The former asserts that what is to be properly understood as the source of human rights is the natural law theory, “which is concerned with individual autonomy and freedom, and provides a justification for civil and political rights but not for economic, social and cultural rights.”[1] In this sense, the demand for the status of human rights for the economic, social and cultural rights works against the basis of human rights, namely individual autonomy and freedom. As Steiner and Alston summarise it, this view claims that “treating them as rights undermines the enjoyment of individual freedom, distorts the functioning of free markets by justifying state intervention in the economy, and provides an excuse to downgrade the importance of civil and political rights.”[2] The latter argument, on the other hand, claims that, since economic, social and cultural rights are specific to a distinct group of people, they are not universal human rights and cannot in any way be universalized in practice due to factors such as scarcity of resources.

The first argument is refutable even on the grounds on which it is based. If we claim that the modern concept of human rights is solely derived from the writings of natural law theorists such as John Locke, we must have an extremely narrow approach to the subject. The International Bill of Rights was not agreed upon by States simply because they all suddenly decided to agree upon one ideology. What resulted in the International Bill of Rights was an attempt to deal with serious problems and seek solutions for the protection of human dignity. “Human rights, in this sense, is a name given to ‘plural and divergent ideologies’, such that a search for an immutable or universal foundation is bound to fail.”[3] We can thus say that the various ideologies combined in the International Bill of Rights have similar bases, namely the ideas of human dignity, equality, tolerance, etc. Therefore, far from emphasizing only individual autonomy and freedom, the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts the determination “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”[4]

The protection of human dignity must, on the other hand, be viewed as an end in itself. A world in which it is seen as a means to economic prosperity and even subordinated and infringed upon for the sake of this prosperity depicts a sad state of affairs. The relationship between economic prosperity and human dignity must reveal a hierarchy in which economic prosperity is pursued insofar as it is conducive to the dignity of all human beings. Human rights are thus a vehicle for the protection of human dignity. If abstention on the part of the state from infringements on the autonomy of the individual were adequate to ensure that human beings live a dignified life, then the narrowly understood concept of human rights would be sufficient to reach the desired ends. However, threats on human dignity appear from many sides and the relationship between the state and the individual is no longer the only sphere where human dignity is confronted by an antithetical force.

That this is so is nothing radically new in the human rights field. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993 clearly states: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.”[1] The need to realise in practice the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights is seen as one of the main priorities in the human rights field and also as one of the greatest challenges in the global protection of human dignity.