doctrine of natural rights as something which belonged to all men and were not considered to be privileges but something granted for simply being human and "rational". In my opinion this may be the most valid justification for human rights, for the sole virtue of being human.

It is relevant to highlight the word rational in the above definition as it is an important justification of human rights that proposers have considered in theory. This interpretation of human rights has always been associated with orthodox views. For instance, according to Joseph Raz, an advocate of the political conception of human rights, conventional human rights theories "‘claim that human rights are universal because they are rights every human being has as a human being".

•International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights known as negative rights.

•International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights known as positive rights

Universality and cultural diversity can be regarded as a factor that alter the way in which individuals are able to exercise their human rights, given the differences in political and cultural systems across the globe, the way in which we in Ireland can benefit and exercise our human rights in a democratic country will in fact differ from the way individuals can exercise their rights in a different jurisdiction. I find it virtually impossible to create a set of rights that all humanity will agree on due to these cultural differences, however if these rights are set as perhaps a guideline it may be likely that each country may infer their own meaning to that right. There will always be an ideological division as to what human rights should consist of.

While our moral judgment may come from our intuition, it is not acceptable basis for a legal rights, as it needs to be applied generally and broadly. Moral are a reflection of the society that we live, moral relativists believe some moral ideas that can apply to a wider group, wrong to argue that are absolute moral truths. 

 

Instead of saying we have moral codes that clash with each other we can understand these different moral codes as simply providing different but complementary perspective  on certain realities. Moral relativity has been very influential in human rights in challenging what is seen as “hegemony of the west” to treat other cultures as they are uncivilised. Which came to the forefront in 1947 when human rights was been drafted. It is in fact true that that these rights have traditionally been associated with the western states (Javaid rehman)

 

 

 

I personally agree more with the idea of Beyani who gives us a different picture of the concept of human rights and sees universality as the human being as a whole not just the individual with agency or rationality, it is unfair and wrong to have this justification as rationality and autonomy are characteristics that will exclude many people, such as the elderly, people will certain incapacities albeit mental or physical and young people.

 

He says universality means that we have a universal human nature, knowable by reason. It stands against moral relativists which believe there are absolute moral truths. Universality can be objectively defined.

Amartya sen points out that support for supposedly western liberal ideas of liberty are invoked just as frequently in asia as they are in Europe. 

The Canadian government argued the law was necessary to protect the indigenous minority and there was a need to have a definition for 'Indian' because of the special rights they enjoy to occupy land. They also argued it was being threatened by Indian men on a frequent basis therefore was necessary to remove the status of Indian women who married non-Indian men as they are a threat.

The Charter said the law can only be changed in consultation of Indian communities. In this case we can see a clear example of an imbalance between the broader universal right to culture by protecting the Indian communities and Lovelace's own individual right to enjoy her culture.

The Human Rights committee agreed her right had been breached, although by law her identity had been removed, they established law cannot do such thing and she has the right to enjoy culture in community with others.

I agree with the decision of the Committee regarding the fact cannot take away our culture, culture is something embedded in everybody and the Law should not have such capacity to determine this. It is was ultimately shapes us and the community we live in giving meaning to our beliefs and our views on our liberties and freedoms.

 

International human rights law is a branch on public international law, a consequence of this is sharing the same sources. International law is different from international legal systems as there is no central law making body or court or any international force ensuring that it ie being upheld, making it difficult to enforce. 
The International court of justice held that states are still nonetheless required to fulfil their obligations under international law and under international human rights law.

 

International human rights law treaties do not involve a reciprocal exchange of rights and duties, human right treaties do not operate like contracts, they are unilateral and by signing up to them they are accepted to be bound by certain legal obligations in relation to the treatment of individuals.

It is a practice of states that it is unwritten and that has happened overtime and eventually becomes a legally binding commitment, customs are essentially the practice of state.  For something to become custom, it has to meet two criteria, firstly it has to be a state practice, the practice has to be consistent and uniform. North sea continental shelf case was a case about fishing, states for many years fished in a particular water and measured their territory, a dispute arose when another territory was attempting to change these practices. The State had to prove that they had fished in such way for particular an amount of years and that other States had followed the same practice, in order to recognise it as a custom.

 

Second criteria is Opinio Juris – for something to be a practice the states must believe that they have a legal obligation to follow the practice. 

 

Jus cogens – pre-emptory norm that is accepted by the entire international community and no state can free themselves from, example is the prohibition of torture. No state can ignore and must be uphold these obligations.

They stop states from entering into treaties that would violate these norms, placing limits on state behaviour indicating values that at international level we have agreed upon. Jus cogens is proof that there are certain rights that at international level have the same level of importance and deserve recognition, for example the prohibition of genocide.

 

Unclear and rarely used, its ought to incorporate principles that are used in most legal systems for example, prohibition of torture.

 

There is no dedicated human rights court, there are many judicial bodies who do hear human rights cases, we have many regional courts and national courts that hear human rights cases. There is no hierarchy and therefore no doctrine of precedent as courts are not bound to follow the decisions of other courts under international human rights law; nonetheless some courts will examine the decision of another court. It is not clear how much weight we should give to judicial decision when we think about what the meaning of a human right is.

 

I believe we should perhaps give more importance to treaties as a source of international human rights law, since there is no central enforcement body of human rights, perhaps it is more correct to award a greater importance to treaties as states have signed up to a law they believe should hold them accountable to.

Another aspect is that it deals with issues that are humanitarian in nature, the ICJ talked about how states do not have any interests on their own, they merely have, one a d all, a common interest which is a “higher purpose”