نشریه حقوق بشر
پیاپی 15-16 (بهار و تابستان 1392)

Universality is considered as one of the most important characteristics of human rights principles. The crucial problem is how the universal principles of human rights could be applied to the particular situations. This article aims to discuss on philosophical and hermeneutic basis of human rights, comparing two versions of universality, which are based on “deontological” and “teleological” conceptions. Although the distinction between these two trends is primarily current in moral philosophy, in the contemporary hermeneutics they have been accepted as two interpretative approaches. Kant’s deontological approach requires the universality of human rights interpreted within a formalistic and content-free framework, which has constituted the basis of mainstream conceptions of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Criticizing the deontological view, this article defends the teleological approach toward the universality of human rights, based on contemporary philosophical hermeneutics specially Paul Ricoeur’s outlook. I argue that this approach can provide the philosophical requirements for interaction between the universality of human rights on one hand and the cultural and local contents of various societies on the other hand and offers a “thick” conception of human rights principles.

Before establishing any kind of rights for human being, the man should be first known. The best approach to know human being is to utilize the knowledge and teachings that God has given us as the Creator of man. He knows better than anyone else the man whom He has created. This article tries to show that the Man who has (human) rights is not that human being as we are used to know him by popular experimental view, but is an existent that is constantly moving on the path of absolute perfection with the aim of achieving the status of the perfect man. To prove this, at this writing, first the concept of right has been studied with an epistemological and ontological look, and look then the concepts of human and religion will be considered.and investigated. Finally, different kinds of the rights of right owners, which one of these rights is human rights, are discussed. Human rights are those rights that belong to every individual because he/she is a human being.

Any human rights bereft of philosophical and anthropological foundations are susceptible to weakness and vulnerability. The question as to how from a logical point of view we arrive at the conclusion that the fact of being a human accords us with rights is one that has been provided with several answers. Belief in the natural rights is justification for some prominent proponents. However, in spite of serious challenges facing the proponents of natural rights, it is possible to consider them as one of the foundations of human rights and, in turn, view certain human rights as a modern interpretation of natural rights. In this article, we do not advance the claim that the relationship between human and natural rights is one of identity. The notion of human rights is distinct from natural rights. None the less, it is possible to detect a close relationship between the modern human rights and the ancient theory of natural rights whose traces may be recognized in Islamic law, so much so that belief in natural rights may be said to constitute the foundation and justification for many explicit rights in international human rights documents. The author tries to demonstrate that seeds of human rights have been scattered in the rich soil of the theory of natural rights, being effective in flourishing human rights; therefore, not be separated from its roots, not needless to it.

Anthropology of the natural rights of man and the psychology of it can be compatible. Since the rights of man can be divided into two fixed and variable dimensions which both types share in the establishment of human rights and civil rights, that part of human rights that finds meaning in social affairs as well as polishes up is not time and place fixed. Any society based on the priorities of its collective prosperity would prefer some elements to the other elements that may not be necessarily generalizable or experienceable to other settings or situations and may vary from a community to another community. The only abiding element in these rights is fundamental rights of human being which such right is only restrictable and limitable in a collective situation. This statement forms the foundation of the theory of relativity in civil rights and natural rights of man.

This paper studies how human rights and peace affect each other. The historical experiences of human societies have indicated that peace and human rights have had close connections to each other. These experiences have developed in the modern times so that nations and states are in the view that human rights and peace are complementary. Accordingly, achieving real and sustainable peace is impossible without respecting human rights and it cannot expect that human rights are fully respected if there is no peace. This interrelation has developed nowadays in a way that today the right to peace has become one of the examples of the third generation of human rights and a fundamental human right. This means that it is not possible to realise other human rights without realising such a right. In other words, the right to peace constitutes the basis of other human rights. This is because the first generation of human rights (that is civil and political rights) and the second generation of human rights (that is economic, social and cultural rights) and even the third generation of human rights (such as the right to development and the right to a healthy environment) cannot be realised if the right to peace is not respected. It is in this context that this paper examines such documents as the Charter of the United Nations (UN), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Covenants on Human Rights, related resolutions of the UN general Assembly (in particular Declaration on the Rights of People to Peace – Resolution 39/11, 12 November 1984, and Resolution on Promotion of Peace as a Vital Requirement for the Full Enjoyment of All Human Rights by All –Resolution 62/163, 18 December 2007) and resolutions of the UN Human Rights Commission and of the UN Human Rights Council in order to demonstrate how human rights and peace have been considered as dependent on each other so that the existence of one depends on the existence of the other. Finally, this paper concludes that full respect of human rights is not possible without peace and it is impossible to achieve sustainable and real peace in the world without fully respecting human rights. Accordingly, nations and states should make their best efforts to strengthen peace in the world through respecting human rights and to pave the way for realisation of human rights in the world by maintaining international peace and security. It is certain that human rights can be respected more effectively when states are in peace with each other. It is in such universal society that the interests of all nations are guaranteed and safeguarded.

The concept of “Human rights” is the main signifier of the discourse of international community. Despite its growing use, widespread resonance and hegemony, there are different approaches and debates for its understanding ranging from universalism to relativism. In recent decades, the issue of human rights has seriously promoted and encouraged universal respect and observance especially from the perspective of “minority rights” including all fundamental freedoms for all, without any discrimination, as well as safeguarding religious, cultural and ethnic identities. This paper referring to the understanding of the concept of “minority” argues and investigates the stand of human and minority rights from two dimensions of international documents and Islam. Then, it focuses on the issue of minority rights in Islam reviewing indiscrimination, fundamental freedoms and rights as well as religious, cultural and ethnic identities of the minorities considered in Islam. The concepts like freedom, equal rights, no torture and mistreatment, and participation right of the minority groups included in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran are the next issues discussed by the researcher. At the end, the fruits and challenges of the rights of the religious and ethnic minorities are discussed at the national and international levels and the obligations of legal-political management and the official duties and commitments of the Islamic Republic of Iran are mentioned.

Since the ratification of UDHR, Many steps have been passed, to universalize it, and religions and schools have been necessitated to take their position about it. Islamic trends and thinkers, also, have been considered it form different perspectives and approaches that, "Islamic human rights" is among the most prominent and current of them. Although within different discourses, this idea has been interpreted differently and includes many conceptions, but its conservative interpretation has the most contradiction with modern human rights. This approach seeks to find an especial formulation of human rights, which is compatible with traditional view of Islamic teachings and values. This approach has been relied on several premises that, religious human rights is the most important of them. This article tries to analyze the conditions for possibility of this doctrine and difficulties which is faced with them. From this article' s point of view, Islamic human rights, in its particularistic and conservative meaning, which has district and clear distinction with the accepted sense of human rights in the modern world, is a self- contradicted doctrine.