The basis of natural law is the belief in the existence of a natural moral code based on the identification of certain fundamental and objectively verifiable human goods. Our enjoyment of these basic goods must be ensured by the possession of natural rights that are as fundamental as they are objectively verifiable. Natural law was seen as pre-existing real social and political systems. Natural rights were also represented as rights that individuals possessed regardless of society or politics. Natural rights were presented as valid in the last resort, whether they had obtained the recognition of a particular political leader or a particular assembly. The embodiment of this position was the 17th century philosopher John Locke and in particular the argument he made in his Two Treatises of Government (1688). At the heart of Locke`s argument is the assertion that individuals have natural rights, regardless of the political recognition granted to them by the state. These natural rights are exercised independently and before the formation of a political community. Locke argued that natural rights derive from natural law. Natural law comes from God.

The precise discernment of God`s will has provided us with an ultimately authoritative moral code. Basically, each of us owes God a duty of self-preservation. To successfully fulfill this commitment to self-preservation, each individual had to be free from threats to life and liberty while needing what Locke represented as the fundamental and positive means of self-preservation: personal property. Our duty to preserve ourselves before God included the necessary existence of fundamental natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke further argued that the primary purpose of the investiture of political authority in a sovereign state is to provide and protect the fundamental natural rights of the individual. For Locke, the protection and promotion of the natural rights of the individual was the only justification for creating a government. The natural rights to life, liberty and property impose clear limits on the authority and jurisdiction of the State. States were portrayed as existing to serve the interests, the natural rights of the people, not a monarch or a ruling cadre. Locke even went so far as to argue that individuals have a moral right to take up arms against their government if it systematically and deliberately fails in its duty to ensure possession of the individual`s natural rights. In addition to the International Bill of Human Rights, the UN has adopted seven other treaties dealing with specific rights or beneficiaries. There has been a mobilization in favour of the idea of certain rights or beneficiaries – for example, children`s rights for children – because, despite the application of all human rights to children and young people, children do not have equal access to these universal rights and they need special additional protection. The roles of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are often confused.

Indeed, the three institutions differ considerably in terms of their territorial jurisdiction and the types of cases they examine. The CJEU is an institution of the European Union. It is a court whose main task is to ensure that Community law is not interpreted and applied differently in each Member State. It is based on Community law and not on human rights; But sometimes Community law may include human rights issues. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its role has been discussed above. Rawls says human rights are a special class of urgent rights. It seems to accept the definition of human rights contained in section 1 above. In addition to declaring human rights to be high priority or “urgent” rights, Rawls also accepts that they are plural and universal. But Rawls worked on a narrower project than Gewirth and Griffin. The international human rights with which he has dealt are also defined by their role in defining the normative structure of the global system in various ways. They provide content to other normative concepts such as legitimacy, sovereignty, authorized intervention and membership in the international community.

Jones focuses on distinguishing between rights and freedoms. It corresponds to an established trend in the analysis of rights by considering the former as paramount. Jones defines a right of complaint as an obligation. A right of complaint is a right that one has against one or more other persons who owe the rightholder a corresponding obligation. To go back to my daughter`s example. Their right to adequate education is a right of appeal against the local education authority, which has a corresponding obligation to provide them with the subject matter of that right. Jones identifies other necessary distinctions in the notion of the right of complaint when distinguishing between a positive right of complaint and a negative right of complaint. The first are rights that one has to a certain good or service that another person is obliged to provide. My daughter`s right to education is therefore a positive right to claim. On the other hand, negative claims are rights one has against other people who interfere with or enter into life or property in any way.

For example, you could say that my daughter has a negative right to claim against others who try to steal her cell phone. Indeed, such examples lead to the final distinction that Jones identifies in the concept of rights: rights held “in personam” and rights held “in rem.” Rights held in personam are rights that one has vis-à-vis a specially designated duty-bearer, such as the Ministry of Education. In contrast, rights in rem are rights that belong to no one against a particular person, but apply to everyone. Therefore, my daughter`s right to education would be virtually useless if it were not held against an identifiable, relevant and competent body. Similarly, their right against the theft of their mobile phone would be severely restricted if it did not apply to all those who could possibly perform such an act. Rights can therefore be positive or negative and can be held personally or actually. This section examines which rights should be included in the list of human rights. A seventh category, the rights of minorities and groups, was created by subsequent treaties. These rights protect women, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, children, migrant workers and persons with disabilities.

Perhaps the debate on relativism and human rights has become obsolete. In recent decades, acceptance of human rights has prevailed in most parts of the world. Three quarters of the world`s countries have ratified the core human rights treaties, and many countries in Africa, America and Europe participate in regional human rights regimes with international tribunals (see Georgetown University`s Human Rights Law Research Guide in other Internet resources below). Moreover, all countries in the world now use similar political institutions (law, courts, legislative, executive, military, bureaucracy, police, prisons, taxes, and public schools), and these institutions lead to characteristic problems and abuses (Donnelly 2003). After all, globalization has reduced the differences between peoples. The world today is not that of the first anthropologists and missionaries. National and cultural borders are crossed not only by international trade, but also by millions of travellers and migrants, electronic communications, international law covering many fields and the efforts of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. International influences and organizations are everywhere, and countries borrow freely and regularly from each other`s inventions and practices. Now let`s look at five other features or functionality that can be added. Griffin`s thesis that all human rights are based on normative action is presented not so much as a description as a proposal, as the best way to give human rights unity, coherence and limits.