I’m concerned that this trend could dilute the significance of human rights.
If everything is considered a human rights issue, it may become challenging to focus on the most important issues. We need to carefully consider what falls under the umbrella of human rights and prioritise the protection of those rights.
I partially agree. This “human rights inflation” has been a powerful critique against legal activism in jurisprudence. I’m afraid UN should be way more specific concerning what could be retarded as a violation of such rights.
On the other hand, if one truly believed that, e.g., nuclear weapons proliferation risks leading to a global catastrophe, then why couldn’t one say that it risks violating human rights, too—just like, e.g., failing to deter torture?
It’s certainly not a matter of impact… is it a matter of probability?
I’m concerned that this trend could dilute the significance of human rights.
If everything is considered a human rights issue, it may become challenging to focus on the most important issues. We need to carefully consider what falls under the umbrella of human rights and prioritise the protection of those rights.
I partially agree. This “human rights inflation” has been a powerful critique against legal activism in jurisprudence. I’m afraid UN should be way more specific concerning what could be retarded as a violation of such rights. On the other hand, if one truly believed that, e.g., nuclear weapons proliferation risks leading to a global catastrophe, then why couldn’t one say that it risks violating human rights, too—just like, e.g., failing to deter torture? It’s certainly not a matter of impact… is it a matter of probability?