Authored By: Naina Kumari
Abstract
The right to life is the most fundamental human right recognized under international human rights law. Without its protection, the enjoyment of all other rights becomes illusory. This article examines the evolution, scope, and contemporary challenges related to the right to life. It highlights the role of major instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), while exploring judicial interpretations by the UN Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Finally, it analyzes modern threats—including climate change and unlawful killings—and suggests reforms to strengthen this essential right.
1. Introduction
The right to life is widely regarded as the cornerstone of human rights law. It is not merely a legal entitlement but a moral principle forming the basis of human dignity, liberty, and justice. International law recognizes this right as inherent to all human beings, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or status. The primary obligation to protect this right falls upon states, which must ensure that no individual is “arbitrarily deprived of life.”
This right is safeguarded under multiple instruments. Article 3 of the UDHR states: *“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”*¹ Similarly, Article 6 of the ICCPR proclaims that the right to life shall be protected by law and prohibits arbitrary deprivation.²
2. Historical Development
2.1 Pre-modern Foundations
Before the advent of modern international law, protections for life existed within religious and philosophical traditions. Ancient Indian traditions, including texts like the Manusmriti, emphasized the sanctity of life, while Western Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke identified life as an inalienable natural right.³ However, these norms were often enforced inconsistently and lacked the universal mechanism for international enforcement seen today.
2.2 Post-World War II and Treaty-Based Protection
The devastation of World War II and the Holocaust necessitated global human rights standards. The UN Charter (1945) and the subsequent UDHR (1948) marked the first universal codification of the right to life.⁴ The ICCPR (1966) later provided the first binding global treaty, with Article 6 addressing not only the prohibition of killing but also issues of genocide and capital punishment. Regional frameworks—such as the ECHR (Art. 2), the ACHR (Art. 4), and the African Charter (Art. 4)—further localized and strengthened these protections.
3. Legal Basis and Judicial Interpretation
3.1 The “Living Instrument” Doctrine
The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), in General Comment No. 36 (2018), clarified that the right to life should not be interpreted narrowly. It includes protection from environmental degradation and requires states to prevent foreseeable threats.
3.2 Regional Jurisprudence
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): In McCann v. United Kingdom, the Court held that the use of lethal force by state agents must be “absolutely necessary.” In Öneryildiz v. Turkey, it recognized that failing to mitigate environmental hazards can constitute a violation of the right to life.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR): In Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, the Court established state responsibility for “enforced disappearances,” even when committed by non-state actors with state acquiescence.
The African System: In SERAC v. Nigeria, the African Commission linked the right to life to environmental and socio-economic conditions, asserting that a “life” implies a certain quality of existence.
4. Key Components and Contemporary Challenges
The right to life imposes both negative obligations (to refrain from unlawful killing) and positive obligations (to take active steps to protect life).
Duty to Protect: States must implement proper policing, road safety, and medical access.
Capital Punishment: While ICCPR Article 6 allows the death penalty for the “most serious crimes,” the global trend—supported by the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR—moves toward total abolition.
Armed Conflict: During hostilities, the right to life is governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL), specifically the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
Climate Change: As seen in Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands, courts are increasingly viewing climate-related inaction as a threat to the fundamental right to life.
5. Conclusion
The right to life has expanded from a simple prohibition against state-sanctioned killing to a comprehensive right to live with dignity. However, terrorism, police brutality, and the climate crisis continue to test these legal frameworks. Strengthening accountability and modernizing legal interpretations remain crucial to ensuring this right is not merely a theoretical concept, but a lived reality for all.
Voice Preservation: I have maintained the author’s specific focus on regional human rights systems (European, Inter-American, and African) and preserved the philosophical references in the historical section, as these reflect the author’s unique expertise.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SUBMISSIONS
Standardize Citation Style: Use a consistent format (like Bluebook or OSCOLA) for all case law from the first draft to save time in the editing phase.
Use Active Voice for Obligations: When discussing what a State must do, use active verbs (e.g., “States must investigate” rather than “Investigations must be conducted”) to strengthen the legal argument.
Incorporate More Domestic Examples: While the international focus is excellent, citing one or two domestic supreme court cases (beyond Urgenda) can demonstrate how these international norms “trickle down” to local law.
