Category: Individual Rights

Individual rights are those considered so essential that they warrant specific statutory protection from interference. While the U.S. Constitution, for example, divides and restricts the powers of the federal and state governments to check their own and each other’s power, it also expressly ensures and protects certain rights and liberties of individuals from government interference. Most of these rights, such as the First Amendment’s prohibition of government actions that limit the freedom of speech and the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms, are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Other individual rights, however, are established throughout the Constitution, such as the right to trial by jury in Article III and the Sixth Amendment, and the Due Process of Law Clause found in the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment.

Many individual rights protected by the Constitution deal with criminal justice, such as the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment’s well-known right against self-incrimination. Other individual rights are established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its interpretations of the often vaguely worded rights found in the Constitution.

Individual rights are often considered in contrast to group rights, the rights of groups based on the enduring characteristics of their members. Examples of group rights include the rights of an indigenous people that its culture should be respected and the rights of a religious group that it should be free to engage in collective expressions of its faith and that its sacred sites and symbols should not be desecrated.

Along with political rights, the constitutions of democracies around the world protect the legal rights of people accused of crimes from unfair or abusive treatment at the hands of the government. As in the United States, most democracies guarantee all people the due process of law in dealing with the government. Also, most constitutional democracies protect the personal rights of all individuals under their jurisdictions. Examples of these commonly protected individual rights include:

Most democracies ensure the right to freedom of religion, belief, and thought. This freedom includes the right of all individuals to practice, discuss, teach, and promote the religion or belief of their choice. This includes the right to wear religious clothing and take part in religious rituals. People are free to change their religion or belief and to embrace a wide range of non-religious beliefs including atheism or agnosticism, satanism, veganism, and pacifism. Democracies typically limit the rights of religious freedom only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

Mentioned in the constitutions of more than 150 countries, the right to privacy refers to the concept that an individual’s personal information is protected from public scrutiny. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called it “the right to be left alone.” The right to privacy has been interpreted to encompass the right to personal autonomy or to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts. However, privacy rights usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, reproduction, and parenting.

Like religion, the right to privacy is often balanced against society’s best interests, such as maintaining public safety. For example, while Americans know the government collects personal information, most find such surveillance acceptable, especially when necessary to protect national security.

Personal property rights refer to the philosophical and legal ownership and use of resources. In most democracies, individuals are guareteed the right to accumulate, hold, assign, rent, or sell their property to others. Personal property may be either tangible and intangible. Tangible property includes items such as land, animal, merchandise, and jewelry. Intangible property includes items like stocks, bonds, patents, and copyrights to intellectual property.

Basic property rights ensure the possessor the continuous peaceful possession of both tangible and intangible property to the exclusion of others except persons who can be proven to hold a legally superior right or title to such property. They also ensure the possessor the right to recover personal property that has been illegally taken from them.

While the freedom of speech, as stated by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, protects the right of all individuals to express themselves, it encompasses far more than simple speech. As has been interpreted by the courts, “expression” can include religious communications, political speech or peaceful demonstration, voluntary association with others, petitioning the government, or printed publication of opinion. In this manner, certain non-verbal “speech actions,” which express opinions, such as burning the U.S. flag, are treated as protected speech.

It is important to note that the freedom of speech and expression protects individuals from the government, not from other individuals. No federal, state, or local government body may take any action that prevents or discourage individuals from expressing themselves. However, freedom of speech does not prohibit private entities, such as businesses, from limiting or prohibiting certain forms of expression. For example, when the owners of some American professional football teams banned their players from kneeling rather than standing during the performance of the National Anthem as a form of protest against police shootings of unarmed Black Americans, they could not be deemed to have violated their employees’ rights of free speech.

The doctrine of individual rights in the United States was first formally expressed in the Declaration of Independence, approved by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. While the Declaration’s primary purpose was to detail the reasons the thirteen American Colonies could no longer be a part of the British Empire, its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, also stressed the importance of individual rights to a free society. The philosophy was embraced not only by Americans but by people seeking freedom from oppressive monarchial rule worldwide, eventually influencing events like the French Revolution of 1789 to1802.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivers his famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the Freedom March on Washington in 1963. Bettmann/Getty Images

Though Jefferson left no personal record of it, many scholars believe he was motivated by the writings of the English philosopher John Locke. In his classic 1689 essay Second Treatise of Government, Locke contended that all individuals are born with certain “inalienable” rights—God-given natural rights that governments could take way or grant. Among these rights, wrote Locke, were “life, liberty, and property.” Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To ensure the preservation of mankind, Locke reasoned that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as their choices do not interfere with the liberty of others. Murders, for example, forfeit their right to life since they act outside of Locke’s concept of the law of reason. Locke, therefore, believed liberty should be far-reaching.

Locke believed that besides land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances, “property’ referred to the ownership of one’s self, which included a right to personal well-being. Jefferson, however, chose the now-famous phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” to describe the freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

Locke went on to write that the purpose of government is to secure and ensure the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. In return, wrote Locke, the people are obliged to obey the laws set down by their rulers. This sort of “moral contract,” however, would be voided if a government persecutes its people with ‘a long train of abuses’ over an extended period. In such cases, Locke wrote, the people have both the right and duty to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

By the time Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he had witnessed how Locke’s philosophies had helped to fuel the overthrow of the rule of King James II of England in the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 1688.

With their independence from England secured, America’s Founders turned to create a form of government with enough power to act on a national level, but not so much power that it could ever threaten the individual rights of the people. The result, the Constitution of the United States of America, written in Philadelphia of 1787, remains the oldest national constitution in use today. The Constitution creates a system of federalism that defines the form, function, and powers of the principal organs of government, as well as the basic rights of citizens.

Taking effect on December 15, 1791, the first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—protects the rights of all citizens, residents, and visitors on American soil by limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States. Created at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists, who feared an all-powerful national government, the Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government. It further prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, forced self-incrimination, and the imposition of double jeopardy in the prosecution of criminal offenses. Perhaps most importantly, prohibits the government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The most serious threat to the Bill of Rights’ universal protection of individual rights came in 1883 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark decision in the case of Barron v. Baltimore ruled that protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. The Court reasoned that the framers of the Constitution had not intended for the Bill of Rights to extend to the actions of the states.

The case involved John Barron, the owner of a busy and profitable deep-water wharf in Maryland’s Baltimore Harbor. In 1831, the city of Baltimore undertook a series of street improvements that required diverting several small streams that emptied into Baltimore Harbor. The construction resulted in large quantities of dirt, sand, and sediment being swept downstream into the harbor, causing problems for wharf owners, including Barron, who depended on deep water to accommodate vessels. As the material accumulated, the water near Barron’s wharf decreased to a point that it became almost impossible for merchant ships to dock. Left nearly useless, the profitability of Barron’s wharf declined substantially. Barron sued the city of Baltimore seeking compensation for his financial losses. Barron claimed that the city’s activities had violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment—that is, the city’s development efforts effectively allowed it to take his property without just compensation. While Barron originally sued for $20,000, the county court awarded him only $4,500. When the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed that decision, leaving him with no compensation whatsoever, Barron appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. The decision contrasted with several of the major decisions of the Marshall Court that had expanded the power of the national government.

In his opinion, Marshall wrote that while the decision was one of “great importance,” it was “not of much difficulty.” He went to explain that, “The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.” The Barron decision left the state governments free to disregard the Bill of Rights when dealing with their citizens and proved to be a motivating factor in the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A key part of the Post-Civil War amendment ensured all rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, guarantees all Americans their constitutional rights, and prohibits the states from passing laws limiting those rights.

Domestic Violence Laws in NSW

1. Describe your chosen issue, outlining any relevant legislation.

Domestic violence, as defined by the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, refers to an “offence committed by a person against another person with whom the person who commits the offence has (or has had) a domestic relationship, the commission of which is intended to coerce or control the person against whom it is committed or to cause that person to be intimidated or fearful (or both)”. Domestic violence involves abuse in many forms, such as physical, verbal, emotional, financial, social, spiritual and sexual abuse. It is considered a violation of human rights, as the United Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” as well as “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

2. What are the issues or concerns surrounding your chosen issue that affect how justice is achieved for the individual and/or society?

There are multiple issues surrounding domestic violence which impact how justice is achieved for individuals and society. A major issue which influences the attainment of justice for an individual is accessibility to the law. Due to the fact that domestic violence occurs within the privacy of one’s home, many cases are left unreported and domestic violence victims are unable to seek assistance from the legal system. Domestic violence victims are often reluctant to seek help due to certain barriers within the legal system, thus affecting the victim’s accessibility to justice. These barriers include the unavailability of courts within the victim’s area, delays within the court procedures as well as the fees charged for filing a case. These barriers hinder the victim’s accessibility to the legal system, thus affecting the achievement of justice for the individual. In regards to how justice is achieved for society, one crucial concern is how domestic violence laws reflect community standards and expectations. The consensus regarding domestic violence within a community directly corresponds with the community’s attitudes towards gender roles, sexuality and sexual assault. Due to the controversial and sensitive nature of domestic violence, creating laws which reflect the values of all communities is nearly impossible. This may impede justice for society as not all individuals will be satisfied with the laws made, as the laws may not reflect their individual values and beliefs. When achieving justice for the individual and society in domestic violence cases, the two main issues which may impede justice are accessibility and community values and standards.

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for individuals and society in regards to the issue raised in your article.

Domestic violence laws in NSW are fairly ineffective in achieving justice for individuals, as many domestic violence victims have limited accessibility to the legal system. In many instances, the victim cannot easily leave their abuser due to their inability to safely escape their circumstances. There are multiple barriers which prevent the victim from seeking justice, such as the unavailability of courts, delays within the court procedures as well as the fees charged for filing a case. Due to the barriers which restrict the victim’s accessibility of the legal system, justice is not adequately achieved for the individuals. According to the article “Domestic violence victims face long wait for justice in overcrowded Sydney courts” (ABC News, 2018), the overcrowding within Sydney courts does not allow justice to be served efficiently and within a reasonable amount of time. The delays in court procedures cause further trauma to victims of domestic violence, as the constant adjourning of cases may cause the victim to relive their traumatic experiences. As a result, the victim may suffer from panic attacks, feelings of hopelessness or depression and an inability to concentrate. Based on the evidence provided, the justice system is ineffective in achieving justice for individuals in domestic violence cases as the inefficiency of the courts negatively affects the victim’s accessibility to the law. Currently, domestic violence laws within NSW are fairly ineffective in achieving justice for the individual, as the law is often inaccessible for victims of domestic violence.

In regards to achieving justice for society, domestic violence laws in NSW have had mixed results in reflecting community standards and expectations, as there are varied responses to the domestic violence legislation within the community. This is due to the fact that individuals within a community have different notions regarding domestic violence. Although some people consider domestic violence to be a prevalent issue within society, others may believe that domestic violence is normal and acceptable. In most cases, laws concerning contentious issues such as domestic violence are not able to please all the members of a community. In the article “Advocates call for NSW leaders to ‘step up’ on family violence and join Our Watch” (ABC News, 2019), the ineffectiveness of the legal system in reflecting the values of domestic violence advocates is demonstrated. According to domestic violence advocates, the refusal of the NSW Government to join the national violence prevention agency Our Watch indicates that the government does not prioritise domestic violence as a relevant issue. As a result of the NSW Government’s refusal, many advocates are outraged, thus depicting how the legal system is ineffective in reflecting the values of those who consider domestic violence to be an important issue. However, those who are not concerned with the matter may be indifferent to the government’s refusal, showing how different people have varying responses to domestic violence laws depending on their own beliefs. Domestic violence laws have mixed results in achieving justice for society, as community values are typically varied and cannot be fully reflected within a single set of laws.

Rise of Homelessness in NSW

1. Describe your chosen issue, outlining any relevant legislation.

Homelessness, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is when a person does not have suitable accommodation and their current living arrangement is in a dwelling that is inadequate, has no tenure or does not allow them to have control of, and access to space for social relations. Being in a state of homelessness violates many human rights, as the United Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” and “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” However, despite the fact that the right to shelter is a human right as outlined in the UDHR, there is no legal right to shelter in Australia, as it is seen more as a social obligation to assist those who cannot afford housing.

2. What are the issues or concerns surrounding your chosen issue that affect how justice is achieved for the individual and/or society?

There are several issues concerning homelessness which affect how justice is achieved for the individual and society. An issue that affects how justice is achieved for homeless individuals is the protection and recognition of their rights. Due to the fact that homeless people are a severely marginalised group within society, they face multiple violations of human rights, including the the right to liberty and security of the person, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination.

These violations of individual rights prevent the homeless from achieving justice, as it hinders the ability of homeless individuals to seek help from the legal system when wronged. As for society, an issue surrounding homelessness which affects the achievement of justice is the balance of community values and individual rights. Many people have different perceptions of the homeless based on their own values, morals and ethics. Balancing how the community views homelessness with the rights of homeless individuals affects how justice is served for society, as attempting to appease both parties may not result in a desirable outcome for either the community or the individual. The main issues surrounding homelessness which affect how justice is achieved for the individual and society are the protection of rights and the balance of community values and individual rights.

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for individuals and society in regards to the issue raised in your article.

Laws concerning homelessness within NSW are relatively ineffective in attaining justice for homeless individuals, as the laws do not sufficiently protect and recognise their individual rights. Currently, the homelessness laws in NSW only provide general provisions and do not actively protect the individual rights of the homeless. The lack of protection and recognition for the rights of homeless individuals is portrayed in the Homelessness Bill 2013. Within the bill, Section 14 stipulates that “This Act does not, by its terms or operation, create or give rise to any rights (whether substantive or procedural), or obligations, that are legally enforceable in judicial or other proceedings. No action, suit or proceeding is to be instituted in reliance on the terms of this Act or the operation of this Act.” Although the act recognises the rights of the homeless to a certain extent, it is specified that the act is not enforceable in protecting the individual rights outlined within the bill. The Homelessness Bill 2013 reveals the ineffectiveness of the legal system in protecting the individual rights of the homeless, as the bill is limited in its enforceability and fails to competently protect those who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. Homelessness laws, in their current state, are relatively ineffective at attaining justice for the individual as the laws fail to protect individual rights of the homeless.

Homelessness laws in NSW are fairly ineffective in achieving justice for society, as the laws are unsuccessful in balancing community values and individual rights. Balancing community values and the individual rights of the homeless is often difficult due to the fact that many people have negative perceptions towards the homeless. These negative perceptions include the belief that all homeless people are alcohol or drug abusers, all homeless people are living on the streets and all homeless people are lazy individuals. However, effective legislation must be able to conciliate both the individuals and society, so laws regarding homelessness must also take into account the individual rights of the homeless, regardless of the stigmas and negative attitudes surrounding them. The ineffectiveness of the homelessness laws is depicted in the article “NSW Government will move to change laws to remove Martin Place tent city” (ABC News, 2017), which announces the implementation of the Sydney Public Reserves (Public Safety) Act 2017. According to the article, the bill empowers NSW Police to remove people or goods from the Martin Place tent city, if there were ‘unacceptable impacts on the public’. The act violates multiple human rights, as it denies the right to be treated with dignity, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and the right to an adequate standard of living. This indicates how homelessness laws are ineffective in balancing community values with individual rights, as there is a blatant disregard for the human rights of the homeless. Although some may believe that removing the homeless from populated areas is a positive outcome, the bill does not take into consideration the individual rights of homeless people. Currently, homelessness laws in NSW are fairly ineffective in attaining justice for society as the laws do not equally balance the rights of individuals and community values.

There are pros and cons between both individual rights and public order, but which hold more usefulness in society that protects privacy. As a society we accept the individual rights as a claim on independency. The mi their individual rights are inclined to add disorder on public order, which I believe it holds some amount of disadvantages to certain societies of the world. Public order is in space to keep the collective as an entirety safe-haven from any wrongdoings. Public order is also a system in place that limits some freedoms that people desire. Freedoms is the epitome of life that everyone can take advantage of no matter the cause. Public order is abstaining from any acts of complicity that may lead to violence, which may be disrupting, while out in the world or any other acts or conduct that may be illegal. For example, disturbance in public order often times results in hindering someone else of their individual rights. Public order has been contemplated that disrupting the public in a way that may make being in the public is unsafe.When breaching public order, it is considered an illegal act, and can lead to jail time and or paying a fine if a conviction is acquired. Nevertheless the actual consequence to pay actually lands on the shoulders of society as our individual rights are contravene upon when public order is, well, not in order. As a citizen we grasp the knowledge that we have individual rights and those rights come with having or sustaining public order. As Individuals living in an American society we all have individual rights. Our individual rights are our virtues that expound and validates our freedom of relevance in a social America.

All the rest of the rights come with consequences or fine print. Our individual rights are there to equally provide us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this world of social America. They exist to give people his or her freedoms, while that same freedom can allow people to take advantage of their freedoms. Freedom is the item that keeps the people of this country happy. People feel secure in what they are doing during their everyday lives. A person’s individual rights are what keep people happy throughout his or her life. People are given various rights that make them feel happy and appreciated even if they do not recognize them. Individual rights are freedoms that let people choose who they want to be and also give them the fair usage of that they deserve to get as a citizen. Individual rights are the rights that people are given to keep them from being mistreated by the government or anyone else. Also most of these rights are to keep the people from being mistreated by the justice system. Our individual rights are mostly summed up within the first Ten Amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights helps to protect the citizens of this country. According to the National Constitution Center, 2008 “Nearly two-thirds of the Bill of Rights is devoted to safeguarding the rights of persons suspected or accused of crime”. These rights are outlined in the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments. They give people the right to “due process of law, fair trial, and freedom from self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment and being held in jeopardy twice for the same crime. National Constitution Center, (2008) Take for instance the first Amendment, it protects freedom of speech, press, religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; the right for people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of a grievance. (Bill of Rights, 2000-2009) The upper hand of having this right was so that society could peaceably seek out about the injustices of the country without being penalized or harm for doing so. This amendment allows the press to question people of a certain caliber and also ask questions that the world wants to know about. It also has the advantage of helping aid in speaking out when there has been an injustice to others and yourself. The disadvantage though is that, if expressing your first amendment right becomes violent, you can face jail time and pay possible fines.

This deranges the public order. If people happen to be apart of an organization or mainstream an event, they may have law enforcement officials surround them for the protection of others and for that particular organization most of the time the protection is for the other people and to keep outsiders from deterring any events. This is where public order comes in to play. It also poses a disadvantage because the area that the organization is acting or addressing their first amendment right in cannot disrupt others who may have to cross paths through or around the organization. The area must remain safe and sufficient for all if not then the involvement of the law will commence.

There is not complete freedom in expressing the individual right because it could affect public order. The advantages to having individual rights are being able to express yourself and be treated equally among society. However, the disadvantage is that the right you carry is limited according to what effect expressing it will have on society. Without public order, many of our rights would not carry the same significance. Public order places a boundary on our individual rights, but it is a boundary that is “for our own good”. If every right that is outlined for us had no boundaries or restrictions on it, our society would end up in chaos.

Like mentioned before, our rights contain fine print that not everyone reads when signing on the dotted line. This fine print is what keeps public order while still allowing us to retain our rights we believe we are entitled to. Unfortunately, many people out there are not concerned with public order and only care about expressing and practicing their own rights with no regard to what effect it may or may not have on anybody else. Others are more concerned with public order and public safety, that they support rules or laws that put up invisible walls that box our rights in.

They cannot wander free for fear of devastation or destruction to our society. Regardless of a particular point of view, we believe that anyone in a fair and honest discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of individual rights verses public order can see the advantages of embracing our proclaimed rights in America as well as the disadvantages and being able to admit the advantages and disadvantages of how American goes about maintaining public order.

Ethics Models/Rules/Views

Ethics are what we consider to be right and wrong. Although sometimes we think ethics are black and white, or something is completely right or wrong that may not always be the case. There are many different views or models of ethics that people follow that can alter what they think is ethical. One of these perspectives is the principle of long-term self-interest. This model emphasizes on the importance of doing what is right for you or your organization. Another aspect to consider about this model is planning for the future and considering the best way to achieve your long-term goals rather than focusing on the short-term, small picture. A different ethical model is the principle of government requirements. This model focuses on following laws because these are the set standards that we can be held accountable for. This means that even if good can come out of breaking a law, we shouldn’t break it because these are the minimal moral standards of society and to break them would cause chaos and would result in punishment. Another ethical model includes the principle of individual rights. The focus of this model is to allow others to keep their rights intact. If you don’t want someone else to impede your ability to exercise and enjoy your rights, you should not impede someone else’s.

Personal Perspective

The model of ethics that I associate myself the most with is the principle of individual rights. I think that it is important to respect others and not get in the way of other people’s rights because I value my individual rights and don’t want other people to affect mine. This is especially important because these rights are typically agreed-upon rights and it is unfair to make an agreement and then fail to hold up your end of the deal. I like having the respect of others and to know that other people’s words are meaningful and that there is honesty behind them. When people don’t follow the principle of individual rights it makes me feel like people are dishonest and don’t deserve my trust and I don’t want anyone to look at me in that way. One of my values is respect, and in order to give and receive love, I feel like there has to be a base of trust.

Ethical Dilemma Recognition and Analysis

An ethical dilemma is a situation where you have to make a decision knowing that the decision could cause harm to others or result in negative consequences. An ethical dilemma that I face regularly is related to school. Oftentimes, I am overwhelmed and feel like I don’t have time to complete all of my required homework assignments, work, participate in organizations and study for exams. This leads me to the ethical dilemma of looking up my homework questions online and trying to find the answers instead of working through the problems on my own. When looking at this dilemma from the principle of long-term self-interest, it would make sense to look up the homework online so I could focus on more important activities such as focusing on tests that affect my grade and overall grade point average (GPA) more. Another ethical view is the principle of government requirements. Not doing homework assignments is not against the law, so someone who follows the principle of government requirements wouldn’t say this is unethical and it would be fine to do. The last perspective is the principle of individual rights. A person who follows this ethical model would say that it is wrong to look the answers up online because it disrespects the teachers who put time and energy into the homework assignments. Agreed upon rights between professors and students include a standard of respect and that professors will facilitate learning and encourage questions and growth of knowledge. As students, we agree to respect our professors and do the assigned activities to grow as professionals and succeed in the class. This breaks the agreed-upon standard of respect by not participating fully in assignments that are meant to help us. The dilemma is resolved by only looking up questions online when I am unable to understand the material after looking through the book and notes taken in class. The implications include how well I will do on the test if I don’t understand the homework assignments. The limitations include that other people with different ethical opinions could chose a different answer based on their ethical model. People also could have different opinions within the principle of the individual rights model. People could see looking up homework questions online as not affecting the professor’s rights and therefore it wouldn’t see it as unethical.

Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility

I think that it is crucial for organizations to be ethical. They make up a huge part of our economy and culture and oftentimes set an example for individual households. If a large organization puts no emphasis or effort into recycling, this could send the message that being environmentally friendly is unimportant and individual households could follow this example and not recycle in their homes. Additionally, in this example, if a company participating in recycling or other attempts to be environmentally friendly, it means it cares about the community they’re based in instead of focusing solely on profits. I think that organizations do have some responsibility to give back to the community they are located in because their community is what supports their business and allows in to thrive and be profitable so in return they should give back to the community as well. I think that organizations should adopt a strategy somewhere in between an accommodative and proactive strategy. An accommodative strategy can be seen when businesses will accept responsibility for mistakes and put their best foot forward by putting all the needed time, energy, and resources into resolving the problem. A proactive approach is seen when a company plans for and anticipates responsibility before a problem arises and goes above and beyond to acknowledge the problem and set an example for other organizations. I think that a mix of these two corporate social responsibility strategies would be the best plan of action. It is important for a company to care about their community and be responsible and acknowledge mistakes and what they can improve it, but there should still be focus on other organizational objectives as well. A proactive strategy could take away from profits or quality of the quality and services offered if too much time and energy is spent on it which harms not only the organization but all the stakeholders as well.

The human rights (HR) discourse is one bound up with questions of law, justice, and morality, and state. What we know today as human rights is made up of different philosophical ideas, geography and historical events. Right have moved from natural law, the monotony of the church, to that enjoyed by the head of the family, and further enjoyed by being membership to a group in the feudal era. Law generated rights but also customs and traditions also had a greater impact on the law as in the feudal era duties generated rights. In modern times law is made an instrument of right and justice as seen in the Universal Declaration of Right. Modern HR generated out of the atrocities of the two world wars. It has its root in western legal liberal values such as equality, dignity and inalienable right of an individual based on the rationality of individuals and natural fact of being human with man as the subject of the right. These legal rights are individual right not held in a group and its universality call on states to have a duty to protecting, respecting and enforcing these rights. Cultural relativists and scholars such as Whyte (2019) see human rights as a neo-liberal agenda; a way to internalize through the law that provides undisputed code; capitalist social relations for legal security of the western civilization and the market order.

Most theories and ideas thus come out with different conceptions of human rights and justifications. Marxism is concerned primarily with the economy and the relations between production as the ‘basics’ of society as Marx asserts “The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and intellectual processes of life” (1859), while realists, on the other hand is concerned with power, the centrality of the state and interest as a result of unchanging pessimistic human nature. Although both schools of thought hold different views of their perception of values of human rights, they share similar ideas of it as well. In this essay, I wish to discuss the relationship between the realist and Marxist conception of human rights focusing on role of the state and different perceptions of right and morality. This essay will base on the theoretical core values because of the different controversies and lack of agreement that exist among scholars. I will start with their similarity, the second subheading will address their differences and I will conclude by discussing their strengths and weaknesses.

Both Marxists and the realists have shown in their writings that human right is only a façade and an instrument to further particular interest. This has led most scholars to question their compatibility and belief in the present right declaration.

For the realist, the Human right law is just an instrument of state power over the weak. The realists see human rights as secondary and state, power and interest as primary, which is why most states will pursue human right abroad only when it fits with their national interest. Thus state will only bother about human right if they are tools for the state to maximize more power over the weak and further its interest defined in terms of power as various humanitarian interventions such as U.S invasion of Panama have been not for humanitarian purposes but to further the interest of the state and thus a facade. Also, that explains why when national interest coincides with human rights, there is no real commitment as human right principles are undermined and only give attention to human right when it has something to gain and it is in the interest of the state as specified in the Melian dialogue “What we want to do now is to show you that we have come here in the interests of our empire…since the survival of your city will be good for us as well as for you.’.

For Marx, Rights are based on economic and political emancipation and thus reduced to bourgeoisie right and an ideological tool created by the superstructure of the capitalist class, as a way to keep their interests, power and justifies their illusionary rights. For Marx, “ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas” (1859). Marxists see the human right declaration as reflecting and serving the interest of the bourgeoisie class as “legislation, whether political or civil, never does more than proclaim, express in words, the will of economic relations”. These bourgeoisie rights are illusionary as such society give rights to an abstraction, not the human person, isolate and privatizes man, as men are both the subject and the object of right . This means that rights divides and benefits some bearers and imposes suffering and legal disabilities on others. According to Marx in his capital, “each disposes only of what is his own…Looks to himself only and no one troubles himself about the rest” (1867). Men posses right to sue their employers even when they do not have the finance to hire a lawyer, this according to Zigedy (2013), shows the link between human rights and the capitalist society that provide an illusionary fair moral framework which provides a foundation for the growth of capitalism. Marx sees the present right system as negative or empty right as the right of liberty is contradicted by the right to property which is used to exploit the workers (Lacroix and Pranchere, 2012). Forsythe and Mach (2002), reiterate legal human right is negated by exploitative capitalism that leads to accumulation of profit rather than the rights of individuals thus a tool for international legitimation of capitalism. Thus human right is a tool for unshackling and promoting the ruling class and its world view with the law as a tool having no power to dissolve this mode of production.

The realist and the Marxist differ in their annotated role of the state. Both Marxists and realists share similar assumptions on how the international human right system works, but they differ on how the state plays a “progressive historical role”. While realists see the state having a positive role in the regulation of the individual rights in the society, Marxist thinks of state as an instrument of oppression, will not have any role in the classless society and thus wither away.

For the realists, the law is derived from a divine source (natural law), with the state as absolute that must be obeyed for the people’s good. The state is seen as a unit/sovereign that speaks with one voice and represents all, as can be seen as Thucydides “Melian dialogue” illustrates this, in the case of both the Melian and the Athenians where a representative from the government is chosen to represent all other individuals and negotiate “you are refusing us a public platform because you fear that people if they hear us speak persuasively and without interruption might be swayed by us, we know that is why you have brought us here to speak before only a selected few”. Nicolo Machiavelli (1532) also states the state’s dominance in the international system by acknowledging the prince, the most visible actor to take whatever means to secure its survival, power and self-interest. According to Hobbes, to restore man to justice and harmony can be done only through the coercive power of the sovereign vested with absolute power and takes actions necessary to preserve the security of the state (1651). Carr (1939) asserts that the only way for morality to exist is through the effective authority of the sovereign. State is thus an effective means for individual rights and protection. For society to live there is a need to submit to the sovereign all their rights as the sovereign is rational of what is good for everyone and “provide privilege definition of good”. The state represents them, thus individual have rights under the sovereign who apportions right, shapes interest, maintains peace and safety, as outside of the state is anarchy. Thus the state is the only effective means for individuals to lead a moral life.

For Marx, states are nothing but a product of the relationship between production and means which the bourgeoisie class use to express their interest, expand, maintain the system of exploitation and hide the reality of class rule by giving it an “illusory ideological shape”. Thus rights and ideas of HR are the expressions of the bourgeoisie society that provides negative right to obscure their class rule, sustain the system of exploitation and create an illusion of real equality as the bourgeoisie right to property hinders the proletariat from the fulfillment of their right. Because the system has pit man against man, state is brought in to provide an illusionary unity by imposing restrictions and rules that grant and protect these bourgeoisie rights. Here, rights are the instrument of class legitimization and state as a product of this class rather becomes an instrument that exacerbates division and inequality and restricts individuals in the society from getting full libertу. Also, Parekh (1986) states that capitalist states allow these human rights laws only as long as they do not threaten the bourgeoisie existence. But Communism will abolish the root of this conflict, the negative right and its elements for preservation (state) and introduce genuine human rights.

Rights are created by law and law articulates justice. Although both Marxists and realists do dismiss the liberal values of right, they have a different understanding of what right and morality is and how morality is achieved.

For Marxists, morality and right are just false ideologies that pervert our understanding of our situation, in the interest of the hegemonic class which is presented not to free but to bind us from the same oppression. Marx in his economic and philosophic manuscript (1844) reject the realist claim of natural law and states that man is a “natural being” but are “human” based on their creativity with labor in which they humanize and realize themselves as full supreme beings with full liberty “object of his instinct exist outside him..but are the object of his need, indispensable and essential for the realization and confirmation of his substantial powers”. But the current capitalist system stripes men of this right as it shows a society where people are naturally divided and opposed to the interest of the other not because of human nature but as a result of the economic structure that divides the society into “Laborers” and “capitalist vampires” and permeates the whole society. Marx in his “Capital” (1867) states “each…Looks to himself only and no one troubles himself about the rest”. For Marx, these rights are negative and limits men from full liberty as these rights are contradicted in practical application, as the right to liberty not to harm others is contradicted with the right to property; as men are alienated from its labor which exploits and oppress. Also, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man where all men are barriers to their own freedom and justice obliging to the dominant class interest. Thus, the moral values and principles in the human right are not moral justice and rights are just illusions and of “deceptive appearance”. This is the cause of war, but war will bring about revolution as “the forces of production which develop in the midst of bourgeois society create at the same time the material conditions for resolving this contradiction… the prehistory of human society ends. In Grundrisse (1857), Marx states “man is an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society”. Morality can only come when there is total destruction of these structures and instituting of the communist system; thus the realization of man as a citizen. In essence, Human right thus becomes an instrument of exploitation, inequality and the destruction of individual freedom.

For the realist, on the other hand, morality described by the human right law is different from what they think is morality. For Morgenthau, political action is an attempt to realize moral values through politics in terms of power. Realist traces the origin of moral law from the natural law (divine authority) with the centrality of the state as the sovereign who has the power to shape interest and secure the state’s survival. For the individuals to have right there is the need to submit to the sovereign as the sovereign acts on their behalf, shapes interest and “provide privileged definition of good”. Outside of the state is anarchy with no moral, no right and state of nature with competition of power as “every man is his own judge” due to the lack of a sovereign. Morgenthau asserts that the world is made up of opposing interest with human nature selfish and lust for power, thus in order to act morally there is need to understand these laws society operate in to be able to translate into successful political action and make moral decisions. It further calls on the need to study what is, which is a call on statesmen to promote and protect national interest rather than what ought to be; an abstract notion of universal morality. Moral goodness is only seen in that that seeks to preserve the state. Also for Morgenthau, man is a political animal “born to seek power” and power is the end when he asserts “we assume that statesmen think and act in term of interest defined as power” (1978, 4-15) thus moral principles does not determine the action of states. Machiavelli, acknowledges the prince, the most visible actor to take whatever means, even “evil course if he must” “must be a liar and hypocrite” “he must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variation of fortune dictate, and, …if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained “to secure its survival, power and self-interest because human nature is unchanging. State’s actions cannot be judged to be good or bad for the realist, as what is done with good intention but unwisely leads to a disastrous result, thus the need for prudence. Thus for the realist universal morality in politics brings no gain, what is moral is making a policy that is of national interest to the state not of moral/utopian policy. Also in contrast with the Marxist, war does not bring about a change rather humans have rights by being under the state but outside of the state is a division as a result of anarchy and human nature prone to conflict as a result of constant strive for power. War is a continuation of politics and changes nothing as most countries benefit from war. Thus war is inevitable and a means to an end, with the end as power.

One weakness of both realist and Marxist is that they offer a one-dimensional account of the international human right system and prevent forces that shows that new pattern path of historical development is possible. The realists need to go beyond the state-centric system and move towards the conception of society and individual that have different entries to coexist within it to incorporate non-state and individual role. Marx on the other hand center the society on class positions and excluding/generalizing other forms of social situations such as race, gender, status which are also important. The realists portray the political nature/language of human rights, the role of power and order with the state as primary-decision maker. Marx’s strength sterns from his ability to historically trace today’s system of inequality and conflict to economic system of relationship between productions.

In conclusion, although none of these theories have been able to fully predict the international system, thus they do have both their strengths and their weaknesses and have proven to be relevant in the political analysis today.

In 246 B.C., ten years after the Chou dynasty had been defeated by the Ch’in armies, a new king named Ch’in Shih Huang-ti came to the throne as the new emperor of China. Under his ruling, Ch’in Shih Huang-ti gave China an enduring form of government that followed the practices of Legalism. The philosophy that is Legalism supports the belief that a highly efficient and powerful government was the key to restoring order. Being that emperor Ch’in Shih Huang-ti had been a worshipper of Legalism, he endorsed certain concepts in an attempt to eliminate opposition. Through rewarding or punishing citizens depending on their obedience and controlling ideas as well as actions by ordering the ignition of all the books that were judged to be either useless or harmful, these ideas had arguably aided in concluding China’s prolonged period of disorder yet also abetted in the limitation of freedom. This way of conducting remained until the fall of the Ch’in in 202 B.C.. Currently, China is an authoritarian state that is ruled under a one-party system. This has been the case since the day Chairman Mao Zedong proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, 1949, “The Chinese Communist Party has been in sole control of China’s government”. Additionally, its government has been known to historically value state sovereignty over individual rights. Furthermore, even as the Ch’in dynasty’s short-lived reign came to an end, its Legalist customs still present an impact within the violation of human rights in China today.

The Chinese Communist Party authorizes the continuation of targeting religious and ethnic minorities. This is evident through the repression of Islam traveling throughout China. According to Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times, “After decades of relative openness that allowed more moderate forms of Islam to blossom, this (subduing) campaign represents the newest front in the Chinese Communist Party’s (extensive reversion) of individual religious freedoms”. The harsh suppression of Muslims began with the Uighurs in Xinjiang. It was about a decade ago when, at the hands of the Chinese government, more than one million Turkic Muslims in China’s western region of Xinjiang were incarcerated and even more forcefully assimilated. The intent behind this conditioning had been clarified by “Bu’ayixiemu Abulizi, director of the Moyu County Vocational Education and Training Center in Hotan Prefecture in the southwestern corner of Xinjiang, (to mean for a) change in the minds and thoughts of those who are forced to live there”. However, as stated by Jane Perlez of The New York Times, “The world has been noticeably quiet about (this region) where China has built a vast network of detention camps and systematic surveillance over the past two years in a state-led operation to convert Uighurs into loyal, secular supporters of the Communist Party”. This violation in the freedom of religion advanced into “China’s northwest, where the government stripped the most overt expressions of the Islamic faith from a picturesque valley (that captured the residency of most) devout Muslims. The authorities destroyed domes and minarets on mosques, including one in a small village near Linxia, a city known as ‘Little Mecca.’” This discriminatory animosity gradually reached officials in more regions and groups who took action by “shutting down mosques” and “banning the public use of Arabic script”.

The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly proven to have suppressed opposition to their governing. This means that any growing dissent that is expressed through forms of retaliation such as protests against China’s way of ruling are strictly discouraged. Furthermore, China hadn’t officially acknowledged human rights until after the march in Tiananmen Square during the early 1990s. However, as published by Jeff Widener of Gale in Context Opposing Viewpoints, “The events which led to the unparalleled suppression of the protests in June of 1989 actually began in 1985” when the Chinese Communist Party Chairman Hu Yaobang refused to respond to students and workers who had begun to rally in support of extensive democratic reforms throughout China with military force. As a result, Yaobang lost his position as chairman and passed away only two years later on April 15, 1989. Outpouring grief rang through Tiananmen Square where students began to gather in memory of Hu Yaobang and support for his political stand against military response. This moment is now recognized as a statement for democratic reforms which led to an uproar in strikes all across China. Although, the true horror hadn’t taken place until June 4, 1989 when “Tens of thousands of Chinese troops retook the center of the capital from pro-democracy protesters, killing scores of students and workers and wounding hundreds more as they fired submachine guns at crowds of people who tried to resist”.

People should keep your friends close and your enemies closer because the people you think are your friends can stab you in the back. In Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, a group of boys crash-landed on a deserted island where they formed rules and a system of government. Without the supervision of adults, they quickly turned violent and their society failed. The boys on the island failed to successfully run a government because of their lack of individual rights, which John Locke believed were necessary for a government to run successfully. The result of a government without individual rights is one where Jack stabs Ralph in the back and forms a corrupted dictatorship which ultimately caused the death of two boys on the island.

The boys lack of individual rights led by Ralph’s bad leadership and Jack’s rebellion leads to the boys’ failure to adequately govern themselves, which is supported by John Locke’s idea of natural rights. John Locke believed that people should have the ability to think, that people’s rights should be respected. He conceived in a monarchy where the king and queen had limited power to protect people’s natural rights and to prevent an absolute monarchy from transpiring. He believed that a government was created to respect people’s natural rights including life freedom and property. If the government does not provide what is needed to protect people’s natural rights, the people have the right to overthrow the government and form a new government that would support the people’s needs. John Locke once said, “People are obligated to defend anything to do with their life, freedom to do whatever they want, and protect anything they owned and anything that goes against people’s natural rights is untolerated.” (Lowe packet) This quote relates to natural rights because without it, the king or queen would have all the power and it would be an absolute monarchy where people wouldn’t have rights and the leader would abuse their power. After reading the Lord of the Flies, the actions of the boys on the island backs up John Locke’s idea of overthrowing a nonfunctional government that does not respect people’s natural rights. For example, Piggy from Lord of the Flies said, “And you shut up! Who are you, anyway? Sitting there telling people what to do. You can’t hunt, you can’t sing—”(Golding 91). Piggy and Jack were arguing about who was allowed to speak when Ralph intervened and told Jack to let Piggy speak because he has the conch. That was when Jack showed that he didn’t see Ralph as a leader. Jack believed that Ralph did not do anything to help the tribe. It shows Ralph’s failure to protect the boys’ individual rights. Although Ralph tried to be a good leader and keep everyone safe, his lack of effort leads to the downfall of the society they have built. He felt that keeping up the bonfire was more important than hunting which provokes Jack to leave and form his own tribe which was the start of a dictatorship. This was the beginning of the fall of Ralph’s tribe. This relates back to Locke’s idea where if somebody feels like their rights are not protected by their leader, they can overthrow the government and form a new one. Jack eventually did form his own tribe after not being able to handle Ralph any longer. He offered anyone who joined meat from his hunt Another example of the boys failure is, “See? See? That’s what you’ll get! I meant that! There isn’t a tribe for you anymore! The conch is gone” (Golding 181). Ralph’s inability to protect all the boys’ individual rights led to the perishment of the only rules they had and a rebellion from his own people. The conch was used to have the power to speak. Yet people broke the rules and Ralph did nothing about it. The conch was the only thing they had since they crash-landed on the island, but it was gone and disregarded when the conch shattered. Due to the disregard of the rules, it caused the death of Piggy and Simon. Itt also led to Ralph’s life to be at risk. Led by Jack’s command, his tribe is trying to hunt down every last member of Ralph’s group. This eventually led to Ralph to be the only survivor of his own tribe. This relates back to Locke’s idea of overthrowing a successful government and forming a new one. Jack formed his own tribe with a dictator type of government. At least now, the boys are actually doing their jobs although their although they completely lost their freedom. They now have one main priority of hunting which they are successful at. The boys showed obedience to Jack which was never shown to Ralph indicating that Jack’s leadership style is effective.

The boy’s inability to govern themselves had to do with the fact that the boy’s individual rights could not be expressed. It relates to John Locke’s view on an effective government that protect people’s natural rights. In Lord of The Flies, the boys individual rights were not protected which caused Jack’s rebellion in the first place. It included difference in priority and Lord of the Flies conveys that democracy can eventually turn into dictatorship. In the novel, Ralph’s democracy eventually turned into dictatorship after Jack took power. Rules are essential for a functioning government. Without it, the society falls apart and things goes violent quickly. In the beginning of the book, Jack was innocent but eventually he turned into a cruel person due to his hunger for power. Under Jack’s leadership, two fellow members of Ralph’s tribe died in his hands. This goes to show that people can change under a foreign/negative environment.

Introduction: The Interplay of Individual Rights and Public Health

Throughout the years, various epidemics, pandemics and diseases have affected the world and when they occur, citizens demand and expect the government to eradicate the disease, prevent and minimise its spread. This is where public health thrives, it may be defined as the protection of individuals health and well-being through the duties and powers of a state for the greater good of the public. It is, however not, an excuse for the infringement of human rights, even-though it subtly encourages conformity to laws if not given voluntarily, to reduce the risk of harm to the public.[footnoteRef:1] Solutions to public health issues may include the government violating individual rights, and when personal freedoms are being limited due to the greater good of the public, certain individuals protest. However, it relies on a necessary and justified framework which not only focuses on prevention, minimisation and containment of health risks but also making sure that these mechanisms aimed at protecting the public are not utilised in maximum capacity instead, it would be aimed at making sure that individual freedoms are only limited in a minimised extent. For instance, according to the Health Act 2006, smoking is banned in public places but not forbidden in an individual’s home in the UK. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill argue that as long as an individual’s freedom does not intrude on the safety and health of others, their autonomy will not be infringed upon[footnoteRef:2]. For instance, the control of infectious diseases may lead to the government using coercion to limit its spread and ensure the safety of the public. Individual rights may also be limited in situations concerning the protection of incapacitated people as it deals with people who cannot protect themselves, or have insufficient understanding to make informed choices, like children or the mentally handicapped[footnoteRef:3]. [1: G. Lawrence O and L. F. Wiley, “Public Health Law: Power, Duty and Restraint. (2016)] [2: Ibid.] [3: T. Murphy, ‘is human rights prepared? Risk, rights and public health emergencies” (2009)]

The Legal Framework of Public Health and Individual Rights

Paternalism also involves the state overriding an individual’s preference to prevent harm to said individual and the public; it is however argued that competent adults should be allowed to choose what preference they want to emphasise on, and some would rather choose their liberties over health, this leads to the biggest threat to public health which is the tobacco industry. Tobacco is ingrained in human lives globally, has been positively advertised and encouraged by the media and has contributed to the global economy, it was further discussed when it was revealed that the Czech Republic economically benefitted from the effects of smoking[footnoteRef:4]. But, the underlying effects of tobacco has led to the death of more than 8 million people each year globally. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) 7 million people have died as a result of direct use of tobacco while 1.2 million have died due to being exposed to second-hand smoke[footnoteRef:5]. Thus, the purpose of this essay is to critically assess if the respect for individual human rights at an international and domestic level outweigh the need to safeguard public health, especially regarding the “right to smoke”. It will highlight through case law and legislation, why putting the health of the greater public above individual human rights is positively sustainable for social progress; leading to the conclusion that no, individual human rights/personal liberties should not outweigh the needs of the broader population when public health is concerned. [4: Reuters, “Phillip Morris issues apology for Czech study on smoking” (2001) ] [5: WHO, “Fact sheet: Tobacco” > ]

The Global Tobacco Epidemic: A Public Health Crisis

Good physical and mental health without any limitations or restrictions is a human right. The WHO defined health “as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not just the absence of infirmity or disease”. In addition to the WHO definition, there are international human rights and domestic documents/laws which address the need to preserve life and avoid life-threatening risks. They include the Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the international convention on civil and political rights (ICCPR), the convention on the rights of a child (CRC), the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR) and so on. The recognition of the right to life is found in article 2 of the human rights act and it states that everyone is entitled to the right to life, which includes the government taking every necessary measure to safeguard life; article 3 of the UDHR, articles 6 of CRC and ICCPR. The right to health found in article 12 of the ICESC identifies the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, it extends further than healthcare and includes a wide range of freedoms like being free from torture and right to prevention, because a healthy society is a progressive one. Since human rights can be positive or negative, and a right to be free from the actions of others that impair one’s health, then non-smokers who are victim to second-hand smoking (SHS) can argue that their negative rights are being infringed upon, even if it is done in their private space[footnoteRef:6]. Scientific evidence has proven that there are no safe levels of exposure to smoke on individuals, and the dangers of second-hand smoke, especially to children, is prevalent, as it can lead to health problems like bacterial meningitis, sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory tract infections.[footnoteRef:7] Additionally, since children are not autonomous, they fall under the incapacitated category and therefore need public health legislation to protect them, it could also be argued that being exposed to SHS negatively influences their rights to life and health.

The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and Human Rights

Thus, the framework convention for tobacco control (FCTC) was drafted, which is the most potent tool for the implementation of tobacco control and was derived from previous international human rights[footnoteRef:8]. The tobacco industry has violated the fundamental human rights like the right to health and life, right to children, right to a healthy workplace to name a few, and although the industry is a non-state actor, a UN report stated that business enterprises owe responsibilities to its consumers and to avoid impacting society negatively through their operations, products and or services even if they have not personally contributed to those impacts[footnoteRef:9]. [6: O. A. Cabrera, “Human Rights and the framework on tobacco control: mutually reinforcing systems”, (2011)] [7: L. Ann Black, “smoking in private vehicles carrying children”, (2016).] [8: B. Mason Meier, “Breathing Life into the framework convention on tobacco control: Smoking Cessation and the Right to health” (2005).] [9: Ibid.]

Balancing Individual Liberties and Public Health Needs

The FCTC’s priority is to protect public health whenever tensions arise between individual rights, like restricting smoking in public places as smokers and non-smokers would be protected from SHS. The framework also promotes the right to access information like testing the products and protection from product manipulation, which has been practised by the tobacco industry[footnoteRef:10]. Although the FCTC is more on the soft law side even though it exists under international human rights law, when member states ratify it, they are acknowledging that the tobacco pandemic is a threat to public health and it, therefore, creates measures that state parties should implement. Hence, requiring states to develop laws at domestic level that mimic or meet the minimum standards of the framework which then protects the right to health[footnoteRef:11]. Therefore, the main goal of human rights and public health is to protect the fundamental rights of individuals and in so doing, personal liberties would have to be limited to have an overall healthy society. [10: WHO Framework on tobacco control > https://www.who.int/fctc/cop/about/en/] [11: Ibid.]

Case Law on Smoking and Individual Rights

When it comes to the rhetoric of the pro-smokers and or the tobacco industry, they normally argue that their rights to liberty, recognised in article 3 of the UDHR and the right to self-determination, found in article 1 of the ICESCR as being translated into the right to smoke. However, these cannot be used as arguing points because self-determination can only be interpreted into the right to smoke if smoking is viewed as a way to improve the development of social, economy and cultural rights. But viewing a behavioural preference that is damaging to one’s health and others as social development is a baseless argument[footnoteRef:12]. Right to liberty cannot also be used as an argument because some individual rights are disadvantageous to the socioeconomic flourishment of healthcare systems and society, therefore limiting the rights and freedom of individuals would be the only balancing effect. Also, since tobacco has addictive properties arguing the “right to liberty” would be incompatible as the smoker loses his/her autonomous rights, on if to stop smoking or not. The right to privacy, found in article 8 of the HRA, 12 of the UDHR and article 17 of the ICCPR that no one’s privacy, family or home shall be interfered with, is commonly used by pro-smokers to claim the “right to smoke”[footnoteRef:13]. This will be further illustrated in the following cases; in R v Secretary of state for health[footnoteRef:14], an exemption to indoor smoking restrictions was filed by residents of a hospital. Article 8 was used as a defence and the appellants argued that their right to private life was being infringed upon, however, their request was denied on the basis smoking was beyond the limits of what can be protected in privacy rights. By contrast, in Taylor v the Attorney General[footnoteRef:15], an exemption was permitted about a smoking ban due to the fact that coercing prisoners into nicotine withdrawal was inhumane. In the more recent case of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v MB[footnoteRef:16], a patient was asked to leave the hospital due to the COVID-19 situation and was medically fit to be discharged, she refused to leave and claimed her rights under articles 3 and 8 were being violated. It was concluded that article 3 was not violated as the risk of suicide was low nor was article 8 violated because allocating limited state resources fell within the wide margin of appreciation[footnoteRef:17]. Furthermore, an influx of SHS cases regarding the breach of article 3 especially in prisons is prevalent, this can be further explained in the cases Vasilescu v Belgium and Florea v Romania[footnoteRef:18]. Thus, proving that when it comes to public health, individual rights bare less weight. [12: Y. van der Ejik, “Human rights and ethical considerations for tobacco-free generation” (2015)] [13: Ibid] [14: [2009] EWCA Civ 795] [15: [2013] NZHC 1659] [16: [2020] EWHC 882 (QB)] [17: L. Johnson, “Finding a way to possession: UCH V MB” (2020)] [18: E. Maes, “Legal implications of smoking bans in English prisons”, (2018).]

Conclusion: Prioritizing Public Health Over Individual Rights

In conclusion, the legislation and case law discussed above shows that although in a perfect world, individual human rights would be more significant and outweigh public health, the path will not be sustainable in a progressive society. This is because everyone has the right to health and by using the argument of the right to smoke, it not only hinders an individual’s personal health, it also hinders that of the public. Additionally, it shows that limitation of individual freedoms does not mean a violation of the right to liberty, privacy, equality or self-determination, it just shows that a right to health and life are more important in the long run. The state has a right to protect its citizens from health threats and smoking is the biggest threat even if it does not portend any imminent threat, as the danger is insidious. Libertarians will argue that individuals own themselves and they have rights to their positive liberties, in contrast, Utilitarian may argue that the right thing to do would be to maximise utility to the maximum population, therefore rooting for social advancement that puts individual rights as a secondary thought. However, the Health act, ECHR, HRA, ICCPR, ICESCR AND THE CRC all protect individual rights, but these rights have the potential of being limited when there is a health threat to the public; normalising the striking of a balance between individual rights and public health is important.

Bibliography

Cases

1. Florea v Romania [2017] EWHC 1427
2. R v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 795
3. Taylor v The Attorney General [2013] NZHC 1659
4. University college London hospitals NHS foundation trust v MB [2020] EWHC 882 (QB)
5. Vasilescu v Belgium [2014] ECHR 25

Conventions

1. The framework convention for tobacco control 2005
2. Health Act 2006
3. European convention on human rights 1953
4. International covenant on civil and political rights 1966
5. International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights 1976
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
7. The convention on the rights of a child 1990

Journal articles

1. Benjamin Mason Meier, “Breathing Life into the framework convention on tobacco control: Smoking Cessation and the Right to health” Yale Journal of Health policy, law and ethics (2005).
2. Elise Maes, “Legal implications of smoking bans in English prisons”, (2018) Cambridge University Press.
3. Gostin, Lawrence O and Lindsay F. Wiley, “Public Health Law: Power, Duty, and Restraint. (2016).
4. Lesley-Ann Black, “smoking in private vehicles carrying children”, Northern Ireland assembly (2016).
5. Lindsay Johnson, “Finding a way to possession: UCH V MB” (2020).
6. Oscar A. Cabrera, “Human Rights and the framework on tobacco control: mutually reinforcing systems”, (CUP 2011).
7. T. Murphy, ‘is human rights prepared? Risk, rights and public health emergencies” (2009).
8. Yvette van der Ejik, “Human rights and ethical considerations for a tobacco-free generation” (2015).

Online journals

1. Reuters, “Phillip Morris issues apology for Czech study on smoking” (2001) > https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/business/philip-morris-issues-apology-for-czech-study-on-smoking.html
2. WHO Framework on tobacco control > https://www.who.int/fctc/cop/about/en/
3. WHO, “Fact sheet: Tobacco” > https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco

Health care in the early days of our country was very limited. Not many doctors came to America being they were British and against us. The first hospital was built in New Orleans named “The Royal Hospital” which was far too expensive, so another was built “The Charity Hospital”. (Understanding the U.S.) There have been multiple tries to change our healthcare system and try to implement universal healthcare in the history of the US. In 1910 many European countries were enacting “national medical care”. So our President Theodore Roosevelt also tried to push it here in the US. But legislation did not approve and it was denied. In 1939 Surgeon General Thomas’s parents had argued that “equal opportunity for health is a basic American right” That same year he pushed for universal healthcare, but it died in Congress (History of the Right). Harry Truman asked Congress in 1945 if there could be a healthcare program run by the government in which people would pay month for monthly in return for medical expenses covered but it was also rejected by the American Medical Association because they said it would be “socialized medicine”. In the 1970s Richard Nixon also tried to propose a reform to move it to universal healthcare which did not get passed by Congress.

The United States doesn’t have a health care system in which everyone has equal access and opportunity. Everyone must receive it through their employer, the government, or on their own. Almost 37% of our population receives it through the federal government, either through Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration (Dorning). All of those people on Medicare and Medicaid have the same providers and it results in longer wait times and inadequate medical assistance. And it’s not the medical staff’s fault that the care isn’t what it should be. It’s the government for putting so many people to the same providers causing those specific businesses to be overly busy.

Achieving higher care needs coordinating services across a fancy health care system. The healthcare trade employs several staff providing billions of services every year. up care needs facilities and suppliers to figure along to expand access, enhance quality, and scale back disparities. Achieving Healthy People/Healthy Communities needs optimizing population health by mitigating the consequences of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Variation in access to worry and provision across communities contributes to disparities associated with race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic standing. creating Care Cheap needs smarter defrayal of restricted healthcare greenbacks (2016 National). Health care is dear. In 2015, U.S. healthcare defrayal enlarged by five.8 p.c to succeed in $3.2 trillion, or $9,990 per person.

Biden has focused his crusade on his association with Barack Obama. Given this strategy, it’s no surprise that he has placed out a health setup that’s meant to be as just like Obamacare’s potential. The setup keeps this insurance regime intact whereas tweaking a number of the principles to repair some of the pain points known higher than. He closes the outlet created by some states not increasing Medicaid by enrolling everybody stuck in this hole into a replacement public health setup for complimentary. He soothes the disappointment of high-income those who get unsubsidized individual insurance by extending subsidies on the far side of four hundred percent of the personal income. And he slightly will increase the grant quantity for those shopping for backed individual insurance on the exchanges (Bruening). In addition to those rule tweaks, Biden also says that the new public choice for everybody within the Medicaid hole will be on the market in the individual and leader insurance markets, which means that individuals in those markets should purchase into that public choice instead of believing in personal insurance. Biden is maybe correct to mention that his setup is the most just like Obamacare. And a bit like Obamacare, Biden’s setup can leave a great deal of american citizens uninsured. Specifically, his materials say that three percent of american citizens can still be uninsured when his reforms, which suggests that ten million Americans can still lack insurance and about twelve thousand die annually thanks to uninsurance. Under the Sanders setup, the central can give comprehensive insurance that covers nearly everything folks go together with treatment, together with prescribed drugs, hearing, dental, and vision. Over 4 years, each Yank is transitioned to the new public health setup. Going forward, instead of obtaining cash from suppliers through a large number of leaky insurance channels, all cash can flow through one healthcare channel, which can cover everybody. So far, Sanders has not adopted a selected set of “pay-for” for his Health Care for All program, however has instead offered up lists of funding choices. though he has remained open on the specifics of funding health care for All, the general Sanders vision is pretty clear: cut overall health outlay while conjointly redistributing health spending up the ladder so that the bulk of families pay less for health care than they are doing currently. And this setup is plausible: The rightist Mercatus Center found in 2018 that the Sanders plan reduces overall health outlay by $2 trillion within the initial ten years. The nonpartisan Rand Corporation has created the same single-payer setup, with pay-for, for brand spanking new royalty States that will lead to healthcare savings for all family income groups below,000 p.c of the personal income ($276,100 for a family of four). While Sanders’s support for health care for All helps promote his image as a supporter of universal social programs, Warren’s support for it helps boost her completely as a sensible technocrat World Health Organization understands sensible policy style. As Paul Krugman noted in 2007, a single-payer healthcare-for-all system is “simpler, easier to administer, and additional efficient” than the “complicated, indirect” healthcare system we’ve got currently. In general, single-payer systems are beloved by the grind set as a result of they’re the foremost direct and cost-efficient thanks to giving universal insurance to a population (Bruening)  

In this paper I talk about the history of human rights as a background. But mainly I focused on the right of liberty and security, which protects us against arbitrary unlawful deprivation of liberty. I chose this topic because in my thoughts it is interesting.

What Are Human Rights?

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to everyone in the world, from birth until death. They are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to all of us, regardless of our nationality, gender, national origin or ethnicity, color, religion, or any other status. Human rights range from the most fundamental, the right to live to those that make life worth living. These fundamental rights are based on shared values such as dignity, fairness, equality, respect and independence. They can never be removed, although they can be restricted for example in case someone breaks the law or if it is of interest of national security.

How Do Human Rights Help You?

Human rights are relevant to all of us, not only for those who are facing repression or ill-treatment. They protect you in many areas of your daily life. They protect your right to have and freely express your opinions, your right to an education, right to a private and family life and your right not to be abused or wrongly punished by the state.

Characteristics of Human Rights

Human rights are inalienable, which implies that they cannot be got rid of and that they are tied to the fundamental fact to human life and are innate altogether.

Human rights are indivisible, which suggests they ought to not be removed. They are linked to the elemental reality of individual and are inherent all told. Human rights are inextricably linked, interdependent, and intertwined. Human rights are inextricably linked to at least one another and can’t be considered separately. One right depends on the practice of the many others, and no right is more essential than the others.

Human rights are universal, which means that they are apply the same way all around the world and without time limit. Everyone has the right to enjoy their fundamentals rights without any kind of distinction being made.

Historical Outline

The belief that everyone has the right to certain human rights is fairly new. Its roots, however, lie in the earlier tradition and documents from many cultures; it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the global consciousness.

Documents affirming individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689), the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), and the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1791) are the forerunner of many current human rights documents. Yet many of these documents, when they were initially in politics, excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious, economic, and political groups.

The idea of human rights became stronger after World War II. The extermination by Nazi Germany of more than six million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people has the world horrified. Trials have taken place in many places after the war, and officials of the defeated countries have been punished for having committed war crimes, anti-peace and crimes against humanity. As a result, governments have undertaken to create the United Nations, with the main aim of strengthening international peace and preventing conflicts.

Members of the United Nations are promoting respect for the human rights of all. On December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the 56 members of the United Nations. The vote was unanimous, although that eight nations chose to abstain. The influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been considerable. Its principles have been incorporated into the constitutions of most over 185 countries currently in United Nations.

Basic Human Rights

The list of 30 basic human rights includes: all human beings are free and equal, no discrimination, right to life, no slavery, no torture and inhuman treatment, same right to use law, equal before the law, right to be treated fair by court, no unfair detainment, right to trial, innocent until proved guilty, right to privacy, freedom to movement and residence, right to asylum, right to nationality, right to marry and have family, right to own things, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and expression, right to assemble, right to democracy, right to social security, right to work, right to rest and holiday, right of social service, right to education, right of cultural and art, freedom around the world, subject to law, human rights can’t be taken away (Nations, 1948).

Right to Liberty and Security

Everyone has the right to liberty and security. This right protects us against arbitrary unlawful deprivation of liberty. As a matter of fact, a person who has been arrested has the right to certain minimums and also the right to be brought to justice without unreasonable delay. In case that you have been arrested the human rights law states that you have the right:

• To be informed in a language that understand why you have been arrested and what charges you face.
• Be brought to court as soon as possible.
• Have a bail subject to certain conditions.
• Have a trial within reasonable time.
• Go to court to challenge your detention if you believe that it is not right.
• Compensation if you have been detained illegally.

Is It True that Video Surveillance Cameras Violate People’s Privacy?

As the use of cameras and listening equipment for both video and audio becomes more common, society as a full is worried with privacy concerns. Many folks regard cameras, especially hidden cameras, as a challenge to their right to privacy. Security experts and facility operators who employ cameras and other monitoring equipment must bear in mind of the moral consequences of doing so. Improper use of monitoring equipment may also end up in punishment of the business or person for violating federal or state laws. Surveillance cameras and video logging in ‘public’ areas are normally legal. Camera monitoring and video capture is generally not legal in ‘private’ spaces. A private space is an area in which a normal citizen has ‘privacy expectations’. Areas where ‘privacy expectations’ occur include toilets, bathrooms, lockers, lounges, first aid rooms and related areas. Audio recording legislation is generally much more restrictive than video recording legislation. Although most video cameras allow the recording of audio, many applications use the audio recording option illegal. Any jurisdictions can warrant the posting of a sign stating that the area is being monitored by video or audio.

Cameras that monitor employee work areas are usually legal, but can create moral issues if employees feel that the cameras are getting used to observe their productivity and work habits. The coverage and purpose of cameras and other surveillance devices should be clearly communicated to all or any employees. It is suggested that this subject be included within the company’s employee handbook.

Companies of employers covered by a union or other labor body should ensure that the implementation of cameras or other monitoring equipment does not break any collective bargaining arrangement.

Special care must be enamored hidden camera installations. While it should be tempting to undertake to catch a thief, an improperly obtained recording is useless as evidence and may subject the corporate to legal damages costing way more than any theft would cost. The employment of covert cameras in burglary investigations is not a do-it-yourself project and is best left to expert investigators who are acquainted with applicable laws.

Video Surveillance

In certain nations, security cameras are almost indispensable. They won’t to only be found in banks and high-security zones, but now a day they will be found in public places such as shopping malls, streets, airports and transportation. Many people feel the surveillance cameras get in their privacy and the majority claim that they do not feel comfortable with them. Many people believe that security cameras bring more problems than benefits, but in fact, the benefits of security cameras outweigh the drawbacks. And that is why I would like to talk about some of the problems and benefits that security cameras have.

Video monitoring is not effective proof video. The recent uptick in the number of terrorist acts is why surveillance cameras are being used. But one in every of the most reasons for its use is to forestall suicides and to facilitate the rapid detection of thieves or murderer. Although quite once someone has been recorded by security cameras and as a result has been shown on television or shared on social networks. The important purpose cameras are often installed is to stop even more serious crimes. But they need not yet shown that they are capable of doing so.

One of the issues with developing a powerful monitoring device is that it will eventually be exploited, as history has demonstrated. Surveillance camera systems may be abused in different ways:

• Police abuse. When it comes to police brutality, certain cops, who are normally corrupt, abuse their authority by using video cameras. Some policemen have abused the cameras for his or her own gain; that’s there are occasions where it’s been shown that officers edited or missed such videos so as to stop being affected.
• Institutional abuse. When an organization does unethical activities, such as spying on other nations or bullying political leaders fighting for a just government, this is known as institutional violence.
• Abuse for personal purposes. Often people use surveillance cameras for their own advantage. There have been instances where someone who works monitoring the videos from the cameras has done favors for several friends, such as watching the friend’s girlfriend, stalking people, or harassing others.
• Discriminatory targeting. Humans run video monitoring services, bringing with them all of their pre-existing beliefs and stereotypes. There have been several reports of employees focusing only on persons of color.

Security cameras are very easy to control as they’ll be placed anywhere as long as there’s an influence source nearby. They are available altogether shapes and sizes; some are so small that they’ll be hidden in plants, pictures, etc. But the matter is that security cameras can cost hundreds or maybe thousands of Euros, betting on the features and therefore the number of cameras and surveillance systems purchased. The installation and maintenance of those cameras and systems entail additional costs. But security cameras can deter crime. This can be the most important and most blatant advantage of putting in them. Once they’re in situ, you’ll be able to see the effect on people presently. Whether or not they are placed inconspicuously, people begin to feel safer, which end up in greater peace of mind.

Wherever the cameras are installed, crime is prevented. The mere sight of the camera and therefore the thought of being caught red-handed is intimidating enough to place criminals on their best behavior, as they will know that their identity and criminal activity has been captured.

Having cameras installed in strategic locations is incredibly is useful once you must monitor people’s actions and words during an incident. Cameras, additionally to recording video, are capable of recording audio. This is often especially useful when it involves a legal scenario, where due to a security camera; judicial authorities can see the series of events as they really unfolded. Although the largest objection when it involves privacy is that a lot of people feel that they must be absolve to travel or move a couple of store, mall, street or country without being recorded. They feel that being under constant surveillance is like being in prison, or that people are losing their freedom as a result. One in all the largest complaints the people have is that in many countries the government or authorities are corrupt. In those cases, people don’t trust the protection of cameras because they do not know whether the government or the authorities what are going to do with those images. What I mean is that folks are afraid that the records are going to be tricked to victimize an innocent person.

Conclusion

To reiterate what has been said before, while the utilization of surveillance technology, like surveillance cameras, has obvious benefits, but we must bear in mind that we must balance the requirement for cover with respect for every individual’s privacy and rights. If we do not trust the members of society, we could find ourselves in a very condition kind of like George Orwell’s ‘1984’.