This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1.) Existence and Self-preservation
Under Art. 51 of the UN Charter every state has the right to individual and collective self-defense (such as through mutual defense agreements.) This right can only be invoked when there is an actual and serious event. The Security Council will also have to determine if an act of aggression actually takes place.
An act of aggression, one state using force against another, is prima facie evidenced when one state fires the “first shot” against another. Aggression, whatever the cause, is a crime against international peace and all states have the right to repel it.
2.) Sovereignty and Independence
Sovereignty is the sum total of the powers, privileges of a state. It is not dependent on another state's consent. Independence is the right to participate in foreign relations without outside control. It is a natural, but not absolute, right. It can be limited by treaty stipulations, international agreements and membership rules in international organizations.
Intervention, where a state interferes with the foreign or domestic affairs of another state (which can include political and economic sanctions) is not allowed (Drago Doctrine) -except as a form of selfdefense or with UN authorization. Even the UN can't intervene in the domestic affairs of a state unless necessary to prevent threats to peace or acts of aggression.
All states are equal. Each state is entitled to only 1 vote in the UN General Assembly. But this is not the case in the voting in the Security Council.
the purpose of the contract determines whether or not diplomatic immunity can be invoked.All states must respect one another's independence and no state can interfere in the domestic affairs of another state (act of state doctrine. If the contract was for something not included in the official acts (jus gestionis) then diplomatic immunity can be overruled. the Marcoses put up the defense that the acts that took place during the Martial Law years were acts of state. As a result of equality. or gives its consent by a treaty or contract. This is the source of diplomatic immunity. Official acts are those acts which an office of government can perform within its mandate. When the government of one country enters into a contract with a private citizen of another country. however. This immunity is lost if a state files a case in the courts of another state. If the contractor was hired to do something which forms part of the official acts of the state (jus imperii) diplomatic immunity can be invoked. tries to resolve the case before invoking diplomatic immunity. Immunity can be waived by a state in any of the following instances: if it indicates that it will consent to the filing of suit either by law or regulation at the time the complaint appeared. which also covers the property of a state located in the territory of other states (par in parem non habet imperium. is restricted only to official acts of the state and can't be invoked for private or proprietary acts. When the Philippine Government sued the Marcoses.) It also covers diplomatic personnel of the UN and other international bodies. . This was overruled by the US Court of Appeals on the ground that torture and disappearances were not within the official limits of presidential power.) Official acts within the territory one state can't be questioned by other states and conflict between states because of these acts must be resolved by agreement. Diplomatic immunity. a state also enjoys immunity from another states powers.
though other rights. laws." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. that merely means that it is not legally forbidden for them to speak freely: it does not mean that anyone has to help enable their speech. and has been defined as the "right to have rights"." For example. In logic. that is. Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning. per se. and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do anything. not man-made". Citizenship. that is. citizens have legal claim rights to be provided with those services. if a person has a legal liberty right to free speech. and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. may severely limit what others can do to stop them. Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so. For example. without the claim-holder's permission. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights. in contrast. in jurisdictions where social welfare services are provided. such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her. Claim rights versus liberty rights A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. . is simply a freedom or permission for the right-holder to do something. are based on a society's customs. refrain from stopping them from speaking. but only a facade or pretense of rights. and property". They are universal. whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all. these rights impose an obligation upon others not to assault or restrain a person. he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). liberty. and can't be taken away. from human nature. For example. or from the edicts of a god. or even. Legal rights. Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. itself. or use their property. is often considered as the basis for having legal rights. Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the essence of rights. this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something. Likewise. inhere in every individual. They exist necessarily. they apply to all people. in contrast. A liberty right or privilege. An example of a legal right is the right to voteof citizens. statutes or actions by legislatures. For example. This can be expressed in logic as: "Person A has a privilege to do something if and only if A has no duty not to do that something. as in rights deriving from deontic logic. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder. and he denied the existence of natural rights. or to listen to their speech. many jurisdictions recognize broad claim rights to things like "life. such as the claim right to be free from assault.Natural rights versus legal rights Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial. it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life.
In other democracies e. citizens have a positive right to vote but they don't have a negative right to not vote. rights may allow or require inaction. So a person's liberty right of walking extends precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom. or which governments or authorities. Positive rights versus negative rights Main article: Negative and positive rights In one sense. and these are called negative rights. Though similarly named. in some democracies e. For example. In other words. Accordingly: Individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof. and these rights have been called positive rights. For example. or group rights." Negative rights are permissions not to do things. a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment. they permit or require doing nothing. to which those other people have a claim right. or entitlements to be left alone. however. Group rights have been argued to exist when a group is seen as more than a mere composite or assembly of separate individuals but an entity in its own right. a platoon of soldiers in combat can be thought of as a distinct group.g. it's akin to an enlarged individual which has a distinct will and power of action and can be thought of as having rights. Australia. positive and negative rights should not be confused with active rights (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and passive rights (which encompass "claims" and "immunities"). citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative right not to vote. according to her philosophy known as Objectivism. such as other people's private property. since non-voting citizens can be fined. a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so. people can choose not to vote in a given election. then that other person's liberty is limited. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to "non interference" such as a right against being assaulted. if a person has a claim right against someone else.Likewise. the US. or entitlements to be done unto. Accordingly: Positive rights are permissions to do things. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands. For example. However. since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. in another sense. Individual rights versus group rights The general concept of rights is that they are possessed by individuals in the sense that they are permissions and entitlements to do things which other persons. since individual members are willing to . This is the understanding of people such as the author Ayn Rand who argued that only  individuals have rights. can not infringe. However.g. others have argued that there are situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights. One example of a  positive right is the purported "right to welfare. it's possible to see a group as a distinct being in and of itself.
perhaps even killed. there is sometimes considerable disagreement about what exactly is meant by the term "group" as well as by the term "group rights. individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-negotiated wage. only the union has a right to decide matters for the individual union members such as wage rates. for example. . as well as between individual rights and group rights. But there is another sense of group rights in which people who are members of a group can be thought of as having specific individual rights because of their membership in a group. Other senses Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. but are prevented from making further requests. As expected. social and cultural rights. workers who are members of a group such as a labor union can be thought of as having expanded individual rights because of their membership in the labor union.risk their lives for the survival of the group. These include the distinction between civil and political rights and economic." There can be tension between individual and group rights. for a breach of obedience. the set of rights which individuals-as-group-members have is expanded because of their membership in a group. and therefore the group can be conceived as having a "right" which is superior to that of any individual member. These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights. For example. but these groupings are not entirely coextensive. in a so-called closed shop which has a union security agreement. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. In this sense. So. a soldier who disobeys an officer can be punished. between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. do the supposed "individual rights" of the workers prevail about the proper wage? Or do the "group rights" of the union regarding the proper wage prevail? Clearly this is a source of tension. For example. such as the rights to specific working conditions or wages. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.