Supply (economics), the amount of a product which is available to customers

Supply, as in confidence and supply, the provision of funds for government expenditure

Narcissistic supply, the way in which a narcissistic individual requires affirmation, approval, and admiration from others in the same way as the infant requires an external supply of food

Materiel, the goods and equipment for a military unit to fulfill its mission

it:Supply

Human rights are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law. The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and the activities of non-governmental organizations has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. It has been said that: "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights continue to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a "right" is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.

Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the ''Universal Declaration of Human Rights'' in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights. Ancient societies had "elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights". The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics. The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

From this foundation, the modern human rights movement emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.

}}

Theory

History

Coordinates	34°03′″N118°15′″N
Document name	The Bill of Rights
Image width	200px
Date created	1689
Date ratified	16 December 1689
Location of document	National Archives of the United Kingdom
Writer	Parliament of England
Purpose	Ensure certain freedoms and ensure a Protestant political supremacy. }}

The modern sense of human rights can be traced to Renaissance Europe and the Protestant Reformation, alongside the disappearance of the feudal authoritarianism and religious conservativism that dominated the Middle Ages. Human rights were defined as a result of European scholars attempting to form a "secularized version of Judeo-Christian ethics". Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed in some form for much of human history, they do not resemble the modern conception of human rights. According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, "traditional societies typically have had elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different formulations of, human rights". The concept of universal human rights was not known in the ancient world, not in Ancient Greece and Rome, Ancient India, Ancient China, nor among the Hebrews; slavery, for instance, was justified in ancient times as a natural condition. Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights: they instead constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being mythologized in the course of early modern debates about rights.

The basis of most modern legal interpretations of human rights can be traced back to recent European history. The Twelve Articles (1525) are considered to be the first record of human rights in Europe. They were part of the peasants' demands raised towards the Swabian League in the German Peasants' War in Germany. In Spain in 1542 Bartolomé de Las Casas argued against Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in the famous Valladolid debate, Sepúlveda mainted an Aristotelian view of humanity as divided into classes of different worth, while Las Casas argued in favor of equal rights to freedom of slavery for all humans regardless of race or religion. In Britain in 1683, the English Bill of Rights (or "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown") and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which established certain legal rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and G.W.F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The term ''human rights'' probably came into use some time between Paine's ''The Rights of Man'' and William Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in ''The Liberator'', in which he stated that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights".

In the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery. A number of reformers, such as William Wilberforce in Britain, worked towards the abolition of slavery. This was achieved in the British Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In the United States, all the northern states had abolished the institution of slavery between 1777 and 1804, although southern states clung tightly to the "peculiar institution". Conflict and debates over the expansion of slavery to new territories constituted one of the reasons for the southern states' secession and the American Civil War. During the reconstruction period immediately following the war, several amendments to the United States Constitution were made. These included the 13th amendment, banning slavery, the 14th amendment, assuring full citizenship and civil rights to all people born in the United States, and the 15th amendment, guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote.

Many groups and movements have achieved profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labor. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the African American Civil Rights Movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States.

The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian law, to be further developed following the two World Wars.

The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place during them, were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments. The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the end of World War I. The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation and diplomacy, and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the League's role; this was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an important role in international human-rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars, the United Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law that now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

Philosophy

The philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights have become a part of social expectations.

One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls) – a social contract. The two theories that dominate contemporary human rights discussion are the interest theory and the will theory. Interest theory argues that the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain essential human interests, while will theory attempts to establish the validity of human rights based on the unique human capacity for freedom. The strong claims made by human rights to universality have led to persistent criticism. Philosophers who have criticized the concept of human rights include Jeremy Bentham, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. Political philosophy professor Charles Blattberg argues that discussion of human rights, being abstract, demotivates people from upholding the values that rights are meant to affirm.

Classification of human rights

Human rights can be classified and organized in a number of different ways, at an international level the most common categorisation of human rights has been to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.

Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Indivisibility

The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the ''full belly thesis'').

The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121).

Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights.

Categorization

Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be:

''positive'', meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights)

''resource-intensive'', meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide

''progressive'', meaning that they will take significant time to implement

''vague'', meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge

''ideologically divisive/political'', meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right

''socialist'', as opposed to capitalist

''non-justiciable'', meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law

''aspirations or goals'', as opposed to real 'legal' rights

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

''negative'', meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action

''cost-free''

''immediate'', meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to

''precise'', meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure

''non-ideological/non-political''

''capitalist''

''justiciable''

''real 'legal' rights''

Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Among several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.

Three generations

Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are ''three generations of human rights'': first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), second-generation economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:

}}

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights:

}}

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."

International protection

In the aftermath of the atrocities of World War II there was increased concern in the social and legal protection of human rights as fundamental freedoms. The foundation of the United Nations and the provisions of the United Nations Charter would provide a basis for a comprehensive system of international law and practise for the protection of human rights. The term "international human rights law" is often used as a category of reference to describe these systems, but this can be a source of confusion as there is no separate entity as "international human rights law" but an interlocking system of non-binding conventions, international treaties, domestic law, international organisations and political bodies ..

United Nations Charter

The provisions of the United Nations charter provided a basis for the development of international human rights protection. The preamble of the charter provides that the members "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the equal rights of men and women" and Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter states that one of the purposes of the UN is: "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Article 55 provides that: Of particular importance is Article 56 of the charter:"All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55." This is a binding treaty provision applicable to both the Organisation and its members and has been taken to constitute a legal obligation for the members of the United Nations. Overall, the references to human rights in the Charter are general and vague. The Charter does not contain specific legal rights, nor does it mandate any enforcement procedures to protect these rights. Despite this, the significance of the espousal of human rights within the UN charter must not be understated. The importance of human rights on the global stage can be traced to the importance of human rights within the United Nations framework and the UN Charter can be seen as the starting point for the development of a broad array of declarations, treaties, implementation and enforcement mechanisms, UN organs, committees and reports on the protection of human rights. The rights espoused in the UN charter would be codified and defined in the International Bill of Human Rights, composing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and other judiciaries. The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an ''International Bill of Rights'' in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority. Canadian law professor John Humphrey and French lawyer René Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized. Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:

Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. The inclusion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights was predicated on the assumption that all human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.); however, this principle was later subject to significant challenges.

The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into treaties, a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and another on social, economic, and cultural rights, due to questions about the relevance and propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on human rights. Both covenants begin with the right of people to self-determination and to sovereignty over their natural resources. This debate over whether human rights are more fundamental than economic rights has continued to the present day.

The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were also proposed. The disagreement over which rights were basic human rights resulted in there being two covenants. The debate was whether economic and social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic human rights which all people possess purely by being human, because economic and social rights depend on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and economic rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories, in contrast to basic human rights, which are defined purely by the nature (mental and physical abilities) of human beings. It was debated whether economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations and whether the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of political-civil rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights.

This debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human-rights law led to the two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries had argued for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called ''Unity Resolution''. Both covenants allowed states to derogate some rights. Those in favor of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.

Treaties

In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have signed this treaty, creating human-rights law.

Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level. They are generally known as ''human rights instruments''. Some of the most significant, referred to (with ICCPR and ICESCR) as "the seven core treaties", are:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (adopted 1979, entry into force: 1981)

United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into force: 2008)

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into force: 2003)

Customary international law

In addition to protection by international treaties, some human rights may be protected by customary international law through the practise of states. The prohibition of torture, genocide and slavery and the principle of non-discrimination may be regarded as prohibited by customary international law.

International Humanitarian Law

The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in armed conflict, and build on the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions were revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.

United Nations System

Under the mandate of the UN charter, the and the multilateral UN human rights treaties, the United Nations (UN) as an intergovernmental body seeks to apply international jurisdiction for universal human-rights legislation. Within the UN machinery, human-rights issues are primarily the concern of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different human-rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN in the sphere of human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate to:

Political Bodies

General Assembly

The general Assembly of the United Nations, Under Article 13 of the UN Charter, the general assembly has the power to initiate studies and make recommendations on human rights issues. Under this provision, the general assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and since then a wide variety of other human rights instruments. The assembly has several subsidiary organs that deal with specific human rights issues, such as the Special Committee on Decolonisation and the Special Commission against Apartheid (no longer operational). In addition the general assembly has set up a number of subsidiary organs that consider human rights issues in a number of high-profile contexts: such as the UN Council on Namibia, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practises in the Occupied territories and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable rights of the Palestine People.

Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit to replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of human rights. The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly and reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter. Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations.

Independent experts (''rapporteurs'') are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human rights abuses and to provide the Council with reports.

The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council take action when human rights violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the Security Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.

The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of force. It has been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur crisis, the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide. For example, critics blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security Council for its failure regarding.

On April 28, 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1674 that reaffirmed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and committed the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

Treaty Bodies

In addition to the political bodies whose mandate flows from the UN charter, the UN has set up a number of ''treaty-based'' bodies, comprising committees of independent experts who monitor compliance with human rights standards and norms flowing from the core international human rights treaties. They are supported by and are created by the treaty that they monitor, With the exception of the the CESCR, which was established under a resolution of the Economic and Social Council to carry out the monitoring functions originally assigned to that body under the Covenant, they are technically autonomous bodies, established by the treaties that they monitor and accountable to the state parties of those treaties - rather than subsidiary to the United Nations. Though in practise they are closely intertwined with the United Nations system and are supported by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) and the UN Center for Human Rights.

The ''Human Rights Committee'' promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The eighteen members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make judgments on individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional Protocol to the treaty. The judgments, termed "views", are not legally binding.

The ''Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights'' monitors the ICESCR and makes general comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to receive complaints against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has come into force. It is important to note that unlike the other treaty bodies, the economic committee is not an autonomous body responsible to the treaty parties, but directly responsible to the Economic and Social Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. This means that the Economic Committee faces particular difficulties at its disposal only relatively "weak" means of implementation in comparison to other treaty bodies. Particular difficulties noted by commentators include: perceived vagueness of the principles of the treaty, relative lack of legal texts and decisions, ambivalence of many states in addressing economic, social and cultural rights, comparatively few non-governmental organisations focused on the area and problems with obtaining relevant and precise information.

The ''Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination'' monitors the CERD and conducts regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgments on complaints against member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to prevent serious contraventions of the convention.

The ''Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women'' monitors the CEDAW. It receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make judgments on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol.

The ''Committee Against Torture'' monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and inspect countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.

The ''Committee on the Rights of the Child'' monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.

The ''Committee on Migrant Workers'' was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it.

The ''Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities'' was established in 2008 to monitor the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive complaints against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City.

Regional human rights regimes

International human rights regime's are in several cases "nested" within more comprehensive and overlapping regional agreements. These regional regimes can be seen as relatively independently coherent human rights sub-regimes. Three principle regional human rights instruments can be identified, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights has since 1950 defined and guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed the Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Non-Governmental Actors

Non-governmental Organizations

International non-governmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights and FIDH monitor what they see as human rights issues around the world and promote their views on the subject. Human rights organizations have been said to ""translate complex international issues into activities to be undertaken by concerned citizens in their own community". Human rights organizations frequently engage in lobbying and advocacy in an effort to convince the United Nations, supranational bodies and national governments to adopt their policies on human rights. Many human-rights organizations have observer status at the various UN bodies tasked with protecting human rights. A new (in 2009) nongovernmental human-rights conference is the Oslo Freedom Forum, a gathering described by The Economist as "on its way to becoming a human-rights equivalent of the Davos economic forum." The same article noted that human-rights advocates are more and more divided amongst themselves over how violations of human rights are to be defined, notably as regards the Middle East.

There is criticism of human-rights organisations who use their status but allegedly move away from their stated goals. For example, Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israel-based academic, maintains that NGOs take advantage of a "halo effect" and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the media. Such critics claim that this may be seen at various governmental levels, including when human-rights groups testify before investigation committees.

Human Rights Defenders

Human rights defender is a term used to describe people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights. Human rights defenders (HRDs) are those men and women who act peacefully for the promotion and protection of those rights.

Corporations

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses. Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined. Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

}}

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft ''Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights''. These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.

Human rights violations

Human rights violations occur when actions by state (or non-state) actors abuse, ignore, or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social, and economic rights). Furthermore, violations of human rights can occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to human rights violations of United Nations laws, Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations.

Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws.

Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations.

In efforts to eliminate violations of human rights, building awareness and protesting inhumane treatment has often led to calls for action and sometimes improved conditions. The UN Security Council has interceded with peace keeping forces, and other states and treaties (NATO) have intervened in situations to protect human rights.

Substantive Rights

Right to life

The right to life describes the essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, self defense and war. According to many human rights activists, the death penalty violates this right. The United Nations has called on retentionist states to establish a moratorium on capital punishment with a view to its abolition. States which do not do so face considerable moral and political pressure.

Freedom from torture

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, and coercion. In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as in the Moors murders.

Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries in the 21st century. It is considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 147 states.

National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical. Despite these international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights (e.g. Amnesty International, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims) report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture, some of them openly.

Freedom from slavery

Freedom from slavery is an internationally recognized human right. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: }}

Despite this, the number of slaves today is higher than at any point in history, remaining as high as 12 million to 27 million, Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations. Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries.

Groups such as the American Anti-Slavery Group, Anti-Slavery International, Free the Slaves, the Anti-Slavery Society, and the Norwegian Anti-Slavery Society continue to campaign to rid the world of slavery.

Right to a fair trial

}}

The right to a fair trial has been defined in numerous regional and international human rights instruments. It is one of the most extensive human rights and all international human rights instruments enshrine it in more than one article. The right to a fair trial is one of the most litigated human rights and substantial case law has been established on the interpretation of this human right. Despite variations in wording and placement of the various fair trial rights, international human rights instrument define the right to a fair trial in broadly the same terms. The aim of the right is to ensure the proper administration of justice. As a minimum the right to fair trial includes the following fair trial rights in civil and criminal proceedings:

the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal

the right to a public hearing

the right to be heard within a reasonable time

the right to counsel

the right to interpretation

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on libel, slander, obscenity, incitement to commit a crime, etc. The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion are closely related rights that protect the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to think and freely hold conscientious beliefs and to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. The freedom to ''leave'' or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International organises campaigns to protect those arrested and or incarcerated as a prisoner of conscience because of their conscientious beliefs, particularly concerning intellectual, political and artistic freedom of expression and association. In legislation, a conscience clause is a provision in a statute that excuses a health professional from complying with the law (for example legalising surgical or pharmaceutical abortion) if it is incompatible with religious or conscientious beliefs.

Rights debates

Events and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances of technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo of human rights thinking.

Future generations

In 1997 UNESCO adopted the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation. The Declaration opens with the words:

Article 1 of the declaration states "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring that the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded." The preamble to the declaration states that "at this point in history, the very existence of humankind and its environment are threatened" and the declaration covers a variety of issues including protection of the environment, the human genome, biodiversity, cultural heritage, peace, development, and education. The preamble recalls that the responsibilities of the present generations towards future generations has been referred to in various international instruments, including the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (World Conference on Human Rights, 1993) and a number of UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the protection of the global climate for present and future generations adopted since 1990.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights

LGBT rights are rights that relate to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression based on the right to respect for private life and the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of “other status” as defined in various human rights conventions, such as article 17 and 26 in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 8 and article 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Through the way many because of their religious beliefs claim that they support human rights in general while denying that LGBT rights are human rights, LGBT rights stand prominent in the very defense of the universal principle of the human rights. If human rights are understood in a way that makes it possible to exclude the basic rights of certain groups only because of certain religious and cultural prejudices, we find that the principle of universality is taken right out of the human rights, and human rights are transformed to a set of rules only reflecting certain historically values.

In 77 countries, homosexuality remains a criminal offense, punishable by execution in seven countries. The decriminalization of private, consensual, adult sexual relations, especially in countries where corporal or capital punishment is involved, remains one of the primary concerns of LGBT human rights advocates.

Other issues include but are not limited to: government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and equal age of consent for same-sex activity.

A global charter for LGBT rights has been proposed in the form of the 'Yogyakarta Principles', a set of 29 principles whose authors say they apply International Human Rights Law statutes and precedent to situations relevant to LGBT people's experience. The principles were presented at a United Nations event in New York on November 7, 2007, co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

The principles have been acknowledged with influencing the French proposed UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which focuses on ending violence, criminalization and capital punishment and does not include dialogue about same-sex marriage or right to start a family. The proposal was supported by 67 of the then 192 member countries of the United Nations, including all EU nations and the United States. An alternative statement opposing the proposal was initiated by Syria and signed by 57 member nations, including all 27 nations of the Arab League as well as Iran and North Korea.

Trade

Although both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasize the importance of a right to work, neither of these documents explicitly mention trade as a mechanism for ensuring this fundamental right. And yet trade plays a key role in providing jobs.

Some experts argue that trade is inherent to human nature and that when governments inhibit international trade they directly inhibit the right to work and the other indirect benefits, like the right to education, that increased work and investment help accrue. Others have argued that the ability to trade does not affect everyone equally—often groups like the rural poor, indigenous groups and women are less likely to access the benefits of increased trade.

On the other hand, others think that it is no longer primarily individuals but companies that trade, and therefore it cannot be guaranteed as a human right. Additionally, trying to fit too many concepts under the umbrella of what qualifies as a human right has the potential to dilute their importance. Finally, it is difficult to define a right to trade as either "fair" or "just" in that the current trade regime produces winners and losers but its reform is likely to produce (different) winners and losers. See also: The Recognition of Labour Standards within the World Trade Organisation and Investor state dispute settlement

Water

In November 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a non-binding comment affirming that access to water was a human right:

This principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right. There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity. According to the United Nations, nearly 900 million people lack access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. On July 28, 2010, the UN declared water and sanitation as human rights. By declaring safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right, the U.N. General Assembly made a step towards the Millennium Development Goal to ensure environmental sustainability, which in part aims to "halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation".

Reproductive rights

Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health. The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:

}}

Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."

Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.

Reproductive rights may also be understood to include education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, protection from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation (MGM).

Information and communication technologies

In 2009, Finland was the first country to make 1-megabit broadband Web access a legal right.

In a survey conducted by the BBC in 2010, nearly four out of five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right.

Relationship with other topics

Human rights and the environment

There are two basic conceptions of environmental human rights in the current human rights system. The first is that the right to a healthy or adequate environment is itself a human right (as seen in both Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights). The second conception is the idea that environmental human rights can be derived from other human rights, usually – the right to life, the right to health, the right to private family life and the right to property (among many others). This second theory enjoys much more widespread use in human rights courts around the world, as those rights are contained in many human rights documents.

The onset of various environmental issues, especially climate change, has created potential conflicts between different human rights. Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem and healthy environment, but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these. Such as the conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons. In the area of environmental rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.

Environmental Rights revolve largely around the idea of a right to a livable environment both for the present and the future generations.

National security

With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable), the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency – although

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known as peremptory norms or ''jus cogens''. Such United Nations Charter obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.

Examples of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese American internment during World War II, Stalin's Great Purge, and the modern-day abuses of terror suspects rights by some countries, often in the name of the War on Terror.

Relativism and universalism

The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. However, in academia there is a dispute between scholars that advocate moral relativism and scholars that advocate moral universalism. Relativists do not argue against human rights, but concede that human rights are social constructed and are shaped by cultural and environmental contexts. Universalists argue that human rights have always existed, and apply to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, or religion.

More specifically, proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures, which may have practices conflicting with human rights. Relativists caution that universalism could be used as a form of cultural, economic or political imperialism. The White Man's Burden is used as an example of imperialism and the destruction of local cultures justified by the desire to spread Eurocentric values. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere.

Opponents of relativism argue that some practices exist that violate the norms of all human cultures. A common example is female genital mutilation, which occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries.

The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that ''Asian values'' were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. Lee Kuan Yew argued that:

In response, critics have pointed out that cultural relativism could be used as a justification for authoritarianism. An example is in 1981, when the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. The Asian Values argument was criticized by Mahathir's former deputy:

and by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.

Defenders of moral universalism argue that relativistic arguments neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They argue that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi. Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless. This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture.

Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle:

See also

Public international law

International human rights instruments

List of human rights organisations

Rule of law

References

Bibliography

Books

}}

Articles

Online

Miscellaneous

}}

Further reading

Abouharb, R. and D. Cingranelli (2007). "Human Rights and Structural Adjustment". New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ankerl, Guy (2011) Relativity of human rights (Sacha Journal of Human Rights, Sept. 2011, 14-36.)

Anstis, Sebastian and Zacher, Mark (June 2010). "The Normative Bases of the Global Territorial Order." Diplomacy and Statecraft 21: 306-323.

Barsh, R. (1993). “Measuring Human Rights: Problems of Methodology and Purpose.” Human Rights Quarterly 15: 87-121.

Chauhan, O.P. (2004). ''Human Rights: Promotion and Protection''. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 812612119X

Forsythe, David P. (2000). ''Human Rights in International Relations.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. International Progress Organization. ISBN 3-900704-08-2

Forsythe, Frederick P.(2009, ''Encyclopedia of Human Rights'' (New York: Oxford University Press)

Landman, Todd (2006). ''Studying Human Rights''. Oxford and London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-32605-2

Robertson, Arthur Henry; Merrills, John Graham (1996). ''Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights''. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719049237.

Steiner, J. & Alston, Philip. (1996). ''International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 019825427X

Shute, Stephen & Hurley, Susan (eds.). (1993). ''On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures.'' New York: BasicBooks. ISBN 046505224X

External links

United Nations: Human Rights

UN Practitioner's Portal on HRBA Programming UN centralised webportal on the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Programming

Simple Guide to the UN Treaty Bodies (International Service for Human Rights)

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)

IHRLaw.org International Human Rights Law – comprehensive online resources and news

Category:Abuse Category:Concepts in ethics Category:Culture Category:Economics Category:Law

af:Menseregte ar:حقوق الإنسان an:Dreitos humans arc:ܙܕܩܐ ܕܒܪܢܫܐ az:İnsan hüquqları zh-min-nan:Jîn-kôan be:Правы чалавека be-x-old:Правы чалавека bs:Ljudska prava br:Gwirioù Mab-Den bg:Права на човека ca:Drets Humans cs:Základní lidská práva cy:Hawliau dynol da:Menneskerettighederne de:Menschenrechte et:Inimõigused el:Ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα es:Derechos humanos eo:Homaj rajtoj ext:Derechus Umanus eu:Giza eskubideak fa:حقوق بشر hif:Insaan ke adhikaar fo:Mannarættindi fr:Droits de l'homme gl:Dereitos humanos ko:인권 ha:Hakkokin Yan-adam hi:मानवाधिकार hr:Ljudska prava io:Homala yuri id:Hak asasi manusia ia:Derectos human is:Mannréttindi it:Diritti umani he:זכויות האדם jv:Hak asasi manungsa krc:Адамны эркинликлери ka:ადამიანის უფლებები kk:Адам құқықтары sw:Haki za binadamu ku:Mafên mirovan mrj:Эдемӹн прававлӓжӹ la:Iura humana lv:Cilvēktiesības lt:Žmogaus teisės jbo:remna selcru hu:Emberi jogok mk:Човекови права ml:മനുഷ്യാവകാശം arz:حقوق انسان ms:Hak asasi manusia my:လူ့အခွင့်အရေး nl:Rechten van de mens new:मनु अधिकार ja:人権 no:Menneskerettigheter nn:Menneskerettar oc:Dreches de l'Òme pnb:انسانی حق ps:وګړنيز حقوق km:សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស pl:Prawa człowieka pt:Direitos humanos ro:Drepturile omului qu:Runa hayñi rue:Людьскы права ru:Права и свободы человека и гражданина sco:Human richts sq:Të Drejtat e Njeriut scn:Dritti umani simple:Human rights sk:Ľudské práva sl:Človekove pravice sr:Људска права sh:Ljudska prava fi:Ihmisoikeudet sv:Mänskliga rättigheter tl:Karapatang pantao ta:மனித உரிமைகள் te:మానవ హక్కులు th:สิทธิมนุษยชน tg:Ҳуқуқҳои инсон tr:İnsan hakları uk:Права людини ur:انسانی حقوق vi:Nhân quyền fiu-vro:Inemiseõigusõq wa:Abondroets des djins zh-classical:人權 war:Katungod pantawo yo:Àwọn ẹ̀tọ́ ọmọnìyàn zh-yue:人權 bat-smg:Žmuogaus teisės zh:人权

Coordinates	34°03′″N118°15′″N
Name	Mike Eng
Alt	Mike Eng in the middle
State assembly	California
District	49th
Term start	December 4, 2006
Predecessor	Judy Chu
Office1	Mayor of Monterey Park, California
Term start1	August 21, 2004
Term end1	January 18, 2005
Predecessor1	Sharon Martinez
Successor1	Frank Venti
Office2	Monterey Park City Councillor
Term start2	March 8, 2003
Term end2	December 4, 2006
Predecessor2	Judy Chu
Successor2	Anthony Wong
Birth date
Birth place	Oakland, California
Nationality	American
Party	Democratic
Spouse	Judy Chu
Residence	Los Angeles, California
Alma mater	University of California, Los AngelesUniversity of Hawaii
Occupation	AttorneyProfessor
Footnotes	}}

Michael "Mike" F. Eng (Chinese name: 伍國慶, Pinyin: Wǔ Guóqìng; Jyutping: Ng⁵ Gwok³hing³) (born September 14, 1946) was elected to the California State Assembly in November 2006 and represents the 49th District. He is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party. He previously served on the Monterey Park City Council and was Mayor from 2004-2005.

Eng has a Bachelor's degree and Master's degree from the University of Hawaii and a JD from the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the Senior Partner and founder of the law firm of Eng & Nishimura, practicing immigration and nationality law.

He is married to U.S. House Representative Judy Chu who is his predecessor in the State Assembly, as well as a former council member and Mayor of Monterey Park, and former Vice-Chair (and a past Chair) of the California's State Board of Equalization. Chu is the first Chinese American woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress.

References

Project Vote Smart - Mr. Eng - Biography

Eng & Nishimura - Michael F. Eng

External links

California State Assemblymember Mike Eng

Eng & Nishimura Law Firm

#

Category:1946 births Category:Living people Category:American academics of Asian descent Category:American politicians of Chinese descent Category:California city council members Category:California Democrats Category:California lawyers Category:Mayors of places in California Category:People from Oakland, California Category:Politicians from Los Angeles, California Category:Spouses of California politicians Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni Category:University of Hawaii alumni

Coordinates	34°03′″N118°15′″N
name	Imran Khan Niazi
birth date	November 25, 1952
birth place	Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
party	Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
spouse	Jemima Khan (1995 - 2004)
children	2 (Sulaiman Isa and Kasim)
residence	Lahore
occupation	Politician, philanthropist
religion	Islam
website	http://www.insaf.pk/ }}

playername	Imran Khan
country	Pakistan
fullname	Imran Khan Niazi
living	true
dayofbirth	25
monthofbirth	11
yearofbirth	1952
placeofbirth	Lahore, Punjab
countryofbirth	Pakistan
batting	Right-handed
bowling	Right-arm fast
role	All-rounder
international	true
testdebutdate	3 June
testdebutyear	1971
testdebutagainst	England
testcap	65
lasttestdate	7 January
lasttestyear	1992
lasttestagainst	Sri Lanka
odidebutdate	31 August
odidebutyear	1974
odidebutagainst	England
odicap	12
lastodidate	25 March
lastodiyear	1992
lastodiagainst	England
club1	Sussex
year1	1977 – 1988
club2	New South Wales
year2	1984/85
club3	PIA
year3	1975 – 1981
club4	Worcestershire
year4	1971 – 1976
club5	Oxford University
year5	1973 – 1975
club6	Lahore
year6	1969 – 1971
columns	4
column1	Test
matches1	88
runs1	3807
bat avg1	37.69
100s/50s1	6/18
top score1	136
deliveries1	19458
wickets1	362
bowl avg1	22.81
fivefor1	23
tenfor1	6
best bowling1	8/58
catches/stumpings1	28/–
column2	ODI
matches2	175
runs2	3709
bat avg2	33.41
100s/50s2	1/19
top score2	102*
deliveries2	7461
wickets2	182
bowl avg2	26.61
fivefor2	1
tenfor2	n/a
best bowling2	6/14
catches/stumpings2	36/–
column3	FC
matches3	382
runs3	17771
bat avg3	36.79
100s/50s3	30/93
top score3	170
deliveries3	65224
wickets3	1287
bowl avg3	22.32
fivefor3	70
tenfor3	13
best bowling3	8/34
catches/stumpings3	117/–
column4	LA
matches4	425
runs4	10100
bat avg4	33.22
100s/50s4	5/66
top score4	114*
deliveries4	19122
wickets4	507
bowl avg4	22.31
fivefor4	6
tenfor4	n/a
best bowling4	6/14
catches/stumpings4	84/–
date	26 June
year	2008
source	http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/1/1383/1383.html CricketArchive }}

Imran Khan Niazi (Punjabi, Pashto, }}) (born 25 November 1952) is a Pakistani politician and former Pakistani cricketer, playing international cricket for two decades in the late twentieth century and being a politician since the mid-1990s. Currently, besides his political activism, Khan is also a philanthropist, cricket commentator and Chancellor of the University of Bradford.

Khan played for the Pakistani cricket team from 1971 to 1992 and served as its captain intermittently throughout 1982-1992. After retiring from cricket at the end of the 1987 World Cup, he was called back to join the team in 1988. At 39, Khan led his teammates to Pakistan's first and only World Cup victory in 1992. He has a record of 3807 runs and 362 wickets in Test cricket, making him one of eight world cricketers to have achieved an 'All-rounder's Triple' in Test matches. On 14 July 2010, Khan was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame.

In April 1996, Khan founded and became the chairman of a political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice). He represented Mianwali as a member of the National Assembly from November 2002 to October 2007. Khan, through worldwide fundraising, helped establish the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre in 1996 and Mianwali's Namal College in 2008.

Family, education, and personal life

Imran Khan was born to Shaukat Khanum (Burki) and Ikramullah Khan Niazi, a civil engineer, in Lahore. A quiet and shy boy in his youth, Khan grew up in a middle-class Niazi Pathan family with four sisters. Settled in Punjab, Khan's father descended from the Pashtun (Pathan) Niazi Shermankhel tribe of Mianwali in Punjab. Imran's Mother Shaukat Khanum (Burki's) family includes successful hockey players and cricketers such as Javed Burki and Majid Khan. Khan was educated at Aitchison College, the Cathedral School in Lahore, and the Royal Grammar School Worcester in England, where he excelled at cricket. In 1972, he enrolled to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Keble College, Oxford, where he graduated with a second-class degree in Politics and a third in Economics.

Marriage to Jemima Marcelle Goldsmith

On 16 May 1995, Khan married English socialite Jemima Goldsmith, a convert to Islam, in an Islamic ceremony in Paris. A month later, on 21 June, they were married again in a civil ceremony at the Richmond register office in England, followed by a reception at the Goldsmiths' house in Surrey. The marriage, described as "tough" by Khan, produced two sons, Sulaiman Isa (born 18 November 1996) and Kasim (born 10 April 1999). As an agreement of his marriage, Khan spent four months a year in England. On 22 June 2004, it was announced that the Khans had divorced because it was "difficult for Jemima to adapt to life in Pakistan" .The marriage ended amicably. Imran has regular access to his children and his relationship with his ex-wife is friendly. Khan now resides in Bani Gala, Islamabad, where he built a farmhouse with the money he gained from selling his London flat. He grows fruit trees, wheat, and keeps cows, while also maintaining a cricket ground for his two sons, who visit during their holidays.

Cricket career

Khan made a lacklustre first-class cricket debut at the age of sixteen in Lahore. By the start of the 1970s, he was playing for his home teams of Lahore A (1969–70), Lahore B (1969–70), Lahore Greens (1970–71) and, eventually, Lahore (1970–71). Khan was part of Oxford University's Blues Cricket team during the 1973-75 seasons. At Worcestershire, where he played county cricket from 1971 to 1976, he was regarded as only an average medium pace bowler. During this decade, other teams represented by Khan include Dawood Industries (1975–76) and Pakistan International Airlines (1975–76 to 1980-81). From 1983 to 1988, he played for Sussex.

In 1971, Khan made his Test cricket debut against England at Birmingham. Three years later, he debuted in the One Day International (ODI) match, once again playing against England at Nottingham for the Prudential Trophy. After graduating from Oxford and finishing his tenure at Worcestershire, he returned to Pakistan in 1976 and secured a permanent place on his native national team starting from the 1976-77 season, during which they faced New Zealand and Australia. Following the Australian series, he toured the West Indies, where he met Tony Greig, who signed him up for Kerry Packer's World Series Cricket. His credentials as one of the fastest bowlers of the world started to establish when he finished third at 139.7 km/h in a fast bowling contest at Perth in 1978, behind Jeff Thomson and Michael Holding, but ahead of Dennis Lillee, Garth Le Roux and Andy Roberts.

As a fast bowler, Khan reached the peak of his powers in 1982. In 9 Tests, he got 62 wickets at 13.29 each, the lowest average of any bowler in Test history with at least 50 wickets in a calendar year. In January 1983, playing against India, he attained a Test bowling rating of 922 points. Although calculated retrospectively (ICC player ratings did not exist at the time), Khan's form and performance during this period ranks third in the ICC's All-Time Test Bowling Rankings.

Khan achieved the all-rounder's triple (securing 3000 runs and 300 wickets) in 75 Tests, the second fastest record behind Ian Botham's 72. He is also established as having the second highest all-time batting average of 61.86 for a Test batsman playing at position 6 of the batting order. He played his last Test match for Pakistan in January 1992, against Sri Lanka at Faisalabad. Khan retired permanently from cricket six months after his last ODI, the historic 1992 World Cup final against England at Melbourne, Australia. He ended his career with 88 Test matches, 126 innings and scored 3807 runs at an average of 37.69, including six centuries and 18 fifties. His highest score was 136 runs. As a bowler, he took 362 wickets in Test cricket, which made him the first Pakistani and world's fourth bowler to do so. In ODIs, he played 175 matches and scored 3709 runs at an average of 33.41. His highest score remains 102 not out. His best ODI bowling is documented at 6 wickets for 14 runs.

Captaincy

At the height of his career, in 1982, the thirty-year old Khan took over the captaincy of the Pakistani cricket team from Javed Miandad. Recalling his initial discomfort with this new role, he later said, "When I became the cricket captain, I couldn’t speak to the team directly I was so shy. I had to tell the manager, I said listen can you talk to them, this is what I want to convey to the team. I mean early team meetings I use to be so shy and embarrassed I couldn’t talk to the team." As a captain, Khan played 48 Test matches, out of which 14 were won by Pakistan, 8 lost and the rest of 26 were drawn. He also played 139 ODIs, winning 77, losing 57 and ending one in a tie.

In the team's second match under his leadership, Khan led them to their first Test win on English soil for 28 years at Lord's. Khan's first year as captain was the peak of his legacy as a fast bowler as well as an all-rounder. He recorded the best Test bowling of his career while taking 8 wickets for 58 runs against Sri Lanka at Lahore in 1981-82. He also topped both the bowling and batting averages against England in three Test series in 1982, taking 21 wickets and averaging 56 with the bat. Later the same year, he put up a highly acknowledged performance in a home series against the formidable Indian team by taking 40 wickets in six Tests at an average of 13.95. By the end of this series in 1982-83, Khan had taken 88 wickets in 13 Test matches over a period of one year as captain.

This same Test series against India, however, also resulted in a stress fracture in his shin that kept him out of cricket for more than two years. An experimental treatment funded by the Pakistani government helped him recover by the end of 1984 and he made a successful comeback to international cricket in the latter part of the 1984-85 season.

In 1987, Khan led Pakistan to its first ever Test series win in India, which was followed by Pakistan's first series victory in England the same year. During the 1980s, his team also recorded three creditable draws against the West Indies. India and Pakistan co-hosted the 1987 World Cup, but neither ventured beyond the semi-finals. Khan retired from international cricket at the end of the World Cup. In 1988, he was asked to return to the captaincy by the President Of Pakistan, General Zia-Ul-Haq, and on 18 January, he announced his decision to rejoin the team. Soon after returning to the captaincy, Khan led Pakistan to another winning tour in the West Indies, which he has recounted as "the last time I really bowled well". He was declared Man of the Series against West Indies in 1988 when he took 23 wickets in 3 tests.

Khan's career-high as a captain and cricketer came when he led Pakistan to victory in the 1992 Cricket World Cup. Playing with a brittle batting line-up, Khan promoted himself as a batsman to play in the top order along with Javed Miandad, but his contribution as a bowler was minimal. At the age of 39, Khan scored the highest runs of all the Pakistani batsmen and took the winning last wicket himself.

Post-retirement

In 1994, Khan had admitted that, during Test matches, he "occasionally scratched the side of the ball and lifted the seam." He had also added, "Only once did I use an object. When Sussex were playing Hampshire in 1981 the ball was not deviating at all. I got the 12th man to bring out a bottle top and it started to move around a lot." In 1996, Khan successfully defended himself in a libel action brought forth by former English captain and all-rounder Ian Botham and batsman Allan Lamb over comments they alleged were made by Khan in two articles about the above-mentioned ball-tampering and another article published in an Indian magazine, ''India Today''. They claimed that, in the latter publication, Khan had called the two cricketers "racist, ill-educated and lacking in class." Khan protested that he had been misquoted, saying that he was defending himself after having admitted that he tampered with a ball in a county match 18 years ago. Khan won the libel case, which the judge labelled a "complete exercise in futility", with a 10-2 majority decision by the jury.

Since retiring, Khan has written opinion pieces on cricket for various British and Asian newspapers, especially regarding the Pakistani national team. His contributions have been published in India's ''Outlook'' magazine, the ''Guardian'', the ''Independent'', and the ''Telegraph''. Khan also sometimes appears as a cricket commentator on Asian and British sports networks, including BBC Urdu and the Star TV network. In 2004, when the Indian cricket team toured Pakistan after 14 years, he was a commentator on TEN Sports' special live show, Straight Drive, while he was also a columnist for sify.com for the 2005 India-Pakistan Test series. He has provided analysis for every cricket World Cup since 1992, which includes providing match summaries for BBC during the 1999 World Cup.

In November 2009 Khan underwent emergency surgery at Lahore's Shaukat Khanum Cancer Hospital to remove an obstruction in his small intestine.

Social work

For more than four years after retiring from cricket in 1992, Khan focused his efforts solely on social work. By 1991, he had founded the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Trust, a charity organisation bearing the name of his mother, Mrs. Shaukat Khanum. As the Trust's maiden endeavour, Khan established Pakistan's first and only cancer hospital, constructed using donations and funds exceeding $25 million, raised by Khan from all over the world. Inspired by the memory of his mother, who died of cancer, the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, a charitable cancer hospital with 75 percent free care, opened in Lahore on 29 December 1994. Khan currently serves as the chairman of the hospital and continues to raise funds through charity and public donations. Princess of Wales Lady Diana also visited Lahore in 1996 in order to raise funds for the Cancer hospital.

During the 1990s, Khan also served as UNICEF's Special Representative for Sports and promoted health and immunisation programmes in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

On 27 April 2008, Khan's brainchild, a technical college in the Mianwali District called Namal College, was inaugurated. Namal College was built by the Mianwali Development Trust (MDT), as chaired by Khan, and was made an associate college of the University of Bradford (of which Khan is Chancellor) in December 2005. Currently, Khan is building another cancer hospital in Karachi, using his successful Lahore institution as a model. While in London, he also works with the Lord’s Taverners, a cricket charity.

Political work

Khan entered electoral politics after few years after the end of his professional cricketing career. Since then, his most significant political work has been to bring awareness towards the lack of justice in Pakistan. This movement to bring justice was coupled with awareness in media and harassment of judiciary by President Pervez Musharaf. The public, with the help of lawyers, NGOs and other major political parties, including Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, fought a battle on the roads, getting judiciary eventually restored in its much improved (impartial)form . Initially, Imran Khan's politics were not taken seriously in Pakistan. However, his popularity has sharply risen, especially among women and the youth of Pakistan, after the repeated bad governance by the government and interference by US. Recently, Imran Khan has been the only politician who has responded to terrorism allegations on Pakistan. While Khan is viewed as a fundamentalist by some political circles, he has suggested solutions for helping US and NATO forces to fight terrorism while at the same time, not creating more terrorists in Pakistan. Imran Khan is sometimes viewed as a stubborn politician who does not involve others in decision making. However, Imran Khan has openly denied this allegation and claimed that the level of democracy in the executive committee meeting of his party (PTI) is unmatched by any other political party in Pakistan. While many people seem hopeless about Imran's political victory in Pakistan, he has known to someone possessing high level of determination and perseverance, as demonstrated by his cricket and philanthropic career. His political popularity is rising quickly in Pakistan and although the party has only one seat in 2002 elections and kept out of elections in 2008, resulting in no representation in Parliament, Imran Khan is considered as the one of the four major political leaders in Pakistan, especially by mainstream media (others being Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain).

On 25 April 1996, Khan founded his own political party called the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) with a proposed slogan of "Justice, Humanity and Self Esteem." Khan, who contested from 7 districts, and members of his party were universally defeated at the polls in the 1997 general elections. Khan supported General Pervez Musharraf's military coup in 1999, but denounced his presidency a few months before the 2002 general elections. Many political commentators and his opponents termed Khan's change in opinion an opportunistic move. "I regret supporting the referendum. I was made to understand that when he won, the general would begin a clean-up of the corrupt in the system. But really it wasn't the case," he later explained. During the 2002 election season, he also voiced his opposition to Pakistan's logistical support of US troops in Afghanistan by claiming that their country had become a "servant of America." PTI won 0.8% of the popular vote and one out of 272 open seats on the 20 October 2002 legislative elections. Khan, who was elected from the NA-71 constituency of Mianwali, was sworn in as an MP on 16 November.. As an MP, he was part of the Standing Committees on Kashmir and Public Accounts, and expressed legislative interest in Foreign Affairs, Education and Justice.

On 6 May 2005, Khan became one of the first Muslim figures to criticise a 300-word ''Newsweek'' story about the alleged desecration of the Qur'an in a U.S. military prison at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Khan held a press conference to denounce the article and demanded that Gen. Pervez Musharraf secure an apology from American president George W. Bush for the incident. In 2006, he exclaimed, "Musharraf is sitting here, and he licks George Bush’s shoes!" Criticizing Muslim leaders supportive of the Bush administration, he added, "They are the puppets sitting on the Muslim world. We want a sovereign Pakistan. We do not want a president to be a poodle of George Bush." During George W. Bush's visit to Pakistan in March 2006, Khan was placed under house arrest in Islamabad after his threats of organising a protest. In June 2007, the federal Parliamentary Affairs Minister Dr. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) party filed separate ineligibility references against Khan, asking for his disqualification as member of the National Assembly on grounds of immorality. Both references, filed on the basis of articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution of Pakistan, were rejected on 5 September.

On 2 October 2007, as part of the All Parties Democratic Movement, Khan joined 85 other MPs to resign from Parliament in protest of the Presidential election scheduled for 6 October, which General Musharraf was contesting without resigning as army chief. On 3 November 2007, Khan was put under house arrest at his father's home hours after President Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan. Khan had demanded the death penalty for Musharraf after the imposition of emergency rule, which he equated to "committing treason". The next day, on 4 November, Khan escaped and went into peripatetic hiding. He eventually came out of hiding on 14 November to join a student protest at the University of the Punjab. At the rally, Khan was captured by students from the Jamaat-i-Islami political party, who claimed that Khan was an uninvited nuisance at the rally, and they handed him over to the police, who charged him under the Anti-terrorism act for allegedly inciting people to pick up arms, calling for civil disobedience, and for spreading hatred. Incarcerated in the Dera Ghazi Khan Jail, Khan's relatives had access to him and were able to meet him to deliver goods during his week-long stay in jail. On 19 November, Khan let out the word through PTI members and his family that he had begun a hunger strike but the Deputy Superintendent of Dera Ghazi Khan Jail denied this news, saying that Khan had bread, eggs and fruit for breakfast. Khan was one of the 3,000 political prisoners released from imprisonment on 21 November 2007.

His party boycotted the national elections on 18 February 2008 and hence, no member of PTI has served in Parliament since Khan's resignation in 2007. Despite no longer being a member of Parliament, Khan was placed under house arrest in the crackdown by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari of anti-government protests on 15 March 2009.

In April 2011, Khan lead protests over the drone attacks in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. He and his protesters stayed on the streets overnight to show solidarity with the victims of these drone attacks by the US Military.

Ideology

Khan's proclaimed political platform and declarations include: Islamic values, to which he rededicated himself in the 1990s; liberal economics, with the promise of deregulating the economy and creating a welfare state; decreased bureaucracy and anti-corruption laws, to create and ensure a clean government; the establishment of an independent judiciary; overhaul of the country's police system; and an anti-militant vision for a democratic Pakistan.

Khan has credited his decision to enter politics with a spiritual awakening,"I never drank or smoked, but I used to do my share of partying. In my spiritual evolution there was a block," he explained to the American ''Washington Post''. As an MP, Khan sometimes voted with a bloc of hard-line religious parties such as the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, whose leader, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, he supported for prime minister over Musharraf's candidate in 2002. On religion in Pakistan, Khan has said that, "As time passes by, religious thought has to evolve, but it is not evolving, it is reacting against Western culture and often has nothing to do with faith or religion."

Khan told Britain's ''Daily Telegraph'', "I want Pakistan to be a welfare state and a genuine democracy with a rule of law and an independent judiciary." Other ideas he has presented include a requirement of all students to spend a year after graduation teaching in the countryside and cutting down the over-staffed bureaucracy in order to send them to teach too. "We need decentralisation, empowering people at the grass roots," he has said. In June 2007, Khan publicly deplored Britain for knighting Indian-born author Salman Rushdie. He said, "Western civilisation should have been mindful of the injury the writer had caused to the Muslim community by writing his highly controversial book, ''The Satanic Verses''."

Criticism

During the 1970s and 1980s, Khan became known as a socialite due to his "non-stop partying" at London nightclubs such as Annabel's and Tramp. though he claims to have hated English pubs and never drank alcohol. He also gained notoriety in London gossip columns for romancing young debutantes such as Susannah Constantine, Lady Liza Campbell and the artist Emma Sergeant.

Khan is often dismissed as a political lightweight and a celebrity outsider in Pakistan, where national newspapers also refer to him as a "spoiler politician". Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a political party with its voting stronghold in Karachi, has asserted that Khan is "a sick person who has been a total failure in politics and is alive just because of the media coverage". The Political observers say the crowds he draws are attracted by his cricketing celebrity, and the public has been reported to view him as a figure of entertainment rather than a serious political authority.

''The Guardian'' newspaper in England described Khan as a "miserable politician," observing that, "Khan's ideas and affiliations since entering politics in 1996 have swerved and skidded like a rickshaw in a rainshower... He preaches democracy one day but gives a vote to reactionary mullahs the next." The charge constantly raised against Khan is that of hypocrisy and opportunism, including what has been called his life's "playboy to puritan U-turn." One of Pakistan's most controversial political commentators, Najam Sethi, stated that, "A lot of the Imran Khan story is about backtracking on a lot of things he said earlier, which is why this doesn’t inspire people." Khan's political flip-flops consist of his vocal criticism of President Musharraf after having supported his military takeover in 1999. Similarly, Khan has been a critic of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif when Sharif was in power, having said at the time: "Our current prime minister has a fascist mind-set, and members of parliament cannot go against the ruling party. We think that every day he stays in power, the country is sinking more into anarchy.". In a column entitled "Will the Real Imran Please Stand Up," Pakistani columnist Amir Zia quoted one of PTI's Karachi-based leaders as saying, "Even we are finding it difficult to figure out the real Imran. He dons the shalwar-kameez and preaches desi and religious values while in Pakistan, but transforms himself completely while rubbing shoulders with the elite in Britain and elsewhere in the west."

In 2008, as part of the Hall of Shame awards for 2007, Pakistan's ''Newsline'' magazine gave Khan the "Paris Hilton award for being the most undeserving media darling." The 'citation' for Khan read: "He is the leader of a party that is the proud holder of one National Assembly seat (and) gets media coverage inversely proportional to his political influence." ''The Guardian'' has described the coverage garnered by Khan's post-retirement activities in England, where he made his name as a cricket star and a night-club regular., as "terrible tosh, with danger attached. It turns a great (and greatly miserable) Third World nation into a gossip-column annexe. We may all choke on such frivolity." After the 2008 general elections, political columnist Azam Khalil addressed Khan, who remains respected as a cricket legend, as one of the "utter failures in Pakistani politics". Writing in the ''Frontier Post'', Khalil added: "Imran Khan has time and again changed his political course and at present has no political ideology and therefore was not taken seriously by a vast majority of the people."

Awards and honours

In 1992, Khan was given Pakistan's civil award, the Hilal-i-Imtiaz

In 1983, he had received the President’s Pride of Performance Award

Khan is featured in the University of Oxford's Hall of Fame and has been an honorary fellow of Oxford's Keble College.

On 7 December 2005, Khan was appointed the fifth Chancellor of the University of Bradford, where he is also a patron of the Born in Bradford research project.

In 1976 as well as 1980, Khan was awarded The Cricket Society Wetherall Award for being the leading all-rounder in English first-class cricket.

In 1983, he was also named Wisden Cricketer of the Year

In 1985, Sussex Cricket Society Player of the Year

In 1990, Indian Cricket Cricketer of the Year

Khan is currently placed at Number 8 on the all-time list of the ESPN Legends of Cricket.

On 5 July 2008, he was one of several veteran Asian cricketers presented special silver jubilee awards at the inaugural Asian cricket Council (ACC) award ceremony in Karachi. On 8 July 2004, Khan was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2004 Asian Jewel Awards in London, for "acting as a figurehead for many international charities and working passionately and extensively in fund-raising activities. On 13 December 2007, Khan received the Humanitarian Award at the Asian Sports Awards in Kuala Lumpur for his efforts in setting up the first cancer hospital in Pakistan. In 2009, at International Cricket Council's centennial year celebration, Khan was one of fifty-five cricketers inducted into the ICC Hall of Fame.

Writings by Khan

Khan occasionally contributes opinion editorials on cricket and Pakistani politics to British newspapers. He has also published five works of non-fiction, including an autobiography co-written with Patrick Murphy. It was disclosed in 2008 that Khan did not write his second book, ''Indus Journey: A Personal View of Pakistan''. Instead, his the book's publisher Jeremy Lewis revealed in a memoir that he had to write the book for Khan. Lewis recalls that when he asked Khan to show his writing for publication, "he handed me a leatherbound notebook or diary containing a few jottings and autobiographical snippets. It took me, at most, five minutes to read them; and that, it soon became apparent, was all we had to go on."

Books

Articles

Guardian comments, political and cricket commentary by Khan

Telegraph columns, sports articles penned by Khan from 2000 to present

We must address the root causes of this terror, Khan's editorial in the ''Independent'' following the 11 September attacks

Benazir Bhutto has only herself to blame, Khan's 2007 editorial on Bhutto's return to Pakistan

References

Further reading

External links

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Khan's political party

Chancellor: Imran Khan at the University of Bradford

Imran Khan: Pakistan has lost its dignity and self-esteem, Imran Khan, ''The Independent'', 3 May 2011

;Articles

The NS Interview: Imran Khan Mehdi Hasan, ''New Statesman'', 20 August 2010

Imran Khan's revolution, Murtaza Razvi, ''Dawn'', 27 April 2011

Category:Article Feedback Pilot Category:Alumni of Keble College, Oxford Category:Chancellors of the University of Bradford Category:Cricketers at the 1975 Cricket World Cup Category:Cricketers at the 1979 Cricket World Cup Category:Cricketers at the 1983 Cricket World Cup Category:Cricketers at the 1987 Cricket World Cup Category:Cricketers at the 1992 Cricket World Cup Category:Fellows of Keble College, Oxford Category:Hilal-i-Imtiaz Category:International Cricket Council Hall of Fame inductees Category:Lahore cricketers Category:Old Aitchisonians Category:Old Elizabethans Category:Oxford University cricketers Category:Pakistani athlete-politicians Category:Pakistani cricket captains Category:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf politicians Category:Pakistan International Airlines cricketers Category:Pakistani politicians Category:Pakistan One Day International cricketers Category:Pakistan Test cricketers Category:Pashtun people Category:People from Lahore Category:People from Mianwali District Category:Sussex cricketers Category:Wisden Cricketers of the Year Category:Worcestershire cricketers Category:World Series Cricket players Category:1952 births Category:Living people Category:Wisden Leading Cricketers in the World Category:New South Wales cricketers Category:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf

ar:عمران خان bn:ইমরান খান de:Imran Khan es:Imran Khan fr:Imran Khan gu:ઇમરાન ખાન hi:इमरान ख़ान id:Imran Khan Niazi kn:ಇಮ್ರಾನ್ ಖಾನ್ ka:იმრან ხანი mr:इम्रान खान ms:Imran Khan nl:Imran Khan ja:イムラン・カーン pnb:عمران خان ps:عمران خان simple:Imran Khan sv:Imran Khan ta:இம்ரான் கான் te:ఇమ్రాన్ ఖాన్ నియాజి ur:عمران خان zh:伊姆蘭·罕