Individual rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
| Rights |
| Theoretical Distinctions |
| Conceptual Distinctions |
| Claim rights and liberty rights |
| Individual rights and Group rights |
| Natural rights and Legal rights |
| Negative and positive rights |
| Substantial Distinctions |
| Civil and political rights and |
| Economic, social and cultural rights |
| Three generations of human rights |
| Areas of Concern |
| Particular Groups |
| Animal rights and Human rights |
| Children's rights and Youth rights |
| Fathers' rights and Mothers' rights |
| Men's rights and Women's rights |
| Particular Rights |
| Labor rights |
| LGBT rights |
| Reproductive rights |
| Right of self-defense
|
| Part of the Politics series on |
| Liberalism |
|
Development
|
|
Ideas
|
|
Schools
|
|
Key figures
|
|
Regional variants
|
|
Organizations
|
|
Politics portal |
Individual rights refer to the rights of the individual, distinct from civil rights, legal rights, and group rights (or privileges) granted by government and varying with the organization and administration of the government. Individual rights identify a boundary of just social interactions, in the presence or absence of government.
Individual rights are sometimes held to be distinct from human rights, because human rights often references a basket of civil and individual rights. The former class of rights is often considered to include human goods and benefits (positive rights) rather than rights proper (negative rights.) Individual rights are an individual's moral claim to freedom of action. Such rights may be respected or recognized by others for reasons of reciprocity, contract, pragmatism, or as a moral imperative. Also some theorists believe an individual can forfeit their rights if that individual does not exercise reciprocal respect and restraint.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Individual rights provide principles to delimit the interaction of individuals in society with respect to personal interactions and the distribution of goods and services. Individual rights are sometimes held to be distinct from human rights, because the latter class is often considered to include human goods and benefits (positive rights) rather than rights proper (negative rights). Individual rights are an individual's moral claim to freedom of action. Such rights may be respected or recognized by others for reasons of reciprocity, contract, pragmatism, or as a moral imperative.
Some individual rights may be forfeited if an individual does not exercise reciprocal respect and restraint. Individual rights are distinct from civil rights; civil rights are rights granted by government, whereas individual rights are assumed to exist prior to government. Individual rights are often codified into law so that they may be protected by impartial third parties such as the government. Governments that respect individual rights often provide for systemic controls that protect individual rights such as a system of "due process" in criminal justice. Police states are generally considered to be oppressive because they do not respect individual rights. With respect to individual rights the role of the government is as a third party protecting, identifying and enforcing the rights of the individual while attempting to assure just remedies for transgressions.
[edit] Relationship with social control
In Western discourse, individual rights are commonly assumed to be inversely related to social control. By contrast, much of the recent political discourse on individual rights in the People's Republic of China, particularly with respect to due process rights and rule of law, has focused on how protection of individual rights actually makes social control by the government more effective. For example, it has been argued that the people are less likely to violate the law if they believe that the legal system is likely to punish them if they actually violated the law and not punish them if they did not violate the law. By contrast, if the legal system is arbitrary then an individual has no incentive to actually follow the law.
People who argue that individual rights are more important than social control are called "individual rights advocates". Advocates tend to argue for increased civil rights. This is traditionally associated with liberalism.
[edit] Role of government
Rights are often coded into law so that they may be protected by impartial third parties such as the government. Governments that respect individual rights often provide for systemic controls that protect individual rights such as a system of "due process" in criminal justice. These systems give rise to such civil rights as are necessary for the government to administer justice. With respect to individual rights the role of the government is as a third party protecting, identifying and enforcing the rights of the individual while attempting to assure just remedies for transgressions. Police states are generally considered to be oppressive because they do not respect individual rights.
Rights are significant only where corresponding duties and responsibilities exist and people have the ability to enforce them - because society and individual survival depend on people relying on their ability to enforce rights people must be able to enforce those obligations where there is an absence or a betrayal of trust. Obligations are enforced by individuals and societal expectations and norms, but ultimately may require the ability or the actual enforcement by a government. The absence of a firm ability to enforce rights increases the risks associated with entering agreements and relying on rights, which limits individuals and societies ability to operate co-operatively.
The definition and upholding of individual rights is the core responsibility of any modern government.
In the United States, as a result of much accumulated case law, the Constitution outlines individual rights within the Bill of Rights. In Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms serves the same function. One of the key differences between the two documents is that some rights in the Canadian Charter can be overridden by governments if they deliberately do so and "the resulting balance of individual rights and social rights remains appropriate to a free and democratic society" after the change. In practice, no Canadian government has ever chosen to face the political consequences of actually overriding the Charter. In contrast, in the United States, no such override exists (not even in theory, as is the case in Canada), and judicial activism has been the norm in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights; even a constitutional amendment could not remove these rights entirely, as they are considered inalienable under the natural rights principles the Constitution is founded upon.
