V-a. Rights Systems
A rights system can be understood as a kind of cybernetic self-regulating arrangement designed to assure that rights are realized. In any cybernetic system, a goal is decided upon, and means are established for reaching that goal. In addition, there are specific means for making corrections in case there are deviations from the path toward the goal. This is the self-regulating aspect of the system.
The principle can be illustrated by the workings of an ordinary thermostat in a home heating system. The system is based on having the homeowner set the thermostat for the desired temperature. Its mechanism then "reads" the current room temperature, and compares it with the desired temperature. If the room temperature is too low, it switches on the heater. When the desired temperature is reached, the heater is turned off. This is a kind of self-regulation, in contrast to an open fireplace that has to be tended manually. Similarly, the navigation of any vehicle is based on regular course corrections. When you drive a car or sail a boat, you don’t just point it and start it. You have to pay attention and make constant adjustments to keep the vehicle headed toward your destination.
In much the same way, in a properly functioning democracy, with active and independent mass media, the public is able to hold its government to account, and keep its behavior within an acceptable range. Where there are no such constraints, governments act with impunity, quite literally going out of control.
Rights systems function in a comparable way. Any government may have policies saying, for example, that there is to be freedom of speech, and social security, and many other good things. These things may even be promised in the nation’s constitution. But we know that there are many cases in which governments go off course and fail to deliver on their promises. .In nations where there is an effective rights system, however, there are specific mechanisms for calling the government to account, that is, for making course corrections. The most fundamental of these mechanisms of accountability is for rights holders themselves to have effective remedies through which they can complain and have the government’s behavior corrected. Where there are no effective remedies, there are no effective rights.
On the basis of this understanding, we can say that any rights system has three distinct parties: those who are the rights holders, those who are the duty bearers, and those who are the agents of accountability. The task of the agents of accountability is to make sure that those who have the duty carry out their obligations to those who have the rights.
To describe a rights system, we need to know the identities and also the functions of these three parties. We would also want to know the mechanisms or structures through which these functions are to be carried out. Thus, we would want to know:
- The nature of the rights holders and their rights;
- The nature of the duty-bearers and their obligations corresponding to the rights of the rights holders; and
- The nature of the agents of accountability, and the procedures through which they assure that the duty bearers meet their obligations to the rights holders. The accountability mechanisms include, in particular, the remedies available to the rights holders themselves.
These are the three core components of a rights system. The three are examined in detail in Sections VI, VII, and VIII of this tutorial.
While there are many different kinds of rights systems, the global human rights system is distinctive in that it deals only with rights that are universal, enjoyed by all individuals simply by virtue of their being human.
One can have rights systems not only in nations but also in many other settings. For example, patients in a hospital or inmates in a prison can have particular rights. Responsibility for implementation would then rest not with a government but with the institution's administration.
Rights systems at different levels may be devoted to assuring the realization of human rights (those that are universal) or other kinds of rights, or a mixture of both.
There is no government at the global level, but only looser mechanisms, comprised primarily of the United Nations system, that can be described as constituting the international community. Thus the international human rights system can be described in terms of the same three categories, but with the imprecisely specified "international community" as the responsible administrative body. At the global level, treaty bodies and other relevant UN bodies constitute the core of the accountability mechanism.
This three-part framework can be used by any national government or other sort of administrative unit concerned with drafting national law or policy designed to assure the realization of rights. This framework can also be used for adapting specific programs, such as national welfare programs or nutrition programs, to conform to the human rights approach. The program's policies may be reformulated so that its clients have clear entitlements to its services, and so that the program makes explicit commitments to honor those entitlements. That commitment can be concretized by establishing a complaint procedure through which those who feel they have not obtained their entitlements can get a fair hearing and, if necessary, have the situation corrected. This rights-oriented approach can be taken not only by programs within nations but also by regional and global programs. For example, it could be taken by international agencies that provide humanitarian assistance (Kent 1999c).
The three core components are essential to any rights system. Governments and agencies can establish rights systems based on these components to assure the realization of any sorts of rights, and not only those rights that are universal.
Continue to V-b. Studying National Human Rights Systems
Subsection V-a last updated on October 11, 1999