Evolution of Human Rights in Australia - Essay Example

The Evolution of Human Rights Name Institution Course Professor Date Human rights have continuously evolved and undergone multiple transformations in the process since emerging in the ancient times. The first stage in human rights development is characterised by restrictive and modest practice. Additionally, the first emergence of natural law ideas that did not seem to change unjust social reality characterised this initial stage. The institutionalisation stage occurred in the middle ages featuring struggle for reduction of absolute power. The period after World War II initiated another stage in human rights development. In this stage, internationalisation process began and human rights protection mechanisms emerged at international level (Simovic, Avramovic, & Jugovic, 2013). Ife (2012), describe three generations of human rights and what each ‘generation’ constitute in terms of rights. Australia is a signatory to Refugee Convention which contains the rights and protection of refugees all over the world. The country has been receiving refugees from different parts of the world arriving mostly by boats in the recent past. The policies that deals with asylum seekers and refugees in Australia have been controversial with some seems to contravene the provisions of Refugee Convention. This essay discusses evolution of human rights, Refugee Convention and commitments of Australia to it and Australia policy on asylum seekers. In addition, different viewpoints of major stakeholders that are concern with asylum seekers will be also discussed. Human rights history is a long one but the foundation of modern human rights and its instruments emerged in the twentieth century. Smith (2013) identified and explained minority protection guarantees, humanitarian law and abolition of slavery as early examples of instruments of ‘human rights’. Human rights evolved as a result of political, legal, philosophical and social reflection that is connected to traditions of social-democratic nature. Its ideology is owed to the emergence of middle class quest for civil and political liberties with civilizations of Europe. In 18th century, natural rights concept gained deep recognition as political rights. Immediately after the end of World War II, due to Europe holocaust and Japanese atrocities in Asia, political momentum for establishment of a protection system to deal with international human rights was generated (Desai, 2013). In 1945, United Nation was formed with the purpose of preventing future wars. Its function includes promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights as well as fundamental freedoms for everyone without distinction of race, language, religion or sex. Development and promotion of human rights instruments all over the world is one action undertaken in achievement of this aim. Sharma (1998) argued that human rights instruments presented hope that the basic human needs would be met on earth (as cited in Desai, 2013, p. 174). The concept of human rights evolution can be traced to the roots of western society. Code of Hammurabi is one document that first laws that bind society members giving rise to human rights evolution can be traced to. The history of human beings have derived and defined human rights. It is defined in the human rights terminology which define rights categories as ‘generations’. This word denotes time and age in which human rights is identified and defined. It also means that human rights are “generated” by a set of social, cultural, economic and political conditions at the places of work in a society (Reardon, 2011). These generations of human rights provides a framework for reflecting on position of social work practice within the agenda of human rights. Ife (2012) identified three ‘generations’ of human rights. The first generation is civic and political rights, second generation is economic, social and cultural rights, and third generation is collective rights. The distinction between the first and second category of human rights coincides with distinction between rights of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ nature. Civic and political rights enter as negative rights which are generally seen as needing protection against abuse (Ife, 2006). Economic, social and cultural rights (positive rights) need positive action on behalf of civil society or state for attainment and realization of those rights. Example is the provision of education, social security, housing and health. Addition of collective rights as third ‘generation’ was as a result of a need to acknowledge the essential individualism in the manner in which first and second generations of human rights have been created. Additionally, it is also as a result for a need to incorporate more collective understandings of rights (Ife, 2006). The three ‘generations’ of human rights have become a useful instruments for conceptualising rights. Furthermore, they have assisted in extending the notion of human rights beyond the narrow western liberal creation. It is of importance to note at this point that the three ‘generations’ of human rights roughly corresponds to the three French Revolution ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity (Ife, 2012). It provides useful framework for discussion of social work practice that applies across all three generations. The period around Enlightenment and rise of liberalism is when the first generation rights emerged. Nineteenth and twentieth centuries socialism and social democracy is the origin of second generation rights. Third generation of human rights emerged during the twentieth century and it is associated with economic sustainability, environmental issues and colonial peoples’ concerns (Chenoweth & McAuliffe, 2005). The first generation of human rights normally referred to as civic and political rights are considered to be fundamental to achievement of fair and effective civil society and democracy. The rights that are included in this group include right to vote, right to citizenship, a fair trial, privacy, freedom of speech and religious affiliation. In addition, free from discrimination, torture and discrimination, right to treatment with dignity and being safe in public places are also included in this category. The focus of first generation of human rights seems to focus on prevention of abuses and protection of rights rather than as a matter of achievement or granting of these rights. Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2005) contend that prevention of abuse usually rests with legal processes and governments in practice. Economic, cultural and social rights are the second generation of rights. The examples of rights in this category include granting of employment or fair wage, receiving of basic provisions such as shelter, food or housing. Government take a more active role in realisation of these rights hence often called ‘positive rights’ (Ife, 2006). These rights are debated more often across several countries in the world as countries with fewer resources may not have the capacity to provide adequate health care or free education to all citizens (Chenoweth & McAuliffe, 2005). Finally, the third generation of rights relate to population or community and they do not apply in real terms at an individual level. They emerged during the twentieth century and associate itself with environmental and economic issues. The third generation of collective rights was produced after being sought by groups having common identity or experience in their pursuit of ending colonialism, sexism, racism and children abuse (Reardon, 2011). In this generation, people’s self-determination rights and ethnic groups’ self-identification were articulated. Examples of such rights include right to have access to clean water, right to breathe clean air and the benefit generated from world trade and economic growth. These rights came into existence because of social movements and are quite new on human rights agenda hence do not have the same level of support from international instruments at the moment (Chenowoth & McAuliffe, 2005). Human rights allow individuals to develop and fully use their human qualities, intelligence, spiritual, talents and other needs. United Nations (1992) defined human rights as those rights inherent in human’s nature and we cannot live without them as human beings (as cited in Desai, 2013, p. 174), . The origin of human rights law was as a result of movement in protection of individuals against government abuse which culminated in recognition and protection currently referred to as political and civil rights. These rights were only recognised under international law since the Second World War (Henckaerts, 2008). Although precedents of human rights protection existed in the war period, it is only after the Charter of Human Rights was adopted that human rights fully became subject of international law. It was followed by Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948 culminating in a series of international conventions and of particular interest is 1951 refugee convention. The end of the Second World War heralded an era of massive displacement of people out of their countries of origin. This necessitated creation of an international system tasked with giving protection and assistance to those individuals forced to flee their countries due to hostile regimes. In 1946, United Nations established International Refugee organization as a temporary specialized agency meant to assist refugees unwilling to return to their ancestral countries due to political reasons. In 1951, Refugee Convention was held in Geneva which discussed the refugees status which defined the individuals considered as refugees. This Convention set the phase for development of International refugee regime aimed at giving assistance and meeting the needs of the people that fled post-war era persecution. Refugees are regarded as special type of foreigners whose interactions with states and nations are conducted in a unique manner. Cushman (2012) described refugees’ interactions with states as distinct because their interactions are neither citizen-citizen nor state-citizen or centre-periphery nor inter-state relations. The 1951 refugee convention gave states the responsibility of protecting refugees. By adopting the convention, the state abandons its right in deciding refugees movements across its territory by granting foreigners a refugee status. Moreover, it abandons its own discretion in relation to treatment of foreigners. Refugee Convention obliges the states in guaranteeing refugees civil and social rights (Cushman, 2012). Essentially, the purpose of the refugee Convention was to develop a general definition that constitutes refugee legal status and those individuals that are to be considered as refugees. Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention ratifying it in 1954 hence making commitment to refugees. The treatment of refugees by Australia can be described to be of compassion and concern on one hand and with suspicion and contempt on the other hand (Lusher, Balvin, Nethery, & Tropea, 2007). It is a contradiction of the international law owing to the different approaches that Australia uses in dealing with asylum seekers. The principle of non-refoulement is one of the important articles of the Refugee Convention. It obliges a nation not to send back any refugee where he or may receive further persecution. In this case, Australia has an obligation in providing protection to refugees who arrive at our shores and those are the only refugees they have an obligation to provide protection. Secondly, the principle that refugees or asylum seekers must not receive any punishment or discrimination for the manner in which they gain entry into a country they wish to seek asylum is another important Convention article (Lusher et al., 2007). Due to obligation it made by signing the Refugee Convention, Australia has the responsibility of resettling and assisting refugees. Although this the case, the way Australia have been dealing with asylum seekers and refugees to some extend contradicts its commitments it made by signing the Convention. Its policies must be change as well as its approaches in dealing with refugees. Australia continues to receive people who fled their countries due to various reasons. The current policies are inadequate and ineffective in dealing with asylum seekers and refugees. Australia should adopt a single and humane policy in dealing with people seeking protection. The country can institute other ways for maintaining border protection instead of sending back people in an outright manner without caring about their safety at its border. The alternate policies in dealing with border protection should not violate Australia international obligations to individuals seeking asylum. Refugees situation are increasingly becoming an international issue of concern due to its continual rise in numbers. The Australian policies on asylum seekers have undergone many changes in the recent past. In Australia, the annual refugee quota is 13,000 a year (Lusher et al., 2007). The country continues to receive asylum seekers especially by boats. It is why many of Australia’s controversial and radical asylum policies are directed towards this category. These policies include sending of boats back, mandatory detention and the Pacific strategy (O’Sullivan, 2014). The current policy dealing with asylum seekers in Australia is that of mandatory detention which was introduced in 1992. The policy makes detention of individuals that arrive into the country by boat having no valid entry visa to be mandatory in the immigration detention centres. They are held in these centres until they are either given permission to stay in the country or are send out of Australia. In addition to mandatory detention, Australia has attempted to engage itself in bilateral agreements with South-East Asia countries especially Malaysia and Indonesia which are major asylum host countries (O’Sullivan, 2014). The current policy on mandatory detention of asylum seekers does not measure well with the provisions of Refugee Convention in which Australia is a signatory. Asylum seekers are potential refugees which have rights under the Refugee Convention. Australia should consider revision of its policies and apply some rights of refugees contained in the Refugee Convention which can be a powerful tool for protection of asylum seekers in the country. The policies on asylum seekers and treatment of refugees in Australia elicit mixed reactions to various groups such as Australia Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Greens. They have alternative views on how refugees and asylums seekers should be deal with in the country. AHRC is of the opinion that mandatory detention for asylum seekers should be used as a measure of last resort and for a period which is justifiable (Australia Human Rights Commission, 2012). The commission believe that refugees contribute significantly to Australian society. Furthermore, it want the Australian government to offer assistance and encouragement in development of infrastructure and domestic standards that enable processing of asylum seekers claims is done in a timely and fair manner. Australian Greens want mandatory detention policy to be removed and Australian government to accept its responsibility in dealing with asylum seekers. In addition, they want asylum seekers to be given full disclosure of their rights as well as provision of legal assistance. Human rights have undergone numerous evolutions with many conventions having been organised by various international agencies such as United Nations in deliberating protection of people’s rights. Ife (2012) has described three ‘generations’ of human rights and how they came about. Refugee Convention is the main document that protects asylum seekers and refuges all over the world. It contains the rights of refugees and states obligations in protecting and assisting refugees. Australia is one of the signatories of the Convention. Its policies on asylum seekers have come under major scrutiny from different stakeholders. Its mandatory detention has been condemned as contravening asylum seekers rights as contained in the Convention. Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and the Greens have offered different viewpoints on handling of asylum seekers and the policies governing them. AHRC wants mandatory detention to be used as a measure of last resort while the Greens want mandatory detention to be removed. The viewpoints of various stakeholders as to the best way of dealing with asylum seekers in Australia are not the same in the exact sense. However, it can be deduced from their viewpoints that major policy changes need to be undertaken in a bid for Australia to affirm its position as a signatory to the Refugee Convention by respecting and adhering to the rights of asylum seekers and refugees under the Convention. References Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney, Australia. (2012). Face the Facts: Some Questions and Answers about Indigenous Peoples, Migrants and Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Retrieved on 19 August 2014 from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/ftf_2012_web_2.pdf Chenoweth, L. I., & McAuliffe, D. A. (2005). The road to social work & human service practice: An introductory text. Southbank, Vic: Thomson Learning. Cushman, T 2012, Handbook of human rights. Routledge, New York. Desai, M. (2013). The paradigm of international social development: Ideologies, development systems and policy approaches. New York: Routledge. Henckaerts J. (2008). Concurrent Application of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: A Victim Perspective. In R. Arnold & N.N.R. Quénivet, International humanitarian law and human rights law: Towards a new merger in international law (pp. 237-267). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Ife, J. (2006), Human Rights and beyond the ‘Three Generations’, In E.J. Porter (ed.), Activating human rights (pp. 29-45). Oxford: Peter Lang. Ife, J. (2012). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lusher, D., Balvin N., Nethery A., & Tropea J. (2007). Australia’s response to asylum seekers. In L . Lusher & N. Haslam (Eds.), Yearning to breathe free: seeking asylum in Australia pp. (9-20). Leichhardt, N.S.W: Federation Press. O’Sullivan. (2014), Identifying asylum seekers as potential refugees: transfers and ‘acquired rights’ under the Refugee Convention. In S. Kneebone., D. Stevens & L. Baldassar (Eds.), Refugee Protection and the Role of Law: Conflicting Identities (pp. 122-148). New York, NY: Routledge. Reardon, B. (2011). Educating for human dignity: Learning about rights and responsibilities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Simovic, D., Avramovic, D., & Jugovic, S. (2013). EVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. (English). TEME: Casopis Za Drustvene Nauke, 37(4), 1527-1553). Smith, R. K. (2013), Human Rights in International Law, In M.E. Goodhart (ed.), Human rights: Politics and practice (pp. 58-74) (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More

Development and promotion of human rights instruments all over the world is one action undertaken in achievement of this aim. Sharma (1998) argued that human rights instruments presented hope that the basic human needs would be met on earth (as cited in Desai, 2013, p. 174). The concept of human rights evolution can be traced to the roots of western society. Code of Hammurabi is one document that first laws that bind society members giving rise to human rights evolution can be traced to. The history of human beings have derived and defined human rights.

It is defined in the human rights terminology which define rights categories as ‘generations’. This word denotes time and age in which human rights is identified and defined. It also means that human rights are “generated” by a set of social, cultural, economic and political conditions at the places of work in a society (Reardon, 2011). These generations of human rights provides a framework for reflecting on position of social work practice within the agenda of human rights. Ife (2012) identified three ‘generations’ of human rights.

The first generation is civic and political rights, second generation is economic, social and cultural rights, and third generation is collective rights. The distinction between the first and second category of human rights coincides with distinction between rights of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ nature. Civic and political rights enter as negative rights which are generally seen as needing protection against abuse (Ife, 2006). Economic, social and cultural rights (positive rights) need positive action on behalf of civil society or state for attainment and realization of those rights.

Example is the provision of education, social security, housing and health. Addition of collective rights as third ‘generation’ was as a result of a need to acknowledge the essential individualism in the manner in which first and second generations of human rights have been created. Additionally, it is also as a result for a need to incorporate more collective understandings of rights (Ife, 2006). The three ‘generations’ of human rights have become a useful instruments for conceptualising rights.

Furthermore, they have assisted in extending the notion of human rights beyond the narrow western liberal creation. It is of importance to note at this point that the three ‘generations’ of human rights roughly corresponds to the three French Revolution ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity (Ife, 2012). It provides useful framework for discussion of social work practice that applies across all three generations. The period around Enlightenment and rise of liberalism is when the first generation rights emerged.

Nineteenth and twentieth centuries socialism and social democracy is the origin of second generation rights. Third generation of human rights emerged during the twentieth century and it is associated with economic sustainability, environmental issues and colonial peoples’ concerns (Chenoweth & McAuliffe, 2005). The first generation of human rights normally referred to as civic and political rights are considered to be fundamental to achievement of fair and effective civil society and democracy.

The rights that are included in this group include right to vote, right to citizenship, a fair trial, privacy, freedom of speech and religious affiliation. In addition, free from discrimination, torture and discrimination, right to treatment with dignity and being safe in public places are also included in this category. The focus of first generation of human rights seems to focus on prevention of abuses and protection of rights rather than as a matter of achievement or granting of these rights.

Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2005) contend that prevention of abuse usually rests with legal processes and governments in practice. Economic, cultural and social rights are the second generation of rights. The examples of rights in this category include granting of employment or fair wage, receiving of basic provisions such as shelter, food or housing.

Read More