Introduction to Human Rights Week 1: Foundations of Human Rights III. Philosophical foundations What are the philosophical foundations of Human Rights? Which values lie beneath them? As a starting point, let us take again the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This Article stipulates that: "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." The first sentence, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", is normative rather than descriptive. It is important to highlight this point. This sentence does not describe the state in which people are. This sentence prescribes. It tells us what all human beings are entitled to. Freedom, equality and dignity. Dignity is often the value which is put forward. Other Conventions often content themselves with mentioning dignity. The same is true of the 41/120 resolution on the International Standards in the field of Human Rights. A module will be devoted to explaining the importance of dignity. A clarification is needed regarding equality. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee equality in all areas of life or in all respects. The Article is more precise. Indeed, it guarantees equality in "dignity and rights". In other words, the idea behind it is that all human beings have the same rights. This idea is better expressed in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It stipulates that: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." A clause similar to this one exists in almost all Human Rights conventions. These Conventions identify criteria which have been used through history for marginalizing and excluding people from the circle of humanity. To concede rights to everyone supposes reciprocity. If I want to take advantage of certain rights, I have to concede them to others. If I want to be respected as a person, I also have to respect others. Rights which do not apply to everyone are not Human Rights but privileges. The idea of reciprocity and of mutual respect can also be found in the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, it says that human beings are "endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Ownership of rights goes hand in hand with duties and respect towards others. This idea of reciprocity also supposes the consciousness that there are other humans. It is in this precise sense that the term "consciousness" has been included in the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This term was a Chinese suggestion. Its aim was to codify the central virtue of the so-called ren Confucianism. First, "ren" implies the consciousness that there are other men. "Ren" also implies respect of others. This is expressed in the fundamental virtue of Confucianism. It is expressed in the Analects. We also call it the Golden Rule: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." the Golden Rule and the spirit of brotherhood presuppose empathy: the capacity to put oneself in other people's shoes. The man in the place of the woman, The atheist in the place of the believer, The rich in the place of the poor. This empathy is not only needed with respect to relatives or members of the same nation but it is needed with respect to the whole humanity. Equality is therefore inextricably linked to humanity. Human Rights are for all human beings. The idea of humanity has been won over with difficulty. That does not go without saying. Let us for example mention the debates that took place in Spain in the 15th and 16th centuries in response to the conquests of America. The conquest of America resulted in the meeting of the Spanish and the Indians. The question which arose was: Are the Indians human beings? Can we kill them? Exploit them? Treat them as slaves? Three representatives of the so-called school of Salmanque, Francisco de Vitoria, Bartolomé de Las Casas, and Francisco Suarez gave a very large and inclusive definition of humanity. In the debates, they defended the position that Indians were part of humanity. Suarez wrote in "Tractatus de Legibus": "Although the human race is divided up into various peoples and kingdoms, it nonetheless possesses not only a specific but also, as it were, a political and moral unity. This unity is exemplified by the natural attitude of mutual love and compassion that is extended towards all, even strangers, whatever their condition may be." The idea of humanity can never be taken for granted. This notion needs to be continually reaffirmed and defended. Nowadays, for example against xenophobia and racism. It can also be observed in the context of the fight against terrorism. Indeed, there is a tendency to deny terrorists acceptance as members of the human family. By excluding these persons from the circle of humanity, we are trying to justify that we deny them fundamental rights such as the prohibition of torture or the right to freedom and security. We have also seen the emergence of Legal Black Holes. These are separated regimes, which are applied to these people that we are excluding from humanity. In India, during a seminar on terrorism, a Supreme Court justice started a polemic by declaring that terrorists are not humans but animals. The judge carried on by saying that they were therefore not entitled to Human Rights but rather to animal rights. Such a point of view is a frontal attack on freedom and equality of all human beings. Above all, it is a frontal attack on dignity, a concept that we are going to explore in more detail in the following video.