Thursday, 19 April 2012
Natural and legal rights
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen) is a fundamental document of the French Revolution, defining the individual and collective rights of all the estates of the realm as universal. Influenced by the doctrine of "natural right", the rights of man are held to be universal: valid at all times and in every place, pertaining to human nature itself.
ENGLAND - Parliament of England - Bill of Rights 1689
The Bill of Rights or the Bill of Rights 1688 is an Act of the Parliament of England.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689.
It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of sovereign and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets out - or, in the view of its drafters, restates - certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.
Along with the Act of Settlement (1700 or 1701), the Bill of Rights is still in effect. It is one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom and - following British colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence - to the thrones of those other Commonwealth realms, by willing deference to the Act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm's constitution. Since the implementation of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards) the Bill of Rights cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament, and then, by convention, and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.
In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689.
It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of sovereign and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement to regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution. It reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".
These ideas about rights reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they quickly became popular in England. It also sets out - or, in the view of its drafters, restates - certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament.
Along with the Act of Settlement (1700 or 1701), the Bill of Rights is still in effect. It is one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to the throne of the United Kingdom and - following British colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence - to the thrones of those other Commonwealth realms, by willing deference to the Act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm's constitution. Since the implementation of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards) the Bill of Rights cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament, and then, by convention, and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.
In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights.
Rendition in the United States - Part 3
Extraordinary rendition
Main article: Extraordinary rendition
Human rights groups charge that extraordinary rendition is a violation of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), because suspects are taken to countries where torture during interrogation remains common, thus circumventing the protections the captives would enjoy in the United States or other nations who abide by the terms of UNCAT. Its legality remains highly controversial, as the United States outlaws the use of torture, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process. Rendered suspects are denied due process because they are arrested without charges, deprived of legal counsel, and illegally transferred to a third world country with the intent and purpose of facilitating torture and other interrogation measures which would be illegal in the USA.
Rendition in the United States - Part 2
Irregular rendition
American use of “irregular rendition” is a familiar alternative to extradition. It involves kidnaping or deceit. Kidnaping a defendant overseas and returning him to the United States for trial does not deprive American courts of jurisdiction unless an applicable extradition treaty explicitly calls for that result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)