The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal
name given to one General Assembly resolution and two
international treaties established by the United Nations. It
consists of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (1966).1 The two covenants entered into
force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had
ratified them.
In the beginning, different views were expressed about the
form the bill of rights should take. In 1948, General
Assembly planned the bill to include UDHR, one Covenant
and measures of implementation.[1] The Drafting Committee
decided to prepare two documents: one in the form of a
declaration, which would set forth general principles or
standards of human rights; the other in the form of a
convention, which would define specific rights and their
limitations. Accordingly, the Committee transmitted to the
Commission on Human Rights draft articles of an
international declaration and an international convention on
human rights. At its second session, in December 1947, the
Commission decided to apply the term "International Bill of
Human Rights" to the series of documents in preparation
and established three working groups: one on the
declaration, one on the convention (which it renamed
"covenant") and one on implementation. The Commission
revised the draft declaration at its third session, in May/June
1948, taking into consideration comments received from
Governments. It did not have time, however, to consider the
covenant or the question of implementation. The declaration
was therefore submitted through the Economic and Social
Council to the General Assembly, meeting in Paris
Moorish Science Doc.1
The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot
Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law
by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title
of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA)
preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in
combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America
by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1] The Act
dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement
agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail
communications, medical, financial, and other records;
eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the
United States; expanded theSecretary of the
Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions,
particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities;
and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and
immigration authorities in detaining and
deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.
The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to
include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of
activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law
enforcement powers can be applied. The act is currently set
to expire May 29, 2011; after a 90 day extension from
February 28 by congress
There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal
law definition of terrorism.[1][2] Common definitions
of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are
intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a
religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or
disregard the safety of non-combatants(civilians), and are
committed by non-government agencies.
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and
war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations
for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is
usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may
be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated
group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,
[3]
 and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a
precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of
“terrorism”.[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be
controversial as it is often used by state authorities to
delegitimize political or other opponents,[6] and potentially
Page 1
legitimize the state's own use of armed force against
USA PATRIOT Act
opponents (such use of force may itself be described as

"terror" by opponents of the state).[6][7]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political

organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been

practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political

parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups,

revolutionaries, and ruling governments.[8] An abiding

characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence

against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity

Full title Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept an
for a group, cause, or individual
Act of 2001
The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot

Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law

Acronym USA PATRIOT Act, also Patriot Act

by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title

of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA) Enacted by the 107th United States Congress

preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in

combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America Citations

by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept

and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1] The Act Public Law 107-56

dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement

agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail Stat. 115 Stat. 272 (2001)

communications, medical, financial, and other records;

eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the Codification

United States; expanded theSecretary of the

Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, Act(s) amended Electronic Communications Privacy Act –Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – Foreign I

particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; Surveillance Act – Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act – Money Laundering C

and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and Secrecy Act– Right to Financial Privacy Act – Fair Credit Reporting Act – Immigratio

immigration authorities in detaining and Act – Victims of Crime Act of 1984 – Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse

deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

Title(s) 8, 12, 15, 18, 20, 31, 42, 47, 49, 50
The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to
amended
include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of

activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law

U.S.C.sections 18 USC §2712, 31 USC §5318A, 15 USC §1681v, 8 USC §1226A, 18 USC §1993, 1
enforcement powers can be applied. The act is currently set
created 18 USC §175b, 50 USC §403-5b, 51 USC §5103a
to expire May 29, 2011; after a 90 day extension from

February 28 by congress

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 2

 therefore submitted through the Economic and Social Council to

the General Assembly, meeting in Paris.

International Bill of Human Later the draft covenant was divided in two (decided by the

Rights General Assembly in 1952[2]), differing with both catalogue of

rights and degree of obligations (ICESCR uses less strict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"progressive realisation"
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name

given to one General Assembly resolution and two international

Natural and legal rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
treaties established by the United Nations. It consists of
  (Redirected from Legal rights)
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948),

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) "Inalienable" redirects here. For the 2008 film, see InAlienable.

with its two Optional Protocols and the International Covenant on For the concept of alienation in property law, see Alienation

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).1 The two (property law).

covenants entered into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of

Rights
countries had ratified them.

In the beginning, different views were expressed about the form Theoretical distinctions

the bill of rights should take. In 1948, General Assembly planned

the bill to include UDHR, one Covenant and measures of Natural and legal rights

Claim rights and liberty rights

implementation.[1] The Drafting Committee decided to prepare
Negative and positive rights
two documents: one in the form of a declaration, which would set
Individual and group rights
forth general principles or standards of human rights; the other in

the form of a convention, which would define specific rights and

Human rights divisions
their limitations. Accordingly, the Committee transmitted to the

Commission on Human Rights draft articles of an international

Three generations
declaration and an international convention on human rights. At
Civil and political
its second session, in December 1947, the Commission decided
Economic, social and cultural
to apply the term "International Bill of Human Rights" to the

series of documents in preparation and established three

Rights claimants
working groups: one on the declaration, one on the convention

(which it renamed "covenant") and one on implementation. The

Animals · Humans
Commission revised the draft declaration at its third session, in
Women · Men
May/June 1948, taking into consideration comments received
Fathers · Mothers
from Governments. It did not have time, however, to consider the
Children · Youth · Students
covenant or the question of implementation. The declaration was
Indigenes · Minorities · LGBT

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 3

 Other groups of rights
Authors' · Digital · Labor
Linguistic · Reproductive
v · d · e
Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically
distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural
rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-
evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws,
customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or
government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are
bestowed by a particular government to the governed people
and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are
enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body
The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of
natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law
theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an
alternative justification for the establishment of a social
contract, positive law, and government — and thus legal
rights — in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely,
the concept of natural rights is used by someanarchists to
challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.[1][2]
The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of
natural rights; some recognize no difference between the
two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while
others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate
association with some features traditionally associated with
natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered
beyond the authority of any government orinternational
body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human
Moorish Science Doc.1
Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one
conception of natural rights into international soft law.
The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to
incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States
Declaration of Independence into the body of American case
law on a level with the United States Constitution.
Thus in discussion of social contract theory, "inalienable
rights" were said to be those rights that could not be
surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were
thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law.
However, many social contract theorists reasoned that in
the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their
rights. Thus people form an implicit social contract, ceding
their natural rights to the authority to protect them from
abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that
authority
 Thomas Jefferson "took his division of rights into alienable
and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction
popular and important",[22] and in the 1776 United States
Declaration of Independence, famously condensed this to:
"We hold these truths  to be self-evident, that all
“ men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their  Creator  with certain unalienable Rights..." ”
In the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish slavery
seized this passage as a statement of constitutional
principle, although the U.S. constitution recognized and
protected slavery. As a lawyer, future Chief Justice Salmon
P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case
of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating
the Fugitive Slave Act, that:
"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being
“ with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by
any interior law which asserts that man is property."
Legal rights documents
The specific enumeration of legal rights accorded to people
has historically differed greatly from one century to the next,
and from one regime to the next, but nowadays is normally
Page 4
addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. The personal relationship with God without interference by

following documents have each played important historical the state.

roles in establishing legal rights norms around the world.  The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the

Citizen (1789; France) was one of the fundamental

 The Magna Carta (1215; England) required
documents of the French Revolution, defining a set
the King of England to renounce certain rights and
of individual rights and collective rights of the people.
respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the
 The United States Bill of Rights (1789/1791;
will of the king could be bound by law.
United States), the first ten amendments of the United
 The Declaration of Arbroath (1320; Scotland)
States Constitution, was another influential document.
established the right of the people to choose a head of
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
state (see Popular sovereignty).
is an over-arching set of standards by which
 The Bill of Rights (1689; England) declared
governments, organisations and individuals would
that Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possess
measure their behaviour towards each other. The
certain civil and political rights.
preamble declares that the "...recognition of the
 The Claim of Right (1689; Scotland) was one of inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
the key documents of Scottish constitutional law. of all members of the human family is the foundation
 United States Declaration of Independence (1776) of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
succinctly defined the rights of man as including, but  The European Convention on Human
not limited to, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Rights (1950; Europe) was adopted under the auspices
happiness" which later influenced "liberté, égalité, of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and
[26]
fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France  The fundamental freedoms.
phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of
 The International Covenant on Civil and Political
the 1947 Constitution of Japan,[27] and in President Ho
Rights (1966) is a follow-up to the Universal Declaration
Chi Minh's 1945declaration of independence of
of Human Rights, concerning civil and political rights.
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.[28] An alternative
 The International Covenant on Economic, Social
phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in
and Cultural Rights (1966) is another follow-up to
the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of
concerning economic, social and cultural rights.
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads,
 The Canadian Charter of Rights and
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
Freedoms (1982; Canada) was created to protect the
person."
rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of
 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1785;
all levels of government.
United States) Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779,
 The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
the document asserted the right of man to form a
European Union (2000) is one of the most recent legal

instruments concerning human rights

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 5

 Protests of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, extinguishing aboriginal

title to the foreshore and seabeds in New Zealand

Natural rights theories
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land
The existence of natural rights has been asserted by
rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the
different individuals on different premises, such as a
assumption of sovereignty undersettler colonialism. The
priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For
requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the
example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights
content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal
through "reason" alone. The Declaration of Independence,
title, and the availability of compensation in the case of
meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all
extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all
men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain
jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable,
[29]
unalienable Rights".
except to the national government, and that it may be held either

Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have individually or collectively.

designed different lists of what they believe to be natural

Aboriginal title was first acknowledged in the early 19th century,
rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two
in decisions in which indigenous peoples were not a party.
highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any
Significant aboriginal title litigation resulting in victories for
rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the
indigenous peoples did not arise until recent decades. The
others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that “if
majority of court cases have been litigated
there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a
in Australia, Canada,Malaysia, New Zealand, and the United
right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free
States. Aboriginal title is an important area of comparative law,
[30]
life.”  John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as
with many cases being cited as persuasive authority across
primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of
jurisdictions. Many commentators believe that the doctrine is
the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit
applicable in all common law legal systems.
of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States
Aboriginal title is also referred to as indigenous title, native
Declaration of Independence
title (particularly in Australia), original Indian title (particularly in

the United States), andcustomary title (particularly in New

Aboriginal title Zealand). Aboriginal title jurisprudence is related to indigenous

rights, influencing and influenced by non-land issues, such as

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
whether the government owes a fiduciary duty to indigenous

peoples. While the judge-made doctrine arises from customary

international law, it has been codified nationally by legislation,

treaties, and constitutions

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 6

English colonial legacy The first Indigenous land rights case under the common

law, Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut, was litigated from

1705–1773, with the Privy Council affirming without opinion

the judgement of a non-judicial tribunal.[7][n 1] Other important

Privy Council decisions include In re Southern

Rhodesia (1919)[8] and Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria

(Secretary) (1921).[9] The former rejected a claim for

aboriginal title, noting that: "Some tribes are so low in the

scale of social organization that their usages and

conceptions of rights and duties are not to be reconciled with

The Mohegan Sun casino commemorates the site of the world's first

the institutions or the legal ideas of civilized society. Such a

common law indigenous land rights case. gulf cannot be bridged."[10] Just two years later, Amodu

Tijani laid the basis for several elements of the modern

Aboriginal title arose at the intersection of three common law
aboriginal title doctrine, upholding a customary land claim
doctrines articulated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy
and urging the need to "study of the history of the particular
Council: the Act of State doctrine,Doctrine of Continuity, and
community and its usages in each case."[9] Subsequently,
[1]
the Recognition Doctrine.  The Act of State doctrine held
the Privy Council issued many opinions confirming the
that The Crown could confiscate or extinguish real or
existence of aboriginal title, and upholding customary land
personal property rights the process of conquering, without
claims.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Modern decisions have heaped
scrutiny from any British court, but could not perpetrate an
criticism upon the views expressed in Southern Rhodesia
Act of State against its own subjects.[1] The Doctrine of
Doctrinal overview
Continuity presumed that The Crown did not intend to
[edit]Recognition
extinguish private property upon acquiring sovereignty, and

thus that pre-existing interests were enforceable under The requirements for establishing an aboriginal title to the

British law.[1] Its mirror was the Recognition Doctrine, which land vary across countries, but generally speaking, the

held that private property rights were presumed to be aboriginal claimant must establish (exclusive) occupation (or

extinguished in the absence of explicit recognition.[1] possession) from a long time ago, generally before the

assertion of sovereignty, and continuity to the present day.

In the same year in which the Doctrine of Continuity
[edit]Content
emerged,[2][3] Edward Coke delivered a famous dicta

in Calvin’s Case (1608) that the laws of all non-Christians Aboriginal title does not constitute allodial title or radical

would be abrogated upon their conquest.[4] Coke's view was title in any jurisdiction. Instead, its content is generally

not put into practice, but was rejected by Lord Mansfield in described as a usufruct, i.e. a right to use, although in

1774.[5] The two doctrines were reconciled, with the Doctrine practice this may mean anything from a right to use land for

of Continuity prevailing in nearly all situations (except, for specific, enumerated purposes, or a general right to use

example, public property of the predecessor state) which approximate fee simple.

in Oyekan v Adele (1957).[6]

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 7

It is common ground among the relevant jurisdictions that

aboriginal title is inalienable, except to the federal

government ("The Crown"), although Malaysia allows

aboriginal title to be sold between indigenous peoples,

unless contrary to customary law. Especially in Australia, the

content of aboriginal title varies with the degree to which

claimants are able to satisfy the standard of proof for

recognition. In particular, the content of aboriginal title may

be tied to the traditions and customs of the indigenous

peoples, and only accommodate growth and change to a

limited extent.

[edit]Extinguishment

Aboriginal title can be extinguished by The Crown, but again,

the requirement to do this varies by country. Some require

the legislature to be explicit when it does this, others hold

that extinguishment can be inferred from the government's

treatment of the land. In Canada, the Crown cannot

extinguish aboriginal title without the explicit prior informed

consent of the proper aboriginal title holders. New Zealand

formerly required consent, but today requires only a

justification, akin to a public purpose requirement.

Jurisdictions differ on whether the state is required to pay

compensation upon extinguishing aboriginal title. Theories

for the payment of compensation include the right to

property, as protected by constitutional or common law, and

the breach of a fiduciary duty

BLK’S LAW DICTIONARY 6TH EDITION

Moorish Science Doc.1 Page 8