research papers in human rights

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Journal of Human Rights

JHR’s new cover features an original piece of art titled, The Global Village, painted by artist Blanche Serban. You can see more of Blanche’s art on her website

Welcome to the Journal of Human Rights

The Journal of Human Rights seeks to broaden the study of human rights by fostering the critical re-examination of existing approaches to human rights, as well as developing new perspectives on the theory and practice of human rights. The journal aims to meet a globally growing interest in the study and practice of human rights by serving as an arena for the public discussion and scholarly analysis of human rights, broadly conceived.

Because the Journal is committed to theoretical and ideological diversity in the study of human rights, the editor welcomes papers from scholars and disciplines traditionally associated with the study of human rights as well as papers from those in other disciplines or fields of inquiry which have traditionally been under-represented in the field.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us

For more information, to download articles, subscribe, or peruse past issues, please visit our official Taylor & Francis Homepage .

To Submit an Article or Book Review please click here: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cjhr .

Subscribe to our email list

Journal of Human Rights Follow 404 822

A peer-reviewed quarterly, feat. human rights research from a variety of academic disciplines. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://t.co/SWi2TztuKc.

Have you read the last issue of 2023 yet? Volume 22, issue 5 is out now on @tandfonline and we're highlighting this issue's articles! Read it here: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/cjhr20/22/5?nav=tocList

This article discusses the HRW strategy, judicial intervention and the favorable court order. Contextual factors were crucial in influencing the outcome of a judicial intervention in the struggle for formal water connections in slums. http://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2259420 📸: Kunal Kalra

In the UK, a rights-based approach to household food security is necessary to formulate policies that target the commodification of food and ensure a nutritious diet is available to all without race or class discrimination. http://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2259423 📸: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona

Do human rights treaty obligations matter for ratification? In @JofHumanRights, Dr. @kelly_zvobgo and coauthors show: 1. Treaties differ in the scope and scale of their obligations. 2. This variation can be measured. 3. It matters for ratification. https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2267578

Did you present a paper at APSA 2023 on a human rights section panel? Best paper award nominations are now open! Questions? Ask committee chair @CNUReiffCenter director- [email protected], or committee members @ginopauselli, @IommiLg, @shallow__state and Leah-Larson Rabin

🚨Belated publication alert in @JofHumanRights. This article examines the theoretical and empirical implications of a very common problem in observations research: Galton's problem.

Editorial Team

Shareen Hertel University of Connecticut Editor

Thomas Cushman Wellesley College Founder and Editor-at-Large

Catherine Buerger University of Connecticut Managing Editor

Sarita Cargas University of New Mexico Book Review Editor

Sandra Sirota University of Connecticut Book Review Editor

Rachel Chambers University of Connecticut Social Media Editor

Kelebogile Zvobgo College of William & Mary Social Media Editor

Ben Carbonetti Trinity College Data Editor

Special Issue News

Issue 22.1: The International Criminal Court at 25: Reassessing Processes and Outcomes

On July 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will mark the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute, its founding treaty. The Statute constituted a remarkable transfer of authority from sovereign states to an international institution: The ICC is the first permanent court charged with prosecuting individuals, including senior political and military leaders, for atrocity crimes. Per the Statute, the ICC was designed with the goals of ending impunity for these crimes, contributing to their prevention, and delivering justice to victims. To what extent has the ICC achieved these and other goals in the Rome Statute? The ICC’s upcoming anniversary provides an opportune moment to examine this question and take stock of the Court’s performance. This special issue of the Journal of Human Rights addresses this question from an empirical perspective, focusing on two themes: (1) the ICC’s relations with states, which critically condition its operations and impact, (2) the Court’s effectiveness in achieving the goals outlined in the Rome Statute, specifically ending impunity and mitigating violence.

Other specialized content

JHR 21.5 (Symposium on Governance Authority in Business & Human Rights)

JHR 21.3 (2 nd   Special issue on COVID-19)

JRH 21.2 (Special Issue on HR on the Edge – The future of International HR Law & Practice)

JHR 20.5 (Symposium on Political Apologies & HR)

JHR 20.2 (Special Issue on HR Governance in ASEAN)

Human Rights in the Time of COVID-19

Quantitative Human Rights Measures

Human Rights in Higher Education

Public Opinion Polling and Human Rights

Economic Rights in JHR

Human Rights in the News

Literature and Human Rights

Business and Human Rights

Sign up to receive JHR's newsletter

Past Newsletters:

• Sept & Nov 2023
• Sept & Dec 2022

Human Rights Methodology

Methods Focus

In issue 17.4, JHR introduced a new “Methods Focus” series where authors explore various methodological approaches to the study of human rights. The series highlights the breadth of research that we publish in JHR.

• Introducing the Methods Focus Series
• Victim Testimony and Transitional Justice
• Using Visual Images 
• Expert Witnessing and Pragmatic Solidarity
• Literary Research: The War Novel
• Feminist periscoping in research on border enforcement and human rights
• Using Images as Data in Political Violence Research

JHR’s Quantitative Dataverse

JHR’s Quantitative Dataverse is a tool aimed at advancing quantitative human rights scholarship –  an online portal (hosted through Harvard Dataverse) featuring all datasets associated with articles of this nature published in JHR. You can access the Dataverse site here:  https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/jhr

• Support Our Work
• Carr Center Advisory Board
• Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights Program Founders
• Technology & Human Rights
• Racial Justice
• Global LGBTQI+ Human Rights
• Transitional Justice
• Human Rights Defenders
• Reimagining Rights & Responsibilities
• In Conversation
• Justice Matters Podcast
• News and Announcements
• Student Opportunities
• Fellowship Opportunities

Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy serves as the hub of the Harvard Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in the human rights domain. The center embraces a dual mission: to educate students and the next generation of leaders from around the world in human rights policy and practice; and to convene and provide policy-relevant knowledge to international organizations, governments, policymakers, and businesses.

About the Carr Center

Since its founding in 1999, the Carr Center has dedicated the last quarter-century to human rights policy.  

August 27, 2024 Become a Student Ambassador at the Carr Center

August 01, 2024 Announcing the Carr Center’s 2024–2025 Carr and Racial Justice Fellowship Cohorts Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

July 15, 2024 Announcing the Carr Center’s 2024–2025 “Surveillance Capitalism or Democracy” Fellowship Cohort Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

June 10, 2024 Celebrating Pride Month Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

September 05, 2024 Carr Center Annual Report 2023-24 Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

August 27, 2024 Algorithmic Discrimination in Latin American Welfare States Sebastian Smart

April 10, 2024 Global Anti-Blackness and the Legacy of the Transatlantic Slave Trade Carr Center for Human Rights Policy

April 18, 2024 Fostering Business Respect for Human Rights in AI Governance and Beyond

Moral Universalism and Human Rights as Politics

Michael Ignatieff discusses the state of human rights in the world today, moral universalism, and American exceptionalism.

A New Theory of Systemic Police Terrorism

Charity Clay discusses the importance of Black spaces and place-making and her theory on systemic police terrorism.

See All Justice Matters Episodes

View and listen to all of the  Justice Matters  podcast episodes in one place.

Dismantling the Global Anti-LGBTQI Movement

Kristopher Velasco, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Princeton University, discusses the dangers of the global anti-LGBTQI movement.

Racial Justice Without Borders

Desirée Cormier Smith, Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice for the U.S. State Department, discusses combatting worldwide structural racism, discrimination, and xenophobia. 

The Importance of Inclusivity in Business

Jessica Yamoah, CEO and Founder of Innovate Inc., discusses why diversity and inclusion matters at the intersection of business, entrepreneurship, and technology.

Poetry as a Means of Defending Human Rights in Uganda

Danson Kahyana discusses the current political situation and the backlash he has faced in response to his work in Uganda. 

Reversing the Global Backlash Against LGBTQI+ Rights

Diego Garcia Blum discusses advocating for the safety and acceptance of LGBTQI+ individuals, as well as the state of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation across the globe.

Reflections on Decades of the Racial Justice Movement

Gay McDougall discusses her decades of work on the frontlines of race, gender, and economic exploitation. 

“The Carr Center is building a bridge between ideas on human rights and the practice on the ground—and right now we're at a critical juncture around the world.”

Mathias risse, faculty director.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• HKS Library & Research Services

Human Rights

Data & statistics, legal research, think tank search, organizations, human trafficking, other research guides.

Getting Started

• Oxford Handbooks Online (Harvard Login) Review essays that evaluate the current thinking on a field or topic, and make an original argument about the future direction of the debate. Contains several reviews of human rights topics.
• Oxford Bibliographies Online (Harvard Login) Selective, discipline-focused, online guides to the essential literature in subjects in the humanities and social sciences.
• Encyclopedia of Human Rights (Harvard Login) Online access to award winning, five-volume encyclopedia offering comprehensive coverage of all aspects of human rights theory, practice, law, and history.
• Oxford Public International Law (Harvard Login) A comprehensive, single location providing integrated access to international law resources. Includes Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law and Oxford Reports on International Law.
• Brill Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Harvard Login) E-books on human rights, humanitarian and international public law.

E-Books, Articles and Other Publications

• Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection (Harvard Login) Database collection covering the social sciences including politics, sociology, education and criminal justice. Includes Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS).
• Index to Legal Periodicals and Books (Harvard Login) Provides citations to articles in law reviews, bar association journals, yearbooks, institutes, and government publications from 1980 to present.

Human Rights Libraries

• HeinOnline Foreign & International Law Resources (Harvard Login) Access to key publications from the American Society of International Law and human rights yearbooks from around the world. Includes international tribunals and judicial decisions.
• CIRI Human Rights Data Project Provides data on human rights violations for 202 countries, annually over the period 1981-2011.
• Freedom in the World Annual flagship publication which surveys and rates 195 countries and 15 related and disputed territories by human rights criteria.
• Humanitarian Data Exchange An open platform for sharing humanitarian data with data from over 80 organizations including governments, NGOs and UN agencies.
• Minorities at Risk (MAR) Project Provides information on the status and conflicts of more than 283 politically-active ethnic groups in all countries with a current population of at least 500,000
• WomenStats Compiles qualitative and quantitative information on over 310 indicators of women's status in 174 countries. Free registration is required.
• AidData Searchable, open access database of nearly one million past and present aid activities around the world, and data tools to increase understanding of development finance.
• Financial Tracking Service Managed by the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, this global, real-time database which tracks all reported international humanitarian aid including that for NGOs and the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, bilateral aid, in-kind aid, and private donations.

Law Journal Databases

• HeinOnline Foreign & International Law Resources (Harvard Login) Provides full-text access to publications from the American Society of International Law and human rights yearbooks from around the world, as well as the Hague Permanent Court of International Justice series and other useful materials.

International Law Reference Resources

• Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL) (Harvard Login) Online reference work for basic information about international human rights cases and issues. Click on Subject to search by key topics in human rights.
• Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (Harvard Login) Focus on international law subjects, including legislation and case law. Includes volumes on Limits of Force, Torture and the Geneva Conventions. Published in English or French.

Legislation

• Legislationonline.org "Provides direct access to international norms and standards relating to specific human dimension issues, as well as to domestic legislation and other documents of relevance to these issues." Includes full text access for legislation from both Western and Eastern European countries.
• Proquest Congressional (Harvard Login) Access bills, legislative history, congressional documents of the United States back to 1789 and CRS Reports.

International Courts

• International Court of Justice (ICJ) The principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). The ICJ settles disputes between the States (not individuals).
• International Criminal Court (ICC) The first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court for perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not part of the United Nations system.
• International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) The United Nations court of law dealing with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990’s.
• ESCR Case Law Database Positive domestic, regional and international legal decisions from around the world regarding economic, social and cultural rights. Case summaries primarily in English and Spanish, with a growing number in French and Arabic.
• Child Rights International Network (CHRIN) Includes data, reports, and global coverage of child rights cases.
• Sexual Right Initiative, Law & Policy Database Documents and compares the status of law and policy related to sexual rights issues in different countries around the world

Search using Google conventions (i.e. putting quotation marks around phrases).

Inclusion Policy

Think Tank Search  searches the websites of institutions that generate public policy research, analysis, and activity. These sites are  affiliated with universities, governments, advocacy groups, foundations, and non-governmental organizations .  Inclusion is based upon the relevancy of subject area to HKS coursework and scholarship, the availability of the think tank’s research in full-text on the website, and the think tank’s reputation and influence upon policy making. The list represents a mixture of partisan and non-partisan think tanks.

Other Lists

• Policy File Index (Harvard Login) Abstracts of and links to domestic and international public policy issue published by think tanks, university research programs, & research organizations.
• Policy Commons: Global Think Tanks Collection of research from the world’s leading policy experts, think tanks, IGOs and NGOs. At last count it contains over 3 million publications from more than 24,000 organizations.
• Open Research Reports from JSTOR More than 39,000 research reports from over 140 policy institutes around the world are freely accessible to everyone on JSTOR. The open research reports are discoverable alongside journals, books, and primary sources, and are clearly labeled as their own content type.
• Find Policy A side project of Transparify, search think tank sites grouped by topic and location.
• Open Think Tank Directory A global collection of 2700 think tanks and related organisations.

Repository of think tank publications on EU affairs from the Library of the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU.

• UN Documentation: Human Rights Guide Research Guides on locating UN documents for human rights research. Authored by the UN Library.
• UN Watch A non-governmental organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, whose mandate is to monitor the performance of the United Nations.

Government & Agencies

• US Department of State's Human Rights Reports These reports from the U.S. Department of State cover internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• EU Agency for Fundamental Rights An EU agency with the task of providing independent, evidence-based advice on fundamental rights. This group issues a number of papers and reports on topics relating to human rights issues in the EU.
• Brill Human Rights Documents (Harvard Login) Database of documents from hundreds of non-governmental human rights organizations. Covers 1980s - present.
• Amnesty International, Annual Reports Searchable website for human rights information by topic or by country. Includes comprehensive annual reports.
• Freedom House Includes reports and annual scores of civil and political rights for most countries
• State of the World's Children Produced by UNICEF, this annual report includes downloadable statistical tables that can be customized.
• Human Rights Watch, World Report Annual report published by Human Rights Watch. Reports provide information on human rights conditions in more than 90 countries. Includes archive of reports from 1989 to present.
• Refugees International Advocating for lifesaving assistance and protection for displaced people and promotes solutions to displacement crises. Includes in depth reports on displacement issues in specific countries and regions.
• Norweigian Refugee Council, Publications Includes, news, reports, evaluations on displaced and vulnerable people in crisis.

UN Agencies

Several UN agencies research, collect and publish information on human trafficking issues. Below are listed the major UN agencies that focus on this issue.

• UN, Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Human Trafficking Knowledge Portal Disseminates information regarding the implementation of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and specifically the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Includes a case law database on officially documented instances of trafficking and searchable legislation database.
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) The United Nations office with primary responsibility for promoting and protecting Human Rights. The Office's Special Rapportuer on Human Trafficking produces annual reports and other reports and recommendations
• International Labour Organization Brings together representatives of governments, employers and workers to jointly shape policies and programs relating to labor issues. Reports and data on human trafficking, which includes sex trafficking as a subset by country and geographic region. Use search terms like forced labour in the search box.

US Government Agencies

• US Department of State, Trafficking in Persons Report Annual report summarizing trafficking issues by Country including data, analysis and policy recommendations. Countries are assigned one of three tiers based on the extent of their governments’ efforts to comply with the “minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking.”

Non-Governmental Organizations

• Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Includes news stories and reports on human trafficking in East and West European countries.
• Polaris Project A leading advocacy group for ending human trafficking. The organization advocates for stronger laws against human trafficking organizations and provide services to victims of trafficking.

Harvard Kennedy School

• Carr Center, Violence Against Women Publications Database Curated by staff at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, this database provides access to hundreds of articles, research papers, presentations, news and other resources relevant to the topic of Violence Against Women (VAW).
• GenderWatch (Harvard Login) Provides abstracts and the full text of some 175 academic and scholarly journals, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, regional publications, books, booklets and pamphlets, conference proceedings, and government, non-governmental organization, and special reports.
• World Bank, Gender Data Portal Statistics by country and topic. Includes useful links for more data sources.
• Harvard Law Library, Research Guides Authored by Harvard Law Librarians, select the Human Rights and International Law categories to find a variety of specialized research guides on related topics.
• Last Updated: Jul 19, 2023 4:59 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/hks/human_rights

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(10); 2012 Oct

Human Rights Research and Ethics Review: Protecting Individuals or Protecting the State?

Joseph j. amon.

1 Health and Human Rights Division, Human Rights Watch, New York, New York, United States of America

2 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

Stefan D. Baral

3 Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

Chris Beyrer

4 Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America

Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: JJA. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: JJA SDB CB NK. ICMJE criteria for authorship read and met: JJA SDB CB NK. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: JJA SDB CB NK.

Joseph Amon and colleagues discuss the challenges of conducting human rights research in settings where local research ethics committees may favor the interests of the state over the interests of research participants.

Summary Points

• Recently there has been a dramatic expansion in research conducted in low- and middle-income countries, as well as research ethics committees (RECs) in these countries.
• RECs in low- and middle-income countries have little experience overseeing human rights research and may be subject to government control or influence that may favor the interests of the state over the interests of individual research participants.
• Many human rights investigators are trained in disciplines with ethical codes and professional norms, but do not typically engage RECs nor see human rights documentation as research, and they tend to view REC approval as counterproductive to the protection of research participants.
• Case studies of human rights research can provide important lessons on navigating conflicts of interest posed by some local (i.e., in country) RECs.
• Expanding the use of community engagement and developing strong ethical operating principles can help ensure that individuals and researchers are protected in human rights research and investigations.

Human rights violations play an important role as determinants of, or structural barriers to, health [1] – [6] . Research, investigation, and documentation focused on human rights have led to the development of rights-based interventions [7] , [8] and the promotion of human rights in the core strategies of international health organizations [9] , [10] .

At the same time, health and human rights investigations raise complex ethical and methodological challenges [11] . Key questions have emerged about the roles of ethical review and research ethics committees (RECs) when criminalized or marginalized populations are part of research or program efforts [12] , [13] . Human rights researchers may also follow ethical codes and professional norms such as those of journalists or lawyers, for example, but these do not typically engage RECs and may in fact define their work differently than biomedical or epidemiologic definitions of “research” [14] – [16] . Furthermore, members of local (i.e., in country) RECs may have conflicts of interest when state actors have a role in or supervision over RECs and can exert their influence to limit the scope of or impede investigations into human rights abuses.

In some circumstances, interests other than ensuring the sound protection of research participants may come to dominate the decisions that RECs make, including whether they agree to review the research and/or allow the research to be conducted at all. Researchers aware of these decision-making processes may “self censor” the focus of their research or choose to conduct research elsewhere. As increasing amounts of research are conducted on the impact of human rights on health, more attention is needed on the roles of RECs and researchers to ensure genuine protection of the individuals involved in human rights investigations.

Here we present examples of how human rights researchers can address complex ethical challenges by building the capacity of community-based organizations representing vulnerable populations and by adopting ethical operating principles. We illustrate our policy proposals using case studies of research involving men who have sex with men (MSM) in Africa, ethnic minorities in Myanmar, and individuals in compulsory drug treatment centers in Asia.

Human Participant Protections

The protection of participants in health-related research has evolved into a well-articulated international framework supported by normative documents, conventions, and, in growing numbers of jurisdictions, laws. Key among these are the World Medical Association's 1964 Declaration of Helsinki [17] , the US Department of Health and Human Services Belmont Report and regulations for the protection of research participants [18] , [19] , the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences international ethical guidelines [20] , and the International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use ( http://www.ich.org/ ). All of these guidelines require prior review of research by an REC before research can be implemented. More recently, the World Health Organization published standards for such committees outlining key requirements for their structure, governance, and review standards [21] .

Over the last ten years, there has been extraordinary growth in the numbers of RECs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As new committees in LMICs have emerged, many countries have adopted a structure whereby local committees, affiliated with specific research institutions or organizations, are supported by a national committee. The national committee is in charge of creating policies, providing oversight, and, in some cases, performing an additional, final review.

Unfortunately, the methodology and intent of human rights research has not been fully considered in existing standards and guidelines on the ethical conduct of research. Similarly, RECs have traditionally been orientated to biomedical and epidemiologic research and have rarely considered human rights research. While principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-malevolence, and justice are common to ethical codes in diverse disciplines [14] – [16] , [18] , [22] , the definition of “research” and the requirement for REC review are not universal across different types of research.

Defining “Research”

The definition of research and the difference between health research (typically requiring ethics review) and monitoring, evaluation, or practice (typically exempt from review) are not straightforward [23] . For individuals engaged in rights research and RECs considering their jurisdiction over such research, the determination of whether a human rights investigation constitutes research can be contentious and may reflect differences in disciplinary training and professional norms.

Health and human rights investigations can often be considered “non-research” under the US Department of Health and Human Services and international definitions that define research as developing “generalizable knowledge” [19] , [20] . Documentation of particular human rights abuses, factors that contribute to particular cases of human rights abuse, or human rights protections in particular situations are not usually considered “generalizable.” While broader surveys determining the prevalence of abuses may be considered research, in some cases they may be considered monitoring, which, again, is commonly exempt from review. In addition, individuals who provide testimony or evidence of human rights abuses are not traditional research participants. Instead, these individuals have an important motivation for engagement in human rights investigations, that is, for seeing such investigations as perhaps their only means of achieving justice for themselves and their communities. Thus, their view of the balance of “risk” versus “benefit” may be substantially different from the view held by biomedical researchers or REC members.

Conducting Research on MSM and HIV in Africa

Recently identified HIV outbreaks among MSM in several African countries have revealed many neglected or hidden human rights abuses. These abuses include discrimination in access to HIV prevention and treatment, lack of access to justice, police abuse, arbitrary arrest and detention, and ill-treatment and torture. In nearly all African countries in which research has been conducted, HIV infection rates have been markedly higher among MSM than among other men of reproductive age [24] – [29] . These epidemics are occurring among largely hidden, stigmatized, and—in many countries—criminalized MSM communities, challenging research and service provision [30] .

In some countries, police have specifically targeted outreach workers providing information and condoms to MSM [31] , [32] , and health-care workers have been complicit in efforts to “prove” homosexuality with forced anal exams [33] – [35] . In Uganda, conducting research on MSM, including investigations of possible human rights abuses, has become difficult or impossible. Reasons for this difficulty include proposed legislation to make sodomy a capital offense and to criminalize the failure to report individuals suspected of engaging in homosexual behaviors, and targeted violence against individuals identified as MSM, including murder [36] , [37] .

Nevertheless, MSM health service providers and gay service and rights organizations and activists in many African countries have been enthusiastic partners in HIV-related programs, including research, even though governments have been reluctant to support research on MSM. In several cases, governments have actively opposed research that would lend credence to the reality that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons exist in their countries, and to the fact that MSM are at elevated risk for HIV infection [37] , [38] .

At one site of a multi-country study being conducted by two of the authors of this article (S. D. B. and C. B.), the head of the only university-based REC informed the research team that, since homosexuality was criminalized in the country, no research protocols related to MSM would be accepted for review. The REC chair told the researchers that the role of the REC included the protection of social and cultural values of the country. While RECs may legitimately reference social and cultural values in considering what constitutes risk to individual human participants, the REC in this case defined its role well beyond protection of human welfare to instead reinforce a political position of the state.

In response, researchers engaged community-based organizations serving MSM in the country to gauge the level of support for the study, and trained community leaders on research ethics [39] . The study protocol was then reviewed by community leaders, who suggested protocol changes based on further community consultation. At the same time, the protocols were also reviewed by a REC in the US that was informed that the in-country REC had refused to review the protocol. After approval by the US REC, the researchers decided that the final decision to proceed should be made by the community-based organizations in country based upon their assessment of the risks and benefits of the research. Community members also participated in validating research findings, and members of the community presented the results to their peers and in domestic and international forums.

Investigating Health and Human Rights in Myanmar

In democratic societies where government legitimacy has broad acceptance, and where ministries of health are seen as working to advance the health and well-being of the population, researchers rarely question whether academic or state entities have the right to form and oversee RECs. In contrast, in repressive societies, and where an REC is seen as not representative of, or legitimately protecting the interests of, a particular vulnerable group (e.g., prisoners, women, or an ethnic or religious minority), RECs may be understood as agents of the state: prioritizing the protection of state interests over those of research participants.

In the case of Myanmar, decades of civil and ethnic conflict have left large areas of the country under contested political control. Several major ethnic nationalities, including the Karen, Kachin, Chin, Shan, Mon, and Wa, have been in open armed conflict with the ruling military-backed regime or have cease-fire agreements that allow them considerable autonomy. Most of these ethnic groups do not have formal relationships with the ruling government.

In working with ethnic populations in border zones since 1992, we (as well as collaborators from the University of California, Los Angeles, and other entities) have struggled with the question of who most legitimately represents these populations and specifically who should safeguard their rights and interests if researchers or investigators want to collect data. For individuals with no formal communication with the regime they are fighting, the concept that this regime could make decisions for their health and well-being is both absurd and offensive. However, popular support for the government in exile is strong among most of Myamnar's ethnic national organizations, and this exiled government has a well-established health and welfare committee. Consequently, we have helped to establish and build the capacity of an REC composed of Myanmar physicians and nurses in exile, community health workers, community members, and faith-based leaders. This group has now had several years of experience functioning as an REC and reviewing proposals, and their authority has been accepted by RECs at US institutions [40] – [42] .

Documenting Abuses in Compulsory Drug Treatment Centers

Between July 2007 and September 2011, Human Rights Watch conducted investigations of compulsory detention of drug users in China [43] , [44] , Cambodia [45] , Viet Nam [46] , and the Lao People's Democratic Republic [47] . In these countries, drug use is legal but drug users are subject to extrajudicial administrative detention for the purpose of compulsory treatment of drug dependency. The investigations conducted by Human Rights Watch included interviews with individuals recently detained in drug detention centers; key informant interviews with non-government organizations, funding entities, and, in some cases, government officials; review of relevant government laws and policies; and review of international donor policies and programs in drug detention centers. The investigators found that individuals in drug detention centers were routinely held without clinical determination of drug dependency or due process, and once detained were denied evidence-based drug treatment as well as other basic health services. Drug users were often forced to perform arduous physical exercise, military drills, or forced labor, and were subject to physical and sexual abuse.

While research on drug addiction, HIV virology, HIV prevalence, and HIV prevention has been routinely conducted inside detention centers with the approval of government-affiliated RECs and the authorization of the government-controlled detention centers, the specific ethical concerns of conducting research in institutions that violate due process protections have not been addressed. At a minimum, researchers should be expected to accurately characterize the research setting and status of participants. Yet, researchers have often ignored the conditions within and lack of judicial oversight of such centers, presenting them as legitimate treatment facilities [48] , [49] . Researchers rarely report on the availability of evidence-based drug dependency treatment [48] , [50] – [55] and have obscured the status of research participants (e.g., referring to detainees as “patients” [48] or vaguely alluding to their “complex legal needs” [55] ). Published papers also often omit mention of the challenges of conducting independent research [48] , [50] – [55] . One study acknowledged using detention center staff to witness consent [55] , potentially increasing the risk of coercion. Researchers who do not have full, independent, or ongoing access to detention centers may be unable to assess negative consequences for research participants, and detainees who do not have access to legal counsel or the right to free speech may be unable to file a complaint alleging abusive research.

In response to these challenges, we chose to conduct research with individuals in the community who had been recently released from detention centers. However, human rights monitoring by independent international organizations is not allowed in China, Viet Nam, or the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and we did not feel that local RECs would approve research related to torture and ill-treatment. Therefore, a decision was made to proceed without local REC approval in order to protect both research participants and researchers, who we feared could be targeted by the state for proposing research that is viewed as sensitive to state security or disruptive of government goals of “social harmony.” In place of local REC approval, and because we felt that there was no defined community of recently released drug users to formally consult with (and that community engagement in the context of ongoing persecution would not be safe regardless), researchers developed and followed specific ethical operating principles. In contrast to the typical approach of RECs, where review is limited to the research protocol, every step of the research, from the protocol review to implementation to dissemination of results to scientific, diplomatic, and media audiences included internal ethics review by technical and legal experts.

Mitigating Risks in Human Rights Investigations

To address the possible conflicts investigators may face in protecting participants in the course of health and human rights investigations, local RECs are needed that can be considered truly independent. In addition, two distinct and complementary strategies—community-based review and the development of strong ethical operating principles—can help protect investigators and participants in health-related human rights research.

In the context of governments that persecute specific populations, actively limit free speech, and routinely punish criticism of the state, RECs are unlikely to be independent. Under these circumstances, using local RECs to safeguard the rights and interests of research participants may be counterproductive, putting both investigators and participants at risk. In these settings, researchers may need to actively engage communities and follow clear ethical operating principles in place of local REC review.

Community-based review and participatory research have a long history and were developed to address community members' concerns about neglect by and communities' mistrust of researchers, health-care systems, and government [56] , [57] . Conducted correctly, community-based participatory research (including financial and technical support for community engagement and leadership) creates bridges between policy-makers, scientists, and communities; facilitates reciprocal learning; assists in the development of culturally appropriate measurement instruments and interventions; and establishes a level of trust that enhances both the quantity and the quality of data collected and programs delivered [39] , [57] – [61] . While there is a well-established body of literature on engagement of marginalized populations in high-income settings and on some vulnerable populations in LMICs [57] , [58] , the issues faced by criminalized and violently stigmatized populations have less often been addressed.

One challenge of community-based review is that in many settings the “community” is not homogenous, organized, or able to participate in extensive consultation and review of proposed research. Research with migrants, prisoners, drug users, and criminalized populations is often conducted without a representative advocacy group. In other settings, it may not be clear who legitimately speaks for marginalized populations. In all settings, community-based review can be time-consuming and resource intensive.

In conducting human rights research, particularly in settings where safety may be of particular concern, a critical first step is to have standing procedures on investigator and participant protection. All Human Rights Watch staff who conduct interviews, for example, undergo security training and training on participants' protection and data safety. Researchers can also receive specialized training on how to sensitively interview people in such a way as to minimize risk of re-traumatization, including training on interviewing victims of sexual violence, children, persons in extreme pain, prisoners, and the mentally disabled. All researchers must participate in a security meeting prior to a research mission that establishes chains of communication so that security emergencies can be identified and handled once the mission is in progress. Post-mission meetings are held if security concerns arise, and the security of participants stemming from contact with researchers is monitored. Prior to publication of any findings from research (in the form of reports, journal articles, press releases, opinion pieces, photography, or other media), legal review is required and provides further assessment of research participant protection.

For individuals who experience human rights abuses, the consequences of reporting that abuse are often uncertain. Yet even when the risk of retaliation is judged to be high, many individuals may be willing to take such a risk in order to press for justice, despite the fact that justice may take years or even decades to be served. Individuals who are a part of communities that are systematically discriminated against, stigmatized, or criminalized may experience high levels of ongoing harm, and see participation in a human rights investigation as one of few means of challenging those abuses or demanding redress.

In the decade to come, RECs in LMICs will likely acquire increasing jurisdiction, resources, and authority over local research. These changes will offer a promise of greater protection for research participants who in the past have faced abuses with little opportunity for redress. But RECs may have little experience in evaluating the inherent risks faced by individuals vulnerable to human rights abuses as well as the risks and benefits from participation in a human rights investigation. RECs, which primarily review pre-research protocols, may also be poorly suited to the review of dynamic investigations using open-ended research methodologies where the risk to participants is less a result of research processes (e.g., questionnaires) than from post-research products (e.g., reports, legal processes, and media coverage).

The use of RECs to limit health and human rights research for political, cultural, or other considerations is a misuse of the legitimate functions of RECs. Careful attention must be paid when local committees assert that their views represent local cultural norms, or that human rights are an illegitimate focus of research as they express foreign values. A critical distinction for researchers is understanding the difference between respecting cultural traditions that are “matters of etiquette, ritual, or religion,” with little or no relation to ethics, from those cultural traditions with ethical (or human rights) implications, such as female genital mutilation or infanticide [62] . Cultural practices or government policies that either deliberately or incidentally serve to suppress or threaten the rights of certain people cannot be respected. RECs, charged specifically with upholding the rights and protection of individuals, should not use culture or “values” as a means to deny human rights.

Increasing attention to human rights as a determinant of health will result in increasing requests to RECs to review research that investigates the role and complicity of state actors, government laws and policies, and social or cultural norms as they relate to health. Stronger, independent RECs trained in human rights may be better equipped to more adequately review this research. When RECs are unable to do so, or where research on human rights or criminalized or marginalized populations is expressly prohibited, researchers may need to rely upon alternative strategies, including engaging communities and following ethical operating principles, to ensure that research participants are protected and that research is ethically conducted. While such innovations do not eliminate all risks, and may be costly in terms of time and resources, the alternatives, which may include acceding to censorship or not conducting investigations at all, are unacceptable limits.

Abbreviations

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this article.

What are Human Rights?

22 Pages Posted: 10 Jan 2023

Alan S. Gutterman

Professional Website

Date Written: January 9, 2023

Human rights have been described as those activities, conditions, and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy, by virtue of their humanity and regardless of their status. Human rights are ideally thought of as being inherent, inalienable (i.e., they cannot simply be waived when they are violated by another agent, such as a state or a business), interdependent (i.e., realization of one right contributes to the realization of others), and indivisible, which means that they cannot be granted or taken away or selectively ignored. One person’s enjoyment of human rights depends on universal respect for such rights and the actions of other members of society to the extent that such actions have an impact on that person’s enjoyment of his or her rights. A variety of sources have been referred to in identifying and describing human rights, including the teachings of all the world’s major religions, moral philosophy, natural law, and legal positivism; however, human rights transcend laws or cultural traditions. Human rights should be protected under the law, and human rights law has evolved into a complex area that has attracted an abundance of theorists and raised basic questions relating to the scope of human rights and which parties, including States and non-State actors such as businesses, have a legal duty to ensure that a particular human right held by another party (the “rights holder”) is respected. A wide range of efforts have been made to develop and enforce legally binding human rights standards through international treaties that establish rules and standards for how States should treat people and how people should treat one another. Various categories of human rights have been recognized including fundamental rights (i.e., the right to life, non-discrimination, and the idea that everyone is born equal); rights in the legal system; rights in society; political, economic and social rights; and cultural rights. The human rights system also includes efforts to create oversight authority for legal bodies to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and enforced, and that rights holders have recourse to remedies for violations of their rights. The creation of what has become known as the international human rights system began with the activities of the United Nations (“UN”) when it was first established in the aftermath of World War II and it has since grown to include a comprehensive library of treaties (there are nine core international human rights treaties and several important regional treaties) and domestic laws defining human rights, a global community of international, regional, and national bodies to monitor and interpret human rights and an expanding array of tools to enforce human rights and respond to violations of those rights by States and other actors. Specific attention should be paid to the fundamental principles the so-called “International Bill of Human Rights”, which includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948 and two important UN human rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Other core international human rights treaties address specific issues such as racial discrimination, discrimination against women, torture, rights of children, protection of migrant workers, rights of persons with disabilities and protection of persons from enforced disappearance. Human rights now include civil and political “freedoms”, equality and socio-economic rights and collective rights to a healthy environment, self-determination and development. Understanding of international human rights law also requires consideration of the international labor standards that have been drawn up by the constituents of the International Labor Organization (i.e., governments, employers, and workers) to set out basic principles and rights at work. In addition, while much of the attention regarding international human rights law focuses on the activities of the UN and the various human rights-related instruments promulgated because of UN activities, notice must be taken of other influential regional intergovernmental organizations that have been active in the establishment of mechanisms to promote and protect human rights including non-binding declarations or binding treaties.

Keywords: human rights, CSR, business and human rights

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Alan Gutterman (Contact Author)

Professional website ( email ).

HOME PAGE: http://www.alangutterman.com

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, public international law: human rights ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: International & Comparative Law eJournal

Social & political philosophy ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Human Rights & the Corporation eJournal

Cultural anthropology: history, theory, methods & applications ejournal.

The UN Human Rights Office and the mechanisms we support work on a wide range of human rights topics. Learn more about each topic, see who's involved, and find the latest news, reports, events and more.

Go directly to a topic

Spanish - Main Navigation OHCHR

Go to a country or territory

Learn about how you can report a human rights violation.

Get the latest from our news, events and meetings.

UN Human Rights welcomes your queries.

Get Involved

UN staff, including eight OHCHR colleagues, detained in Yemen

OHCHR calls for their immediate release.

Press releases Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

30 articles on the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Udhr: 30 articles on the 30 articles.

14 November 2018

It has been more than 70 years since world leaders, driven by the desire to prevent another Holocaust, explicitly spelled out the rights everyone on the planet could expect and demand simply because they are human beings. In November 2018, the UN Human Rights Office launched a special series to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the UDHR, which was adopted in Paris on 10 December 1948.

An introductory article about the history and continuing significance of this extraordinary landmark document, and 30 specific two-page descriptions of each of the Declaration’s 30 Articles can be accessed through the links below:

Introductory article Article 1: We are all born free and equal Article 2: Freedom from Discrimination Article 3: Right to Life Article 4: Freedom from Slavery Article 5: Freedom from Torture Article 6: Right to Recognition Before the Law Article 7: Right to Equality Before the Law Article 8: Right to Remedy Article 9: Freedom from Arbitrary Detention Article 10: Right to a Fair Trial Article 11: Presumption of Innocence and International Crimes Article 12: Right to Privacy Article 13: Freedom of Movement Article 14: Right to Asylum Article 15: Right to Nationality Article 16: Right to Marry and to Found a Family Article 17: Right to Own Property Article 18: Freedom of Religion or Belief Article 19: Freedom of Opinion and Expression Article 20: Freedom of Assembly and Association Article 21: A Short Course in Democracy Article 22: Right to Social Security Article 23: Right to Work Article 24: Right to Rest and Leisure Article 25: Right to Adequate Standard of Living Article 26: Right to Education Article 27: Right to Cultural, Artistic and Scientific Life Article 28: Right to a Free and Fair World Article 29: Duty to Your Community Article 30: Rights are Inalienable

• Human rights instruments

VIEW THIS PAGE IN:

Human Rights Research Paper

This sample human rights research paper features: 8300 words (approx. 27 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 34 sources. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of political science  research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Also, chech our custom research proposal writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Concepts of human rights, relationship between human rights and dignity, concepts of dignity, values of human rights and dignity, history of human rights, history of human dignity, contemporary concepts of human rights, contemporary concepts of dignity, animal rights versus human rights, human dignity versus transhuman and posthuman dignity.

• Bibliography

Human rights and dignity are central normative notions of contemporary politics as well as political and ethical theories. However, they have not had this role for a long period of time, as the main development of these concepts began only during the Age of Enlightenment. During the previous 60 years, their influence can be said to be of global importance. On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Yet, there are traces of both notions in ancient and medieval thought, and this research paper will trace their roots and historical development and make inferences concerning potential future challenges concerning them.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Article I of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Human rights are subjective rights of individual human beings. Subjective rights are different from objective rights. Objective rights refer to the completeness of regulations within a legal system. Objective rights grant subjective ones. Subjective rights imply that individual human beings have the authority to do certain things within the system. The concept of human rights implies that all human beings, because of their being human, have certain rights and freedoms that are universal, inalienable, and indivisible. According to a stricter sense of the concept of human rights, they can be contrasted with civil rights. Civil rights are held by all citizens of a state and include rights that are not human rights, like the right to vote. Human rights are held by all human beings. However, civil rights are included in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to the Czech jurist Karel Vasak (as he originally proposed in 1979), there are three generations of human rights. The first generation deals with liberty, and the rights in this generation are particularly civil in nature. Human rights in the second generation are related to equality, and their nature is primarily social, whereas the third generation rights go beyond the civil and the social and are mostly expressed in soft law declarations of international law. Libertarians are usually skeptical concerning human rights of the second and third generation, as they presume that these rights contain concealed paternalistic political goals.

The term human rights came into existence at the beginning of the 19th century. However, as mentioned above, it was not until 1948 that human rights were generally proclaimed, by what was then a newly formed United Nations. The declaration was primarily motivated by the cruelties of World War II. Article I of this declaration states a close connection between the concept of dignity and that of rights. As a result of this declaration, both concepts, that of human rights and that of human dignity, became highly significant for many countries’ constitutions and the post-1945 world.

Both rights and dignity can be justified naturally or solely legally. Natural rights are valid at all times in all places. Solely legal rights are grounded in an actually existing legal system founded by decisions made by human beings. To enforce natural human rights, they also need to be integrated into a legal system, but they are regarded as valid even if they have not been acknowledged by anyone.

Analogously, one can talk about necessary and contingent human dignity. Necessary dignity is a quality that belongs to all human beings at all times and in all places, whereas contingent human dignity is dependent upon an institution that declares that human beings are bearers of dignity. The concepts of right and dignity imply a normative aspect. The concept of dignity often has also an ontological aspect, whereas the concept of right can, but does not have to have, an ontological aspect.

In the above case of the United Nations Declaration, both concepts have an ontological aspect, as Article I states that all human beings who are the bearers of dignity and rights “are endowed with reason and conscience.” Hence, the normative aspect of both concepts is based upon an ontological one. However, the relationship between the two concepts in question can be different than that shown in the last example; for example, in the case of the German basic law, some experts claim that the concept of human dignity is the foundation for all human rights. In this case, it can be seen that only the concept of human dignity has an ontological and normative aspect, whereas that of a human right merely includes normative implications.

The concept of dignity must not be mixed up with the word dignity. The word implies several concepts that can be divided into a sense and a reference. Dignity is a quality that a bearer can have necessarily or contingently. To distinguish between these two types of dignity, it would be best always to clarify which type one is referring to. For pragmatic reasons, the author will use the expressions necessary dignity and contingent dignity from now on.

Necessary dignity can either be inherent or dependent. Given that human beings necessarily have free will, and free will is the foundation for dignity, it is the case that all human beings have necessary, inherent human dignity. If it were the case that God attributed dignity to all human beings necessarily, then all human beings would have necessary, dependent dignity. However, both instances would be examples of necessary dignity.

Contingent dignity can also be connected to various qualities. Given that human beings reciprocally attribute dignity to one another, then we would have contingent, dependent dignity. If human beings, on the other hand, were bearers of dignity, because they have the quality to make logical inferences, and this capacity is a bodily capacity, then human beings would have contingent, inherent dignity, as the capacity here is not a necessary one. Both examples represent types of contingent dignity.

The terms necessary dignity and contingent dignity can be specified further. They can imply equality or inequality concerning the bearers of dignity. In our context, only the concept of dignity that implies equality among its bearers is relevant. This does not mean that the other concept is socially unimportant; for example, bishops and judges have dignity; however, their dignity is a hierarchical one that is irrelevant here.

The concept of dignity that is relevant here is a nongradual one that implies equality among its bearers and is connected to six characteristic features:

• Dignity cannot exist independently, but is always connected to a bearing entity.
• A bearer has the quality dignity if he possesses a nongradual quality X, wherein dignity is founded.
• The relationship between the bearers of dignity is that of equality; that is, all bearers of dignity have a nongradual quality X, because of which their relationship can be specified as descriptive equality.
• The descriptive equality of the bearers implies a normative one, whereby the norm is related to an ideal of the good and not to that of an evil; for example, dignity is only given if all its bearers are supposed to be treated equally well and not if they are supposed to be treated equally badly.
• Bearers of dignity have a special status within the world; that is, they are categorically different from all other beings in the world and have a quality that cannot be verified empirically.
• The concept of dignity will be named “dignity” or named with an equivalent word in a foreign language. (If this trait was not included, then the concept of dignity would refer to too many concepts; for example, most concepts of rights would then also count as concepts of dignity, which would be a questionable position.)

Each entity to which the six features just stated apply is a bearer of the quality dignity. Hence, the reference of the concept dignity is dependent upon the meaning. However, thereby we have not yet clarified the concept of human dignity, but only that of dignity. The concept human dignity is the result of the intersection of the set of references of the concepts of dignity and of being human. A being belongs to the set of bearers of dignity if it is the case that he has all the features demanded of a bearer of dignity. A being belongs to the set of human entities if it belongs to the human species, that is, if it potentially belongs to the human reproductive community. It is important to distinguish between human beings and human entities. Both human beings and human entities belong to the human species. However, it does not have to be the case that all human entities are human beings. It is clear that a fertilized egg belongs to the human species, but it is unclear whether a fertilized egg can be called a human being. However, it clearly is a human entity, as it belongs to the human species. There are five possibilities of how the set of bearers of dignity and that of human entities can intersect:

• The set of human entities can be a subset of that of the bearers of dignity. In this case, someone who is a human entity necessarily is a bearer of dignity. However, it is not the case that all bearers of dignity are human entities. Here, it is the case that someone who belongs to the human species also has to bear dignity, as it would be according to Kant, if we read him as follows: The ability to have reason is actual within the human soul, which is unified with the human body from the moment egg and sperm get together. Dignity here is founded in a feature that can necessarily be found in all human entities. According to Kant, the actual ability for reason can be found in all human beings. However, not all human beings can express this ability, as the capacity to express it is connected to a bodily capacity that one needs to develop.
• The sets of the bearers of dignity and that of human entities can be identical. If someone is a human entity, then he is a bearer of dignity. Each bearer of dignity necessarily is a human being. In this case, the quality on which dignity is founded is a quality that is being held only by human beings. As here the identity of the set human entities and that of bearers of dignity is a given, it is also the case that the quality on which dignity is founded is the same as the one on which it depends whether one belongs to the human species.
• The sets of bearers of dignity and that of human entities can overlap. There are human entities that are bearers of dignity, and there are human entities that are not bearers of dignity in the same way as there are bearers of dignity that are human entities, and there are bearers of dignity that are not human entities. In this case, dignity is founded upon a quality that some but not all human entities have, and that some but not all nonhuman entities have. One can read Kant in such a way that his concept of dignity belongs to this group, but only if one assumes that actual reason is not a capacity of the soul but is only present when someone can speak. There are human entities that can talk and who therefore also have dignity. However, there are other human entities that are currently unable to talk and who henceforth do not have dignity. It cannot be excluded, and Kant definitely does not exclude the possibility that there are nonhuman beings that have reason together with this dignity.
• The set of the bearers of dignity can be a subset of human entities. All bearers of dignity are necessarily human entities. However, there are human entities that are not bearers of dignity. A position which claims that, for a human entity to have dignity, the human needs to be born would be one that belongs to this group. It can be the case that, as in this case, the feature on which dignity is founded is also the feature that turns a human entity into a human being.
• The set of bearers of human dignity and that of human entities do not overlap. The fifth and last option is not relevant for us, as with it we do not have bearers of human dignity.

Both human dignity and human rights are the foundation of many constitutions and can be found at a prominent place in the charter of the United Nations. There is no moral dilemma or moral challenge for which these concepts are irrelevant. As an example, for the relevance of human dignity, one is referred to a discussion in the field of medical ethics.

The notion of human dignity is a complex one that is not being used in a unified manner. In addition, it is often abused in order to stop an argument or to claim that the opposite opinion can only be held by a scoundrel or a protofascist. Hence, it is important always to reference facts and to clarify the concepts one deals with. In the field of medical ethics, arguments that deal with the beginning of human life are of particular importance. From which moment on can one claim that a human entity has human dignity or the right to live?

• From the moment of fertilization
• From the moment of fusion of the precells
• From the moment at which the nidation in the uterus takes place
• From 14 days after the fusion, as from that moment on, it is impossible that twins can come about (conjoined twins can still come into existence, however)
• From the moment at which the embryo becomes a fetus (i.e., after 3 months, when the developmental process of all organs is finished)
• From the moment of birth

It depends upon a governmental decision which of these various stages is regarded as decisive for a human being to have dignity or the right to live. Legal regulations concerning stem cell research, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and abortion are based upon this decision. A particularly striking example can be given in the case of PGD. In contrast to the UK, PGD is forbidden in Germany. One reason for it being forbidden is that in the process of PGD, one or two totipotent cells are taken away from the fertilized cells and genetically analyzed, and they are destroyed in this process. As it is possible for a totipotent cell to develop into an independent human being, some regard totipotent cells as bearers of dignity, which therefore must not be destroyed.

Even though human rights, as we understand them today, were established only fairly recently, one can trace aspects of the concept back to antiquity. In ancient Athens, in the 6th century BCE, many government posts were given away by drawing lots, and thereby, any citizen could acquire the office in question. However, women or slaves did not have the right of citizenship. An important step in the development of human rights was the upcoming of Stoic philosophy and its concept of the humanitas, which implied that all humans, because of their being human, ought to be considered ethically. Yet, this duty was a lower-rank duty.

The proper beginning of the concept of human rights goes along with the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. In the following paragraphs, the focus will be on the concepts of the most influential philosophers of rights: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

The first philosopher who was significant for the development of the concept of human rights was Hobbes. Fundamental to his understanding of rights is the fictional state of nature he presents, in which there is a war of all against all, and each person is the potential enemy of every other person— Homo homini lupus (“Man is a wolf to [his fellow] man”). Each person is fighting for his own survival and power. Then, each person is supposed to have the right to everything else in order to preserve himself. There is danger lurking in this state, as even the strongest can be killed during the night or by a group of weaker men who cooperate. No one is so much stronger than all the others to actually make sure that his safety can be guaranteed over a long period of time. Hence, there is a certain kind of equality among human beings, as we are all more or less equally strong, or to put it in a different manner: There is no one who is so much stronger than all the others over a long period of time that he could guarantee his own safety in a stable manner. Due to the given equality, this can come to a fictional contract between all human beings, in which all human beings agree to give their natural rights to the Leviathan, who from then on has the absolute power over his citizens. The individual citizens give away their sovereignty, and the political leader receives it.

A slightly less grim picture of human nature was presented by Locke. His ethics is closely connected with Christianity, as he makes clear that without afterworldly sanctions, there would be no reason for not living solely according to the pleasure principle. In the end, morality is based upon a God-given law. In a similar manner, he approaches his political ethics. He limits the power of the sovereign by putting forward that there are natural rights that are God given and valid universally. According to Locke, the natural law and the natural rights exist also in the state of nature. According to Hobbes, in that state everyone has a right to everything. According to Locke, on the other hand, the rights of a human being are limited by the rights of the others. And the most basic rights can be described as the right to the inviolability of a person and his property, which can be specified further by making a distinction between the right to life, health, liberty, and possession. As there are people in the state of nature who do not accept the natural law, there is a need to move from the natural state to a political system.

In contrast to Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau presents a more optimistic understanding of human behavior in the hypothetical state of nature. According to him, there are enough goods available for all human beings, they live separate from one another, and they are peaceful. Then human beings exist in a state of healthy self-love, which includes sympathy, which stops them from acting egoistically. The positively evaluated state of nature ends when someone develops the category of private property due to egoistic desires. Such an action leads to inequality and promotes further egoistic desires, so that one ends up in a system with richer and poorer people. The richer people force the poorer ones to accept a social contract whereby the poorer ones do not realize that they were being forced into the contract. Even though they claim that the social contract serves the common interest, it is supposed to be solely in the interest of the rich. However, there is also the possibility of an ideal social contract, which would be one in which all citizens realize that they are the general will. In that case, the political and moral freedom consists in sticking to the law that one has given oneself. Here, the general will would correspond with the individual one.

Autonomy, in a different sense from Rousseau’s, is central for Kant’s understanding of rights. Rights, according to Kant, are supposed to help individuals to live together so that they do not get into conflict with one another. Anyone is supposed to live such that his arbitrary will can coexist with the wishes of others. Kant also holds that a social contract is the basis of a state. He agrees with Locke that there are inviolable natural rights, with Rousseau that the highest norm concerning law giving ought to be the general will, and with Hobbes that in the state of nature there is the war of all against all. By transforming the particular individual wills into a general will, the state of nature changes into a constitutional state.

Early Greek philosophers did not hold a concept of dignity that can be compared to the one we have. In their case, dignity was always connected to a hierarchy. According to Aristotle, there are natural slaves, who of course have less dignity than citizens. Dignity today, however, implies the equality of its bearers. As said before, the concept of equality of all human beings is developed and becomes particularly influential in Stoic thought. As an outgrowth of Stoic philosophy, the first important concept of human dignity is put forward by Cicero. His thinking is reflected particularly in Renaissance philosophy. Pico della Mirandola and Manetti are two Renaissance philosophers who put forward paradigmatic theories of dignity. Another reader of the philosophy of Cicero was Kant, whose concept of dignity became particularly influential. In this section, first the paradigmatically most important theories of human dignity in historical order (Cicero, Manetti, Pico della Mirandola, and Kant) are presented, and these are followed specifically by the vehement criticism of the concept by Nietzsche, who provides us with a useful basis for reflections concerning the future of human dignity.

Cicero was the first great philosopher who put forward a concept of human dignity. He holds that all human beings, which implies all beings with ratio, have dignity. Concerning Cicero, the sets “members of the species human beings” and “beings with ratio” are identical concerning the extension, which means that if someone is a member of the one set, he also has to be a member of the other set, and it is impossible for a being to be a member of the one set without being a member of the other one. However, dignity is not the central concept within his ethics, as it often is today. The focus of his ethics lies on the highest good, which again is connected with the honorable, the honestum. Anyone who possesses the four cardinal virtues—justice, wisdom, bravery, and moderation—is honorable. Hence, the highest good is solely identified with the virtues. External goods are irrelevant concerning the highest good, which implies, however, a hierarchy of duties. The highest duties are the duties against the gods, followed by the duties against one’s political community and then the duties against one’s parents. We also have duties against other human beings who are bearers of dignity like us. However, these duties are of lower rank. This does not mean that they are irrelevant. These duties are of direct importance concerning our interaction with slaves and foreigners, who are also supposed to be treated in a just and dignified manner. Due to the high relevance of the duties against the political community, Cicero holds that the vita activa is more important than the vita contemplativa, even though the latter corresponds to our human nature.

Another paradigmatically important concept of dignity was put forward by the Renaissance humanist Manetti, whose views were ultimately founded in his faith in the Christian God. Faith is supposed to lead to appropriate actions and right thinking and also to the knowledge of God, human dignity, and the highest good. As in Cicero’s ethics, the concept of dignity is not the central one, which is the concept of the highest good. The highest good lies in a state of afterworldly bliss. To be able to reach this state, one has to be virtuous according to Manetti. The virtues piety, justice, and wisdom are of particular importance, according to him. Anyone who possesses these virtues reaches the highest good. Even though one reaches the correct understanding of these concepts only by means of contemplation, the main focus in life ought to be in the vita activa; with such a focus, one can fulfill ones duties against God and the other human beings in an appropriate manner. Due to the duty of justice, one ought to love all human beings as one’s brother and consider that love in one’s deeds. However, the possession of human dignity is independent of one’s deeds, as it is connected to the imago dei, the image of god, which we possess within our immortal souls. To act in accord with our dignity, we ought to stick to the duties that God has given all men and that are connected with the highest good. One of the duties is the duty of charity. Herein the consideration of other human beings, bearers of dignity, becomes directly relevant.

Another paradigmatically central foundation of human dignity was put forward by Pico della Mirandola. His concept is cited in many contemporary debates, even though current thinkers tend to receive his concept in a biased manner. According to him, human dignity lies in our free will, which lets human beings become a likeness of God and represents the signature of the creator upon his special creations. Human beings, according to Pico, participate in all layers of being, but, in contrast to other creations, they are not connected to one specific layer of being exclusively. Because of our free will, we have the chance to become who we wish to become. Of course, this does not mean that we can turn into fish or pigeons. However, it implies that we can choose our lifestyle according to our own fantasies, desires, or thoughts. It is this aspect which modern interpreters usually focus upon.

Yet, there is another side that can also be found in Pico’s philosophy. Even though we can choose to become who we apparently wish to become, there is supposed to be a real wish within all of us. We all wish to return to our origin, our creator, God, even though not all of us are conscious of this wish. The only way by which human beings are supposed to reach the highest good, which is the center also of Pico’s ethics, is by means of the unio mystica with God. This goal cannot be reached by conscious decisions. We depend upon the mercy of God to reach this state. However, we must first be prepared in order to be eligible for mercy. We must possess the political virtues within our character, which means that we ought to make peace, be just, have the virtue of love, and act in accord with it. On that fundamental level, the dignity of other human beings is considered, as here our duty to consider other human beings, bearers of duty, comes in, and we have the obligation to consider it in an appropriate manner. Our main duty concerning the highest good, however, is to go beyond our connection with the sensual world, to purify ourselves, and in the end God might grant us the chance to return to him and become one with him. The vita contemplativa, according to Pico, is much more relevant than the vita activa. If a human being does not consider the duties just stated, he does not lose his dignity, because his dignity is connected to his free will, which he cannot lose.

The most influential conception of human dignity was put forward by Kant. However, even according to him, the focal point of his ethics lies in the highest good. In contrast to the previous positions mentioned, the highest good, according to Kant in his Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (“Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”), does not enclose happiness, but it lies in the good will, which any being has who has will and reason and who acts out of respect for the moral law in accord with the moral law. Anyone who acts on maxims out of respect for the moral law, fulfils the moral law. This implies that his actions are based on maxims. To check whether a statement can be a maxim is to try to universalize the statement and check the reflections. If the reflections lead to contradictions, the statement cannot be a maxim. If the procedure does not lead to any challenges, the statement can serve as a maxim. The categorical imperative, which can be described in various ways, is a way of paraphrasing the moral law. One formulation of the categorical imperative includes the concept of human dignity, which is founded upon autonomy. The highest good and the moral law are valid for all beings with dignity, and dignity applies to autonomous beings only. One implication of the practical formulation of the categorical is that one must never treat humanity, neither in oneself nor in any other person, solely as a means. Any being with dignity must never be treated solely as a means. Hereby, it becomes clear that dignity is of some relevance in Kant’s philosophy; however, even according to him, the highest good is the central focus within his ethics. A further indication that human dignity does not have a foundational role within his ethics is that it turns up mainly within only one formulation of the categorical imperative.

The foundation of dignity, according to Kant, is the capacity of being autonomous, which is a necessary condition for acting in accord with the moral law. Autonomy must not be misunderstood as representing arbitrariness as freedom. Beings with dignity have the necessary duty to act in accord with duty. All acts that are in accord with the categorical imperative are in accord with duty.

In his Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (“Critique of Practical Reason”), Kant holds a similar position. Only his concept of the highest good changes slightly. It still encloses the moral law, but the person who acts out of duty in accord with duty not only deserves to become happy, according to Kant, but he can actually hope to receive happiness in proportional means to his acting morally. However, to act morally implies that one must not act in accord with the moral law while hoping to receive happiness in proportional means to his acting morally, even though one can hope that this will be the case. Only someone who acts morally out of respect for the moral law, without being motivated by his hope that he will be rewarded with happiness, acts morally. He can expect to be rewarded with happiness in an afterworld but not with a happy this-worldly life.

The most vehement criticism of human dignity was put forward by Nietzsche. Explicitly, he attacks solely necessary concepts of dignity, and all the concepts mentioned above have been necessary ones. Implicitly, however, his philosophy also goes against contingent concepts of human dignity. His argument against necessary human dignity goes as follows: The concept of necessary human dignity is founded upon four mistakes. Hence, it ought to be abandoned. The four mistakes he refers to are the following:

• Human beings have an incomplete understanding of themselves.
• Human beings attribute to themselves invented qualities.
• Human beings regard themselves to be in the wrong relationship concerning animals and nature.
• Human beings invent hierarchies of good, which they falsely regard as eternal and unconditional.

Concerning human dignity, these mistakes can be explained further by merely selecting some specific examples in order to support his argument:

• Human beings correctly understand that they have reason. However, they have an incomplete understanding of themselves, as they do not realize that reason is not eternal and that it does not provide us with knowledge concerning the world but was developed in order to help us survive. Reason, according to Cicero, is the foundation of human dignity, but his concept is based on the wrong understanding of reason. Hence, it is not valid.
• Human beings invented the concept of free will, which cannot even be thought of in a non–self-contradictory manner. Free will is the foundation of human dignity according to Pico. However, as free will does not exist, his concept of human dignity is invalid.
• Human beings think that they were created in God’s image and that they have a special status in relation to animals and nature. According to Nietzsche, neither of these claims is correct. Human beings do not have a special status in nature, and they differ merely in degree from other animals. As the concept of God was merely invented, human beings also cannot be created in God’s image. According to Manetti, human dignity is founded on humans being created in the image of God, which is not correct. Hence, his concept of human dignity is invalid.
• According to Nietzsche, all systems of morals, as well as all values and norms, were invented by a certain group that has common interests. There are no eternal values and norms. According to Kant, human dignity represents an eternal norm. Hence, his concept of dignity is invalid.

Against the concept of contingent human dignity, Nietzsche implicitly puts forward at least three separate arguments:

• Nietzsche holds that human beings do not have special status in the world. However, such a special status is demanded by all concepts of human dignity, both necessary and contingent ones.
• Nietzsche holds that there are no universally valid norms. However, necessary and contingent concepts imply that human dignity is a universally valid norm.
• Nietzsche holds that all human beings are not equal, and that there are two groups of people that have to be evaluated differently. However, necessary and contingent concepts imply that human dignity demands the equality of all human beings.

Given these three last points, it is clear that Nietzsche attacks not only necessary concepts of human dignity but also contingent ones.

All concepts of human rights that will be presented in the following paragraphs stem from the Anglo-American tradition: Nozick, Rawls, Nussbaum, Taylor. All four political philosophers defend human rights, but they represent four diverse basic positions within the spectrum of possible communitarian and liberal attitudes. Liberal positions can be characterized as positions in which the right has priority over the good, whereas in communitarian positions, the good comes first and provides the basis for deriving a concept of the right. Nozick is a libertarian thinker and therefore the most liberal of them all. His work is a reaction to the theory of justice that was put forward by his colleague in the department of philosophy at Harvard University, John Rawls. Rawls’s position represents a classical liberal one. Taylor and Nussbaum represent two left-wing interpretations of communitarianism; Taylor puts forward a communist communitarianism and Nussbaum a socialdemocratic version of it.

Nozick’s political philosophy builds on a version of Locke’s natural rights position. The right to one’s own body and one’s property are fundamental, according to him. The best state is supposed to be a night watchman state, whereby the state secures the basic human rights but does not interfere with the free exchange among, and contracts between, consenting adults. Many philosophers criticized him for this system, as they regard the social consequences as not appealing.

According to Rawls, international human rights specify a limit to the internal autonomy of a regime, and any country that provides human rights to its citizens is entitled to tolerance. Hence, a desire to provide human rights entitles countries that see gravely unjust behavior in the internal practice of other countries to promote interventions in the countries in question. In contrast to the dominant lists of human rights, Rawls’s suggestion is more limited; he particularly stresses the rights to life, liberty, property, and equality. His suggestion takes into consideration that promulgation of human rights does not imply the risk of getting rejected as being too liberal or too closely related to the Western tradition. However, Rawls agrees with most human rights theorists by holding that the rights are universal, international, have a high priority, set minimal standards that should save people from the severest forms of unjust treatment, and are relevant primarily for governments.

In contrast to the liberal theories previously discussed, the political philosophies of the following two thinkers are based on a concept of the good that is supposed to be the basis for a concept of the right. Nussbaum’s concept of the good includes two separate lists, based on her intuition, which are supposed to describe (1) the conditio humana, which is relevant for all human beings, and (2) goods and capacities, which are supposed to be important within all human lives. The first list includes mortality, the human body, perception, early childhood development, practical reason, community with other human beings, relationship to animals and nature, humor and play, and individuality. In the second list, she mentions that it is good to live through all stages of life, to be healthy, to fulfill one’s sexual desires, to avoid pain, to have a concept of the good, and to live in a community in which solidarity exists. Hence, she puts forward a strong, but vague, concept of the good. It is strong, as it says something about all aspects of life, but it is vague, as it does not state in detail what ought to be done. Both lists serve as a basis for deriving rights.

Taylor’s concept of the good from which he derives the right, on the other hand, can be described as weak but detailed. It is weak, as it does not put forward anything about all the various aspects of life. Hence, he favors a pluralist ethics. On the other hand, he holds a detailed position concerning religion, as he interprets the world from a Roman Catholic perspective.

In contrast to the human rights tradition, the most prominent concepts of human dignity come from various traditions worldwide. This section will deal with those of Gewirth, Margalit, and Spaemann. The first two thinkers hold a contingent concept of dignity and the last one holds a necessary concept of dignity.

Gewirth holds that all human beings are “actual or prospective purposive agents.” If all beings who are able to actually or potentially act on purpose are bearers of dignity, and all human beings are such beings, then all human beings are bearers of dignity. He connects the rights to freedom and well-being with the concept of dignity. Hence, all bearers of dignity hold the rights to freedom and well-being. According to Gewirth, it is necessary for any agent to have these rights, as these rights are supposed to be necessary for any action, and an agent would be selfcontradictory if he denied having these rights. As morality is concerned with human action and being a human agent, Gewirth claims that human beings have dignity and the two human rights mentioned. The line of thought which he proposes implies some tacit assumptions:

• Morality is concerned with action.
• Human beings are “actual or prospective purposive agents.”
• Person X is a human being.
• Person X wishes to do action A.
• In order for X to be an agent who seeks to fulfill his purpose A, it is necessary for X to assume having the right to act thus, and it would be self-contradictory not to do so, as he would reject what he needs as a purposive agent.
• All human beings, all actual or future purposive actors, need to assume that they have the right to action.
• Rights need to be granted by others.
• Hence, there is a contract between all actual or future purposive actors that need the rights necessary for action.
• All actual or future purposive actors grant the rights necessary for action, which are the rights to freedom and well-being, to all other actual or future purposive actors, so that the others grant oneself the same rights.
• The rights to freedom and well-being are connected with dignity.
• As all actual or future purposive actors grant one another the rights to freedom and well-being that are connected with dignity, and it is necessary for all actors to do so, it is also the case that all actual or future purposive actors grant one another dignity, and granting one another dignity is necessary.

With this line of thought, which, of course, is open to many criticisms, Gewirth argues for human dignity based on a theory of action combined with a contract theory.

Margalit’s argument in favor of dignity is a negative justification of the concept, as he does not state what dignity is but rather what one must not do to others, so that their dignity is recognized. His method can be described as appellative rather than a logical inference that shows the necessity of dignity. His negative justification is supposed to show that human dignity is attacked whenever a person is humiliated. He puts forward examples and reasons that are supposed to show that humiliation is bad, and avoiding humiliation is all that is needed for a decent society. A society that is nonhumiliating is a society that respects human dignity. This position implies that human beings are hurt not only by physical attacks but also by means of symbolic actions.

In contrast to these two this-worldly concepts of dignity, Spaemann’s position is metaphysical. According to him, the concept of human dignity refers to something sacred, the preciousness of human beings themselves, which, however, cannot be thought of without God. Dignity is a religious-metaphysical notion, and human beings have dignity just because they represent the Absolute. It is impossible, according to him, that any human being can be without a certain minimum of dignity. This does not imply that dignity is a gradual notion. The human dignity that is important for contemporary discussions and that does not have any gradations refers to the minimum amount of dignity that all human beings have to have and that they can never lose, according to Spaemann. On the basis of some transcendental-pragmatic reflections, he links dignity to a nonempirical substance, which again is connected with a personal soul. When egg and sperm come together, this soul is united with the body, as the soul is not part of nature. In addition, the dignity connected to the personal soul is not identical with human rights but represents the foundation of human rights.

Future Directions

Given the most recent scientific innovations and artistic creations, it is not a daring prophecy to claim that transhumanism and posthumanism are and will continue to be significant movements. They share the basic attitude that the special status of human beings has dissolved, which means that human beings do not have a special factor that separates them categorically from other forms of life: Human beings are merely gradually different from other forms of life. This conception can already be found in the reflections of Darwin and Nietzsche.

However, transhumanism and posthumanism must not be identified with one another. Their values differ significantly. Whereas transhumanism upholds humanist values, posthumanism sticks to antihumanist values. Humanist values are such that the Renaissance type counts as an ideal that is to be aspired to. Antihumanist values, on the other hand, are such that there is no absolute set of values—values depend upon perspectival interpretations, and it is up to the interpreter in question which values he sticks to. As the concepts of human rights and dignity are connected with humanist concepts like the affirmation of the special status of human beings, which both transhumanism and posthumanism reject, the future development of these movements is directly connected to the evolution of the concepts of rights and dignity. Concerning rights, the next battle will be one between animal and human rights, whereas concerning dignity, human dignity might have to evolve into a trans- or posthuman dignity.

One of the current and future developments concerning rights is related to the dissolution of the special status of human beings. Human rights apply only to human beings, and only humans ought to be considered in the moral realm, because they have a special ontological and normative status in the world. Given the dissolution of the special status of human beings, this position no longer holds. The most prominent defender of animal rights is Tom Regan. He argues that the fact of being a “subject-of-a-life” is a necessary and contingent condition for having rights. As there are nonhuman animals that also possess this quality, they also ought to possess rights, and one ought to alter the concept of human rights into one that includes humans and some nonhumans.

Another attack concerning our current attitude toward animals was put forward by Peter Singer. He compares the discrimination against animals just because they do not belong to the human species with sexism and racism. As an alternative, he proposes an ethics that considers an equal consideration of interests. Hence, two beings that have similar preferences ought to be morally considered equally, too. Both Regan and Singer take the dissolution of the special status of human beings seriously. Thereby, they show that the current concept of human rights ought to be revised, as it does not adequately represent the relationship between human beings and nonhuman beings.

The current and future developments concerning the concept of dignity are also related to the dissolution of the special status of human beings in the world. One of the qualities necessarily connected with human dignity is the special status of human beings in the world. Human beings are categorically different from nonhuman animals, according to this view. It can imply, as it does according to German law, that only a human being is a person and all other beings are things. To hurt an animal is to commit a damage to a property, a thing. Given the dissolution of the special status of human beings, this estimation becomes implausible, and as such, the categorical difference between human beings and animals vanishes. Hence, there is a need to revise the concept of human dignity to integrate the altered attitude concerning the status of human beings in the world. In that case, we might already be able to talk of a posthuman instead of a human dignity. Another option would be to completely get rid of the concept of human dignity, as the qualities related to it are no longer plausible, and given the origin of the concept, it has religious implications, which are also no longer held by a majority of people.

In addition, a further development has to be noted. Genetic engineering enables us to alter the genetic setup of humans significantly, and it can be expected that many further developments will take place in this respect. These developments are significant also for the concept of dignity. Two attitudes concerning human alteration have been developed within two movements. First, there is the transhumanist movement, and second, the posthumanist movement. Both accept the dissolution of the special status of human beings in the world and the integration of human beings in nature so that they are different only in degree from other animals. However, their views concerning the genetic alterations of human beings differ. In contrast to the transhumanists who uphold a humanist—a Renaissance—ideal of human beings, posthumanists uphold antihumanist values.

However, the transhumanist movement is not a unified one. Esfandiary distinguishes between the transhuman and the posthuman. A transhuman is a transitional human who represents the link to the posthumans but still belongs to the human species. A posthuman is a member of the posthuman species, which represents a further step in evolution. Bostrom, on the other hand, has a different notion of the posthuman. He regards a posthuman to be a member of the human species but with capacities that greatly exceed “the maximum attainable by any current human being without recourse to new technological means.” Both uphold a humanist ideal that implies that not all alterations count as enhancements. Only if the alterations stick to a certain ideal of the good, which is similar to the Renaissance ideal of human beings, do they count as enhancements.

The posthumanist movement, on the other hand, is more open concerning what counts as an enhancement. It does not uphold that there is only one moral ideal or that there is only one set of values and norms valid for everyone. There are various ideals that are valid for certain types of human beings. There is a group that upholds the Renaissance ideal, but there are other groups, too. There is also the group of the blind, which regards being blind as an ideal. Posthumanism, in contrast to transhumanism, does not claim that one group holds a mistaken ideal, as transhumanists would claim with respect to the group of the blind for example. Posthumanists have greater respect for the value of negative freedom, which this author regards as a cultural achievement that cannot be underestimated and that one must not sacrifice lightly. The genetically altered, from the perspective of posthumanism, can also be referred to as posthumans. However, there are also concepts of the posthuman within posthumanism that are not directly concerned with questions of genetic enhancement, like Hayles’s concept of the posthuman or Haraway’s concept of the cyborg, which put forward a new anthropology. Hence, posthumanism from their perspective is the attempt of putting forward a radically new picture of what the anthropos is.

There are various ways to understand and affirm genetically altered human beings. If one refers to members of the human species as bearers of human dignity, which one can continue to do, and if one revises the traditional concept by integrating the dissolution of the special status of human beings, then one should seriously consider what type of dignity applies to trans- and posthumans. Given the differences between them and current human beings, this ought to have an effect upon their moral status. Maybe they can be regarded as bearers of transhuman and posthuman dignity, respectively.

Bibliography:

• Badmington, N. (2000). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
• Bell, D. (1993). Communitarianism and its critics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
• Birx, H. J. (1984). Theories of evolution. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
• Cicero, M. T. (1991). On duties. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Darwin, C. (1998). The descent of man. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1871)
• Esfandiary, F. M. (1977). Up-wingers. New York: Popular Library.
• Evans, M. (Ed.). (2001). The Edinburgh companion to contemporary liberalism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Gewirth, A. (1981). Reason and morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Gordijn, B., & Chadwick, R. (Eds.). (2009). Medical enhancement and posthumanity. Berlin: Springer.
• Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In D. Haraway, Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 149–181). New York: Routledge.
• Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1998). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1651)
• Ishay, M. R. (2004). The history of human rights. From ancient times to the globalization era. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Kant, I. (1991). Political writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
• Knoepffler, N., Schipanski, D., & Sorgner, S. L. (Eds.). (2007). Human biotechnology as social challenge: An interdisciplinary introduction to bioethics. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
• Leiter, B. (2002). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Nietzsche on morality. London: Routledge Chapman & Hall.
• Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1689)
• Margalit, A. (1998). The decent society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nietzsche, F. (1998). On the genealogy of morals: A polemic (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy,state,andutopia. NewYork: Basic Books.
• Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Pico della Mirandola, G. (1996). Oration on the Dignity of Man. Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway. (Original work published 1486)
• Rachels, J. (1991). Created from animals: Moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
• Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Rousseau, J. J. (1997). “‘The social contract’”and other later political writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (1999). Practical ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Sorgner, S. L. (2006). Kant. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology (Vol. 3, pp. 1355–1358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Sorgner, S. L. (2009). Nietzsche, the overman and transhumanism. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 20 (1), 29–42.
• Sorgner, S. L. (2009). Transhumanism. In H. J. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of time (Vol. 3, pp. 1176–1375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Sorgner, S. L. (2010). Menschenwürde nach Nietzsche: Die Geschichte eines Begriffs. Darmstadt, Germany: WBG.
• Sorgner, S. L., Birx, H. J., & Knoepffler, N. (2006). Eugenik und die Zukunft [ Eugenics and the future ]. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany: Alber.
• Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

An Analytical Research on Human Rights viz a viz Fundamental Rights in India

• February 2022
• Journal of Legal Studies 8(1):279-302
• 8(1):279-302

• Arunachal University of Studies

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Publications
• Information & Advice

New map of Human Rights Advice and Advocacy Services in Scotland

Wednesday 11 September 2024

The Scottish Human Rights Commission publishes new research to map human rights-related advice and advocacy services in Scotland.

In partnership with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the offices jointly commissioned research to better understand the availability of human rights-related advice and advocacy services for all in Scotland.

The research identified 262 services across Scotland that offer human rights-related advice and advocacy, but only 14% of this offering legal representation.

Current landscape

• The most common human rights issues covered include mental health, housing, disability, health, and social security or benefits.
• There are less services covering issues such as biometrics, AI, privacy, freedom of expression and workers’ rights.
• Significant gaps exist in legal representation with only 38 services across Scotland providing this.
• Research found significant geographic disparities in service accessibility, with rural areas facing access challenges due to distance and transportation issues. A high concentration of the services are located in central Scotland.

Read a factsheet summary of the research by clicking this link or find it on the Spotlight Projects/Access to Justice page of our website at www.scottishhumanrights.com.

Read the full report by clicking this link or find it on the Spotlight Projects/Access to Justice page of our website at www.scottishhumanrights.com.

Interactive tool  

The Commission has also published two interactive maps that will be a useful online tool for those experiencing a human rights issue, making it easier to understand and navigate the advice and advocacy landscape to access assistance.

Third sector and public authorities can also use the research findings to advocate and plan for more comprehensive coverage of services which support people to access their human rights when they are facing problems.

Professor Angela O’Hagan is Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission. She said:

“We know that people facing potential human rights violations often encounter significant barriers when trying to access justice, including lack of information about where to get advice, geographic disparities, and unmet need.

“Human rights law says that everyone has the right to access justice when things go wrong. That includes being able to access information, advice and advocacy on human rights.

“In a week where the Scottish Government has reneged on a commitment to strengthen human rights in Scots Law, this research tells us that too often in Scotland, people can’t find the information they need and don’t know where to turn for help. This puts access to justice for human rights problems beyond the reach of many people in Scotland.

“Together with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, we wanted to understand where people in Scotland can turn to if they have problems in accessing their human rights and provide help navigating advice and advocacy services.”

For media enquires please email:  [email protected]

Notes to editors:

• The research was undertaken by Iconic Consulting on behalf of the Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner for Scotland.
• You can read our   Strategic Plan 2024-2028   on our website at www.scottishhumanrights.com.
• You can read our statement on the Human Rights Bill for Scotland . 

By clicking "Accept Cookies" you agree to the storing of third party cookies on your device. We use them to improve how our site functions for our users so that we are better able to provide information to our users. You can find out more and how to manage and delete cookies we place on your device by reading our Data Protection page .

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

A-Level Politics Paper 1 Comprehensive Overview - Rights in the UK

Subject: Government and politics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

6 September 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This document contains all the information you will need to answer questions on Edexcel A-Level Government and Politics Paper 1 and Paper 2 which centre around the topics of Rights in the UK.

This includes a description of current legislative provisions of rights in the UK, how they have changed under different governments, how rights are protected in the UK, the effects of pressure groups on human rights, and current debates over the Human Rights Act.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 41%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

A-Level Politics Paper 1 - Democracy and Participation Bundle

This document contains all the information you will need to answer questions on Edexcel A-Level Government and Politics Paper 1 which centre around the topics of Pressure Groups, Think Tanks, Lobbyists, Democracy, Voting Rights, and Civil Liberties in the UK. This includes a description of PGs, Think Tanks, and Lobbyists, the differences between them, modern examples, and strengths and weaknesses of both. What the Direct, Representative, and Pluralist Democracy entail, their strengths and weaknesses, and how to improve Representative Democracy in the UK. Current legislative provisions of rights in the UK, how they have changed under different governments, how rights are protected in the UK, the effects of pressure groups on human rights, and current debates over the Human Rights Act. Groups excluded from voting, milestones in extending the franchise, the work of the Suffragettes, and considered reforms such as extending the vote to 16 year olds and compulsory voting.

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• Corpus ID: 272463952

Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers

• Chenglei Si , Diyi Yang , Tatsunori Hashimoto
• Published 6 September 2024
• Computer Science, Linguistics

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row.

• EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
• SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY

Remove a task

Add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, can llms generate novel research ideas a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers.

6 Sep 2024  ·  Chenglei Si , Diyi Yang , Tatsunori Hashimoto · Edit social preview

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit add remove, methods edit add remove.

This week: the arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: can llms generate novel research ideas a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers.

Abstract: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .