3.1.4

PREVIEW

Why might a state create its own national human rights law?

States can also create their own national laws that ensure and promote human rights. These laws can be independent of or complementing international human rights laws. For example, states can specify human and citizens’ rights in their constitution or in other national laws. States can also specify citizens’ . Even if individuals are rights-holders and governments are duty-bearers, individuals also have a moral responsibility to not violate other people’s rights, just as they would not like their own rights to be violated.

These duties and rights might not be covered in international human rights law or in treaties that states are States Parties to. One reason a state might want to adopt their own national human rights laws could be that they recognise additional rights that are relevant to them, but that other states do not recognise. 

Another reason could be that they recognise a group of people who should have access to rights that are particular to them, even if other states do not recognise such group rights. For example, a state might grant additional rights to persons who are not legal citizens, but who live in their country.

The creation, enforcement and interpretation of national human rights laws depend on the particular system of government that is in place in a particular state. 

REFLECTION/DISCUSSION

1. Do you think that rights-holders must fulfil duties in order to be entitled to rights?
2. Why might it be important that states, as duty-bearers, and not individuals, as rights-holders, have the ultimate obligation to ensure human rights?

Educator’s notes 

Note that humans are entitled human rights by birth. Under international human rights law, they have no legal obligation to fulfil duties in order to be entitled rights. 

States might place duties on their legal citizens, based on moral grounds and enforced through laws. For example, some states demand that legal citizens do military service for a certain period of time, or else they may face legal punishment, such as fines and/or imprisonment. Compulsory military service might be justified on moral grounds, such as the perceived need to serve and protect one’s country. 

However, under international human rights law, it is states that have the ultimate obligation to ensure human rights. This is because the international human rights framework first developed after two world wars and large-scale atrocity crimes, so it was believed to be important to ensure that humans everywhere and all the time are protected and have rights. It was also believed that states, through their governments, should use their resources towards these aims, instead of oppressing their citizens and those of other states.

Still today, it would be difficult for ordinary people to have access to sufficient resources to ensure human rights for everyone and all the time. By making states ultimately responsible for ensuring human rights, it might also be easier to coordinate, compare, and strengthen the protection and promotion of human rights across different states.