Different definitions of inalienability include non-dispensation, non-saleability and non-transferability. [53] This concept was recognized by libertarians as central to the issue of voluntary slavery, which Murray Rothbard rejected as illegitimate and even contradictory. [54] Stephan Kinsella argues that “the view of rights as alienable is entirely consistent – even implicit – with the libertarian principle of non-aggression. According to this principle, only the use of force is prohibited; This is not defensive, restorative or retaliatory violence. [55] Another particular type of legal claim or group that is increasingly respected by theorists is that of property rights. The discussion about this belongs more to that of the property itself – see the entry on the property. Only a few brief remarks are made here. Although Mills does not necessarily share the view that all rights are linked to the foundations of well-being, many contemporary authors (e.g., Raz 1984a, 1984b; Wellman 1985, 1995) agree that the basic concept of a law is something common to law and morality, although some have argued that legal authors, particularly Hohfeld, provide a better and clearer starting point for general analysis than previous authors in moral philosophy. The view that the basic concept is common to both seems consistent with the assertion that legal claims concerning justification in practical reasoning should nevertheless be based on moral claims.
It goes without saying that the protection and understanding of human rights ultimately depends mainly on developments and mechanisms at the national level. Existing laws, policies, procedures and mechanisms at the national level are essential to the enjoyment of human rights in each country. It was therefore crucial that human rights be part of national constitutional and legal systems, that members of the judiciary be trained in the application of human rights standards and that human rights violations be condemned and punished. National standards have a more direct impact and national practices are more accessible than those at the regional and international levels. As Eleanor Roosevelt noted: In addition to these two main instruments, the Council of Europe`s action in the field of human rights includes other specific instruments and conventions that complement the guarantees and provisions of the ECHR by addressing specific situations or vulnerable groups. Traditional monitoring systems are complemented by other independent bodies such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance and the Commissioner for Human Rights. Overall, the Council of Europe`s work on human rights should be able to take into account social, scientific and technological developments and the new challenges they may pose to human rights. In French and German, the same word (law, law) serves as a noun, referring to both legal norms and the rights created by them, which is why disambiguation is necessary. Different philosophers have drawn up different lists of rights that they consider natural. Proponents of natural rights, especially Hesselberg and Rothbard, responded that reason can be used to separate truly axiomatic rights from supposed rights, arguing that any principle that must be refuted is an axiom. Critics have pointed to the lack of agreement among supporters as evidence for the claim that the idea of natural rights is merely a political tool.
The Convention on Enforced Disappearances tackles a phenomenon that is a global problem. The Treaty prohibits “arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty” (Article 2), whether by State agents or other persons acting with the consent of States, and does not accept any exceptional circumstances for this refusal to recognize the deprivation of liberty and concealment of the fate and whereabouts of victims. Their aim is to put an end to this cynical ploy and try to commit serious human rights violations and get away with it. Regional human rights standards often go beyond and reinforce UN standards Many people would argue that the poor human rights record in the world is due to the lack of appropriate enforcement mechanisms. It is often up to each State to implement recommendations. Whether individual or collective rights are effectively guaranteed depends in many cases on pressure from the international community and, to a large extent, on the work of NGOs. This is an unsatisfactory situation, as it can take a long time before a human rights violation is actually dealt with by the UN or the Council of Europe. Is there anything we can do to change that? First, it is essential to ensure that States guarantee human rights at the national level and develop an appropriate mechanism to remedy violations. At the same time, pressure must be exerted on States to engage in mechanisms that have enforcement procedures. In the discussion of social contract theory, “inalienable rights” were referred to as those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. These rights are considered as natural rights, independent of positive law.
However, some social contract theorists have argued that in its natural state, only the strongest can enjoy their rights. Thus, people form an implicit social contract by ceding their natural rights to authority to protect people from abuse, and from now on living under the legal rights of that authority. Many documents now repeat the phrase used in the United States Declaration of Independence. The preamble to the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that rights are inalienable: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Section 1, § 1 of the California Constitution recognizes inalienable rights and states some (not all) of those rights such as “the defense of life and liberty, the acquisition, possession, and protection of property, and the pursuit and attainment of security, happiness, and privacy.” However, there is still much controversy about which “rights” are really natural rights and which are not, and the concept of natural or inalienable rights is still controversial for some. As discussion of the relative merits of choice and utility theories has continued and increasingly sophisticated versions of the two have been proposed (see, for example, the tripartite debate in Kramer, Simmonds and Steiner 1998, Kramer 2010, Vrousalis 2010, Van Duffel 2012), some authors have attempted to propose different or combined approaches.