For example, suppose X leaves a sum of money to Y according to his will, provided that Y reaches the age of 21. The provision may need to be properly understood under the rules of the legal system that Y is only entitled to the money if he was 21 years old at the time of X`s death. But it may be that the right way to understand it is that Y, even if he has not reached 21, when X dies, acquires a right to money, but he does not have to be paid until the age of 21. A practical difference is that, in the latter case, the right may pass to the titular successor of Y if, after surviving X, Y nevertheless dies before the age of 21. In the latter case, lawyers refer to the right as „acquired“. There can be many complex legal regulations regarding this type of situation, and they vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Reference should be made to textbooks, in particular on testamentary succession, in the jurisdiction. The distinction between alienable and inalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson. In his review of the original Our Conceptions of Beauty and Virtue (1725), Hutcheson anticipated the Declaration of Independence by declaring: „For wherever an invasion of inalienable rights is made, there must be a right of perfect or external resistance.
Inalienable rights are essential restrictions in all governments. However, Hutcheson set clear limits to his idea of inalienable rights, declaring that „there can be no right or limitation of law that is incompatible with or opposed to the greater public good.“ [20] Hutcheson developed this idea of inalienable rights in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), based on the principle of freedom of conscience of the Reformation. Indeed, one cannot renounce the capacity for private judgment (for example, on religious matters), independently of any external contract or oath to religious or secular authorities, so that the right is „inalienable“. Hutcheson wrote: „Thus, no man can truly change his inner feelings, judgments, and affections, to the pleasure of another; Nor can it do any good to make him confess something that contradicts his heart. The right to a private judgment is therefore inalienable. [21] In French law, the distinction is made by distinguishing between objective law (the noun written with a capital letter after some writers, but not all) and subjective rights. (For a general discussion, see for example Cornu 2014.) At the same time, however, French law seems to limit the notion of „subjective rights“ to a subcategory of legal rights, namely rights that are primarily those of individuals, such as the drafting of wills or contracts. The term does not appear to extend to rights such as those of a government agency that owns property or a minister adopting a legal system under delegated authority. By ratifying international human rights treaties, Governments undertake to adopt national measures and laws in conformity with their treaty obligations. Where national judicial procedures do not address human rights violations, mechanisms and procedures are available at the regional and international levels for individual complaints or communications to ensure that international human rights standards are effectively respected, implemented and enforced at the local level. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization because they are seen as established pillars of society and culture,[2] and the history of social conflict lies in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, „rights structure the form of government, the content of laws, and the form of morality as it is currently perceived.“ [1] The 17th century English philosopher John Locke In the nineteenth century, natural rights were discussed in his work, identifying them as „life, liberty, and property (property)“ and arguing that these fundamental rights could not be abandoned in the social contract. The preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty and property was invoked to justify the rebellion of the American colonies.
As George Mason noted in his draft Virginia Bill of Rights, „all men are born equally free“ and possess „certain inherent natural rights of which they cannot deprive or deprive their descendants by treaty.“ [19] Another 17th century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who was in accord with the monarchy of King Charles I. In addition to coming into conflict with the military dictatorship of the republic led by Oliver Cromwell, he advocated for basic human rights which he called „born free rights,“ which he defined as rights with which every human being is born, as opposed to rights conferred by government or human law. Legal ethics is an answer to the metaethical question of what normative ethics is (metaethics also includes a group of questions about how ethics becomes known, true, etc., which is not directly addressed by legal ethics). Legal ethics states that normative ethics deals with rights. Alternative metaethical theories are that ethics deals with one of the following topics: Second, it should be noted that property rights in law can have many different types. While ownership is obviously one of the most important, another important category is possession, whether temporary or relatively permanent. For example, the right to use a car you rented for a week or to live in a certain house for the rest of your life. Still other types who have neither possessions nor possessions could, for example, cross the field of the local farmer or let the neighbor next door maintain his side of the wall of the common garden. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; This right includes freedom to hold opinions freely and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas by any media and regardless of frontiers, regardless of frontiers. We spoke to children all over the country, asked them questions about human rights and got simple, honest and funny answers. In the meantime, while we, as individuals, are entitled to our human rights, we must also respect and defend the human rights of others.
The idea of human rights is also closely linked to that of natural rights: some recognize no difference between the two and consider them synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to avoid association with certain characteristics traditionally associated with natural rights. [4] In particular, natural rights are considered to be beyond the power of a government or international body to deny them. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 is an important legal instrument that enshrines a concept of natural rights in non-binding international law. Natural rights have traditionally been considered exclusively negative rights,[5] while human rights also include positive rights. [6] Even in a conception of human rights in natural law, the two terms may not be synonymous. First, should rights be analyzed only in terms of duties to others (with another condition), or should we also include other concepts such as permission, power, and immunity? Hohfeld believed that, strictly speaking, something was a legal claim only if it was consistent with an obligation to others, but he argued that the use of the law was often confusing because the reference really referred to one of the other terms. Thus, the law also sometimes said that X had a right if (1) he had A`s permission, (2) he had A`s legal authority, (3) Y had no legal authority to influence him. There are also several ways to categorize rights, such as: The details of property rights vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, perhaps more than those of almost all other types of rights. In addition, many jurisdictions have different rules regarding property rights to land (and its furniture) compared to all other types of businesses.
For these details, reference should be made to the reference works of case law. (See Hume 1740, Book III, Section III, where he discusses the concepts which, in his opinion, underlie the rules of occupancy, limitation, accession, and succession by which property may be acquired. He points out that it is not uncommon to reasonably claim that a rule of a certain content is better than a rule with slightly different content. Rather, it is important that there be legal regulation in this regard.) The signatories of the Declaration of Independence considered it a „self-evident truth“ that all human beings „are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.“ In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that the existence of inalienable rights is useless for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – according to which rights and obligations flow from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely used alternative. In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a sophisticated treatment of this argument of inalienability. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the factual inalienability of aspects of personality that distinguish persons from things.