Farewell Hajj in two respects. One is that you did the last Hajj and also with reference to the fact that the Holy Prophet himself said in this sermon: O people! By God, I don't know if I will be able to meet you in this place after today. You specifically said, "Ask me questions, learn and ask what you have to ask." I may not be able to meet you like this later this year.It was as if the Holy Prophet himself was saying goodbye. On this occasion, this Hajj is called the Farewell Hajj.The United Nation General Assembly, approved the: "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" on Dec. 1948. Following this historic achievement, the Assembly urged all its member states to make the announcement public and participate in its dissemination. The purpose of this manifesto was to protect basic human rights throughout the world and to find solutions to various problems facing nations. The rights granted to man under the United Nations Charter, established in the twentieth century, were granted to him by Islam fourteen hundred years ago.The 30 articles of the UN Charter define basic human rights in various ways. These provisions relate to social, religious and human rights. When we compare the Farewell Sermon of the Holy Prophet with this Manifesto, where many similarities come to the fore, the differences are also noticeable.

Introduction: human dignity – an integrative and open concept ‘Human dignity’ has become one of the most important integrative formulas in international politics. Since 1948, when it was introduced into Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it has successfully functioned as an umbrella concept that bridges seemingly insurmountable ideological gulfs and provides a basis for consensus and compromise. Similarly to other political guiding concepts such as justice, liberty, peace or, more recently, sustainability, human dignity is an essentially open concept that leaves room for varying interpretations and contextualizations and thereby allows even the otherwise fiercest adversaries to speak with one voice. Another reason why human dignity has been increasingly introduced into constitutions and international treaties since 1948 is the wish for an absolute – a foundational principle that overarches, as it were, all constitutional and other political principles, a common reference point that is beyond controversy and conflict and plays the role, in Kantian terms, of an a priori to which all other political ideas are subject. Human dignity is predestined for this role because of two characteristic factors: the openness of its content and its independence of any particular metaphysical background theory. The extent to which the concept is semantically open is documented by its function as a heuristic tool in the process of gradually extending the canon of basic human rights. Although it is generally agreed that there is a stable connection between the idea of human dignity and the idea of basic human rights, the number and identity of the rights associated with the idea of human dignity is not static but, rather, dynamic. What human dignity implies – its content and consequences – has no fixed magnitude but is open to interpretations that extend its range and content into new directions, though in continuity with its established content. Extensions usually respond to new threats posed, for example, by new and unexpected political constellations, natural phenomena or technological developments. That human dignity shares this dynamic character with human basic rights supports the widely held assumption that the notions of human dignity and basic human rights are closely linked to each other.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Sociology and Human Rights in the Post Development Era

Reviewed by: Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Amy E. Eckert (bio) William Sweet, editor. Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights University of Ottawa Press. viii, 242. $24.95 More than fifty years have passed since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter 'UDHR') in 1948. Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights poses questions about the impact and legacy of the UDHR: 'What do we make of "human rights" more than half a century after the Universal Declaration - a declaration for which many, like [Jacques] Maritain, had so much hope? 'How does the [End Page 320] contemporary practice of rights fit with traditional theories of rights? What has been the effect of political and legal instruments such as the UHDR? What have events of the recent past shown us about these theories and declarations?' The UDHR, the first document to enumerate a set of globally recognized rights, marked a watershed in the internationalization of human rights, which were previously protected under national law. The essays extend beyond the scope of philosophical theory and the foundations of human rights, as the title would suggest, to questions of implementation and protection of these rights, a challenge that remains more than fifty years after the creation of the UDHR. The contributions to this volume are divided into three sections that address concepts of human rights, the UDHR's role in articulating and protecting human rights, and the challenges to the theory and application of human rights that have emerged since the UDHR. There is significant overlap among these three sections, and the questions of justification for human rights, or at least for particular conceptions of rights, never lie far beneath the surface. Additionally, three major themes cut across these three sections. One is on the question of the adequacy of consensus as a foundation for human rights. While consensus may treat certain practices as legitimate - such as slavery and colonialism - that later become discredited, we may also want to protect other rights - such as gender equality - that do not enjoy universal consensus. Howard P. Kainz's chapter rejects this consensus approach and grounds human rights in a more universalist foundation, a Thomistic conception of human nature. On the other hand, those more sympathetic to dialogic or discourse ethics see consensus itself as the basis for ethical norms. In his chapter, Bradley R. Munro describes the process of reaching consensus on the UDHR from within divergent ethical traditions. A second theme that cuts across many of the essays in this volume is the contribution of French philosopher Jacques Maritain, one of the principal architects of the UDHR, to the theory of human rights. A third focus of this volume is the impact of the UDHR on Canada's legal system. Jack Iwanicki examines the use of the UDHR and other international human rights treaties in decisions issued by the Canadian Supreme Court, while Paul Groarke and J.L.A. West address the liberal-communitarian debate in the context of the Canadian constitutional regime, arguing that a Thomistic model of the common good can provide a resolution to this divide by incorporating elements of the individual good. These common threads running through the book should not obscure the topical and philosophical diversity of the essays in this volume. Aside from the major themes mentioned above, other essays cover such topics as indigenous claims to land ownership, genocide in Rwanda, and women's rights. The approaches that the authors apply and evaluate include feminist theory, liberal models of rights, and virtue theory. The wide-ranging [End Page 321] discussion of the UDHR, and theories of rights more broadly, make Philosophical Theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights an excellent sampling of human rights scholarship. In addition, the book provides a clear picture of remaining philosophical and practical challenges more than fifty years after United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration. Amy E. Eckert Amy E. Eckert, Department of Philosophy, Denver University Copyright © 2005 University of Toronto Press Incorporated

Using poetry and statements from eminent people representing many disciplines and supported by United Nations and World Health Organisation documents, this article explores the role of water as a human right, necessary to achieve the most fundamental standard of well‐being. It also addresses the part played by water in sustaining ecological well‐being and how this is integral to the relationship between humans and the environment. Every culture expresses the very important relationship it has with water in some form or other. Here we focus on the ancient Chinese art of “geomancy,” Feng Shui, that pays particular attention to achieving well‐being through the relationship with water. However, this reverence for water as a heavenly gift, spiritual source, or common resource may be diminishing as many societies value water only as a commercial commodity that may be controlled and sold for private, industrial, and agricultural use. Finally, the relationship between water and well‐being is considered a flowing system, a major dynamic element in the structure, pattern, and process of evolution, life, and well‐being. If well‐being is defined as “… the maximisation of the pleasure available to us” (2) and is related to health, safety, welfare, comfort, security, happiness, goodness, and contentment, then water must play an important part in maintaining this desirable state. For without water, none of these qualities of life can be achieved. Water connects all life and water connects all aspects of well‐being, including social, economic, environmental, health, and aesthetic well‐being, as a basic human right. Article 25, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (3) states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well‐being of himself and his family” (3). Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary‐General confirmed that (a)ccess to safe water is a fundamental human need and therefore, a basic human right.

IN PASSING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THE UNITED States took a giant, if partial, step toward joining other nations wherein the right to health constitutes an inalienable moral and legal right. Although not widely appreciated, the right of every person to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (the right to health for short) is not merely an abstract moral imperative. Rather, it is an established international legal precept still to be fully embraced in the United States. Even though the right to health was overshadowed during the health care debate by other narratives, such as insurance reform, cost control, and care delivery, this right remains a central if unheralded narrative of the Affordable Care Act and its legacy. What is this right that engenders these bold claims? It is an assertion of the responsibility of governments to strive for “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” It is an asseveration that governments will respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health by ensuring the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of the care required. It is an averment that governments will honor the tenets of accurate information, nondiscrimination and equality, and participation. It is an avouchment that governments will address the “underlying determinants of health” such as sound housing, clean water, and adequate nutrition, especially as these determinants apply to the needs of poor and other marginalized populations. As such, the right to health constitutes a concept broader than that represented by the right to health care, covering elements that the Affordable Care Act, with its focus on health care, addresses only in limited, although important, ways. The right to health—or more precisely, to health care—as a moral dictum is associated with Senator Edward Kennedy’s impassioned expression of hope “that every American— north, south, east, west, young, old—will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.” Others have echoed these sentiments, not least President Obama who framed last year’s health care debate as a core ethical and moral obligation. Americans appear to agree, evidenced by the very existence of and broad support for the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP public safety net programs. Moreover, 72% of Americans strongly believe that health care should be considered a human right. The right to health is also a matter of international law, one drawing on the collective force of national constitutions, international and regional treaties, and other instruments. As such, the right to health is as established as the more familiar rights to freedom of expression and religion. Leading the way were British laws as early as 1802 triggered by the health threats of the Industrial Revolution, and the Mexican Constitution of 1843, which recognized the state’s role in public health. In 1925, Chile became the first nation to incorporate the right to health into its constitution. Now more than 100 countries boast a commitment to the right to health or health care in their constitutions. Beyond these national efforts, several critical global pacts incorporate the right to health. First among them was the constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), which in 1946 identified the “enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health” as “one of the fundamental rights of every human being.” Two years later, the United Nation (UN) General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 25 of which guarantees the right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being . . . including food, clothing, housing and medical care.” Many international lawyers view the UDHR as creating a binding customary international law, including as an interpretation of the human rights commitments in the UN Charter, under which states have committed to the “universal observance of, and respect for, human rights.” In 1966, the UDHR was expanded upon by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which asserts that signatory states recognize “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” It was against this backdrop that the UN Commission for Human Rights created the mandate for a Special Rapporteur on the right of every person to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The combined force of the

Indigenous Peoples' Rights: Has the European Union's Human Rights Preservation Initiative(s) Failed the Roma Population? A Look Back on the Last Fifteen Years of Directives, Declarations, and Human Rights Treaties

In this article the author explores what he terms ‘an emergent traderelated, market-friendly paradigm of human rights’, in contrast to the paradigm of human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It focuses on a reassertion of the UDHR paradigm in relation to corporate governance and business conduct, looking specifically at the Proposed Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (‘Norms’). The article examines, in this respect, five central themes: the intertextuality of the Norms; the ‘network’ conception of trade and business conduct; ways of categorising human rights obligations; duties regarding implementation of the Norms; and, finally, related ethical theory concerns. 1. The Proposed Norms on Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnationals and Other Business Enterprises In The Future of Human Rights, the present author developed a contrast between the paradigm of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the emergent paradigm of the trade-related, market-friendly paradigm of human rights by which it was confronted. In this article a particular set of practices of resistance, which takes the form of full reassertion of the UDHR paradigm in Human Rights Law Review 5:1 (2005), 1–26 p Professor of Law, University of Warwick (upendra.baxi@warwick.ac.uk). This article is a revised version of a chapter that is due to be published in Baxi, The Future of Human Rights, 2nd edn (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1 Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 153. Human Rights Law Review 5:1 q The Author [2005]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org doi:10.1093/hrlrev/ngi001 relation to corporate governance and business conduct, is addressed. What is indeed remarkable is the fact that the articulation of this reassertion occurs under the auspices of the United Nations system, which otherwise fosters contemporaneously somewhat assiduously the trade-related, market-friendly human rights paradigm. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and, particularly, the SubCommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, provide important sites of critique and renewal. The Sub-Commission thrives on dialogical interaction with the non-governmental organisation (NGO) communities; and often its expert consultants (howsoever named) emerge from within these communities, or at the very least remain extraordinarily sensitive to activist critique of contemporary economic globalisation. This article focuses on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (‘Norms’), formulated by a Working Group of five independent experts. The adoption of the Norms, together with the Commentary by the Sub-Commission (on 13 August 2003), marks the first step in a long and perilous journey towards their final adoption. The Norms, now transmitted to the Human Rights Commission, remain open to further consideration within and outside the United Nations system and the comments and responses received stand slated for further consideration by March/April 2005. In the interim, the Sub-Commission’s Working Group stands mandated to assemble information from all relevant sources concerning implementation processes, as well as to further innovate these processes where necessary. The Norms, and the accompanying Commentary, had a very short gestation compared with the archetypal endeavour that produced a stillborn United Nations Draft Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations. Even more remarkable is their enunciative audacity, unfazed by glittering histories of past failures. Twenty-three articles provide an arsenal of general and specific obligations. Transnational corporations and other business organisations stand conceived as networks of corporate governance and business conduct. Ideologies of voluntarism stand replaced by those of regulation 2 See Globalization and its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights, 15 August 2001, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13. 3 See the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, 13 August 2003, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003); hereafter cited as ‘Norms’. For the Commentary on the Norms, see E/CN/4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003). The latter document refers to ‘paragraphs’ rather than ‘Articles’; The provisions are here described as Articles. Further, all citations to the Norms are derived from the last document above. 4 See, for background analysis, Weissbrodt and Kruger, ‘Norms on Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Entities’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 901. See also Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995) at 592–7 and the literature cited therein. 5 E/C.10/1984/S/5 (1984); (1984) 23 International Legal Materials 602. 2 HRLR 5 (2005), 1–26

Human rights are an idea that has been frequently linked to Western customs, but it has strong roots in Indian culture, especially Jainism.Examining how the principles of Jainism fit into contemporary human rights frameworks like the Indian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), this paper, "Jainism and Human Rights: A Critique", examines this relationship.Established by VardhamanaMahavira in 599 BCE, Jainism is among the oldest religions in India.Five basic principles serve as its foundation: ahimsa (nonviolence), satya (truthfulness), achaurya (not stealing), brahmacharya (celibacy), and aparigraha (non-attachment).The application of these moral principles extends the definition of human rights to encompass ecological consciousness by fostering the respect and dignity of all living things, not only humans.This paper highlights remarkable parallels between these Jain principles and contemporary human rights laws.Anekantavada, the Jain principle of respecting different viewpoints, is in line with the right to freedom from discrimination, whereas Ahimsa is in line with the right to life.Articles 15, 21, and 25 of the Indian Constitution protect these rights, thereby confirming that Indian philosophies are deeply ingrained with human rights, and that human rights are not solely Indian.The emphasis Jainism places on non-possession (Aparigraha) also aligns with contemporary rights such as the right to privacy and lifelong learning, which is similar to the right to education.At the end of the day, Jainism and contemporary human rights frameworks support justice, equity, and equality and provide contrasting paths to a life worthy of respect.