[6]
Only later were the rights of the 3(third) generation added: The so-called solidarity rights or collective rights. These are rather abstract objectives, such as the right to development, the right of peoples to self-determination or the right to peace and to a clean and healthy environment.
Collective rights apply to entire groups of people, in contrast to "classical" individual human rights. This category emerged when difficulties and differences in the implementation of the rights of the first two generations became apparent and new challenges presented themselves to humanity. According to this view, protection against natural disasters or war and the possibility to communicate are a prerequisite for realising other human rights.
The codification of such collective rights has only been tentatively undertaken. Collective rights are emphasised in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: this includes, for example, the right of peoples to development, to peace and security, and to sovereignty over resources. In the two UN Covenants of 1966, the right to self-determination of peoples is represented as a third-generation right.
The idea of these collective rights is also criticised in part: for example, it is unclear who exactly is responsible for their implementation and who has a claim to them. It is also feared that individual rights could be violated with the justification that, for example, economic development would be secured.
[7]
At the international level, first-generation human rights were codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, also known as UN Covenant II. At the same time, the international community also agreed on an international treaty on second-generation human rights in UN Covenant I, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
[8]
The backgrounds and convictions behind these groups of human rights were fundamentally different, as became apparent during the Cold War: while the states of the Soviet Union were criticised for violating the civil and political rights of their citizens, the Western democracies were accused of neglecting the economic and social rights of their populations. Even today, it is sometimes argued that the guarantee of economic security for all is simply unrealistic and that the norms contained therein are a mandate to the legislators to guarantee unenforceable individual rights.
[9]
This division of human rights into three generations can therefore be useful in terms of better comprehensibility and also the historical background of the emergence of various human rights. The division into social rights and civil rights took place against the background of the Cold War. Today, however, the idea is widespread that human rights are a common whole in terms of their meaning and value and cannot be considered separately. In concrete enforcement, however, differences remain in that first-generation human rights are protected by stronger enforcement mechanisms than social rights. In their meaning, human rights are always interconnected: For example, economic rights are the basis for the exercise of political rights and the right to freedom of expression is both a central part of personal freedom and an important political right.
[10]
The role of the state in the implementation of human rights
Fundamental rights and human rights regulate the relationship between people and the state. The state has various functions in the realisation of these rights: Depending on its content, a right can give the bearer claims to defence, claims to benefits or claims to protection.
The defensive claim is intended to prevent state intervention and protect the self-determination of the individual. This is particularly important in the case of civil liberties, for example, if the state is not supposed to interfere with the free opinion-forming of the population.
In other cases, the state can or even must act: If there is a right to benefits, the state has a duty to ensure that the right in question is realised. For example, the state must operate schools in order to realise the fundamental right to free schooling.
Finally, a duty to protect exists when the state is supposed to protect people from assaults by third parties.
[11]
These various duties of the state can be assigned to different categories of human rights in a very simplified way: Frequently, first-generation rights confer a defensive claim against the state, while second-generation rights establish entitlements to benefits. However, it must always be kept in mind that the demands on the state to realise human rights can be quite different and interwoven: For example, if our constitution guarantees everyone the right to life, on the one hand the state must not kill people itself, but on the other hand it must also take precautions to ensure that third parties do not do so.
[12]
Relation to Switzerland
UN Covenants I and II entered into force for Switzerland in 1992. The European Convention on Human Rights has also been binding on Switzerland since 1974. However, the Swiss Federal Constitution also contains a separate catalogue of fundamental rights, most of which can be claimed directly by individuals. These rights, which are guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, have developed and been supplemented since the creation of the federal state in 1848.[12] This results in a historically evolved system of human rights.
This results in a historically evolved interplay of norms under international and national law, which guarantee rights to individuals.
Lisa Fahrni8. November 2021
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
