The goal of FiveBecomings (Pañchabhūmi)^[1] projects is to restore the interconnected wellbeing of diverse humans and ecologies across all bioregions. Aspects of the multi-faceted local and global impact of FiveBecomings projects can be understood from several established lenses, including (a) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)^[2], (b) the rights framework (e.g., human rights and ecological rights), (c) climate resilience/stabilization^[3], and (d) ecosystem services^[4]. This series of articles elucidates the lens of human rights and presents a brief analysis of the impact of FiveBecomings projects from this perspective.

Human Rights in Historical Context

Human rights in international law is a relatively recent development. Their roots lie in European intellectual traditions but are also shaped by struggles of Euro (of European descent) and non-Euro peoples against domination, exploitation, and inequality across the world. Early antecedents include the eighteenth-century rights discourse of the American and French revolutions, but these proclamations coexisted with transatlantic slavery and colonial expansion. The abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century marked one of the first global campaigns linking (Judeo-Christian) moral claims to universal human dignity with political action, though enforcement was uneven and still tied to imperial interests.^[5]

The Industrial Revolution brought new forms of exploitation, particularly in Europe, where child labor, dangerous factory conditions, and extreme economic inequality provoked demands for reform. This gave rise to early labor rights movements and, eventually, to institutions like the International Labour Organization (ILO), founded in 1919, which recognized that peace was inseparable from social justice. By the early twentieth century, international law included some humanitarian protection, but its framework reflected the geopolitical reality of empire. The majority of the world remained under European colonial rule, and calls for self-determination from colonized peoples were excluded from formal recognition. Thus, while human rights discourse advanced, it was still largely Eurocentric and limited in scope, treating colonized subjects as outside the realm of universal rights.

The League of Nations

The League of Nations (“the League”), established in 1920, was the first attempt at ‘global’  governance after World War I. Championed by U.S. and European powers, it introduced minority protection treaties and the mandate system, but was not truly international.^[6] Most of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East remained colonized and excluded from decision-making. The mandate system claimed to oversee former colonies of defeated powers, but in practice reinforced imperial domination in 'legal' form. The League’s minority treaties offered some protection in Europe but excluded colonial populations. Its framework reflected a hierarchy: European nations and Euro settler states were treated as equals, while colonized regions were under paternalistic Euro supervision. In addition, the League was an entity where labor rights and humanitarian issues emerged through cooperation with the ILO. Yet it failed to address systemic inequalities of empire and proved incapable of preventing aggression in the 1930s in Europe (notably, events leading up to World War II), exposing the League's structural imbalance of power.

The United Nations

The collapse of the League of Nations during the Second World War led to the founding of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. The initiative came from the Allied victors of World War II, namely the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, China, and, later, France. These five nations institutionalized their dominance through permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, a body that still remains the only UN organ whose resolutions are binding under international law. By contrast, the General Assembly, whose voting members comprise all recognized (essentially by the Security Council) nations of the world seeking to be members, can pass declarations and recommendations. However, these carry, at best, political, not legal force.

From its inception, the UN held itself out as universal, but most of the world was still colonized in 1945. Early human rights initiatives, including the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), were heavily influenced by Euro legal and political traditions, though contributions from Latin American, Asian, and, later, African states gradually expanded the breadth of the conversation. Decolonization in the 1950s–1970s brought a transformative wave of newly independent states into the General Assembly, shifting the global agenda (not necessarily reflecting the Security Council's agenda) toward self-determination, racial equality, and anti-colonial justice.

The UN also institutionalized the work of the ILO, connecting human rights to the struggles of labor movements worldwide. This linked the human rights framework to broader demands for social justice, including protection against exploitation of workers and recognition of economic and social rights. Environmental concerns entered the human rights discourse later, particularly with the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, which recognized the interdependence of human dignity, development, and ecological wellbeing. This laid the early groundwork for later discussions that connected ecological rights with human rights, a theme particularly relevant to the multi-aspected and -dimensional ethos of FiveBecomings projects.

Seminal International Human Rights Documents

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948, UDHR)

The adoption of the UDHR in 1948 is a milestone in the articulation of human dignity after the atrocities of the Second World War. It set out, for the first time, a comprehensive list of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights meant to apply to all people. However, the UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly as a declaration, meaning that it does not carry binding legal authority on nations under international law. While the UDHR has profoundly influenced constitutions, national laws, and treaties, states cannot be legally prosecuted for violations on the basis of the UDHR alone. Its power lies primarily in its symbolic and normative force rather than enforceable obligations.

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966, ICESCR)

In 1966, the ICESCR transformed many of the UDHR’s aspirational commitments into binding treaty obligations for ratifying states. The ICESCR guarantees rights to food, education, work, health, and an adequate standard of living, thereby recognizing that human dignity requires not only freedom from oppression but also material security. Yet the reach of the ICESCR has always been limited by uneven ratification. The United States, for example, signed but never ratified the Covenant, which means that there is no 'legal' mechanism to hold this settler nation accountable for failing to uphold one or more provisions of the ICESCR. This fact underscores the structural weakness of international human rights law: the effectiveness of a Covenant or Treaty depends entirely on the political will of states to bind themselves to its obligations.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007, UNDRIP)

The UNDRIP, adopted in 2007 after decades of advocacy, affirms the collective rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination, land, culture, and development. It represents a historic acknowledgment of Indigenous struggles against dispossession, marginalization, and cultural erasure. However, like the UDHR, UNDRIP is a declaration by the General Assembly, and therefore does not have binding legal force under international law. Its implementation relies on voluntary state compliance, and many states with large Indigenous populations have been reluctant to fully incorporate its standards into domestic law. 

How Do We Move from Historical Limitations of Human Rights to Broader Applications?

The history of international human rights law shows both achievements and limitations. Treaties and declarations have expanded the recognition of rights across many domains, but global governance has often privileged dominant states, notably Euro states. The distinction between binding covenants and non-binding declarations remains central in assessing the effectiveness of protections. The next part of this series examines categories of human rights and how they can be understood within the integrated framework of FiveBecomings projects.

[1] K. Mitra, Restoring the Interconnected Wellbeing of Humans and Ecologies Through FiveBecomings, Ecosymbionts all Regenerate Together (EaRTh): DOI-EaRTh082025-010 (26 Aug., 2025).

[2] S. Mukherjee & K. Mitra, The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Lens: Understanding FiveBecomings Project Impact, Ecosymbionts all Regenerate Together (EaRTh): DOI-EaRTh082025-014 (12 Sep., 2025).

[3] S. Mukherjee & K. Mitra, The Climate Resilience/Stabilization Lens: Understanding FiveBecomings Project Impact, Ecosymbionts all Regenerate Together (EaRTh): DOI-EaRTh082025-011 (11 Sep., 2025).

[4] S. Mukherjee & K. Mitra, The Ecosystem Services Lens: Understanding FiveBecomings Project Impact, Ecosymbionts all Regenerate Together (EaRTh): DOI-EaRTh082025-005 (28 Aug., 2025).

[5] J.S. Martinez, Human Rights and History, Harvard Law Review: Vol. 126, pp. 221-240 (2013).

[6] D.L. Shelton, An Introduction to the History of International Human Rights Law, GW Law Faculty Publications: No. 1052, pp. 11-13 (2007).