The Dark Side Of Human Rights By Onora O Neill

In “The Dark Side of Human Rights,” Onora O'Neill holds that rights to goods and services require that the good or service is guaranteed, which entails that someone is responsible to supply them. For example, with rights to food and health care the accountable individuals are “the farmer and the physician” (O'Neill 427). These rights contrast liberty rights, which are negative and include rights preventing physical harm and interference. Liberty rights demand that first-order obligations (to respect them) be universal, and second-order obligations (to guarantee they are respected) be particular (428). Until the obligations associated with rights to goods and services are clarified, the question remains: “what is required of the farmer, the physician and others who actually have to provide food and health care?” (429). The fear is that, without “counterpart obligations,” these rights lack normative power and are “merely aspirational” (430).

The result is unappealing for a normative account of human rights, as both the rights and the obligations become “special, not universal” (431). However, O'Neill identifies the “deepest problem” to be that the obligations attributed to states are second-order, namely to “secure” the respect of liberty rights and “ensure” the fulfilment of rights to goods and services (433). The issue is that first-order obligations are the counterparts of the rights described instead (434). She argues that the state relegates first-order obligations to individuals, who become the “beneficiaries” of obligations while bearing their “burden” (436). Ultimately, she voices concern that overburdening 'the farmer and the physician' may diminish both their willingness of provide their respective services and the quality of their labour