Talk:Three generations of human rights

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It could be appropriate to describe the differences ome have with regards to Third Gebneration Rights - whether or not being Human Rights. For Example, Jack Donnelly in "The Concept of Human Rights" claims that Human Rights are rights of Human beings while third generationrights are rights of communities, which are a different kind of entities. - Eyal Netanel

Vasak first mentions "third generation human rights" in November, 1977.

Source:

Vasak, Karel, “Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to give Force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, UNESCO COURIER 30: 11, Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Nov. 1977.

Oneofshibumi 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added the citation. - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the civil liberty, the right to bear arms fit in? I inserted it, then reviewed it, and it didn't fit because the focus is purely European. Is this about Europe? I already added text to this effect. If not, the the right to bear arms is an important right intended to deter tyranny. Would this make it first-genertion? Raggz 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely first generation. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what kind of right is bearing harmful instruments. I understand the real right about arms is the "right not to be killed, harmed or threatened by an arm", which is in fact included in the right to life, health, and freedom. Everywhere in the world. I really wanted to talk about the self-determination right, which is included in the first point of the first article of the first part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and, therefore, second-generation, not third. Am I right?

The debate about generations refers to International Human Rights as outlined in the UDHR - right to bear arms is not a human right, nor is it internationally guaranteed. I am therefore removing the reference from the article. Pexise (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> When first generation human rights are limited this directly limits second generation rights. <

Which is totally not true! The soviet block badly limited free speech, religious practice or posession of private property, but "right to be employed", "right to housing" and "universal health care", as well as "social security" and public order (police) were beautifully maintained. People who had litte interest in politics could live very comfortably and without the slightest worry of insecurity of person in some 1970s WARPAC bloc country, like Hungary. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) [reply]

The criticism section is wholly unreferenced and of dubious credibility - I suggest a speedy deletion of this section enless sources can be provided. Pexise (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- Agree's with OP: The criticisms of the 2nd gen civil rights section of this page violates the NPOV guidelines because all of the criticisms come from people who aren't politically neutral characters. A simple google search on Dr. Kesler will reveal that he is head of the Kesler institute which is wholly devoted to spreading Conservative ideas. Nice rhetoric =! credible, logical, unbiased criticism of a philosophical issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.220.47 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree - for the most part these are not prominent scholars in this area either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above criticism derives from an extremely faulty take on NPOV. NPOV demands that WP does not endorse a view - it doesn't require that positions reported here "come from people who are politically neutral characters" - actually, no such people exist. The criticism by 74.196.220.47 above basically boils down to WP should cover criticism that 74.196.220.47 doesn't like. Which is exactly the opposite of NPOV! Str1977 ^(talk) 19:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy & Profit I have a serious question! If someone could Observe you in your home without your knowledge or you have knowledge and can't prove or figure out how there doing it!! Then like reality TV you see the exact actions and situations played out on television! It's happened so often you know it's not a coincidence because personal things said in your bedroom are repeated in exact same nature and it's the same writer and producer! They're making a ton of money and it sounds so bazarre that no one believes you! You don't talk about it often because the issues are personal and because of the timing the show is portrayed and when it happened you. You would have to tell all your personal business to prove it's happening almost like blackmail!! This actually is happening to me! And yes I've reported it in person to local office and the new among politicians but no response and I'm not crazy!! I guess it's only a crime if I can afford a pricey lawyer to prove it! I intend to keep complaining until I get justice because it's still happening! Angela M.Jones74.99.164.26 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism (and response) section is beyond the scope of the article to include such. This is not a discussion in pros or cons, just a mere article stating what are the "generations" of rights. It should be deleted (both, cons and pros). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.207.119 (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of including a "Criticism" section in a topical article, as it can serve as both an abstract of existing criticism, and perhaps more importantly serve as a jumping-off point for further learning on a given topic. This is especially valuable where schools of thought are concerned, as it can be difficult to locate an opposing view without knowing its name, which is the condition of those who might most benefit from study on the subject.

I don't care for the "responses to Criticism" section, as it threatens to become a back-and-forth. My opposition to a "response to criticism" section is two-fold in this instance. First, the main parts of the article should illustrate the point sufficiently for a reader to compare the point against relevant criticism of the point. Criticism which is not relevant should be deleted, not rebutted. Second, these "responses" are quite weak, and while they are no doubt facts, they do not advance a discussion or illuminate the original point in a meaningful way. That is my response to the content itself, however, and I mention it only to back-up my first point, by posing this question: should I rebut the inane points mentioned in the "response to criticism" by pointing out how weak the points are? Or can we just avoid a back-and-forth on this?

Proposal: Delete Response to Criticism Haakondahl (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about back-and-forth being unbecoming of an encyclopedia, but the content of the Responses to Criticism section is well-cited and relevant. I've just deleted the section heading; the "Criticism" section is for reporting on discussions of the merits of an idea put forth, not just attacks on the idea. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this here: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/09/04/fourth-generation-human-rights.html (written 4 years ago). - K (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Vasak´s three generational approach is commonly accepted today, should not at least other possibilities to divide human rights be named? I could think of T.H.Marshall or Jellinek´s status theory that have suggested a generational approach to human rights long before Vasak, but from a similar, e.g. historical, perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssrkhrsechu (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Directorate-General for the Environment of the European Commission has as its mission "protecting, preserving and improving the environment for present and future generations, and promoting sustainable development."

I can't find any reference to this in the mission statement --HazimJ (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Three generations of human rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090715094108/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/47825927.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/47825927.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100104072827/http://www.hoover.org:80/multimedia/uk/72025472.html to http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uk/72025472.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OMYTFYB (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rah9cw, WRO1330.

— Assignment last updated by Bestrh (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]