Ambiguity of the Notion of Human Rights
Subpage to the page "
PRO RE PUBLICA" by Christian Heinze - 13.10.2017
Für eine deutsche Version dieses Beitrags
hier klicken.
In a narrower sense, the notion of Human Right refers to
such an entitelement only, the fulfilment of which is granted and
guaranteed by one or several States (governments) in such a
manner that the holder of the title can rely, as a rule, with certainty on
the entitlement being fulfilled or executed or on receiving effective
compensation in lieu of a failure of its fulfilment or execution, everywhere
within the territory of application of such a right, and within an
acceptable period of time. In this sense, the effective force of a
Human Right can be envisaged as that of a basic individual constitutional right
only in so far as the substance and contents of is described unambiguously
by a legal norm (a law) with preference over all other laws or orders or
other acts of a State (or government) authority.
In a wider sense of general common everyday usage the term Human Right
is, however, more widely used to describe as "Human Rights" such
claims as are contained in public declarations or lists of rules held
valid by non governmental international organizations or by teachings of
international law or by religions or ideologies or by proclamation by one or
several States, lacking guarantee or security of being enforced
as rights granted by States (governments) in the narrower sense described above.
More often and more widely than legal norms, such proclamations and even basic
constitutional richts are found to contain ambiguous descriptions of their
contents. (The arguable interpretation of German basic contitutional rights -
the so called "Grundrechte" fills volumes of Court jurisdiction and legal
literature; an example for much greater ambiguity is afforded by the
International Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations.)
From differences and/or ambiguities of such descriptions of
the meangings of "Human Rights" in the wider sense of the notion,
conflicts arise between claims upheld and between those who require
their fulfilment, whenever the parties concerned derive different and
uncompatible claims from the so called "Human Rights" in question, insisting on
their prevalence over other rights. Particularly grave are conflicts between
non-governmental claims for "Human Rights" and the laws of States, inter alia,
for example, when both "Rights" and laws define the scope of freedom in a
considerable different, but not fundamentally different way. This is because
those who feel injured in their rights but unable to procure relief through a
State (government) or even find themselves in opposition to State legislature
come into conflict with the addressees of their claims and may easily become
inclined to
realize their claims by force of violence, thus colliding with
the monopoly of violence held by the respective State (government) which is
essential for the maintenance of peace within and between States.
Insisting on recourse to Human Rights without distinguishing clearly
between rights granted by States (governments) and other claims or without
describing precisely the contends of the rights invoked is bound to create
conflicts of the nature and bearing mentioned. Such conflicts may well come
close to revolution or civil war.
Search for Catchwords and Names
Subpage to the page "
PRO RE PUBLICA" by Christian Heinze - 13.10.2017
Für eine deutsche Version dieses Beitrags
hier klicken.
In a narrower sense, the notion of Human Right refers to such an entitelement only, the fulfilment of which is granted and guaranteed by one or several States (governments) in such a manner that the holder of the title can rely, as a rule, with certainty on the entitlement being fulfilled or executed or on receiving effective compensation in lieu of a failure of its fulfilment or execution, everywhere within the territory of application of such a right, and within an acceptable period of time. In this sense, the effective force of a Human Right can be envisaged as that of a basic individual constitutional right only in so far as the substance and contents of is described unambiguously by a legal norm (a law) with preference over all other laws or orders or other acts of a State (or government) authority.
In a wider sense of general common everyday usage the term Human Right is, however, more widely used to describe as "Human Rights" such claims as are contained in public declarations or lists of rules held valid by non governmental international organizations or by teachings of international law or by religions or ideologies or by proclamation by one or several States,
From differences and/or ambiguities of such descriptions of the meangings of "Human Rights" in the wider sense of the notion, conflicts arise between claims upheld and between those who require their fulfilment, whenever the parties concerned derive different and uncompatible claims from the so called "Human Rights" in question, insisting on their prevalence over other rights. Particularly grave are conflicts between non-governmental claims for "Human Rights" and the laws of States, inter alia, for example, when both "Rights" and laws define the scope of freedom in a considerable different, but not fundamentally different way. This is because those who feel injured in their rights but unable to procure relief through a State (government) or even find themselves in opposition to State legislature come into conflict with the addressees of their claims and may easily become inclined to
Insisting on recourse to Human Rights without distinguishing clearly between rights granted by States (governments) and other claims or without describing precisely the contends of the rights invoked is bound to create conflicts of the nature and bearing mentioned. Such conflicts may well come close to revolution or civil war.