Notions and principles of self-worth and dignity have been the touchstone of human progression. Principles of human rights were elucidated as a common heritage and inherent right of all peoples and nations when they were codified into a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN). Subsequently, since that time numerous other covenants and laws have broadened the scope of human rights for the purposes of recognizing and upholding the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of all members of the human family based on freedom, justice and peace.
The various instruments of human rights had within them advantages and pitfalls. To make human rights instruments contextual and effective, it became necessary for regional initiatives to formulate human rights principles such as those in Africa and Asia. They empowered peoples and nations to hold respective governments and States accountable on issues of human rights. However, exercising these rights became limited to government prerogatives, thereby raising serious concerns of democratic participation and the equal exercise of human rights by nations and peoples.
While the UN has reached a common understanding that, “these rights and freedoms are of the greatest importance,” the enjoyment of these rights remains elusive for many peoples. One drawback lies in the fact that the UN is not a Union of Nations, but rather a Union of States. Since the UN is a union of states, its main objective lies in protecting the interest of its member states, even if it has meant marginalizing the rights of people. This ironic characteristic has been the primary obstacle for all members of the human family to realize their inalienable rights. This amounts to the absence of a justpeace.
Disregard for human rights is profoundly evident in situations of armed conflict, where gross violations of human rights by State and non-State actors are a constant feature. In such situations, human rights exist only in documents. This lack of safeguarding human rights becomes all the more compelling because States have often resorted to introducing legislation that legitimizes human rights violations. For a long time governments got away with passing draconian legislation on the grounds of them being domestic affairs. This situation seemed to be changing with the shifting notions of State sovereignty. However, with the ongoing global war on terror, the scope and exercise of human rights values and principles have been most affected.
The path towards human rights is at a cross-roads. More interventions are needed in addition to an inclusive UN to strengthen upholding human rights in all contexts. This will require the active participation of all nations and people; and, more importantly it needs the commitment of non-State actors to also uphold and respect the people’s rights. An active social movement that promotes freedom, human security and justpeace is needed for Nagas to nurture and uphold a culture of human rights. Both State and non-State actors need to be held accountable for upholding human rights of all its citizens. Fundamentally, this requires an inclusive cultural and political framework that respects the dignity of all people.
