human rights essay uk

• Human rights

Graham Turnbull human rights essay competition and lecture

It was named in memory of Graham Turnbull, an English human rights solicitor killed in 1997.

The winner of the competition is awarded a £500 cash prize by the Graham Turnbull Memorial Fund at an annual lecture, joined by a prominent keynote speaker.

The competition was previously administered by the Law Society. From 2023, it will be solely organised by the Graham Turnbull Memorial Fund.

While we're sorry to no longer be hosting the competition and lecture, we are glad that its legacy – and that of Graham Turnbull – will continue.

2023 competition

This year's essay title is:

"What are the human rights implications of the failure of a state to take action to prevent global temperature rises which threaten the health or lives of their citizens?"

The deadline for entries is 5pm on Friday 20 October 2023.

The competition is open to all law students, trainee solicitors, pupil barristers, and solicitors and barristers within three years of admission or call at the closing date.

Essays must reach Tony Fisher, chair of trustees of the memorial fund, by email at  [email protected]  by 6pm on Friday 20 October 2023.

Entries should be a maximum of 2,000 words, including footnotes.

Proof of eligibility must be included.

The winning essay will be chosen by a panel of distinguished judges. The judges' decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into.

Download the full rules and eligibility criteria (PDF 110 KB) , which must be read before entering. 

About Graham Turnbull

Graham Turnbull was an English solicitor from Yorkshire.

He travelled to Rwanda in 1994 where he worked as a human rights monitor on the United Nations Human Rights Mission, investigating reprisal killings in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide.

He was killed in 1997, aged 37, along with four others, in an apparent state-sanctioned ambush as they travelled in clearly marked UN vehicles.

The killings were condemned internationally and led to the UN temporarily suspending its operations in the region and withdrawing aid workers.

Previous winners

Discover previous essay questions and read the winning entries:

2021 winner: Robert Watt  

'What improvements, if any, should be made to the Human Rights Act 1998? Why are they needed?'

Read Robert's essay (PDF 171 KB)

Highly commended essays: Devni Mindula Kitulagoda, Katt Godfray

2019 winner: Nick Jones  

'Has the rule of law been replaced by the law of politics?'

Read Nick's essay (PDF 553 KB)

2018 winner: Alice Munnelly  

'Is technology an opportunity or a threat for human rights lawyers? Does it increase or reduce risks for lawyers in carrying out their duties and in what circumstances might technology be used to mitigate such risks?'

Read Alice's essay (PDF 551 KB)

2017 winner: Alexander McColl  

'Should UK forces have immunity against civil claims brought against them claiming breach of rights protected under the ECHR in situations of conflict, peacekeeping, or policing?'

Read Andrew's essay (PDF 171 KB)

2016 winner: Kerry Nicholson  

‘A most radical recommendation? Should interception warrants be judicially authorised or does there need to be democratic accountability?’

Read Kerry’s essay (PDF 677 KB)

2015 winner: Ian Robert McDonald  

A discussion on the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention of Human Rights, and the Magna Carta.

‘The roots of many of our basic rights go back to Magna Carta, whose 800th anniversary is being celebrated in 2015.

Given this important legacy, to what extent would proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights impact on the protection of human rights in the UK and around the world?’

Read Ian’s essay (PDF 691 KB)

2014 winner: Rebecca Hadgett  

‘Applying human rights and humanitarian law, in what circumstances should forcible measures be permitted against a state that is subjecting its people to human rights abuses?’

Read Rebecca’s essay (PDF 683 KB)

2013 winner: Niall Coghlan  

‘In view of the scope and extent of the civil legal aid cuts, is the UK in breach of its obligations under the European Conventions on Human Rights?’

Read Niall’s essay (PDF 654 KB)

2012 winner: Stephen Gummer  

‘In the light of the growing prison population, should we look for alternatives to imprisonment?’

Read Stephen’s essay (PDF 670 KB)

2011 winner: James Potts  

‘Does everyone in the UK have access to adequate housing, health care, social security and employment? If not, would a bill of rights help?’

Read James’ essay (PDF 689 KB)

2010 winner: Sanjivi Krishnan  

‘Can human rights be universal and have respect for cultural relativism?’

Read Sanjivi’s essay (PDF 572 KB)

Maximise your Law Society membership with My LS

Have you found this page helpful?

• Apprentice or trainee
• International
• Junior Solicitors Network
• Rule of law

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Crime, justice and law
• Your rights and the law

Human Rights: The UK’s international human rights obligations

This collection brings together information on the UK’s international obligations in the field of human rights.

This page brings together documents relevant to the UK’s international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations (UN) human rights treaties the UK has ratified which fall within the Ministry of Justice’s remit.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is an international organisation for the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It was founded by the Treaty of London in 1949 and is based in Strasbourg in France. It has 46 member States, including European Union Member States, but is entirely separate from the European Union.

The European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty between the States of the Council of Europe. The United Kingdom was one of the States that drafted the ECHR and was one of the first States to ratify it in 1951. The Convention came into force in 1953.

The current version of the Convention incorporates the amendments made by Protocols No. 11, 14 and 15, in 1998, 2010 and 2021 respectively.

The substantive rights and freedoms contained in the Convention are:

• Article 2: the right to life
• Article 3: the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
• Article 4: the prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• Article 5: the right to liberty and security
• Article 6: the right to a fair trial
• Article 7: the prohibition of retrospective criminal penalties
• Article 8: the right to private and family life
• Article 9: the freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Article 10: the freedom of expression
• Article 11: the freedom of assembly and association
• Article 12: the right to marry
• Article 13: the right to an effective national remedy for breach of these rights
• Article 14: the prohibition of discrimination in the protection of these rights

The UK has also ratified Protocol No. 13 to the Convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, as well Protocol No. 1, which contains three additional rights:

• Article 1 of Protocol No.1: the right to free enjoyment of property
• Article 2 of Protocol No.1: the right to education
• Article 3 of Protocol No.1: the right to free and fair elections

The European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international court which rules on individual or State applications regarding possible violations of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s judgments and other information relevant to the UK are publicly available.

The ECtHR also publishes its Rules of Court and Practice Directions .

It is assisted in its work by a Registry , which provides legal and administrative support, particularly in the processing and triaging of applications made to the Court.

The Committee of Ministers

The Committee of Ministers is the Council of Europe’s decision-making body. It is made up of Ministers from the 46 States of the Council of Europe. Amongst other functions, the Committee of Ministers is responsible for supervising the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

It issues decisions and resolutions on the implementation of these judgments, on the basis of action plans and reports provided by the States concerned and following a defined set of rules for the supervision of the execution of judgments.

The Committee of Ministers is supported in this work by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) is a Council of Europe body which organises visits to places of detention, in order to assess how persons deprived of their liberty are treated. These places include, amongst others, prisons, juvenile detention centres, police stations, holding centres for immigration detainees, psychiatric hospitals and social care homes.

CPT delegations have unlimited access to places of detention, and the right to move inside such places without restriction. They interview persons deprived of their liberty in private and communicate freely with anyone who can provide information.

The UK’s Response to the Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s visit to the UK

The CPT and the United Kingdom (coe.int)

Annual Reports to the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Every year, the government provides a report to the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) which sets out the government’s record on the implementation of human rights judgments.

• 13 November 2023
• Policy paper
• 5 December 2022
• 6 December 2021
• 18 December 2020
• 31 October 2019
• 19 November 2018
• 19 December 2017
• 18 November 2016
• 18 December 2014
• 24 October 2013
• 12 September 2012
• 8 September 2011
• 27 July 2010
• 27 January 2009

United Nations

The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the following UN Treaties:

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• The Convention Against Torture

The UK regularly submits reports to the UN Treaty Bodies and Human Rights Committee in response to UN observations and recommendations. They are available below.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) aims to ensure the protection of civil and political rights. It came into force in 1976.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

As part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) , the UK agrees to ensure the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including the rights to education, fair and just conditions of work, an adequate standard of living, the highest attainable standard of health and social security.

Convention Against Torture

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) aims to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment around the world.

The UK has also signed up to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and ratified it in 2003. The OPCAT established a UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) whose role is to visit places of detention in member States and to make recommendations to the State being visited.

The SPT last visited the UK in 2019, with a subsequent report that the UK responded to. This was followed by a dialogue with the SPT in September 2021.

The OPCAT also requires States to establish one or several independent National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) to carry out a system of regular visits to all places of detention in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The UK’s NPM , established in 2009, is a multi-body mechanism coordinated by a Secretariat. The membership reflects the UK’s inspecting and monitoring mechanisms, so includes, for example, HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Independent Monitoring Board and the Lay Observers.

The 21 members who make up the NPM conducted thousands of monitoring visits and inspections to places of detention in the reporting year. The NPM produces an annual report which collates their key findings and presents an overview of the situation in UK detention settings. These reports are available at the bottom of this page.

Universal Periodic Review

The UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a peer-review of the human rights records of UN Member States, coordinated by the UN’s Human Rights Council. The UPR process takes place over five-year cycles.

More information on the UPR

Common Core Document

The Common Core Document is a snapshot of the constitutional structure of, and key statistics on, the United Kingdom, the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies. It is part of all periodic reports from the UK to the UN.

Reports to the United Nations

• 17 July 2023
• 30 March 2023
• 25 August 2022
• 19 May 2022
• 24 June 2021
• 11 June 2021
• 9 August 2018
• 30 November 2017
• 21 September 2017
• 27 March 2017
• 21 August 2014
• 17 June 2014
• 29 April 2013
• 22 January 2021

UK National Preventive Mechanism annual reports

Annual Reports of the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism: Monitoring places of detention. The NPM produces an annual report setting out its findings over the past year.

• 17 April 2023
• Corporate report
• 22 February 2022
• 4 February 2021
• 14 March 2014
• 26 February 2013
• 8 February 2012
• 8 February 2011

'Third Universal Periodic Review: UK’s Mid-term report on recommendations' added to Reports to the United Nation

First published.

Related content

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey .

Accessibility

All popular browsers allow zooming in and out by pressing the Ctrl (Cmd in OS X) and + or - keys. Or alternatively hold down the Ctrl key and scroll up or down with the mouse.

Line height

• Amnesty International UK

What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The UDHR is an enduring commitment to prevent the bleakest moments in history from happening again.

'The UDHR is living proof that a global vision for human rights is possible, doable, workable.' Agnes Callamard's   keynote address to Amnesty International’s 2023 Global Assembly

When was the UDHR created?

The UDHR emerged from the ashes of war and the horrors of the Holocaust. The traumatic events of the Second World War brought home that human rights are not always universally respected. The extermination of almost 17 million people during the Holocaust, including 6 million Jews, horrified the entire world. After the war, governments worldwide made a concerted effort to foster international peace and prevent conflict. This resulted in the establishment of the United Nations in June 1945.

On 10 December 1948 , the General Assembly of the United Nations announced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - 30 rights and freedoms that belong to all of us. Seven decades on and the rights they included continue to form the basis for all international human rights law .

On 10 December 2023 we are celebrating the UDHR's 75th anniversary, reflecting on the enduring power of these principles to inspire positive change worldwide.

Who created the UDHR?

In 1948, representatives from the 50 member states of the United Nations came together, with  Eleanor Roosevelt (First Lady of the United States 1933-1945) chairing the Human Rights Commission, to devise a list of all the human rights that everybody across the world should enjoy. Her famous 1958 speech captures why  human rights are for every one of us, in all parts of our daily lives :

'Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.' Eleanor Roosevelt, 1958, during a speech at the United Nations called ‘Where Do Human Rights Begin?’

Hansa Mehta was the delegate of India, and the only other female delegate to the Commission. She is credited with changing the phrase "All men are born free and equal" to "All human beings are born free and equal" in the Declaration.

Various delegations contributed to the writing of the Declaration, ensuring the UDHR promised human rights for all, without distinction. The Egyptian delegate confirmed the universality principle, while women delegates from India, Brazil and the Dominican Republic disrupted the proceedings to ensure the gender equality. Other delegations disrupted the attempts by the Belgium, France and UK delegations to weaken provisions against racial discrimination. 

'That’s why we celebrate the UDHR, not because of who wrote it into history, but because of those who used it to disrupt history.' Agnes Callamard's   keynote address to Amnesty International’s 2023 Global Assembly

Why is the UDHR important?

The UDHR marked an important shift by daring to say that all human beings are free and equal, regardless of colour, creed or religion. For the first time, a global agreement put human beings, not power politics, at the heart of its agenda . Communities, movements and nations across the world took the UDHR disruptive power to drive forward liberation struggles and demands for equality.

Although it is not legally binding, the protection of the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration has been incorporated into many national constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. All states have a duty, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights for everyone without discrimination.

Our human rights in the UK

The UDHR has three principles: universality, indivisibility and interdependency

• Universal : this means it it applies to all people, in all countries around the world. There can be no distinction of any kind: including race, colour, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, of birth or any other situation
• Indivisible : this means that tking away one right has a negative impact on all the other rights
• Interdependent : this means that all of the 30 articles in the Declaration are equally important. Nobody can decide that some are more important than others.

A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The 30 rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR include the right to asylum , the right to freedom from torture , the right to free speech and the right to education . It includes civil and political rights, like the right to life , liberty , free speech and privacy . It also includes economic, social and cultural rights, like the right to social security , health and education .

Buy this illustrated collection for children

What are the UDHR articles?

Article 1 : We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and we should all be treated the same way.

Article 2 : The rights in the UDHR belong to everyone, no matter who we are, where we’re from, or whatever we believe.

Article 3 : We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

Article 4 : No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave.

Article 5 : No one has the right to inflict torture, or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment.

Article 6 : We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.

Article 7 : The law is the same for everyone, and must treat us all equally.

Article 8 : We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.

Article 9 : Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.

Article 10 : Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair and public trial, and those that try us should be independent and not influenced by others.

Article 11 : Everyone accused of a crime has the right to be considered innocent until they have fairly been proven to be guilty.

Article 12 : Nobody has the right to enter our home, open our mail, or intrude on our families without good reason. We also have the right to be protected if someone tries to unfairly damage our reputation.

Article 13 : We all have the right to move freely within our country, and to visit and leave other countries when we wish.

Article 14 : If we are at risk of harm we have the right to go to another country to seek protection.

Article 15 : We all have the right to be a citizen of a country and nobody should prevent us, without good reason, from being a citizen of another country if we wish.

Article 16 : We should have the right to marry and have a family as soon as we’re legally old enough. Our ethnicity, nationality and religion should not stop us from being able to do this. Men and women have the same rights when they are married and also when they’re separated. We should never be forced to marry. The government has a responsibility to protect us and our family.

Article 17 : Everyone has the right to own property, and no one has the right to take this away from us without a fair reason.

Article 18 : Everyone has the freedom to think or believe what they want, including the right to religious belief. We have the right to change our beliefs or religion at any time, and the right to publicly or privately practise our chosen religion, alone or with others.

Article 19 : Everyone has the right to their own opinions, and to be able to express them freely. We should have the right to share our ideas with who we want, and in whichever way we choose.

Article 20 : We should all have the right to form groups and organise peaceful meetings. Nobody should be forced to belong to a group if they don’t want to.

Article 21 : We all have the right to take part in our country’s political affairs either by freely choosing politicians to represent us, or by belonging to the government ourselves. Governments should be voted for by the public on a regular basis, and every person’s individual vote should be secret. Every individual vote should be worth the same.

Article 22 : The society we live in should help every person develop to their best ability through access to work, involvement in cultural activity, and the right to social welfare. Every person in society should have the freedom to develop their personality with the support of the resources available in that country.

Article 23 : We all have the right to employment, to be free to choose our work, and to be paid a fair salary that allows us to live and support our family. Everyone who does the same work should have the right to equal pay, without discrimination. We have the right to come together and form trade union groups to defend our interests as workers.

Article 24 : Everyone has the right to rest and leisure time. There should be limits on working hours, and people should be able to take holidays with pay.

Article 25 : We all have the right to enough food, clothing, housing and healthcare for ourselves and our families. We should have access to support if we are out of work, ill, elderly, disabled, widowed, or can’t earn a living for reasons outside of our control. An expectant mother and her baby should both receive extra care and support. All children should have the same rights when they are born.

Article 26 : Everyone has the right to education. Primary schooling should be free. We should all be able to continue our studies as far as we wish. At school we should be helped to develop our talents, and be taught an understanding and respect for everyone’s human rights. We should also be taught to get on with others whatever their ethnicity, religion, or country they come from. Our parents have the right to choose what kind of school we go to.

Article 27 : We all have the right to get involved in our community’s arts, music, literature and sciences, and the benefits they bring. If we are an artist, a musician, a writer or a scientist, our works should be protected and we should be able to benefit from them.

Article 28 : We all have the right to live in a peaceful and orderly society so that these rights and freedoms can be protected, and these rights can be enjoyed in all other countries around the world.

Article 29 : We have duties to the community we live in that should allow us to develop as fully as possible. The law should guarantee human rights and should allow everyone to enjoy the same mutual respect.

Article 30 : No government, group or individual should act in a way that would destroy the rights and freedoms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Order our free poster of the Declaration

*  Your information will be held securely by Amnesty International United Kingdom Section – a limited company registered in England (01735872), and Amnesty International UK Section Charitable Trust - a charity registered in England & Wales (1051681) and in Scotland (SC039534).

You can change how you hear from us at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in our emails or by emailing [email protected] . 

At Amnesty International UK, we believe you have the right to privacy and we take our responsibility for defending that right seriously. We will never sell or swap your personal information with anyone else. To find out more about how we use your information, please read our privacy notice.  

• What are human rights?
• What is the Human Rights Act?
• Human rights law

Rights in Context

Definitions.

Civil liberties are a range of rights and freedoms that demand non-interference by government. They are based on the notion of citizenship; being a citizen of a certain country, and usually include freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. The government should not interfere in these areas.

Human rights belong to all people in all societies, by virtue of being human. They are inalienable, meaning they cannot be taken away under any circumstance and are absolute- they must be fully upheld in all cases.

Major milestones

Magna Carta, 1215: signed by King John, the ‘Great Charter’ was a series of written promises between the king and his subjects. The king agrees to govern England and deal with its people according to the customs of feudal law. It was an attempt by the land-owning barons to stop the king from abusing his people. From this perspective, it can be seen as the first example of an attempt to protect the people from being caused suffering- a forerunner to the idea of human rights.

Human Rights Act, 1998: this came into effect in __2000 __and incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. For the first time, a legal documentation of UK citizens’ rights was enshrined in law, giving judges an opportunity to check that government laws are compatible with the act. The main function was to make explicit in law rights which, in effect, already existed. UK citizens’ access to the European Court of Human Rights was therefore strengthened. The act includes rights such as the right to life, freedom from torture, right to a fair trial, freedom of thought and expression, right to marry, and much more.

Freedom of Information Act, 2000: this established in law the public ‘right to know’, and made government more open and therefore accountable in its decision-making.

Equality Act, 2010: The Equality Act __2010 __legally protected people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society, replacing previous anti-discrimination laws (e.g. sex discrimination, race relations) with a single Act, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protection in some situations. It set out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone.

The protection of rights in the UK

In recent years, it has been the role of judges and the courts to protect rights and liberties in the UK. One way in which this is done is through judicial review, which is the checking (and possibly overturning) of actions of government. This is more difficult in the UK than in the USA, where, due to the existence of a codified constitution, judges can easily check whether actions carried out by the government are constitutional. In the UK, judges cannot overturn Acts of Parliament but can decide on the lawfulness of actions carried out under delegated legislation (that is, laws that allow other bodies, such as ministers, to act with Parliament’s authority). Judges can decide whether ministers are acting beyond their power through this measure (the doctrine of ‘ultra vires’- beyond the power). An example of a successful judicial review was in November 2013 , when the Court of Appeal upheld a legal challenge by five disabled people over the decision to abolish the Independent Living Allowance.

Judicial review is controversial, not least because it means that unelected judges are, in effect, making policy. The process is also very costly, and most reviews end up siding with the government anyway.

Judges also protect rights through the use of the Human Rights Act (HRA). This enables judges to challenge cases on the basis of human rights, for example in __2005 __the ban on prisoners voting was declared unlawful. Another notable case was that of Abu Qatada, whose deportation to Jordan was blocked due to the fear that evidence obtained under torture would be used against him. In such cases, courts can issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, forcing Parliament to revise the legislation or to set aside certain provisions of the HRA- a process known as derogation. Supporters of the HRA suggest it has strengthened the capability of judges to effectively uphold civil liberties, has educated the people about their rights, and has made government ministers take rights and liberties into account more.

The Human Rights Act is not, however, fully entrenched. It cannot overturn Acts of Parliament and is not binding on Parliament (Parliament can amend/overturn aspects of it).

The Human Rights Act is controversial, as it allows judges to ‘rewrite’ legislation passed by elected governments. Some also argue that the HRA ‘inflates’ rights, meaning that rights such as the right to marry enjoy the same status in law as the right to be free from torture. Many Conservatives view the HRA negatively, as it means that in some cases the rights of an individual (such as Abu Qatada) take precedence over the rights of society at large (Abu Qatada was suspected of being involved in radical Islamic terrorism, which is why the government wanted to deport him). Conservatives have proposed replacing the HRA with a ‘British Bill of Rights’, although exactly what is meant by this is unclear.

Civil liberties in recent years

Recently, there has been a growth of a human rights ‘culture’ amongst judges, perhaps as a result of measures such as the HRA. Judges increasingly see themselves as the protectors of human rights and are increasingly willing to challenge ministers. This is often a response to the perceived trend of governments to expand their own powers at the expense of rights/liberties. Examples are below.

Civil liberties under Labour:_( source: politics.co.uk ) _The Labour government elected in 1997 __was frequently accused of running a “ nanny state ”, but by the time of the __2010 __general election, criticisms had increased to more serious accusations of excessive state interference and state control, infringements of civil liberties and a gradual erosion of the rights of the individual. One of the main concerns was the enormous number of new criminal offences brought in by Labour. Between __1997 __and __2009 , 4,289 new criminal offences were created, approximately one for every day the party was in power; and the number continued to increase, rising from 27 new offences a month under Tony Blair, to 33 a month under Gordon Brown.

Further concerns about infringement of civil liberties were raised by the passing of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act __2000 __(RIPA), dubbed the ‘snoopers’ charter’. The Act creates a regulatory framework to govern the way public bodies, such as the police and security and intelligence services, use covert techniques when investigating terrorist threats and other serious crimes, the purpose being to ensure investigatory powers are used in accordance with human rights.

There were numerous other measures introduced by Labour, claimed as necessary to fight the so-called “ war on terror ”, which was seen as perhaps the most serious threat to civil liberties. Tony Blair suffered his first defeat as prime minister in __2005 __when MPs rejected his call for the pre-charge detention limit for terror suspects to be increased from 14 to 90 days. The move had attracted warnings of a possible infringement of habeas corpus. MPs later agreed on an increased time limit of 28 days. A further attempt in __2008 __under Gordon Brown’s leadership to increase the time limit to 42 days was thrown out by the Lords.

The introduction of ID cards together with an accompanying national identity register was widely opposed, as was the increased retention of data on the DNA national database, particularly the decision to store the DNA of large numbers of innocent people. Excessive use of stop and search powers also caused concern. Any police force authorised by the Home Secretary could randomly stop and search any person or vehicle on suspicion of terrorism under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 .

Civil liberties under the Coalition:_( source: politics.co.uk ) _The Coalition came to power promising to restore the rights of individuals. The use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 __which allowed police to carry out random stop and search acts - and which had been ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in January __2010 __- was repealed by the Coalition and replaced with a more limited power under the Protection of Freedoms Act introduced in __2012 . Other measures in the Act include reducing the pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects to a maximum of 14 days; requiring schools to obtain parental permission before taking fingerprints of children; ending the storage of DNA of innocent people.

However, not all civil liberties concerns have been addressed by the Coalition and the spectre of another ‘snoopers’ charter’ has raised its head in the form of the Draft Communications Data Bill published in June 2012 . The Bill proposes to allow security services access to all communications data – i.e. records of all emails, texts and phone calls – and for communications service providers (CSPs) to collect the data which will be stored for 12 months.

The right to protest and the policing of protests is another issue which constantly raises questions about infringements of civil liberties, one current bone of contention being so-called ‘kettling’ where demonstrators are contained within a particular area by the police. The Ministry of Justice has also had to defend cuts to legal aid, included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act passed in May 2012 , a move which has provoked outrage from civil liberties campaigners, disability groups, the legal profession and others. Liberty warned that publicly funded legal advice and representation “ will be put beyond the reach of vast swathes of the British population ” and the Labour peer, Lord Bach, led a Lords rebellion against the cuts.

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

How well are Rights protected in the UK?

How effective is the judiciary at protecting civil liberties.

The History and development of Rights in the UK

What has been the effect of the Human Rights Act? Has it worked?

Freedom of Information Act

Human Rights Act

Criticisms of the Constitution  

Party Discipline and Elective Dictatorship  

Recent changes such as the Human Rights Act , Freedom of Information Act and Equality Act   and the creation of a Supreme Court has led to the suggestion that there is now a ' rights-based culture ' in the UK.

In 2001 Parliament established th e The Joint Committee on Human Rights which as a consequence of the HRA review the application of incompatibility orders which result from a conflict between the Act and existing or proposed legislation. The Committee is also an important watchdog with a general function of reviewing all new laws and thier impact on human rights with regard to common law and international law.

But the HRA has limitations,  while all new legislation must be compliant wi th the act and judges can declare earlier acts of Parliament incompatible with it they  cannot legally compel Parliament to make changes. This is because of the all-important concept of parliamentary sovereignty so the HRA is not entrenched (i.e. it's not a form of higher law like the US Bill of Rights)

So to be clear: The UK does not have a Bill of Rights!

Evidence for  rights based culture might be  an increased use of judicial review . The number of reviews rose from around 4240 in 2000 to around 15,600 by 2013. Examples of successful challenges to government policies include High Court rulings that retired Gurkha soldiers should be allowed to settle in the UK (2008), and that the government had not consulted fairly on compensation for people affected by the planned High Speed Rail link (2013).

Judicial Review Cases

A prominent example of judicial review — sometimes called `judge-made law' — is the issue of privacy. Judges have been accused of effectively creating a privacy law through the way they have interpreted the Human Rights Act. In a series of high-profile court cases, they appeared to give priority to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy) over Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression), as claimed by the press. This occurred even though specific legislation on the subject had not been passed by Parliament, and was not a prominent feature of common law . This called in to question the principle of the Rule of Law since wealthy individuals, who could afford to take legal action, had an unfair advantage. For example, in 2008 the High Court awarded Max Mosley, the head of the Formula 1 motor racing organisation, substantial damages when the News of the World published a story about his sex life, which he argued had breached his privacy. Max Mosley failed in a subsequent case at the European Court of Human Rights, which refused to rule that newspapers should notify people before printing stories about their personal lives.

A criminals' charter?

Another serious fault for Conservative critics of the Human Rights Act is the way that it seems to show favour to undeserving individuals, rather than protecting the legitimate freedoms of UK citizens. The Conservatives have argued for many years for the replacement of the act with a new 'British Bill of Rights', which would establish the supremacy of British courts over the European Court of Human Rights. The case of Abu Qatada illustrates the frustration caused by the way in which the Human Rights Act was implemented.

 Unelected judges with too much power? - Judicial Tyranny

judicial review may be a vital means of defending citizens' rights, enabling the legality of government actions to be properly scrutinised but its critics argue that it places too much power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges.

Is the UK Supreme Court too political?

  The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022  

The HRA has not prevented an attack on civil liberties in recent years

After the 9/11 terror attacks in the USA in 2001, and the 7/7 Underground and bus bombings in 2005, the HRA did not stop the government limiting civil liberties in the interests of protecting the wider community. Ministers argued that they were entitled to detain terror suspects without trial on the grounds that a national emergency existed. In December 2004, in the Case of the Belmarsh 9, the Law Lords (the highest court in the land before the creation of the Supreme Court) ruled that indefinite detention of foreign nationals, on suspicion of involvement in terrorism, was discriminatory. Faced with this legal challenge, the government passed a new law to introduce a system of control orders that enabled suspects to be closely monitored, such as through electronic tagging, a requirement to report to the police and removal of mobile phones and Internet access. Control orders were kept in place, despite adverse rulings by judges, until 2011 when the coalition government replaced them with a modified version known as Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs).

The Blair Government was accused of increasing authori­tarianism in the UK. The 2007 film, Taking Liberties, which examined the Blair government's record on civil liberties, even warned about the emergence in the UK of a 'police state'. 

Essay Example How effective are the judiciary at protecting civil rights in the UK (30) 

Have civil liberties been under threat? If so, why has this happened?

The Labour government's record on civil liberties between 1997 and 2010 was a mixed one. In the first place, this period witnessed major advances in individual rights, widely welcomed by groups campaigning on civil liberties issues, such as Charter 88, Liberty, and Freedom and Law. The Human Rights Act was the most significant example of this, but others included the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which marked a major advance in open government and helped to establish a public right to know. Other examples of a strengthening of rights include the establishment of the right to roam through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This was a culmination of many generations of campaigning by ramblers ( Ramblers Association ) and civil liberties groups.

On the other hand, Labour's critics drew attention to its civil liberties 'blind spot', reflected in the growth of legislation that expands the power of the state and weakens or removes civil liberties or individual rights. Various measures have contributed to this 'drift towards authoritarianism'. For example:

 The right to a jury trial was restricted in 1999 by new rules that made it more difficult for people accused of theft, burglary and assault from opting to be tried by a Crown Court (where juries sit), rather than by a magistrate.

Detention was introduced for asylum seekers whose claims have been refused, and access to the benefits system was replaced by shopping vouchers for refugees.

 Public order legislation led to restrictions being imposed on the right to protest.

Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), first introduced in 1999, imposed a range of restrictions on (usually young) 'offenders', often on the basis of hearsay evidence and in the absence of a jury.

The Identity Card Act 2006 provided for identity cards to be phased-in on a voluntary basis from 2009 (although these plans were abandoned after Labour's 2010 defeat).

However, the government's most controversial measures were its anti-terrorism legislation, passed in the aftermath of 9/11 (the 2001 terrorist attack on New York and Washington) and 7/7 (the coordinated 2005 terrorist attacks on London). This gave the police the power to hold suspects for 28 days without being charged (ie told what they were suspected of doing) if they were suspected of terrorism offences.

Changes to Civil Liberties under New Labour  

DNA database, Double Jeopardy (2003) Anti-Terror laws, end of jury trials for Serious Fraud.

 Coalition reforms , Freedom Bill , reversing 28 days, green paper on 'secret courts',  and the Counter Terrorism Ac t   2015 ( Amended 2016)

However, some restrictive measures have been abandoned in the face of parliamentary and public opposition. For example, in November 2005, the Blair government's proposal to extend the period that a suspect could be held before being charged, from 14 to 90 days, was defeated in the Commons. The government then compromised on 28 days and abandoned a subsequent attempt to increase it to 42 days, following a defeat in the Lords in 2008. Under the coalition, the 28-day period was halved, and the Labour government's plan for compulsory identity cards was scrapped.

However, the public has been remarkably willing to sacrifice some liberties at a time of heightened concern over security. Governments have tended to place the safety of society above the protection of individual rights. This explains why pro-human rights pressure groups such as Liberty have had limited success in deflecting government policy. For example, Plans for a British Bill of Rights , Legal aid cuts , Internet Surveillance and Extending Secret Courts -2 013 Justice and Security Act (Closed Material Practices), which permit terrorist suspects and major criminals to be tried without the evidence against them being disclosed in full. The passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill — the so-called 'Snoopers' Charter' —which increases the power of the intelligence agencies by obliging Internet companies to store information about customers' browsing history.

In 2016, Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Act, which authorises the retention of personal electronic data and its access for law enforcement.

 In 2020, Ed Bridges and the pressure group Liberty brought a case against South Wales Police over whether it could use automatic facial recognition technology. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that more care should be taken in how the technology is used. However, the benefits to society are ‘potentially great’ and the threat to the individual’s privacy ‘minor’.

In 2020 after a terrorist suspect was released from prison under an early release scheme designed to reduce the prison population, who went on to carry out an attack, the government promised an emergency bill to end early release. The bill was delayed by the COVID crisis but in May the government announced the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, which as promised ended early release but also gave the police new powers to impose TPims . A TPim imposed strict limits on an individual's freedom. The new law would mean this could be imposed for an unlimited time ( currently they are limited for two years) and the bill would reduce the threshold of evidence to mean a TPims would only need a 'balance of probability' ie - you could be a terrorist !

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Reaction to the London attacks

TPims Explained

 The Johnson government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022  was designed to limit the impact of public protests and has thus generated significant opposition from civil liberties groups.

 In the Queen’s Speech (2022) the Johnson government controversially committed to introducing a British bill of rights, replacing certain elements of the Human Rights Act, so that ‘there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government, strengthening freedom of speech’. The Human Rights Reform Bill received its first reading in 2022 but has not progressed. The influential Joint Committee on Human Rights said a planned Bill of Rights Act would restrict certain protections "the government finds inconvenient". Liz Truss's government  shelved plans for Human Right Bill with was design designed to give ministers the power to ignore human rights rulings from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).  

In 2022, the Johnson government controversially introduced a policy to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda rather than allow them to claim asylum in the UK. Designed to stem the flow of cross-Channel refugees and deter people-trafficking, the policy was condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, as ‘subcontracting our responsibilities’.

Can asylum seekers be sent to Rwanda ? November 2023 

Nationality and Borders Act 2022: The Nationality and Borders Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in July 2021 and On 27 April 2022 the  Nationality and Border Bill became an Act of law .       Criticisms around the Act include concerns around its departure from international convention and possible incompatibility with international law, and the creation of a two–tier system for refugees, which will penalise those who enter the UK through unofficial routes . Amongst other elements, it proposes to introduce "designated places" or "offshore" asylum hubs for application of refugee and migrant asylum claims, potentially in another European country or an African country  

How well are  rights are protected by:

Legislation/parliament: .

During the pandemic laws were passed with limited scrutiny . At the start of the crisis, the Coronavirus Act formed the central part of the government’s response to COVID-19. The Act was passed by Parliament in just 4 working days, in March 2020. The speed at which it was passed might suggest that it was subjected to relatively little parliamentary scrutiny, demonstrating the strength of the executive. The Act has given the government an enormous range of powers, largely to impose new regulations in response to COVID-19. These can be introduced without parliament scrutiny.  

Even in non pandemic time Parliament is dominated by the executive. How well does Parliament fulfill its functions?

Recent Limitations Placed on Rights

Elections Act 2022  

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022   Gives more power to the police, criminal justice, and sentencing legislation, and it encompasses restrictions on "unacceptable" protests, crimes against children, and sentencing limits. The law is controversial, and led to protests under the slogan "Kill the Bill" in various British cities before it had come into force. It has received fierce criticism both locally and internationally by various politicians, human rights groups, journalists and academics, due to the impact on free expression, freedom of speech and the right to protest in the United Kingdom There are new rules in the act that allow police to step in if noise from a protest is causing issues for people or disrupting an organization's activities in the area. In such cases, the police can set conditions but not completely stop the protests. This decision will consider factors like location, duration, and the impact on sensitive places like schools or medical facilities, and will vary case by case. Regarding obstructing a highway, the penalty has been raised from a £1000 fine to an unlimited fine and/or six months in prison. This change means the offense can happen even if the police or relevant authority have closed the highway. This may seem like a step back after the House of Lords ruling in DPP v Jones supported protesters' rights to peacefully gather on a highway. A new provision has been added to update the Public Order Act 1986 to make sure access to essential services is not disrupted. It is now illegal to disrupt the supply of time-sensitive products to consumers, block access to crucial supplies, communication, worship places, transportation, education, or healthcare services.

2023 Public Order Act: The Public Order Act 2023 gives the police additional powers for both suspicion- based and suspicion less stop and search in protest settings. The police have the power to stop and search you without reasonable suspicion under existing powers, such as Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, or because of a Serious Violence Reduction Order . The Public Order Act 2023 gives police the additional power to carry out suspicionless stops and searches about protest activity. Where authorised by an inspector or a more senior officer, a uniformed police officer can carry out suspicionless stop and searches in a particular location for a specific period .

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Civil Rights — Human rights in the UK’s constitution

Human Rights in The UK's Constitution

• Categories: Civil Rights Constitution

About this sample

Words: 2011 |

11 min read

Published: Sep 4, 2018

Words: 2011 | Pages: 4 | 11 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 693 words

3 pages / 1298 words

1 pages / 458 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Civil Rights

Eric Foner, a prominent historian and author, explores the concept of American freedom in his book, "The Story of American Freedom." In this work, Foner delves into the complexities of freedom in America, examining its evolution [...]

As a prospective student, I am excited to express my interest in pursuing my academic goals at Liberty University. I am confident that the rigorous academic programs and supportive community at Liberty will provide me with the [...]

Higher education is regarded as a privilege for many individuals, as it opens doors to opportunities and possibilities that are not available to the majority. However, not all students are created equal, and the same can be said [...]

During college, students are often exposed to diverse perspectives and worldviews that shape their views on different social issues. As part of this process, they are encouraged to engage in critical thinking and develop refined [...]

The Reconstruction era was a tumultuous period in the history of the United States. The Union victory during the Civil War in 1865 awarded African American slaves their freedom. During this time, it appeared as though the freed [...]

In the United States and many other nations, individuals hailing from diverse countries, religions, genders, and races often grapple with issues related to racism, oppression, and discrimination. These challenges encompass a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

• Updated on  
• Dec 9, 2023

Essay writing is an integral part of the school curriculum and various academic and competitive exams like IELTS , TOEFL , SAT , UPSC , etc. It is designed to test your command of the English language and how well you can gather your thoughts and present them in a structure with a flow. To master your ability to write an essay, you must read as much as possible and practise on any given topic. This blog brings you a detailed guide on how to write an essay on Human Rights , with useful essay samples on Human rights.

This Blog Includes:

The basic human rights, 200 words essay on human rights, 500 words essay on human rights, 500+ words essay on human rights in india, 1500 words essay on human rights, importance of human rights, essay on human rights pdf.

Also Read: Essay on Labour Day

Also Read: 1-Minute Speech on Human Rights for Students

What are Human Rights

Human rights mark everyone as free and equal, irrespective of age, gender, caste, creed, religion and nationality. The United Nations adopted human rights in light of the atrocities people faced during the Second World War. On the 10th of December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Its adoption led to the recognition of human rights as the foundation for freedom, justice and peace for every individual. Although it’s not legally binding, most nations have incorporated these human rights into their constitutions and domestic legal frameworks. Human rights safeguard us from discrimination and guarantee that our most basic needs are protected.

Did you know that the 10th of December is celebrated as Human Rights Day ?

Before we move on to the essays on human rights, let’s check out the basics of what they are.

Also Read: What are Human Rights?

Also Read: 7 Impactful Human Rights Movies Everyone Must Watch!

Here is a 200-word short sample essay on basic Human Rights.

Human rights are a set of rights given to every human being regardless of their gender, caste, creed, religion, nation, location or economic status. These are said to be moral principles that illustrate certain standards of human behaviour. Protected by law , these rights are applicable everywhere and at any time. Basic human rights include the right to life, right to a fair trial, right to remedy by a competent tribunal, right to liberty and personal security, right to own property, right to education, right of peaceful assembly and association, right to marriage and family, right to nationality and freedom to change it, freedom of speech, freedom from discrimination, freedom from slavery, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of movement, right of opinion and information, right to adequate living standard and freedom from interference with privacy, family, home and correspondence.

Also Read: Law Courses

Check out this 500-word long essay on Human Rights.

Every person has dignity and value. One of the ways that we recognise the fundamental worth of every person is by acknowledging and respecting their human rights. Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They recognise our freedom to make choices about our lives and develop our potential as human beings. They are about living a life free from fear, harassment or discrimination.

Human rights can broadly be defined as the basic rights that people worldwide have agreed are essential. These include the right to life, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to health, education and an adequate standard of living. These human rights are the same for all people everywhere – men and women, young and old, rich and poor, regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or believe. This basic property is what makes human rights’ universal’.

Human rights connect us all through a shared set of rights and responsibilities. People’s ability to enjoy their human rights depends on other people respecting those rights. This means that human rights involve responsibility and duties towards other people and the community. Individuals have a responsibility to ensure that they exercise their rights with consideration for the rights of others. For example, when someone uses their right to freedom of speech, they should do so without interfering with someone else’s right to privacy.

Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure that people can enjoy their rights. They must establish and maintain laws and services that enable people to enjoy a life in which their rights are respected and protected. For example, the right to education says that everyone is entitled to a good education. Therefore, governments must provide good quality education facilities and services to their people. If the government fails to respect or protect their basic human rights, people can take it into account.

Values of tolerance, equality and respect can help reduce friction within society. Putting human rights ideas into practice can help us create the kind of society we want to live in. There has been tremendous growth in how we think about and apply human rights ideas in recent decades. This growth has had many positive results – knowledge about human rights can empower individuals and offer solutions for specific problems.

Human rights are an important part of how people interact with others at all levels of society – in the family, the community, school, workplace, politics and international relations. Therefore, people everywhere must strive to understand what human rights are. When people better understand human rights, it is easier for them to promote justice and the well-being of society. 

Also Read: Important Articles in Indian Constitution

Here is a human rights essay focused on India.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It has been rightly proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Created with certain unalienable rights….” Similarly, the Indian Constitution has ensured and enshrined Fundamental rights for all citizens irrespective of caste, creed, religion, colour, sex or nationality. These basic rights, commonly known as human rights, are recognised the world over as basic rights with which every individual is born.

In recognition of human rights, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made on the 10th of December, 1948. This declaration is the basic instrument of human rights. Even though this declaration has no legal bindings and authority, it forms the basis of all laws on human rights. The necessity of formulating laws to protect human rights is now being felt all over the world. According to social thinkers, the issue of human rights became very important after World War II concluded. It is important for social stability both at the national and international levels. Wherever there is a breach of human rights, there is conflict at one level or the other.

Given the increasing importance of the subject, it becomes necessary that educational institutions recognise the subject of human rights as an independent discipline. The course contents and curriculum of the discipline of human rights may vary according to the nature and circumstances of a particular institution. Still, generally, it should include the rights of a child, rights of minorities, rights of the needy and the disabled, right to live, convention on women, trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation etc.

Since the formation of the United Nations , the promotion and protection of human rights have been its main focus. The United Nations has created a wide range of mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations. The conventional mechanisms include treaties and organisations, U.N. special reporters, representatives and experts and working groups. Asian countries like China argue in favour of collective rights. According to Chinese thinkers, European countries lay stress upon individual rights and values while Asian countries esteem collective rights and obligations to the family and society as a whole.

With the freedom movement the world over after World War II, the end of colonisation also ended the policy of apartheid and thereby the most aggressive violation of human rights. With the spread of education, women are asserting their rights. Women’s movements play an important role in spreading the message of human rights. They are fighting for their rights and supporting the struggle for human rights of other weaker and deprived sections like bonded labour, child labour, landless labour, unemployed persons, Dalits and elderly people.

Unfortunately, violation of human rights continues in most parts of the world. Ethnic cleansing and genocide can still be seen in several parts of the world. Large sections of the world population are deprived of the necessities of life i.e. food, shelter and security of life. Right to minimum basic needs viz. Work, health care, education and shelter are denied to them. These deprivations amount to the negation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also Read: Human Rights Courses

Check out this detailed 1500-word essay on human rights.

The human right to live and exist, the right to equality, including equality before the law, non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment, the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, the right to practice any profession or occupation, the right against exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and trafficking in human beings, the right to freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion and the right to legal remedies for enforcement of the above are basic human rights. These rights and freedoms are the very foundations of democracy.

Obviously, in a democracy, the people enjoy the maximum number of freedoms and rights. Besides these are political rights, which include the right to contest an election and vote freely for a candidate of one’s choice. Human rights are a benchmark of a developed and civilised society. But rights cannot exist in a vacuum. They have their corresponding duties. Rights and duties are the two aspects of the same coin.

Liberty never means license. Rights presuppose the rule of law, where everyone in the society follows a code of conduct and behaviour for the good of all. It is the sense of duty and tolerance that gives meaning to rights. Rights have their basis in the ‘live and let live’ principle. For example, my right to speech and expression involves my duty to allow others to enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression. Rights and duties are inextricably interlinked and interdependent. A perfect balance is to be maintained between the two. Whenever there is an imbalance, there is chaos.

A sense of tolerance, propriety and adjustment is a must to enjoy rights and freedom. Human life sans basic freedom and rights is meaningless. Freedom is the most precious possession without which life would become intolerable, a mere abject and slavish existence. In this context, Milton’s famous and oft-quoted lines from his Paradise Lost come to mind: “To reign is worth ambition though in hell/Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

However, liberty cannot survive without its corresponding obligations and duties. An individual is a part of society in which he enjoys certain rights and freedom only because of the fulfilment of certain duties and obligations towards others. Thus, freedom is based on mutual respect’s rights. A fine balance must be maintained between the two, or there will be anarchy and bloodshed. Therefore, human rights can best be preserved and protected in a society steeped in morality, discipline and social order.

Violation of human rights is most common in totalitarian and despotic states. In the theocratic states, there is much persecution, and violation in the name of religion and the minorities suffer the most. Even in democracies, there is widespread violation and infringement of human rights and freedom. The women, children and the weaker sections of society are victims of these transgressions and violence.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights’ main concern is to protect and promote human rights and freedom in the world’s nations. In its various sessions held from time to time in Geneva, it adopts various measures to encourage worldwide observations of these basic human rights and freedom. It calls on its member states to furnish information regarding measures that comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights whenever there is a complaint of a violation of these rights. In addition, it reviews human rights situations in various countries and initiates remedial measures when required.

The U.N. Commission was much concerned and dismayed at the apartheid being practised in South Africa till recently. The Secretary-General then declared, “The United Nations cannot tolerate apartheid. It is a legalised system of racial discrimination, violating the most basic human rights in South Africa. It contradicts the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. That is why over the last forty years, my predecessors and I have urged the Government of South Africa to dismantle it.”

Now, although apartheid is no longer practised in that country, other forms of apartheid are being blatantly practised worldwide. For example, sex apartheid is most rampant. Women are subject to abuse and exploitation. They are not treated equally and get less pay than their male counterparts for the same jobs. In employment, promotions, possession of property etc., they are most discriminated against. Similarly, the rights of children are not observed properly. They are forced to work hard in very dangerous situations, sexually assaulted and exploited, sold and bonded for labour.

The Commission found that religious persecution, torture, summary executions without judicial trials, intolerance, slavery-like practices, kidnapping, political disappearance, etc., are being practised even in the so-called advanced countries and societies. The continued acts of extreme violence, terrorism and extremism in various parts of the world like Pakistan, India, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Somalia, Algeria, Lebanon, Chile, China, and Myanmar, etc., by the governments, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, and mafia outfits, etc., is a matter of grave concern for the entire human race.

Violation of freedom and rights by terrorist groups backed by states is one of the most difficult problems society faces. For example, Pakistan has been openly collaborating with various terrorist groups, indulging in extreme violence in India and other countries. In this regard the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva adopted a significant resolution, which was co-sponsored by India, focusing on gross violation of human rights perpetrated by state-backed terrorist groups.

The resolution expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and proposed that a U.N. Fund for victims of terrorism be established soon. The Indian delegation recalled that according to the Vienna Declaration, terrorism is nothing but the destruction of human rights. It shows total disregard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. The delegation further argued that terrorism cannot be treated as a mere crime because it is systematic and widespread in its killing of civilians.

Violation of human rights, whether by states, terrorists, separatist groups, armed fundamentalists or extremists, is condemnable. Regardless of the motivation, such acts should be condemned categorically in all forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever they are committed, as acts of aggression aimed at destroying human rights, fundamental freedom and democracy. The Indian delegation also underlined concerns about the growing connection between terrorist groups and the consequent commission of serious crimes. These include rape, torture, arson, looting, murder, kidnappings, blasts, and extortion, etc.

Violation of human rights and freedom gives rise to alienation, dissatisfaction, frustration and acts of terrorism. Governments run by ambitious and self-seeking people often use repressive measures and find violence and terror an effective means of control. However, state terrorism, violence, and human freedom transgressions are very dangerous strategies. This has been the background of all revolutions in the world. Whenever there is systematic and widespread state persecution and violation of human rights, rebellion and revolution have taken place. The French, American, Russian and Chinese Revolutions are glowing examples of human history.

The first war of India’s Independence in 1857 resulted from long and systematic oppression of the Indian masses. The rapidly increasing discontent, frustration and alienation with British rule gave rise to strong national feelings and demand for political privileges and rights. Ultimately the Indian people, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, made the British leave India, setting the country free and independent.

Human rights and freedom ought to be preserved at all costs. Their curtailment degrades human life. The political needs of a country may reshape Human rights, but they should not be completely distorted. Tyranny, regimentation, etc., are inimical of humanity and should be resisted effectively and united. The sanctity of human values, freedom and rights must be preserved and protected. Human Rights Commissions should be established in all countries to take care of human freedom and rights. In cases of violation of human rights, affected individuals should be properly compensated, and it should be ensured that these do not take place in future.

These commissions can become effective instruments in percolating the sensitivity to human rights down to the lowest levels of governments and administrations. The formation of the National Human Rights Commission in October 1993 in India is commendable and should be followed by other countries.

Also Read: Law Courses in India

Human rights are of utmost importance to seek basic equality and human dignity. Human rights ensure that the basic needs of every human are met. They protect vulnerable groups from discrimination and abuse, allow people to stand up for themselves, and follow any religion without fear and give them the freedom to express their thoughts freely. In addition, they grant people access to basic education and equal work opportunities. Thus implementing these rights is crucial to ensure freedom, peace and safety.

Human Rights Day is annually celebrated on the 10th of December.

Human Rights Day is celebrated to commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UNGA in 1948.

Some of the common Human Rights are the right to life and liberty, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom from slavery and torture and the right to work and education.

Popular Essay Topics

We hope our sample essays on Human Rights have given you some great ideas. For more information on such interesting blogs, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Sonal is a creative, enthusiastic writer and editor who has worked extensively for the Study Abroad domain. She splits her time between shooting fun insta reels and learning new tools for content marketing. If she is missing from her desk, you can find her with a group of people cracking silly jokes or petting neighbourhood dogs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

30,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

• Get Involved

Rights of refugees and migrants

Uk’s ‘rwanda plan’ is an affront to human rights.

Geneva - The United Kingdom government’s insistence on advancing its “Rwanda Plan” for the deportation of asylum seekers is a regressive step that undermines decades of progress in refugee protection. Both the legality and morality of this plan are seriously flawed and represent an assault on the very foundation of international law. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor urges the UK to uphold its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, respect the inherent dignity and rights of asylum seekers, and refrain from penalizing individuals based on the manner of their entry.

The UK government announced a Memorandum of Understanding in April 2022 with the government of Rwanda, titled  Migration and Economic Development Partnership . This was later upgraded to a  formal treaty , re-named as the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership, and signed by the UK Home Secretary and Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in December 2023. 

The Bill provided that asylum seekers who have made “unauthorised journeys” (without a visa or other permission) to the UK would be sent to the east-central African country, where their asylum claims would be heard and determined. Under this arrangement, it would be the responsibility of the Rwandan asylum system to consider these people’s need of international protection.

The Bill received a green light in December 2022 when  the UK court ruled in favour of the Rwanda policy , finding it consistent with international and domestic legal requirements, provided that a proper consideration of the circumstances of each asylum seeker was undertaken before any removal.

The applicants appealed against the decision, however, and it was  overturned by the Court of Appeal . 

The Court held that the policy was unlawful since Rwanda was not a safe country, as there was a real risk that asylum seekers transferred there would be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in open breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This time the authorities appealed to the final instance in the UK, the Supreme Court, which passed its  judgement unanimously on 15 November 2023 . The Supreme Court concurred with the Court of Appeal that the plan was unlawful and Rwanda was not a safe country as a destination for asylum seekers, blocking the sending of any of them there. 

The UK-Rwanda Bill has stirred up much public debate, not only about  its morality , but also its legality. In June 2022, Britain’s first scheduled flight to transport asylum seekers to Rwanda was halted by  last-minute injunctions  from the European Human Rights Court, as migrants onboard would “face a real risk of irreversible harm”.

Yet the legality of the deportation plan seems to still be open to debate, as on the same day as the June 2022 judgement, the Prime Minister announced that he would immediately enter into a legally binding agreement with Rwanda and introduce new emergency legislation confirming that Rwanda is a safe country to which to send asylum seekers.

In December 2023, the Prime Minister agreed a new treaty with Rwanda and brought forward new legislation to overcome the protection gaps identified by the Supreme Court. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act was tabled before Parliament alongside the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Treaty, declaring Rwanda a safe country.

The new agreement expressly prohibits the transfer of asylum seekers who have already been transferred to Rwanda to anywhere else, except back to the UK. This provision as well as the improved form of a legally binding treaty aim at convincing the UK courts of the appropriateness of the plan, but it seems less than insufficient.

For instance, the Bill cannot prevent a person threatened with removal to Rwanda from applying to the European Court of Human Rights, which has the power to issue interim measures binding on the UK.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of the Bill on Northern Ireland and Ireland in general, considering that a  growing number of migrants are crossing the border  in the hope of avoiding deportation to Rwanda.

“The UK-Rwanda Partnership Treaty proposes an asylum model that undermines the international refugee protection systemestablished after World War II,” explained Michela Pugliese, Migration and Asylum researcher at Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. “It is not compatible with international refugee law; on the contrary, it’s in line with the growing, and failing, externalisation policies that dominate, both desperately and enthusiastically, the EU migration and asylum framework.”

Concluded Pugliese, “Externalising borders and asylum obligations poses serious risks for the safety of asylum seekers and refugees and doesn’t succeed at tidying migration flows and reducing arrivals. The problem is that they are forced to arrive, and the answer is not to send them away.”

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor calls on the United Kingdom to respect the safeguards to which asylum seekers are entitled, in particular the right to seek and enjoy asylum and the principle of non-refoulement, including non-rejection at the frontier and the admission of asylum seekers to States. Euro-Med Monitor recallsthat the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, prohibits penalization on account of irregular entry to a country, meaning that the way a person travels to the UK should not affect their asylum claim or procedure.

Government admits it could be breaking law if it ignores Strasbourg judges, Rwanda documents reveal

Officials fear they could be forced to breach Civil Service code by removing asylum seekers

The Government has admitted that removing asylum seekers to Rwanda could put the UK in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The admission that the UK could be in breach of international law has come in submissions in response to a legal challenge by the FDA union, which represents top civil servants.

Ministers have previously maintained that they would not be breaking international law if they were to ignore rule 39 orders issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), one of which blocked the first flight to Rwanda in June 2022.

This is because they have enshrined the power for ministers to ignore rule 39 orders in legislation through Rishi Sunak’s controversial Safety of Rwanda Act.

Civil servants have been instructed in guidance that they should obey ministers but the FDA is challenging this because it claims this would be a breach of the Civil Service code which requires officials to act in accordance with international law.

In a submission to the court, the Government has admitted that failure to comply with a rule 39 injunction could breach article 34 of the ECHR .

This allows individual applications to the ECtHR by people who allege there have been violations of their human rights.

Article 34 says that high contracting parties – which means states, including the United Kingdom  –  “undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”.

Whether it is a potential breach of international law –  and so places civil servants in breach of the civil service code  – will be determined by the High Court at a hearing of the FDA’s challenge at the beginning of next month.

If the union is successful with its legal challenge, it could see the Government ordered to remove the conflict between civil servants’ duty under the Civil Service Code and the potential breach of international law.

This could require the Government to hold a parliamentary vote to either specify in law that the UK will ignore the injunctions –  rather than simply giving ministers the power to do so  –  or to amend the Civil Service Code to remove officials’ obligations to comply with the law.

Fresh divisions

Such votes could open up fresh divisions between Tory moderates, who believe it would be a step too far to enshrine a requirement to breach international law legislation, and Right-wing MPs, who would back a strengthening of the legislation.

This could lead to further delays in Rishi Sunak’s ambition to get the first flights off to Rwanda as early as June 24. He has made clear that he will not allow a foreign court to block the Rwanda scheme.

The case is being heard by Mr Justice Martin Chamberlain who disclosed the Government’s admission after receiving a letter from the Government’s lawyers setting out ministers’ position.

The lawyers argued that the FDA claim was “hypothetical” on the basis that any migrants appealing their deportation would have to exhaust all avenues in UK domestic courts before submitting any claim to Strasbourg judges.

Ministers believe that reforms of the rule 39 process after lobbying the court will make it harder for Strasbourg to injunct the flights for a second time. The threshold for an injunction to be granted has been raised.

However, Mr Justice Chamberlain said the Government lawyers had acknowledged the issue raised by the FDA would crystallise if an injunction was issued and “a ministerial decision is taken not to comply with that measure in circumstances where that constitutes a breach of article 34 of the ECHR”.

Legal experts say it is not clear whether the Government is accepting that all  –  or just some  – decisions not to comply with interim measures would breach article 34.

In summing up the case, Mr Justice Chamberlain indicated that the prospect of a rule 39 order being issued was not hypothetical. 

Rwanda removals

The Judge said: “It would not be right to say anything about the merits of the claim at this stage. However, it appears from the claim that some civil servants believe (or have been advised) that it would be contrary to their terms and conditions to comply with a ministerial decision to proceed with Rwanda removals in the face of a rule 39 measure.

“The prospect that they will be asked to act contrary to a rule 39 measure, whilst far from certain, is also not hypothetical, given the Government’s public statements on this subject.

“That being so, there is a powerful public interest in the determination of this claim in advance of the point when any rule 39 measure might be indicated.”

• European Court of Human Rights,
• High Court,
• Civil service,
• Rishi Sunak
• Facebook Icon
• WhatsApp Icon

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.