Human Rights: The Semantic Issues

Lecture by Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev

11 January 2000

The word "right" in English is derived from the Old English "riht", in turn going back to Old German "reht", borrowed from the Latin "rectus" (straight, right) derived from the verb "regere" (to lead straight, to direct, to rule). "Right" has multiple meanings in English; in its adjectival form, it can refer to "righteousness" or being "upright", to something being "genuine", or "conforming with facts or truth", or "being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper." It therefore has connotations of something that is both proper and correct, on the on the one hand, and something that is just and fair.

The term "right" in a legal sense evolved from the Middle Ages and the feudal system; a "right" was what one's proper due was from a lord or vassal (and balanced against the concept of "duty", that which was properly owed to a lord or vassal). "Rights" were those collective obligations, usually spelled out in legal contracts, and (theoretically) enforceable through courts. Over time, the concept evolved from dealing with specific rights enjoyed by specific individuals in specific feudal contracts to more general rights enjoyed by subjects or citizens living under a particular monarch or government and finally to the notion of rights enjoyed by all human beings by virtue of being human.

"Rights", in modern English, therefore, conveys a sense of specific, attainable legal norms which can and should be enforced in society through appropriate institutions.

"Pravo", the term for "right" (singular), is derived from the same roots from which the words "pravilo" (rule, regulation) and "pravda" (truth, justice, righteousness) also originate. As in English, therefore, the Russian word for "rights" (prava, in the plural) also shares this semantic link between terms for rule and for righteousness.

However, unlike as in English, the term "prava" conveys more of a sense of norms or ideals which may not always be realizable in the everyday world or under current situations, in other words, goals to aspire to rather than concrete and practical standards of action. This distinction can also been seen in the difference between "pravda" and "spravedlivost", both terms which can be used for "justice." "Pravda", however, refers to an eternal justice, God's justice, an ideal and perfect justice, whereas "spravedlivost" refers to everyday, human justice, which may be in error from time to time and may not always approximate true "pravda". The ideological rather than practical nature of human rights can also been seen in the way the term "human rights" is rendered in Russian: prava cheloveka--the rights of The Person, or the Rights of Man--in other words, the ideal rights enjoyed by the ideal, abstract person, rather than, as in English, "human rights", a collective of legal norms.

Classical Chinese political thought did not speak of rights. Instead, the emphasis was on propriety or proper action, of remaining within the bounds of correctness (summed up by the term "zheng"). Linked to this concept was that of "jen", or humanity, humaneness. Governments, therefore, conducting themselves according to "zheng" and "jen" would, in theory, protect and care for those under their jurisdiction without oppression or tyranny.

In modern Chinese, the term to translate "human rights" is "renquan". The derivation of this word is quite important. It is a compound word derived from "human being" (ren) and "power" (quan). The implication, therefore, is that human rights are linked with questions of power, in essence, those things which the people have successfully taken or obtained as their own through the exercise of power, especially political power.

Thus, when Americans, Russians, and Chinese all discuss "human rights", there may be important philosophical differences among them in their understanding of what these rights consist of and how they are to be applied in society. Americans might tend to see these rights as concrete socio-political and legal norms; Russians as ideals for which a society might strive to realize; Chinese as the defined boundaries between the power of the individual and of groups in society, on the one hand, and the government on the other. Americans might see human rights as a humanitarian issue, a matter of implementation of absolute and clear standards, for which all states in the international community have an obligation to carry out; whereas Chinese might be more inclined to see in the whole question of "human rights" a jostling for power among states. Russians might be more sensitive to the question of applicability and practical realization within the contexts of a given society and culture, and less likely to insist upon immediate compliance.