Author; Vasiliki Symeou LAWYER TRAINEE
Undeniably, the right to life is a vital universal right that underpins the moral and legal foundations of societies globally.
From the moment of birth to the final days of existence, the right to life serves as a shield of protection for individuals from arbitrary interference with their autonomy. As upheld by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it servesas a fundamental gift to all individuals that cannot be taken away. Nevertheless, while this right is universally upheld, its interpretation, application, and limitations continue being sources of intense debate in legal, ethical, and political areas.
To begin with, at its core, the right to life is the principle that every human being is entitled to live and not be subject to any unjustified threat or interference. The recognition of its universality is foundational to the dignity of individuals and the notion that all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, are entitled to protection. This right also emphasizes that every individual has the right to lead a life free from threats like violence, neglect, and unjust legal actions. This is much evident in various international efforts, with an example being enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), securing that“everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”This isfurther solidified in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees that every individual shall have the inherent right to life and mandates that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life whereas the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) echoes the same sentiment by committing member States to safeguard the right to life of their citizens.
While the right to life is the foundation of human dignity and freedom, it does not exist in a vacuum. Alongside this right lies the quality of life, which is deeply intertwined and refers not just to the existence of life but also whether individuals are living in conditions with respect to dignity and security. Truly, the right to life is not just about preventing violent acts against individuals, such as genocides, forced disappearances, and other human rights violations but also about ensuring that people have access to the conditions that allow their lives to flourish. This includes access to healthcare, clean water, food, and the opportunity to live without fear of violence or discrimination. For instance, the right to life would be hollow if a person were merely alive but living in extreme poverty, facing oppression, constant wars or being left without access to healthcare. In these cases, the state’s responsibility expands beyond simply protecting life to ensuring the conditions for a decent quality of life. What is notable is the actions adopted by Cyprus through recent amendments (19th amendment) to the Constitution of Article 7 with the addition of Article 7A, with the right to environment being enshrined.This signifies a crucial step as more and more European countries finally started recognizing the vitality of the quality of life within the right to life.
Nevertheless, loopholes that can be exploited are inherent in the amount of use of force to justify interference under certain conditions or exceptions. Therefore, the question to be raised is: When is the use of force allowed and under what conditions is it permissible? Accordingly, under international human rights law, individuals may use force in self-defense to protect life from imminent threats, but only when non-violent means are insufficient such as using force to repel an attacker or protect against violence. When force is used, it must be limited, necessary, and in respect to human dignity. Such force must be strictly proportionate to the threat and used as a last resort. However, the amount of force becomes even more complex in the context of armed conflict. Particularly, international law allows combatants to target military objectives but strictly prohibits intentional harm to civilians. But if this is truly strictly followed by countries is still questionable. Further, in peacetime, countries may use force to protect citizens from violence or large-scale rights violations, such as the U.S.-led intervention in the 1991 Gulf War, which was justified through U.N. Resolutions for restoring peace, protecting civilians, and upholding Kuwait’s sovereignty through authorizing the use of force, by airstrikes and ground combat. Whether in self-defense, law enforcement, or humanitarian intervention, the use of force must always balance the preservation of life with respect for individual rights, but it remains uncertain whether the conditions are always followed or whether used as excuses to justify unjustified actions.
One of the most contentious debates in human rights discussion surrounding the right to life centers on abortion. At the heart of this issue lies the tension between a woman’s right to control her body and the fetus’s right to life. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) had a profound impact on reshaping the legal landscape surrounding the right to life and use of force in relation to reproductive rights, asserting the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. However, Dobbs overturned this decision, ruling that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Dobbs ruling has complicated the intersection between the right to lifeand the use of force. The right to life now includes a strong argument for protecting the fetus, while conversely, the decision has also raised concerns about the infringement on women’s rights, particularly the right to bodily autonomy. Thisis concerning when pregnancy may pose significant health risks to a woman, especially in cases of ectopic pregnanciesor severe preeclampsia. Denying an abortion in such cases could be considered as a state-sanctioned force that endangers the life of the woman. Thus, it remains a debate whether the state’s use of force to prevent abortions by upholding the right to life undermines democratic foundations, such as personal autonomy and bodily integrity.
In conclusion, the right to life is not a static concept but is rather dynamic that requires constant reflection, adaption and action at global levels. As societies advance and new challenges emerge, the protection of life must remain central to human rights discourse. Ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live free from fear, violence, and injustice is not only a moral imperative but also a necessary step towards building a just and equitable world. Ultimately, it is not just about survival but rather brightening the pathway for individuals to thrive and live with dignity and security.
