Human Rights as a justification for outlawing forced marriage in the UK

Human Rights as a justification for outlawing forced marriage in the UK

Introduction

Human rights entail two important types of claim: moral and political. Morally, they reflect the idea that all persons are (should be treated as) free and equal. Politically, they entail the demand that society be organized and power exercised in ways consistent with freedom and equality for all; in particular, they demand a society in which freedom and equality are realized through institutionally protected rights. One way in which human rights are protected is through law (and the rule of law); in this sense, human rights claims can also be legal claims, appeals for redress when institutionally recognized rights have been violated.

Marriage is found in virtually all societies, and the majority (some 90%) of people in every society gets married at least once in their lifetime (Carroll & Wolpe, 1996; Ember, Ember, & Peregrine, 2006). Cultures vary with regard to what is considered appropriate premarital behavior, whom one marries, how one marries, a proper marriage ceremony, and length and purpose of the marriage. Each culture also defines marriage differently although there are some common criteria across many societies. Marriage is typically defined simply as a “socially approved sexual and economic union, usually between a woman and a man” (Ember et al., 2006, p. 343), which is generally denoted symbolically in some way (e.g., ceremony, certificate, symbols-rings). Normally, there are reciprocal rights and obligations between the two spouses and their future children. Viewing marriage as a social process where new relationships are set up between the kin of both the husband and the wife essentially describes all forms of marriage. With this, marriage maintains social patterns through the production of offspring.

To characterize human rights principally as moral and political claims is to acknowledge their protean nature. Who counts as a “person”? What kinds of social arrangements are necessary to ensure the freedom and equality of those persons? Theorists and activists have given sometimes radically different answers to these questions over the past four centuries, and there remain no definitive answers. The origins, universality, philosophical foundations, nature, and content of human rights are all contested.

The rights to life and liberty, to freedom of expression and opinion, to participation in government and choice of employment, and to private property and general security in one's person—these are just some of the rights that people around the globe have come to recognize as human rights—those rights that all individuals have simply by virtue of their very humanity; rights that we expect all societies to guarantee to their citizens irrespective of a person's race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ethnicity; rights that we should have no matter where we live or who we are. Understood as universal and inalienable, human rights have come to represent a common standard, a set of international norms against which we measure the actions of governments and the practices of communities. They have come to function as the grounds on which ...