Civil Rights Versus Human Rights

I'd like to explore the relationship and differences between civil rights and human rights. This will be a more philosophical post than usual, and should provide an important framework for considering policy issues you may come across in the future.

Human rights are rights that every person has for their entire life. Civil rights are bestowed upon people by governments upon entering their territory. Human rights are fundamentally based on a moral or religious code, whereas civil rights are based upon a constitutional or legal code-- at least, that's my simplistic way to distinguish them. Of course, attaining consensus on these rights is a continuous challenge.

The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The Declaration consists of 30 articles and is definitely worth reading in full.In the United States, probably because so much of our country's early history and identity was centered on the Constitution, civil rights have taken a more prominent role than elsewhere. Some of the most vivid eras of our national history are the civil rights movements. Nearly every generation has witnessed, or is witnessing, the expansion of civil rights.

Currently disabilities rights are being treated as a civil right in the US, while elsewhere the issue is approached from a human rights perspective. The same might be said for issues like health care and employment.

Personally, a lot of what draws me to public policy is my tendency to take a wide view of human rights. This may be my Catholic background speaking. It also seems, with all the talk of globalization and the international economy, that a notion of rights which stop at legal borders is unsustainable.

Atlanta played a crucial role in the Civil Rights Movement from 1940 to 1970. The Center for Civil & Human Rights is slated to open in Atlanta later this year and should provide interesting resources and events to contribute to this discussion.