- First generation rights include civil and political freedoms, such as those associated with the U.S. Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
- Second generation rights include socio-economic and cultural rights, such as rights involving work (hours, rest, leisure, and social security), basic health care, education, and copyright law.
- Third generation rights, sometimes called solidarity rights, are associated with Third World involvement in the U.N. These include the right to self-determination, economic development, an ecologically clean environment, freedom from war, and disaster relief (Montgomery 28-30).
Each of these has an investment in the larger vision of shalom, which is finally a vision of both responsibilities and rights together, though I think one can argue whether all of them are truly "rights" or should be enshrined in law. John Witte, Jr in a basic introduction to the history of rights in the West lists the following categories currently under discussion:
1. Public or constitutional rights versus private or personal rights2. Individual rights versus rights of associations and groups
3. Human rights (human qua human) versus civil rights (humans as citizens)
4. Natural rights (i.e. based in nature or natural law) versus positive rights (i.e. based in state law)
5. Unalienable or non-derogable rights versus alienable or derogable rights
6. Historic rights versus extension of these to parties and groups traditionally disenfranchised
7. Vasak's three generations
8. Rights vested in the subject versus rights vested in the sense of rightness, that is a properly ordered, external standard.
Likewise, Witte suggests that some wish to distinguish:
a. rights, which can trigger corresponding duties in others, from privileges that no one may interfere with.
b. active capacity to do or assert a right versus passive entitlement to a claim on others.
c. privileges (i.e. claims, entitlements) from liberties (i.e. immunities, protections from interference.)
d. postive freedom, the right or ability to be something, from negative freedom, the right to be left alone in some dimension of life)
These are great insights! My thinking on rights has certainly been crude, when compared to these detailed breakdowns. I must say that Witte's categories will certainly help my thinking. Doing a quick search for Witte I came accross a whole series of "Faith and Human rights" and "Faith and Globalization" etc. videos on youtube from Yale university. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRyHKJDYif8 Thanks indeed for a good pointer!
ReplyDeleteWith Vasek, I think that some change of language is needed. The first generation of 'right' seems to be inconsistent with the second generation of 'right'. If you and I both have a right to life and pursuit of happiness then we have the right to seek work or be lazy, nobody should stop us as long as we are not infringing on another person's right to do the same. I can claim my rights by negative prohibitions (to use your earlier language) by saying "you cannot take my life..." etc.
If, on the other hand I have Vasek's second generation rights - a right to a job, to health care, or to an education - then the situation changes drastically. If the meaning of 'right' is the same in both generations, then I can now claim "give me my healthcare!", or "employ me!", "educate me!". Suppose that we are the only two people in the world. Then - if I truly have a 'right' to healthcare and my tooth is aching, then you MUST pull my tooth. Thus your right to life and liberty (the first generation of rights) is infringed by my right to healthcare (the second generation of rights). The two cannot coexist, one is matter and the other is antimatter - they annihilate each other.
So I think a different word should be used for the first generation 'rights' and the second generation 'rights', and it seems that such a language is found in Witte's categories.
I would agree that we could all use some tightening and nuancing of our terms, and I think that you are right that we need separate terms to discuss Vasak's various generations. Do we have to avoid the term, however, if two kinds of rights come into (seeming) conflict?
ReplyDeleteI guess the alternative to using two different terms would be to use the same term 'rights' with different levels of priority. For example, if Vasek's 2nd generation rights are more important than the 1st generation rights, then it would be appropriate to say "right to health care or education trumps the right to liberty." (or vice versa, as I would claim)
ReplyDeleteOf course - then we would have to really question, again, what does it mean to have a 'right' if something can trump it, and I bet Witt's insights would help answer here.
Maybe unalienable and alienable rights?
ReplyDelete