The Issue of Collective Rights versus Individual Rights

A prominent issue in human rights is the between collective rights and individual rights. Collective rights protect a group of people, while individual rights protect the individual. It is especially important to take into account both collective and individual rights when condemning certain "violations" of human rights.

The case of child labour effectively demonstrates the clash between the two concepts. It is possible for one to vehemently advocate higher pay and safer work conditions for the children in a third world country as a group, yet how can one argue that the single option represents a solution for each individual? It would be preposterous to simply dismiss the sometimes brutal exploitation of children as merely innocuous. Child labour is a very serious problem in many third world countries. In general, they are used for low skill and labour intensive jobs, such as agriculture, mining, food processing, and manufacturing good such as carpets, garments and furniture. In his article, The Use of Child Labor Violates Human Rights, Bruce Weiner reports that it "is estimated that there are over 2.5 million children working in Indonesia, in spite of an unemployment rate for adults of over 30% and a federal minimum wage of only $2.25". Employers prefer children as they are more obedient than their adult counterparts, and less likely to complain about their poor treatment. There have been reports of children not receiving their promised pay. As the children are unable to receive a proper education, it is difficult for them to rectify their situation. There is a wide range of opinions from the condemners of child labour; some support putting a halt to the more unfair forms of child labour, such as prostitution and working in hazardous conditions, while others call for immediately abolishing child labour.
Yet one must also take the viewpoints of the affected individuals into consideration. In 1992, Senator Tom Harkin of the United States introduced a congressional bill that would disallow the importing of goods produced by child labour. Factories in Bangladesh, a major producer of garments for the United States, were shut down as child labour was discovered on the premises. The ramifications of the bill were almost instantaneous, as "50 000 children lost their jobs because of the Harkin Bill". As little as the children were earning, it enabled them to financially support their families. Many of the child workers were satisfied with their payment, and enjoyed the special working status that they held. Following the layoffs, employment was not easily found, and many children were left in dire situations. Sure, the actions of Senator Harkin were well intentioned, but in passing the bill, he fought for the collective rights of the children, neglecting the rights of the individual.

The Western world is becoming more involved with human rights violations in poorer countries. As a result, the decisions and actions of the powerful nations have a large impact on the affected people. To the individual, protecting the rights of a group may very well lead to short-term hardships. At the same time however, such radical action may be required to truly ameliorate the collective situation. Regardless, it remains important to consider both individual and collective rights. Only then can one fairly pass judgement on an issue without jeopardizing the wellbeing of an individual or an entire group.