B.A.LL.B.

(HONS)
Session-2020-2021
Name of the Student: Sanskriti Jain

Semester: V Enroll No. DL1801537

University Exam Roll No. 80440185
Status : Regular/ATKT: Regular
Assignment Subject:
Assignment Topic:

Submitted to : Submitted by:

ASST. PROF. Ms. Neha
Name: SANSKRITI JAIN
Parveen
Semester: V
Date: _
Marks Obtained

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have put in efforts in this assignment. However, it would not h

ave been possible without the kind support and help of many in
dividuals and organizations. I would like extent my sincere thank
s to all of them.

I thank my God for providing me with everything that I required

in completing this assignment.

I am highly indebted to the Teacher in Charge ASST. PROF. Ms. Neha

Parveen for guidance and constant supervision as well as f or
providing necessary information regarding the assignment an d also
for her support in completing the assignment.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents for thei

r kind co-operation and encouragement which helped me in the
completion of this assignment.

My hearty thanks and appreciations go to my classmates in dev

eloping the assignment and to the people who have willingly hel
ped me out with their abilities.
Student Name: Sanskriti Jain

2
 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY

This is to certify that: Sanskriti Jain student of 5th semester has

successfully completed the below mentioned assignment
under the guidance of ASST. PROF. Ms. Neha Parveen (subject
teacher) during the year 2019-2020.

Student Name- Sanskriti Jain

3
 DECLARATION

I, Sanskriti Jain, hereby declare that the project titled:

“IS IT EVER JUSTIFIABLE TO SACRIFICE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR
COLLECTIVE SECURITY: AN ANALYSIS”
Was solely undertaken by myself and that no help was
provided from other sources as those allowed. All sections of
the paper that use quotes or describe an argument or concept
developed by another author have been referenced, including
all secondary literature used, to show that this material has
been adopted to support my thesis.

I take full responsibility for any kind of plagiarism.

Signature of the Student: Sanskriti Jain

Place: Indore

Date : 5th January 2021

4
 INDEX

Sr.No. Contents Page No.

1. Uniquiness of report
6
2. ABSTRACT
6
3. INTRODUCTION
6
4. MEANING OF RIGHT and
Creation of Right 7

5. ANALYSIS OF A RIGHT
8

6. SACRIFICING INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS FOR COLLECTIVE 8
SECURITY

7. ANTI-TERRORIST ACT AND THE

PROTECTION OF PAKISTAN ACT 10

8. CASE LAW’S
11

9. Conclusion
12

UNIQUENESS REPORT
5
Words 471 Date December 25, 2020
Characters 2189 Exclude Url
11% Plagiarism
89% Unique
0 Plagiarized Sentences
47 Unique Sentences
Content Checked For Plagiarism

The word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study,
knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the
philosophy of law. Legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common:

1. The first and the most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain,
classify, and criticize entire bodies of law. Law school textbooks and legal
encyclopedias represent this type of scholarship.
2. The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of
knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences.
3. The third type of jurisprudence seeks to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis
of a particular legal concept.
4. The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract
questions as "What is law?" and "How do judges (properly) decide cases?"
It is difficult for us to give a concert and unanimous definition of Jurisprudence because every
jurist has tried to define this term in his own way. Salmond defines Jurisprudence as an
investigation into the concepts, abstracts and philosophies of law which lay down the
principles of law and then tell us about the legal system. So define it in a broader sense we can
say that Jurisprudence is actually a foundation stone of a legal system. The word jurisprudence
in itself contains theories from the time of Plato to HLA Hart. In England the word
Jurisprudence is used for formative period of law whereas in France it is used for the case
laws. So as per now we have the idea of Jurisprudence now we will move on towards the
concept of Right, its creation and its analysis.

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE:

IS IT EVER JUSTIFIABLE TO SACRIFICE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR COLLECTIVE
6
SECURITY: AN ANALYSIS. The Researcher has analyzed the provisions with respect to
above mentioned analysis.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
For this project, we followed doctrinaire method which includes both descriptive method and
analytical method of writing throughout this project. We went through number of blogs,
editorials, articles and various websites on the internet. The Researcher has analyzed the
provisions with respect to above mentioned analysis.

IS IT EVER JUSTIFIABLE TO SACRIFICE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR

COLLECTIVE SECURITY: AN ANALYSIS
ABSTRACT

Every Legal System of this world is based upon Philosophies, theories and their
interpretations. The laws we have today in codified form were nothing else than a theory or an
idea once but they have evolved themselves over the period of time. It is important for us to
note that for the development of legal system theories and ideas hold their place as a
foundation stone and for the development of a legal system in our opinion a theory like grund
norm is required. The following discussion of ours would debate upon the basic ideas such as
what is Jurisprudence then we would move on towards the concept of right that actually what a
right is and we would also see the creation of right and will analyze it in the light of our
discussion. Then would move on to the basic part of our assignment which will discuss in
detail the sacrificing of individual rights for collective security we would also see the examples
of this concept in the light of Acts and case Laws. While concluding our discussion we would
also give our point of view upon the discussion.

INTRODUCTION TO JURISPRUDENCE

The word jurisprudence derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study,

7
knowledge, or science of law." In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the
philosophy of law. Legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common:

5. The first and the most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain,
classify, and criticize entire bodies of law. Law school textbooks and legal
encyclopedias represent this type of scholarship.
6. The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of
knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences.
7. The third type of jurisprudence seeks to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis
of a particular legal concept.
8. The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract
questions as "What is law?" and "How do judges (properly) decide cases?"
It is difficult for us to give a concert and unanimous definition of Jurisprudence because every
jurist has tried to define this term in his own way. Salmond defines Jurisprudence as an
investigation into the concepts, abstracts and philosophies of law which lay down the
principles of law and then tell us about the legal system 1. So define it in a broader sense we can
say that Jurisprudence is actually a foundation stone of a legal system. The word jurisprudence
in itself contains theories from the time of Plato to HLA Hart. In England the word
Jurisprudence is used for formative period of law whereas in France it is used for the case
laws2. So as per now we have the idea of Jurisprudence now we will move on towards the
concept of Right, its creation and its analysis.

MEANING OF RIGHT

As per Jurisprudence it is also difficult for us to give a unanimous definition of a right. Every
legal jurist has tried to define right in his own way, Salmond defines right as an interest
safeguarded and implemented by law3. As per Salmond where there is a right there is a duty
too which is also imposed by law and diverging away from that duty is a wrong. Salmond says
that both rights and duties correspond with each other. Moving on towards the other jurists
Pollock says that right is nothing else but the freedom allowed and the power which is
conferred by law4. Austin on the other hand says that law is a command of sovereign backed
1
Salmond on Jurisprudence By P.J.Fitzgerald, Page 1, Published By London Sweet and Maxwell 1966.
2
Jurisprudence By V.D. Mahajan, Page Number 1, Published By Mansoor Book House Lahore.
3
Salmond On Jurisprudence By P.J.Fitzgerald, Page Number 217, Published By London Sweet and Maxwell
1966
4
Jurisprudence By V.D.Mahajan, Page Number 288, Published By Mansoor Book House Lahore.
8
by a sanction and who that command benefits is said to be entrusted with a right 5. Austin,
Holland, Pollock and a number of other jurists have given their theories upon the concept of
Right. In order to understand this concept more clearly we can divide rights into 2 main
categories namely moral rights and legal rights. Moral rights are those which exist under a
moral system whereas legal rights are those which exist under a legal system and here in the
upcoming discussion we would have our focus upon the legal rights. Now in the upcoming
discussion we would see that how a right is created.

CREATION OF A RIGHT

It is important to know here that how a right is created. Everything in this world is created by
its characteristics and so is a right. The Naturalists believe that there are certain natural
interests and rights that belong to man due to his original freedom granted to him nature 6 so the
rights are created and recognized by this way. Bentham on the other hand rejected this idea and
said that all rights are legal rights and are the creation of law7. Characteristic are there to
complete a legal rights some of the characteristics are as follows8:

 An owner of the Right: There must be a person alive in whom the right is vested.
 There must be a person of incidence: Meaning a person against whom the right is
vested.
 There must be an obligation to do or not to do something.
 There must be an object of the right.
 Every Legal Right has a title

ANALYSIS OF A RIGHT

Salmond’s analyses of a right is that in every branch of law whether it be contract, tort, crime
or etc. consists of rules and that rules create a rights and duties. The administration of justice
must enforce these rights. Analyzing rights Salmond says that the concept of right cannot be
under stood in isolation its understanding depends upon 2 concepts and those concepts are
rights and duties. He says that it is only an examination of the interaction of these three

5
Jurisprudence By V.D.Mahajan, Page Number 288, Published By Mansoor Book House Lahore.
6
Jurisprudence By Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Page 228, Published By Federal Law House Rawalpindi.
7
Jurisprudence By Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Page 229, Published By Federal Law House Rawalpindi.
8
50 Lectures on English Jurisprudence By R.Mehta Page No. 152-154 Published By Irfan Law Book House
Lahore.
9
concepts that give us or brings out the original meaning of a right9.

SACRIFICING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Now comes the most important part of our assignment and that is that is it ever justifiable to
sacrifice individual rights for collective security before going in towards the deep discussion it
important for us to know the concept of collective security. The theory of collective security
directly deals with issue of how to cause peace10. So that means that can we sacrifice individual
rights for the prevalence of peace and order in the society. We may in take in account
Bentham’s principle of maximum happiness in which he says that the government shall make
laws on the basis of maximum happiness rule. The rules state greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people11. The principal of Bentham can be extended in the light of topic as
if there is happiness or peace and security for the greater number of people than we can over
look the arguments and grievances of minorities. So here we have extended the principal of
Bentham. Now moving onwards we would see some other important concepts in this regard
such as Is National security important than civil rights, The common good vs. individualism
and collectivism vs. individualism but before going on to these concepts it is important for us
to know here that what is a security state and after that we will understand the concept of
national security versus civil rights. A security state can be defined as who can violate
international law or any law by the justification of their national security US is an example to
that12. So this means that a security state can violate any law given or a right conferred upon
the justification of threat or their security. It is important to note here that both the sides have
their own argument as in upcoming discussion we would discuss upon the fact that is national
security more important than civil rights. Those in favor of this concept say 13 that saving lives
of a number of people is more important than. On the second count they say that for the
protection of civil liberties a secure government is required and that would be only possible
when the government focus is upon nothing else but homeland security.

Moving on those in favor of the homeland security say that civil liberties cannot be exercised if
citizen are threatened by breach of securities so in order to provide those rights and liberties it
9
Jurisprudence By Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Page Number 226-2227, Published By Federal Law House
Rawalpindi.
10
Article: The theory of collective security and its limitations in explaining international organizations by
Lawrence Mwagwabi.
11
Jurisprudence By Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Page 108, Published By Federal law House Rawalpindi.
12
Article: Human Rights Watch.
13
Article: Home Land Security is more Important than protection of Civil Liberties.
10
is important that a state shall firstly secure itself whereas civil liberties can be reinstated after
the state becomes secure but the lives which were lost as a result of insecurity cannot be
brought back. Now from here onwards we will move towards the concept which states
common good vs. individualism. Today we live in a society where the people accept modest
sacrifices for a common good on the other hand we also see societies where people peruse and
protect their own interest than a common good14 but before going into the debate deeply it is
important for us to know that what is common good. The common good is nothing else but a
notion which finds its origin over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato and etc.
whereas this concept can also be seen in the writing of Rowels. Rowels define common good
as certain conditions that are equally to everyone’s advantage 15 whereas the catholic religious
tradition also identifies common good. So this means that common good consist of social
system, institutions and etc. in which we all depend and work in a manner that benefits all
people. Examples among the nations of the world can be seen as of a just legal and political
system or a well off economic system which has its impact upon the individuals but this does
not means that common good is established by itself but establishing and maintaining common
good requires the cooperative effort of some or often many people and when the efforts pay off
no one can be easily excluded from that and those in favor argue that individualism would not
lead us to this situation as it is impossible for all to agree upon a particular social, political
system and even if they agree upon one they all may differ on the values in a pluralistic society
and this thing would harm common good and such disagreements would undermine the ability
to evoke a sustained and widespread system commitment to common good16. The promotion of
Common good may face another problem named as individualism. Our historical traditional
values places a huge importance on individual freedom and as a diverse society is comprised
of separate independent individuals who are free to peruse their own goals and in such a
society is difficult, perhaps impossible that people would sacrifice some of their freedom for
the sake of common good. So individualism in this sense harms the prosperity of a society.
Now we will move on towards one of the most important concept of this assignment meaning
collectivism vs. Individualism.
Collectivism is defined as a theory or a group that makes some sort of group rather than the
individual fundamental unit of political social and economic concern. This theory states that
the claims of groups and etc. shall supersede the claims of an individual whereas on the other
14
Article: The Common good by Claire Andre and Manuel Valsequaz Published By Santa Clara University.
15
Article: The Common good by Claire Andre and Manuel Valsequaz Published By Santa Clara University.
16
Article: The Common good by Claire Andre and Manuel Valsequaz Published By Santa Clara University.
11
hand individualism says that human being should judge and think independently, respecting
nothing more than a sovereignty of his mind, it is ultimately related with the concept of
autonomy and individualism holds up the supremacy of individual rights. Ayn Rand said a
majority has no right to vote away the rights of minorities 17. Collectivism means subjugation of
a person to group whether it is to a race class or a state. Whereas rand on the other hand says
that individual rights means subordinating society to the moral law which gives us freedom
and not subjugation. Collectivism requires self sacrifice, and one subordinating his interest for
another whereas politically true individualism means that one has a right to his own life and his
own happiness but true individualism also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and
defend the protect the institutions that protect a right 18. As per now we are familiar with the
concept of Individualism and collectivism so let us examine these concepts in detail.
As we have seen from the above discussion that collectivism and individualism are both
opposite to each other as individualism’s focus is upon the autonomy of an individual in a
society. The concept of Individualism strengths an individual in a society but on the other hand
collectivism’s focus is upon subjugation of an individual to a group or a race or etc. Whereas
on the other hand collectivism does not considers an individual the prime mover of the society
but instead of that they consider institutions, organizations and etc. Both of these concepts
came into to our discussion because collectivism more focuses upon the nationhood being
more important than an individual whereas individualism’s focus is upon the rights granted to
an individual.

ANTI-TERRORIST ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF PAKISTAN ACT

The concept of sacrificing individual rights for collective security has been extended in
Pakistan to a wider scope. Acts like Anti-Terrorist Act, Protection of Pakistan Acts and others
have been established not only against the fundamental rights in the constitution of Pakistan
but also against the Principles of natural justice an example can be seen in the Protection of
Pakistan act where an person accused has to prove his innocence which not only against the
basic criminal jurisprudence but is also a violation of Article 10-A of the constitution of
Pakistan which talks about fair trial. The concept has also been upheld by the courts in
Pakistan as in recent petitions against the Pakistan protection ordinances were disposed off.

CASE LAW’S
17
Article: Definition, Collectivism vs. Individualism
18
Article: Definition, Collectivism Vs. Individualism
12
SINCLAIR VERSUS HM ADVOCATE 2005 UKPC D 19

In this case the court of law held that fair trial is a fundamental right of the accused and for that
there should be an equal arm of adversarial system which means that there should be equality
between prosecution and defense. Prosecution is under duty to present evidence which may
undermine their case and that evidence may be taken as material evidence.

TAYLOR VS KENTUCKY 436 US 47820

The honorable court of law in this case held and discussed about the right to fair trial with the
innocence of the accused. It was held in this case that the presumption of innocence in favor of
the accused is undoubted law axiomatic and elementary and its enforcement lies at the
foundation of the administration of our criminal law. This was held Because another judgment
was also relevant to it.

So both of the above mentioned cases tell us that whatever the circumstance may be the
individual rights must be there and no one has the right to snatch them because these rights
which are granted to an individual are the elements and the basis of the law or the foundations
upon which the law is standing.

CONCLUSION

It feels important to us to conclude our discussing while inculcating our point of view. In our
opinion the rights of individuals can never be sacrificed on the name of collective security.

 Previously Democratic governments have been over thrown by Military dictators on

the name of national security so democracy could not flourish in such conditions
whereas democracy is from the people and for the people.
 Civil liberties are also cruel protections against the government such as freedom to
speech and during its exercise one can criticize on the government policies. So a person
can exercise his right to fair trial.
 A law against the principles of Natural justice is a bad law as per the Naturalist and its
objective can never be achieved. So in our opinion such laws will become nothing else
but a purposeless law.

19
Sinclair versus HM Advocate 2005 UKPC D
20
Taylor Vs Kentucky 436 US 478
13
 Citizens of a state often do not have access to information about security threats so a
government can over react in absence of individual rights such as the right to
information to meet its own goals.
 An autocrat government will come into being on the name of nation security which
may persecute its political opponents.
 Self contradictory theories are preferred over the constitutional apparatus.
 Might is right becomes the rule and legal remedies are curtailed.

14