Legal Frameworks and Human Rights: A Comparative Analysis

This discussion delves into the complexities of legal frameworks that protect human rights, examining different approaches and their implications. Specifically, it explores the argument that no rights should be specified by law, instead suggesting that a constitution should only affirm the individual’s right to take any peaceful action they choose without fear of legal violation. This perspective is supported by the example of the ninth amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which cautions against attempting to list all possible rights. The discussion further compares and contrasts two critical legal documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the UK’s Human Rights Act (1998).

The Case Against Specifying Rights

The argument presented supports the idea that no specific rights should be specified in legal documents. According to this viewpoint, a constitution should only state that the individual’s right to take every peaceful action they choose should be respected and protected by law. Any attempt to list all possible rights is impractical and potentially limiting, as it assumes that all possible rights can be anticipated and included. Additionally, such a list implies that any rights not included are not recognized, which is an inherent flaw of this approach.

The Necessity of Legal Enforcements

However, in practice, many countries have found it necessary to identify specific actions that violate rights and to prohibit them through legislation. Examples of such violations include murder, assault, robbery, and extortion. These actions are explicitly enumerated, and laws are crafted to prohibit them and provide remedies. While this approach is operational, it does not fully encompass the complexity and fluidity of human rights.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) has served as a foundational document for the protection of human rights on the international stage. This covenant, which the U.S. ratified with certain exceptions, provides a comprehensive framework for the protection of civil and political rights. It is a testament to the global commitment to human rights and the effort to codify them in a universal manner. Notably, the U.S. ratified this covenant in 1992, nearly three decades after its initial adoption.

The UK’s Human Rights Act (1998): Domestic Implementation

The UK has taken a different approach with its incorporation of human rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act (1998). This act makes a number of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enforceable by UK courts. As a result, individuals in the UK can bring human rights claims directly to domestic courts, which can then interpret and enforce these rights. This has significantly enhanced the protection of human rights in the UK, providing a more immediate and accessible remedy for rights violations.

Conclusion

The debate over whether to specify or not specify rights in legal documents reflects the ongoing tension between practical necessity and theoretical perfection. While the approach of affirming the right to take peaceful actions without legal prohibition is attractive in its simplicity and inclusiveness, the reality of implementing human rights often requires specific legal protections. The examples of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UK’s Human Rights Act illustrate the complexities and trade-offs inherent in these frameworks. Ultimately, the goal should be to create legal systems that are both robust and responsive to the diverse and evolving needs of individuals.

For a deeper understanding, the video Inalienable Rights and a Constitution Part A offers further insights. The entire series is highly recommended for serious students of constitutional law and human rights.