Political Science Sample: Human Rights

When referring to the perspectives of human rights, it is necessary to realize that the
foundation for human rights is a persons right to life. Therefore, it has been projected that
because an individual has a right to life they also have the right to basic needs that will make the
enjoyment of that right to life possible. The civil and political rights perspective includes an
individuals civil rights as well as rights in dealing with politics. These rights protect everything
from the right to their religion and speech to right of participating in elections. Civil and political
rights have often been seen as negative rights. This means that the government should merely
stay out of the way and not interfere. For example, a government should not interfere in an
election or in an act of free speech. However, simply not interfering is not enough. The
government needs to protect these rights as well, which would make civil and political rights
active rights as well. A government needs to set up elections as well as set up protection for
citizens who are being persecuted because of what they are saying. Civil and political rights also
play a part in the enjoyment of the most foundational parts of right to life. Citizens have the right
to not be killed or tortured and the government not only needs to abstain from doing these things,
but it also needs to actively ensure that it does not happen.
In the economic and social rights perspective, it is said that an individual has the right to
their economic and social well-being. This includes basic rights such as food, shelter, and
education. These rights contribute directly to the right to life. Without these rights, the right to
life is not able to be enjoyed and that right is rendered useless. Unlike civil and political rights,
economic and social rights is seen as a positive right. For example, a government needs to
actively make a way for children to go to school by building schools. Or a government needs to
actively make sure that the resources to sell or even eat food are available. This directly

correlates to the right to life because if the government does not provide, for example, food or
the ability to find or work for food then an individual cannot and will not be able to enjoy the
right to life.
Both civil and political rights and economic and social rights are vitally important to the
full enjoyment of the right to life. However, they cover different aspects of the right to life.
Economic and social rights cover the basic needs for survival such as food and shelter, while
civil and political rights cover interactions within society such as religion and politics. Many of
the rights addressed under economic and social rights require different resources. For example,
the right to food requires food, the right to education requires schools, the right to work requires
jobs. On the other hand, the rights addressed under the civil and political rights are sometimes
more abstract such as the right to religion and speech. Also, economic and social rights are more
foundational in scope. Without shelter, a person will be less likely to care to exercise their right
to free speech. This means that civil and political rights build on economic and social rights.
Though these sets of rights are very different in scope, they are both vital for the full enjoyment
of the right to life.
A very large tension occurs between the economic and social rights and civil and political
rights when they are treated separately. Though they each cover a wide variety of rights they are
more connected than they appear. The protection of the economic and social rights of food and
shelter must be protected in order for someone to take part in the political process. If they are not
nourished, their right to life is infringed upon and therefore they will not be able to properly
exercise their political rights. On the other hand, if a person is not allowed to participate in their
religion or in politics, their shelter and food will sustain their physical life but not be enough to
sustain their enjoyment of the right to life.

The tension between state sovereignty and economic and social rights exists when these
rights are viewed as collective rights. When economic and social rights are viewed as collective
rights, the state acts in the best interest of the group. This shifts the focus from the individual to
the state. Instead of helping the individuals of the state in their personal endeavors the state is
focused on the endeavors of the state as a whole. The problem with this is that the state is the
most powerful being that can help the distinct development of the individuals. The state
possesses the resources and the power to interfere in the matters of the citizens to make
economic and social rights more available. For example, a state can provide jobs for people to be
able to exercise their right to work, or the state can provide resources for people to buy, find, or
grow food. The state can also take advantage of the fact that it is considering these rights for the
group instead of the individual. If a dictator is in power, he or she can act in ways that would
infringe on the individual, as a sacrifice for the state.
Tension also exists between state sovereignty and economic and social rights when these
rights are viewed as individual rights. By insinuating that economic and social rights are for each
individual, it is assumed that the state has an obligation to its citizens. This concept of obligation
is difficult to balance with state sovereignty. While the idea that these individual rights are for
every single person, the state is the only entity that can legally enforce it. If the state chooses not
to enforce it, then it is simply acting within its sovereignty. A balancing act is created when there
is a desire for rights to be for every single individual but also a desire to not infringe upon state
sovereignty. The international community can only enforce so much in legal documents like
ICESCR. They can suggest things for the development of the individual but they have no way of
enforcing these suggestions without invading state sovereignty.