Introduction
In the past two decades, the International Human Rights Law (IHRL) has increased its emphasis on protecting all human rights for people to live a free, secure, and healthy life.
According to Rehman (2010), living a dignified life can only be achieved if all basic requirements of work, housing, food, education, and political democracy are sufficiently available to every person without discrimination.
This paper argues about economic, social, and cultural rights, which are intertwined with civil and political rights under the mantle of the International Human Rights Law. The underlying claim is that if economic, social, and cultural rights are not met adequately, then the civil and political rights will neither be satisfied.
However, the initial emphasis should be directed to establishing the economic, social, and cultural rights after which the political rights are met, thus the overall connection may lead to the realisation of all human rights.
This paper agrees with the view that economic, social, and cultural human rights are highly crucial, as they form the basis under which civil and political human rights develop.
In addition, a violation of the former is directly associated with the violation of the later. For instance, the denial of the right to good health, which is part of the social rights, is more critical than denying the right to vote, which is a political human right.
While assessing this claim, this paper will describe the two sets of human rights. It will also show why it is necessary to protect the economic, social, and cultural rights in a bid to develop sustainable civil and political rights.
This paper will also examine whether the two sets of human rights are fundamentally different or they are indivisible.
Background
Historically, the idea of human rights developed within the political philosophy of Western Europe. Early philosophers such as John Lock believed that the government had the mandate to secure fundamental human rights morally and legally and failure led to the loss of its legitimacy (Hoover 2013).
The civil and political rights preceded the origins of the economic, social, and cultural rights, and thus they are deemed as second-generation rights.
Though the economic, social, and cultural rights are often referred as second to civil and political rights, they have been in existence for centuries only that they were highly marginalised until the 19th Century (Simmons 2009).
The roots of economic, social, and cultural rights can be traced back to early centuries during the evolution of religious traditions. These religious traditions emphasised dignity and care for humanity by sharing with those who cannot cater for themselves.
Furthermore, national and international laws had prior recognised most of the economic, social, and cultural rights before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (Baderin & McCorquodale 2011). For instance, countries such as Costa Rica realised the right to education for all from the 1840s.
Some European nations by the late 19th Century recognised various economic, social, and cultural rights like labour rights, the right to health, and social security.
Economic, social, and cultural rights are viewed as individual rights including social security, conditions in the workplace, personal life, cultural life, and access to basic facilities such as education, food, safe water, housing, and health (Ishay 2010).
For instance, take a case of a family that is forcefully evicted from its house or a businessperson whose work is publicly looted. In this case, the individuals are affected and their condition worsened, thus hindering public justice.
On the other hand, civil and political rights involve the right to vote, right to fair trial, equality, and freedom from discrimination among others as included in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Walzer & Miller 2007).
For a long time, civil and political rights have attracted more attention from both legal and non-legal interpreters as more important than economic, civil, and cultural rights.
The opponents argue that the economic, social, and cultural rights are second-class rights, thus unjustifiable and they can be achieved gradually over time.
This argument underrates human dignity since it does not recognise the real rights, and consequently it disapproves the importance of the civil and political rights. It is unrealistic for a starving individual to enjoy voting rights and one loses the motivation to vote if his/her basic rights cannot be prioritised.
Relevance of the economic, social, and cultural rights
These rights are designed to enhance the protection of individuals as full human beings, grounded on the idea that people have to enjoy rights, freedoms, and justice.
Living in a world where the majority of countries are yet to feed and provide safe drinking water adequately and most citizens still live below the poverty line, the need to redirect focus on the actualisation of economic, social, and cultural rights is broadly manifested.
However, it is inevitable to honour, secure, and fulfil the actualisation of economic, social, and cultural rights by the state machinery after which it will be possible to realise stable civil and political rights (Hrubec 2010).
Every example of violation of economic, social, and cultural rights demonstrates how human dignity is substantially dented as well as the civil and political rights.
For example, contaminating water by both private and state-owned facilities and illegal disconnections are violations of the right to health and water, while poor conditions at work and long working hours are a violation of worker’s rights.
Failure to provide education to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, or religion violates education rights. Paid maternity leave and protection for the unemployed population violates the right to social security.
When these rights are denied under whichever conditions, the dignity of humanity is compromised (Haas 2014). Thus, the logic of embracing civil and political rights loses its basis and it can only thrive when the economic, social, and cultural rights are prioritised.
Consequently, the extent to which individuals enjoy economic, social, and cultural rights is reflected in the level of awareness towards protecting civil and political rights.
For instance, in the US, the level of enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights corresponds to the enjoyment of civil and political rights and the aggregate is relatively higher as compared to other parts of the world.
This scenario plays out due to the high level of literacy, health, social security, safe drinking water, and sanitation. Therefore, citizens are well informed about the political structures, public involvement, and justice.
Citizens are motivated to further and protect these rights because through legislators and court systems, they can enjoy the economic, social, and cultural rights.
Mahon (2008, p. 620) posit that the ‘gross violation of economic, social, and cultural rights has proved to be the major cause of civil conflicts and the reluctance to address these needs undermines any chances of recovering from conflicts’.
For instance, denying employment, education, and housing based on gender, culture, race, or religion has always resulted in conflicts as the affected societies seek to alter the status quo by staging revolutions. Looking at the state of affairs in most African countries, constant conflicts persist.
The economy of a country like Somalia has deteriorated due to the disputed allocation of resources. The housing condition in some regions in Brazil is very poor, thus leading to increased rate of crime and forced evictions during slum rehabilitation.
When these populations are unstable and their dignity is compromised, they cannot enjoy civil and political rights even if they are put in place (Smith, Baylis, & Owens 2008). If civil and political rights cannot protect the entire community, then its relevance is lost.
In addition, the denial of economic, social, and cultural rights can as well hinder the enjoyment of other rights. For example, it is usually difficult for illiterate people to find employment, participate in political activity, or even share their opinions.
Even those who advance the civil political rights happen to be the few fortunate individuals who are educated, have good health, and want to enhance sustainable civil and political rights by first anchoring economic, social, and cultural rights for all.
Tracing back to evaluate how the Human Rights Convention of 1948 emerged, one will be in a position to figure out what aspects orchestrated the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the same year.
Being human was the criterion deemed essential for the entitlement of human rights and particularly individual rights formed the central tenet upon which the debate thrived. After achieving human dignity through embracing economic, social, and cultural rights, humans are guaranteed civil and political rights.
These civil and political rights should ensure that they protect and enhance the economic, social, and political rights. Even though the civil and political rights debates seem to have been highly magnified in most states, it is evident that this strategy is used to realise the economic, social, and cultural rights.
Even after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US continued to witness discrimination in the distribution of economic and social benefits. Following this marginalisation, civil and political movements started to emerge in the 1960s to press the government to provide socioeconomic justice equitably to all.
By doing so, the civil and political rights would ensure the enhancement and protection of economic, social, and cultural rights, which had previously existed, but marginalised by the state machinery (Duran 2011).
This aspect implied that people would obtain the rights to vote and make public opinions. Just as it is today, the right to vote elevated people’s ability to make decisions that affected their welfare.
In most developing countries, economic, social, and cultural rights do not only enhance individual’s dignity, but at some point, they are inevitable for survival (Darraj 2010. Without elaborate provision of basic material for human beings, such as food, education, water, and health, then civil and political rights are of no essence.
From this analysis, it is generalisable that human needs and survival are reflected in the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights.
For humans to function as human beings they must enjoy the basic needs and if denied they will exist in abject poverty and eventually die as it is the case in many underdeveloped and developing countries.
Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that human rights are indivisible, in practice, there is still division between the two main categories because countries have priorities such as economic stability and social wellbeing (Clapham 2007).
This aspect mostly applies to the developing countries, since elaborate civil and political rights lack good grounds to thrive.
The enforcement of civil and political rights requires political force and when the legitimacy of these rights is questionable, the rationale for employing such force declines.
When evaluating economic, social, and cultural rights, one realises that they are nearly natural rights and their applicability may not necessarily rely on political force. For instance, if an individual is denied food and safe water, s/he will die.
Moral values of care and love for one another may motivate people to provide for the less privileged, whereas the same is not practical in the case of civil and political rights.
Since not all economic, social, and cultural rights can be achieved through religious morals, political enforcement becomes necessary to enhance their realisation. This aspect leads this discussion to the question whether economic, social, and cultural rights are different or indivisible in application.
Are these rights different or indivisible?
Economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights are indiscrete, interconnected, and mutualist as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter (Echo-Hawk 2013). This standpoint is highly disputed by individuals who share the ideas borrowed from the context of the Cold War.
The past indicates that the economic, social, and cultural rights were highly distinct from the civil and political rights. The western bloc during the Cold War highly focused on civil and political rights while the Eastern bloc put more focus on economic, civil, and cultural rights.
Under this context, the differences developed, but it was evident that none of these set of rights would meet human rights needs adequately as stated by the Convention of Human Rights. Apparently, such differences have been abandoned and the initial structure of the Universal Declaration thrives.
This assertion holds because civil and political rights depend on the stability of the economic, social, and cultural rights.
On the other hand, political rights help in enhancing and sustaining the economic, social, and cultural rights (Butler 2007). Through education, individuals will be in a position to make informed political decisions.
In addition, most political debates such as political participation like voting greatly depend on an individual’s health, levels of enlightenment, and general welfare (Freedman 2004).
The proponents of the claim that civil and political rights are more important argue that economic, social, and cultural rights are vague and ambiguous. This assertion holds in the sense that it is often hard to highlight a violation, the perpetrator, and the intervention criterion.
For instance, what entails hunger, adequate housing, or social security are mere constructions of court systems to justify decisions on whether rights have been denied (Normand & Zaidi 2008).
They claim that the government should not be identified as the perpetrator because the human rights law restricts dependence on welfare or state dependency. While it remains important for the individuals to show efforts, the government has to ensure fair playing grounds and facilitate the attainment of individual goals.
Even though not all economic, social, and cultural rights are substantially described in human rights protocols, a similar case is reflected in the civil and political rights.
In addition, the fact that economic, social, and cultural rights are more expensive to initiate as compared to civil and political rights, it is unjustified to underrate their importance based on this aspect since it is the mandate of the government to plan and invest towards realising these rights (Goodhart 2013).
Furthermore, civil and political rights need structures like well-managed prisons, election funds, and active court system among others.
Conclusion
The significance of the economic, social, and cultural rights cannot be underestimated.
Poverty, disease, illiteracy, and discrimination lead to the majority of security threats and conflicts witnessed within and beyond borders, thus compromising the enhancement and sustainability of overall human rights particularly civil and political rights.
Even in the most developed countries, it has been shown that gross violations persist and many people still live under situations that contribute to the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights that in turn hinder the enjoyment of civil and political rights.
Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights condemn the denial of fundamental human rights, there still exist well-orchestrated ways of discrimination in the practice of economic, social, and cultural rights against some individuals and groups on unrealistic and unfortunate grounds.
Consequently, as individuals refrain from categorising these rights and referring to them as social, economic, political, cultural, and civil rights, it should be noted that economic, social, and cultural rights form the backbone of any other rights.
However, this assertion reaffirms that economic, social, and cultural rights are significant contributors to human dignity as opposed to civil and political rights.
Reference List
Baderin, M & McCorquodale, R 2011, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Butler, K 2011, A Critical Humanitarian Intervention Approach, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.
Clapham, A 2007, Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford UP, Oxford.
Darraj, S 2010, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Chelsea House Publishers, New York.
Duran, C 2011, ‘Civil society organisations contribution to the universal declaration on the human right to peace’, International Journal on World Peace, vol.28, no. 4, pp. 59-68.
Echo-Hawk, W 2013, In the Light of Justice: The Rise of Human Rights in Native America and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Fulcrum Publishing, Colorado.
Freedman, R 2004, The Voice That Challenged a Nation: Marian Anderson and the Struggle for Equal Rights, Clarion Books, New York.
Goodhart, M 2013, Human Rights: Politics and Practice, Oxford UP, Oxford.
Haas, M 2014, International Human Rights: A Comprehensive Introduction, Routledge, New York.
Hoover, J 2013, ‘Rereading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Plurality and Contestation, Not Consensus’, Journal of Human Rights, vol.4, no.12, pp. 217–241.
Hrubec, M 2010, ‘The Global Struggle for Human Rights: A Dialogue among Cultures’, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, vol.9, no.1, pp. 39-60.
Ishay, M 2010, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 60: A Bridge to Which Future’, Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, vol.9, no.1, pp. 11-17.
Mahon, C 2008, ‘Progress at the Front: The Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, Human Rights Law Review, vol.8, no.4. pp. 617-646.
Normand, R & Zaidi, S 2008, Human Rights at the UN: The Political History of Universal Justice, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Rehman, J 2010, International Human Rights Law, Longman/Pearson, Harlow.
Simmons, B 2009, Mobilising for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, S, Baylis, J & Owens, P 2008, Globalisation of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations, Routledge, New York.
Walzer, M & Miller, D 2007, Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, Yale University Press, New Haven.