UDHR@75: Right to Education.

 

Photo credit: Priscilla Du Preez

 

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

Right to Education

Article 26 UDHR

‘Everyone has the right to education […].’

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to education. However, how true is it that everyone has a right to it and that it is a fundamental element for the full development of the human personality?

Education is a critical tool for people to fully develop their personality, talents and abilities, thereby boosting their chances of finding employment, participating more effectively in society and escaping the clutches of poverty. According to UNESCO, the potential reduction of the poverty rate by 50% is contingent upon ensuring all adults complete their secondary education.

Childhood and adolescence are pivotal stages in the life cycle, playing a crucial role in shaping an individual’s life trajectory and personal development. During these stages, children and adolescents prepare for the future and acquire, through education, the necessary tools to function successfully in their lives. When viewed from this perspective, a condition like poverty becomes a determining factor in people’s life trajectories. Additionally, the absence of access to quality education perpetuates the cycle of intergenerational poverty.

In other words, without education, the development and progress of people in society cannot be achieved. It is important to note that since the onset of the pandemic, there has been an increase in social inequalities. Consequently, it is imperative to address not only the existing structural problems within educational systems on a global scale but also the newly emerged or exacerbated challenges that have arisen due to the pandemic.

Three Peruvian children and a llama smiling to the camera

Photo credits: Alexander Schimmeck on Unsplash

At present, children and adolescents are excluded from education for various reasons and within them poverty continues to be one of the main barriers. In Peru, it is possible to find differences between access to education at all levels, particularly between individuals living in poverty and those who are not. According to a recent report from the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI in Spanish), in 2021, 37.6% of individuals who lived in poverty, aged 15 and over, managed to study at most one year of primary education or they had no primary education level at all. In contrast, in the non-poor population, this percentage was 24.6%. The figure illustrates the insufficient guarantee of access to the fundamental level of primary education. To address this issue, the Peruvian State should adopt measures to reduce the disparities in the effective enjoyment of the right to education between the population in a situation of poverty and those who do not face that condition.

Furthermore, it remains a pending task for governments across the world to reverse the devastating effects of the pandemic on education. The present state of education is of significant concern because it not only constitutes a breach of this right, but the consequences of not achieving the learning outcomes extend into the adult lives of students, potentially impeding their aspirations and life goals.

 

Photo of the author, Andrea Parra Estela

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Andrea Parra Estela, a UoE LLM in Human Rights and a qualified lawyer in Peru. Andrea is passionate and enthusiastic about the fields of Human Rights and Constitutional Law. She works as an activist and project coordinator at Asociación Civil Kumpay, a non-governmental organisation based in Peru.

UDHR@75: Right to a Nationality.

 

Photo credit: Priscilla Du Preez

 

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

 

Right to a Nationality

Article 15 UDHR

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

 

Not long after the UDHR’s adoption, Hannah Arendt penned an essay titled “The Rights of Man: What Are They?” Later included in Arendt’s famous The Origins of Totalitarianism, the essay highlights a contradiction underpinning the UDHR. On the one hand, the document requires states to protect “universal” rights for all individuals. Yet on the other hand, international law is grounded in the principle of state sovereignty; states bear the sovereign right to determine who can enter and remain within their territory, who is eligible for citizenship, and who can access state-provided services. Thus, while all individuals theoretically have human rights, the state is a gatekeeper to the enjoyment of these human rights. To Arendt, this paradox could only be addressed through the recognition of a universal “right to have rights” as a precondition to the enjoyment of the rights enumerated in the UDHR.

Sign that reads 'every human has rights'.

Photo credit: Markus Spiske on Unsplash

No such right has gained recognition in international law, but traces of it might be found in Article 15 of the UDHR, which protects the right to a nationality, to change one’s nationality, and not to be arbitrarily deprived of one’s nationality. As the OHCHR has recognised, violations of the right to a nationality are conducive to violations of a broad range of other rights, including the rights to health, food, shelter, clothing, education, employment, and freedom of movement.

For many of us, our enjoyment of the right to a nationality is something we can take for granted. Yet the past few years have highlighted the fact that millions’ lives are punctuated by the fear of losing nationality or the uncertainty of statelessness. In India, the implementation of the National Register of Citizens for Assam saw up to 4 million Assamese residents rendered stateless. The Register predominantly affected minority groups residing in Assam, such as Bangladeshi migrants, who could not prove paperwork proving their ties to India. The recent violence in Gaza has, yet again, reminded the world that millions of Palestinians, across multiple generations, have lived their lives as stateless persons. And many countries around the world maintain, at the behest of the UN Security Council, laws that allow for the deprivation of citizenship of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activity.

Most striking about these examples is the role of international and domestic law in legitimising deprivations of the human right to nationality. Such deprivations are neither accidental nor coincidental; rather, they are brought about through the implementation of sweeping domestic legislation, of exceptionalist international security laws, and through the imposition of unjust legal geographies. Thus, to strengthen the UDHR, we must first acknowledge, and address, the ways in which law itself is unleashed upon human rights.

 

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Dr Vivek Bhatt, an Interdisciplinary Fellow in Human Rights at the University of Aberdeen Law School and a Fellow at the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University Law School. Dr Bhatt graduated from the UoE PhD Law programme in 2020.

UDHR@75: Article 14 and Climate Refugees

Photo credit: Priscilla Du Preez

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

Article 14 and Climate Refugees 

Article 14(1) of the UDHR

‘Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.’

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that people have the right to seek asylum from persecution. This right traditionally applies to those who are persecuted due to race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, as specified in the subsequently adopted Refugee Convention. However, the understanding of what necessitates seeking asylum has evolved over the last 75 years since its inclusion in the UDHR. In the 21st century, this is now changing again to adapt to new challenges such as climate and environmental displacement. According to the Institute for Economics and Peace, current predictions suggest that by 2050, there could be 1.2 billion people displaced from climate and environmental threats, making climate refugees a ‘top priority’ for the UNHRC going forward.  

Throughout its history, the right to asylum in the UDHR has evolved to encompass situations beyond its original understanding. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are an example that demonstrates the dynamic nature of the right to asylum. IDPs are individuals who are forced to relocate on similar grounds as refugees, although they do not cross international borders. Despite bearing similar protection needs described in Article 14, internally displaced persons (IDPs) were not traditionally considered under the asylum framework. However, international protection gradually became applicable for IDPs, expanding the grounds for receiving protections under this right. Additionally, this framework has recently been applied to people displaced by natural disasters. Although the term “refugee” has been avoided, the support processes share many similarities with those of refugees and have therefore also been addressed under this framework. 

The ongoing changes to international protection needs that emerge as a result of climate change threats suggest the necessity to broaden the scope of Article 14. Inhabitants of certain island nations, such as Kiribati, have already needed international protection due to displacement from rising sea levels. However, with a traditional understanding of asylum, it remains difficult to extend protections to people displaced by environmental factorscreate an applicable framework to resolve the discrepancy between the need and access to protection. The current use of the asylum regime in state practice and the acknowledgement of the limitations of a persecution-based understanding of protection demonstrates both the opportunities and challenges of utilising this framework for future problems. 

The future is expected to bring an increasing number of individuals impacted and displaced by climate change and environmental threats. As a result, it is imperative to develop how international law can support these individuals. The past success of Article 14 and the broader asylum framework to adapt dynamically to changing necessities demonstrates its applicability in addressing climate refugees. Since the need for international protection remains the same from the traditional understanding of refugees to climate refugees, Article 14 is becoming highly significant in the search for solutions to this global problem.  

 

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Şükrü Kağan Sürücü and Lucy Tomkins. They are PhD Law Candidates at the University of Edinburgh.

UDHR@75: Right to Effective Remedy

Photo credit: Priscilla Du Preez

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

Right to Effective Remedy 

Article 8 of the UDHR

‘Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.’

The right to an effective remedy is the bedrock of human rights protection, offering a lifeline to those victimized by violations. It ensures access to justice through domestic courts, a critical element in upholding the rule of law and societal order. Without this avenue, vulnerable individuals are left without recourse, paving the way for unchecked impunity and the perpetuation of human rights abuses. However, pursuing an effective remedy isn’t a straightforward path, often proving practically unattainable, particularly for victims facing multiple violations or encountering legal and bureaucratic obstacles. Factors like exorbitant court fees, unfair time constraints, restricted legal aid, or the inability of domestic courts to apply international human rights law due to unincorporated treaties pose significant challenges, a reality observed in Scotland’s legal landscape. 

I was nominated by the University of Edinburgh’s School of Law for a Work-based Placement, in lieu of a traditional dissertation, to explore access to justice in collaboration with the Human Rights Consortium Scotland. This immersive experience delved deep into Scotland’s legal dynamics, emphasizing the complex relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK’s central Government, the limitations surrounding international human rights law within domestic contexts, and, most crucially, the barriers individuals encounter daily while accessing justice. At this pivotal juncture, the Scottish Government faces an opportunity—considering the incorporation of core human rights treaties. This step could empower the people of Scotland to assert their rights fully, especially in cases concerning economic, social, and cultural rights, thereby reinforcing the right to an effective remedy. 

My professional background in Sweden’s public sector and multiple publications on the topic of international criminal justice align closely with the insights gained during this program. In short, the necessity of the right to an effective remedy is as fundamental as core human rights such as the right to not be arbitrarily detained or the right not to be discriminated against. It serves as the linchpin ensuring the practical applicability of human rights, tearing down barriers for victims of abuses, and transforming the abstract as well as aspirational content of human rights treaties into tangible, actionable rights.  

The evolution of human rights and the ongoing quest for meaningful protection remain in constant flux. National contexts present diverse challenges at different stages of advocacy. Yet, this diversity underscores the immutable truth—human rights efforts must never stagnate. Despite past progress, the call to fortify human rights and advocacy remains unyielding. In conclusion, the right to an effective remedy is not merely a legal doctrine; it is a shield for the oppressed, a beacon guiding justice, and a cornerstone of a society built on fairness and equality. Scotland’s stride toward incorporating core human rights treaties could mark a transformative leap toward equitable justice. It’s a testament to the evolving landscape of human rights—an evolving journey where stagnation finds no room. The pursuit of justice and the fortification of human rights remain perpetual endeavours, resonating with the essence of Article 8—never static, always advancing. 

 

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Alexander Pedersen, who graduated from the LLM in Human Rights in November 2023.

UDHR@75: Recognition Before the Law

Photo credit: Priscilla Du Preez

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

 

Recognition Before the Law 

Article 6 of the UDHR

‘Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’

Article 6 is beautiful in its simplicity and profoundly important. It underpins all other rights within the UDHR. It is premised upon two interconnected ideas, that a person retains their humanity and the protection of human rights regardless of where they are on our planet, transcending borders; and that everyone is entitled to recognition as a person before the law.

A person has human rights, no matter where they are. Whether you are a ‘tourist, a student, a refugee or an immigrant,’ Article 6 brooks no distinctions upon the basis of nationality, citizenship or statelessness. Where human rights are premised upon nationality or citizenship, they are often denied to entire groups of people due to ethnicity and religion, such as the Rohingya in Myanmar. Statelessness becomes an unwanted gift of disenfranchisement, passed down to the next generation.

Historically, a denial of personhood in the law has been the handmaiden perpetuating the slave trade, colonialism, and the annihilation of indigenous peoples and their way of life; utilised to exclude women, persons with disabilities or with mental health issues, children and victims of enforced disappearance such as those in Argentina, from the succour of the law.

Article 6 underpins all other rights within the UDHR. It is the foundation upon which a person can hold rights such as equality within marriage (Article 16), own and dispose of property (Article 17), have their privacy and bodily integrity respected (Article 12) and rely upon their rights and seek redress when they are violated (Article 8). A denial of personhood before the law, means that a person no longer has rights, but is dependent upon charity, a state of vulnerability and likely servitude.

As a human rights lawyer, having represented people, who the law has historically denied personhood to – women, children, persons with physical disabilities and mental health issues; this is an article of faith for me.

 

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Smita Shah. Smita is a PhD researcher at the University of Edinburgh, examining how child fair trial rights are implemented by military courts. She has practised as family law and international human rights law barrister at Garden Court Chambers, UK.

[1] Article 16 ICCPR, Article 15(2) CEDAW, Article 24 of Convention on Migrant workers, Article 12 on Convention of Rights of persons with disabilities, and Article 5 of African Charter, linked to slavery.

[2] Shah, S ‘The Legal Status of Intersex Persons in India and the Decision of the Supreme Court of India’  in (Eds) Jens M. Scherpe, Anatol Dutta, Tobias Helms The Legal Status of Intersex Persons, (Intersentia 2018)

 

UDHR@75: Dignity Brings About Change

This blog forms part of a series celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Recognising the numerous conflicts and the daily breaches of human rights taking place across the globe, this series aims to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights elaborated in the UDHR.

 

 

 

Dignity Brings about Change 

Article 1 of the UDHR 

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.’ 

When I was a prisoner at 19 in Taiwan, I slept on the floor of my cell between two other men. We did not have running water and so filled buckets to use for cleaning and washing. Twice a week we were allowed 20 minutes of exercise. We had no rights which I was aware of, but I felt deeply that this was not how people should be treated and convinced it would not reduce reoffending.  

I was eventually transferred to prison in the United Kingdom which had its own challenges. Prisoners would queue at a shuttered window clutching a stinking prison jumper or wet pair of joggers to trade for a fresh one, only to be told there weren’t enough to go around. During the Beast from the East, I piled everything I had around me, including a damp towel, so I wouldn’t freeze to death as there weren’t enough blankets. Days would sometimes pass without being let out of our cells, and when we were, we had to choose between a shower, posting important forms, or exercise. Grime and slime coated the showers, with only the foolhardy or unfortunate braving them barefoot. Dignity was nowhere to be found.

I reached an open prison and was elected by my fellow prisoners to lead the Prison Council. I was determined to act with reason and conscience to change the injustices which had so grated on me – and to discover new injustices and fight those also. Previously the Council had been viewed as self-serving, but I endeavored to change that, and proceed in the spirit of brotherhood.  

Alongside my co-leader, we set up targeted forums to identify issues affecting prisoners. Black, Asian, and minority ethnic offenders felt they were being overlooked for jobs within the prison. We drafted, negotiated, and implemented a new employment policy which ensured that all jobs were properly advertised and interviewed for. Prisoners complained of swarms of rats, lack of heating in winter, and broken showers. We liaised with the works department and put-up posters informing people of how to report such issues, which resulted in faster fixes. We held regular meetings with senior management, sat on the prison equalities board, and lobbied for better access to work and education. Essential forms for day or overnight release were overcomplicated, creating barriers to rehabilitation for those offenders with poor literacy. We leveraged the goodwill we had built up with management and were permitted to rewrite the forms ourselves to be far more accessible. The improvements I secured made the prison safer, more effective, and not by coincidence – more dignified.  

Despite what some in Government would have us believe, we should not be meeting demand for prisons, but reducing it. When we take a person’s freedom that they were born into, we must not rob them of their dignity also. For it is dignity which inspires hope, and hope which inspires change. 

 

As part of the GJA UDHR@75 celebration, we invited present and past students to contribute their personal reflections on the relevance of the UDHR today. This blog is by Chris Walters. Chris is a law student and Longford Trust scholar.