Authored By: Naina Kumari
Abstract
The right to life is the most fundamental human right recognised under international human rights law. Without its protection, the enjoyment of all other rights becomes meaningless. This article examines the evolution, scope, and contemporary challenges related to the right to life under international law. It highlights the role of major human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and regional human rights systems. The article also explores judicial interpretations by international and regional courts, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Finally, it analyses modern threats—such as armed conflict, terrorism, 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 that forms the basis of human dignity, liberty, and justice. International human rights law recognises this right as inherent to all human beings, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or any other status. The obligation to protect this right falls upon states, which must ensure that no individual is arbitrarily deprived of life.
The right to life is safeguarded under multiple international instruments. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[1] Similarly, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) proclaims that the right to life shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.[2]
This article critically analyses the legal dimensions of the right to life in international law, with emphasis on its evolution, judicial interpretation, limitations, and contemporary challenges.
2. Historical Development of the Right to Life in International Law
2.1 Pre-Modern Developments
Before modern international law, protections for life existed in religious texts and philosophical traditions. For example, ancient Indian legal texts such as the Manusmriti emphasised the value of life, while Western philosophers like John Locke identified life as a natural right.[3] However, these norms were often enforced inconsistently and primarily applied within domestic contexts, lacking international recognition.
2.2 Post-World War II Era
The devastation caused by World War II, including the Holocaust, created an urgent demand for international human rights standards. The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 paved the way for codifying fundamental rights at a global level. The UDHR of 1948 marked the first universal and comprehensive statement of human rights, including the right to life.[4]
2.3 Treaty-Based Protection
The ICCPR, adopted in 1966, became the first binding global treaty providing detailed protection of the right to life. Article 6 not only prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life but also addresses issues such as genocide and capital punishment.
Regional frameworks later expanded these protections:
— European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 2
— American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), Article 4
— African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 4
These instruments collectively reflect a universal consensus on protecting the right to life.
3. Legal Basis of the Right to Life
3.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 3 of the UDHR declares the right to life a fundamental entitlement without limitations. Although the UDHR is not legally binding as a treaty, it has achieved the status of customary international law.
3.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 6 of the ICCPR is the most significant legal provision on the right to life. It obliges states to protect the right to life through law, prevent arbitrary deprivation, regulate the use of force, and ensure accountability for violations.
The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has emphasised that the right to life should not be interpreted narrowly but includes the right to live with dignity.
3.3 Regional Instruments
a. European Convention on Human Rights
Article 2 of the ECHR provides one of the strongest international protections for the right to life, permitting only narrowly defined exceptions, such as self-defence and lawful arrest.
b. Inter-American System
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights interprets Article 4 of the American Convention broadly and has found states liable in cases involving forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
c. African System
Article 4 of the African Charter protects life and dignity, with strong emphasis on non-discrimination and respect for human worth.
4. Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Life
4.1 UN Human Rights Committee (HRC)
In General Comment No. 36 (2018), the HRC clarified that the right to life includes protection from environmental degradation, that states must prevent foreseeable threats to life, and that deprivation of life is unlawful even during emergencies.
In Aumeeruddy-Cziffra v. Mauritius,[5] the Committee stressed that discriminatory laws indirectly impacting life violate Article 6.
4.2 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
The ECtHR has developed extensive jurisprudence on the right to life. In McCann and Others v. United Kingdom,[6] the Court held that the use of lethal force must be absolutely necessary. In Öneryildiz v. Turkey,[7] the Court recognised environmental hazards as threats to life. In Kılıç v. Turkey,[8] the Court required states to conduct an effective investigation into killings carried out by state agents.
4.3 Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The Court expanded the right to life in Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras,[9] establishing state responsibility for forced disappearances, and in the Street Children Case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala),[10] holding that states must take positive measures to protect vulnerable groups.
4.4 African Commission and Court
Cases such as Social and Economic Rights Action Centre v. Nigeria[11] linked the right to life with environmental and socio-economic rights.
These judicial interpretations demonstrate that the right to life is not limited to prohibiting killing but extends to ensuring life with dignity.
5. Key Components of the Right to Life
5.1 Prohibition of Arbitrary Deprivation of Life
This prohibition encompasses extrajudicial executions, custodial deaths, disproportionate use of force, and deaths resulting from the negligence of state authorities. International law requires accountability and independent investigation in all such cases.
5.2 Duty to Protect Life
States must take positive measures to protect life, including proper policing, road safety legislation, regulation of industrial activities, ensuring access to medical care, and preventing domestic violence and honour killings.
5.3 Capital Punishment
Article 6 of the ICCPR permits the death penalty only for the “most serious crimes.” However, global trends show a clear movement towards abolition. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1989) aims at the worldwide abolition of capital punishment.[12]
5.4 Right to Life in Armed Conflict
During armed conflict, the right to life interacts with international humanitarian law (IHL). Civilians must not be targeted, and military operations must adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Violations of these principles may constitute war crimes.
5.5 Environmental Dimension
International courts increasingly recognise that environmental harm—including pollution, climate change, and toxic waste—can constitute a threat to life. Cases such as Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands[13] have significantly expanded this interpretation.
6. Contemporary Threats to the Right to Life
6.1 Terrorism
Terrorism poses a grave threat to civilians worldwide. States must combat terrorism while ensuring that counter-terrorism measures do not themselves violate the right to life. Unlawful killings, torture, and enforced disappearances cannot be justified even on national security grounds.
6.2 Police Brutality and Excessive Use of Force
Global incidents of police violence highlight persistent failures of state responsibility. International law demands strict use-of-force rules, enhanced accountability mechanisms, and transparency measures such as the use of body cameras.
6.3 Armed Conflict and Internal Violence
Civil wars and insurgencies result in massive loss of civilian lives. Both IHL and international human rights law continue to apply during armed conflict, subject only to strictly limited derogations in emergency situations.
6.4 Climate Change
Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and environmental pollution pose serious and growing threats to human life. States bear an obligation under international law to implement environmental protection measures to safeguard the right to life.
6.5 Public Health Crises
Pandemics and health emergencies require the maintenance of adequate healthcare systems. The failure to provide essential medical services may amount to a violation of the right to life.
7. State Obligations Under International Law
7.1 Respect
States must refrain from unlawfully taking life.
7.2 Protect
States must prevent third parties from harming individuals within their jurisdiction.
7.3 Fulfil
States must create legal and institutional frameworks that ensure safety, access to healthcare, and environmental protection.
7.4 Accountability
States must investigate violations, prosecute perpetrators, and provide adequate compensation to victims.
8. Limitations and Derogations
Some human rights may be restricted during public emergencies, but the right to life is non-derogable under Article 4 of the ICCPR. This means that states cannot suspend this right even during war, rebellion, or national crisis. The absolute nature of this protection reflects the fundamental status of life as the precondition for the enjoyment of all other rights.
9. Conclusion
The right to life remains the most essential human right in international law. Its interpretation has expanded significantly over time, covering not only freedom from arbitrary killing but also positive state obligations relating to dignity, environmental protection, health, and security. Nevertheless, serious challenges persist in the form of terrorism, armed conflicts, the climate crisis, state violence, and systemic inequalities in healthcare.
Strengthening accountability mechanisms, enhancing international cooperation, and modernising legal frameworks are crucial steps toward ensuring that every human being enjoys this fundamental right fully and equally.
References
[1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 3 (1948).
[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 6, opened for signature Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976).
[3] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (1689).
[4] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
[5] Aumeeruddy-Cziffra v. Mauritius, Communication No. 35/1978, UN Doc. CCPR/C/12/D/35/1978 (1981).
[6] McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, App. No. 18984/91, 21 EHRR 97 (1995).
[7] Öneryildiz v. Turkey, App. No. 48939/99, 41 EHRR 20 (2004).
[8] Kılıç v. Turkey, App. No. 22492/93 (ECtHR, 2000).
[9] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).
[10] Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala (Street Children Case), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 63 (1999).
[11] Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) v. Nigeria, Communication No. 155/96, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2001).
[12] Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, G.A. Res. 44/128, UN Doc. A/RES/44/128 (1989).
[13] Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands, Supreme Court of the Netherlands, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (2019).
