ULUSLARARASI POLİTİKA

One of the most important approaches to the classification of rights belongs to Georg Jellinek. This classification of rights include negative status rights, positive status rights, and active status rights. "Passive status rights" is not mentioned in this classification of rights.

One of the most important approaches to the classification of rights belongs to Georg Jellinek. This classification of negative status rights, positive status rights, and active status rights can be roughly described as follows: Negative status rights emphasize the restrictions of states and personal immunity. In other words, the conceptualization of negative rights, which point to a protected area in which states could not intervene in any way, constituted the basis for preventing the state’s tyranny. Positive status rights, on the other hand, emphasize the need for states to take on various responsibilities and to strengthen social and economic conditions. In short, the socalled positive rights entitle the state to create an environment in which individuals can live a life that suits human dignity and prevents them from falling into poverty. On the other hand, the third group of rights, active status rights, includes both the guarantee and the extension of the rights to vote and to be elected. In other words, these are the rights that enable political participation (Alexy 2010, 163-173; Gözler 2004, 149-150).

One of the most important approaches to the classification of rights belongs to Georg Jellinek. This classification of negative status rights, positive status rights, and active status rights can be roughly described as follows: Negative status rights emphasize the restrictions of states and personal immunity. In other words, the conceptualization of negative rights, which point to a protected area in which states could not intervene in any way, constituted the basis for preventing the state’s tyranny. Positive status rights, on the other hand, emphasize the need for states to take on various responsibilities and to strengthen social and economic conditions. In short, the socalled positive rights entitle the state to create an environment in which individuals can live a life that suits human dignity and prevents them from falling into poverty. On the other hand, the third group of rights, active status rights, includes both the guarantee and the extension of the rights to vote and to be elected. In other words, these are the rights that enable political participation (Alexy 2010, 163-173; Gözler 2004, 149-150).

One of the most important approaches to the classification of rights belongs to Georg Jellinek. This classification of negative status rights, positive status rights, and active status rights can be roughly described as follows: Negative status rights emphasize the restrictions of states and personal immunity. In other words, the conceptualization of negative rights, which point to a protected area in which states could not intervene in any way, constituted the basis for preventing the state’s tyranny. Positive status rights, on the other hand, emphasize the need for states to take on various responsibilities and to strengthen social and economic conditions. In short, the socalled positive rights entitle the state to create an environment in which individuals can live a life that suits human dignity and prevents them from falling into poverty. On the other hand, the third group of rights, active status rights, includes both the guarantee and the extension of the rights to vote and to be elected. In other words, these are the rights that enable political participation (Alexy 2010, 163-173; Gözler 2004, 149-150).

The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights realized at the World Conference on Human Rights (1993) is important because apart from the fact that the first comprehensive debate within the framework of relativity-universality debate was conducted here, the role of rights in the development of economy has been discussed as well (Brown 2006, 700; Freeman 2012, 55; Patricia 1993, 218).

Revolutionary developments towards fundamental rights occurred in England in the 17th century.

English Enlightenment and, especially, John Locke, have an undeniable value in terms of liberal human rights, which is worth to mention here (Brown 2006, 693; Clapham 2007, 6-10; James 2007, 14-16; Vincent 2010, 44-45; Freeman 2012, 20-22). According to him, people have inherent natural rights that they acquire at their birth. These fundamental rights, which are also the core of the current liberal doctrine, are “life, liberty and property” (Heywood 2012, 44).

The socialist movement that became more widespread in the 1848 revolution, the Chartist movement, and the aftermath, laid the groundwork for the emergence of the Welfare state (Briggs 1961, 222; Ishay 2004, 124-126). Chartism was a working class movement, which emerged in 1836 and was most active between 1838 and 1848. The aim of the Chartists was to gain political rights and influence for the working classes. Chartism got its name from the formal petition, or People's Charter, that listed the six main aims of the movement.

In the post-1990 world, the concept of human rights has become one of the most controversial topics.

Issues such as the responsibilities of the international community and how the boundaries between respect for sovereignty and the responsibility to protect should be drawn are just a few issues that are on the agenda today. In addition to this, different theorists of International Relations have analyzed human rights in different forms. In this context, for example, some theories, especially normative, liberal, English school and constructivist approaches to IR, emphasize the importance of human rights in international politics while realist theories ignore human rights.

The question of what the source of rights is has been discussed, in particular, in the literature of law, from past to present. In this context, it is often argued that a source of rights is the law of nature. The acquisition of human rights together with the birth of man has had a broad philosophical support, especially by social contractors. However, there are other explanations with regard to the source of rights. In this line, a number of names, especially Bentham and Hume, have been advocates of positive law, maintain that human-beings rather than natural law create rights. (Cranston 1983, 3-4; Freeman 2012, 32-33; Vincent 2010, 78).

Another important point to be emphasized about human rights is the consideration that the development of human rights is largely Western-centric. In that regard, there is a large body of literature on the universality and locality of human rights (see Clapham 2007, 66; Donnelly 2007, 37-53; Freeman 2012, 126-132). In this sense, for example, the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights realized at the World Conference on Human Rights (1993) is important because apart from the fact that the first comprehensive debate within the framework of relativity-universality debate was conducted here, the role of rights in the development of economy has been discussed as well (Brown 2006, 700; Freeman 2012, 55; Patricia 1993, 218).

The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, emphasized issues such as the universal issue of human rights, the indivisibility of rights and women’s rights, as well as being a first conference in the post-Cold War era.

John Locke, one of the most important figures of English enlightenment, tried to limit the state by declaring life, liberty, and property as intangible rights.

The internationalization of human rights is the result of a long period of time. In this context, the first transnational attempts are some regulations concerning the law of war. Some efforts to tackle intergovernmental relations through international legal arrangements and organizations have been shaped by The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Protocol. Undoubtedly, all these arrangements served as an important cornerstone in the formation of the law of war. With these arrangements, it was aimed to protect the civilians and rules to be followed in the war based on the jus in bello principle within the framework of just war theory (Abele 2011; Brown 2006, 694; Nabulsi 1999, 25).

When evaluated as a whole, it can be argued that policies of international organizations have played an important role in transforming the principle of absolute sovereignty in the face of human rights. In this context, numerous organizations that have introduced the principle of conditionality for the protection of human rights could be mentioned. For example, the European Union effectively implements this principle in the process of membership, while encouraging candidate members to take steps in line with democratization and human rights (Smith 2005; Schimmelfennig 2007; Usul 2011, 43-71).

Unlike realists, who try to read international relations from a perspective of power and security, liberals question the possibilities of cooperation in international relations (Jackson and Sørensen 2010, 96). Liberal theorists, also, emphasize that different entities, including international organizations and non-governmental organizations, are influential at certain levels in the decision-making process of governments. In particular, the emphasis on international organizations is that they are dialogue spaces where misunderstandings are abolished in one way, and the other is that they are the mechanisms that enable the harmonization of interstate interests (Keohane and Martin 1995, 41-42). In this framework, it will be possible for human rights to meet at the level of the state community, largely through the efforts of international institutions. In general, regulations in international institutions result in the emergence of international regimes in the long run. As Keohane describes, regimes are the consequences of contacts that lead to convergence among rational actors on certain issues (Keohane, 2009). Human rights regimes, which are becoming widespread and have a common will to overcome human rights violations, should be considered in this context (Donnelly 1986; Moravcsik 1995; Moravcsik 2000). A more indirect relationship between liberalism and human rights can be established within the framework of democratic peace theology of liberal theory. As a matter of fact, the reluctance of democracies to use force in internal politics, as it is in international politics, is often emphasized. So much so that a broad empirical literature has been built on the sensitivity democracies have in protecting human rights (Davenport 1999; Davenport 2007).