Ph: 08 6174 2600 - 390 Wentworth Parade, Success, WA 6164 |
Home/Who Makes Legal Rights

Who Makes Legal Rights

One previous point is worth mentioning. Do all legal systems have a legal concept? Their use is ubiquitous in modern legal systems. We are talking about legislators who have the right to legislate, judges who decide cases, individuals who make wills and contracts; as well as constitutions that grant citizens legal rights against their fellow citizens and against the State itself. However, it has been suggested that even some earlier systems developed, such as Roman law, lacked terminology that clearly separated rights from duties (see Maine (1861), 269-70). The question is primarily of concern to legal historians and will not be pursued further here, but it should be noted that when describing these systems, it may still be legitimate to speak of rights in the modern sense, since, for example, Roman law has clearly achieved many of the same results as contemporary systems. Presumably, he did so using some of the most fundamental concepts in which rights can arguably be analyzed. Many legal rights must be accompanied by a condition of possession or exercise. This in itself does not distinguish legal rights from many moral rights. Just as you are only entitled to legal compensation for bodily injury if you have been attacked, you are only entitled to an excuse to be offended if you have been offended. But legal rights can lead to more complicated situations that rarely occur in morality. Rights of recourse are those arising from a breach of a primary right. Of course, they also flow from the law, for example an obligation to apologize or remedy, even if there is no legal obligation to do so. But legal remedies tend to be more precise and, by the very nature of the law, institutionalized.

In 1215, King John of England signed the Magna Carta (or Magna Carta). A group of barons, powerful nobles who supported the king in exchange for land, demanded that the king sign the charter to recognize their rights. Human rights are inherent in all of us, regardless of nationality, gender, national or ethnic origin, skin colour, religion, language or any other status. Another particular type of legal claims, or groups of rights, that has received increasing attention from theorists is that of property rights. The discussion about this belongs more to that of the property itself – see the entry on the property. Only a few brief remarks are made here. The issue is often complicated legally by the fact that the legislator does not give clear indications as to whether it only wanted to create a crime with a particular law or also give citizens civil rights. Another complication may be that criminal courts sometimes perform a quasi-civil function (for example, issuing an order for restoration or compensation following a conviction for theft) and vice versa (for example, the power of a civil court to award punitive or exemplary damages). All human rights are indivisible and interdependent.

This means that one set of rights cannot be fully utilized without the other. Progress in the area of civil and political rights, for example, facilitates the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, the violation of economic, social and cultural rights can have a negative impact on many other rights. Among those who believe that rights can be analyzed, at least in part, in duties, permits, and powers, there is another major division. Some believe that the essence of a right is to have choice or control over the corresponding duty, etc. Others think that the main thing is that one`s own interests are protected by duty, etc. Hart and Wellman are among the proponents of the first point of view, Bentham, Austin, MacCormick and Raz are among those who advocate a version of the second point of view. All states have ratified at least 1 of the 9 core human rights treaties and 1 of the 9 optional protocols.

Eighty per cent of States have ratified 4 or more. This means that States are obliged and obligated under international law to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. A related, more controversial point is whether, unlike civil law, criminal law confers legal rights on the citizens it protects. The Orthodox view is that this is not the case, although there may be parallel citizenship. Let us take the case of someone who is unjustly attacked. In most jurisdictions, it is both a felony and a misdemeanor. Civil law clearly provides a right of recourse, for example to bring an action for damages. However, given that in most jurisdictions it is mainly (and sometimes exclusively) the State that decides whether or not to prosecute for the criminal aspect, the most common view is that the citizen does not have a legal right corresponding to the criminal aspect. International human rights law sets out the obligations that States are obliged to respect.

By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations under international law and obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or restricting the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect obliges states to protect individuals and groups from human rights violations.

By | 2022-12-13T01:54:06+08:00 December 13th, 2022|Uncategorised|0 Comments

About the Author: