(EN) INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

 INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

UK & US

Individual rights are those principles that are held by a single person rather than an entire group. The rights of individuals can be mandated by the law, provided by social means or gained through self-determination. These rights are generally associated with the concept of nature. Essentially, each person is born with rights that cannot be disenfranchised by the group.
According to political scientists, individual rights can either be negative or positive. This means that a negative right allows the person to not act on a certain principle, while a positive right means that a person may act in a certain capacity if they want. This can either be mandated by the laws of a society or simply exist in a natural way. For example, a negative right is one that prevents a person from stealing from another individual. Meanwhile, a positive right is the right to speak freely.
Individual rights around the world are associated with the concept of individualism. In the United States, individual rights are often viewed as a viable way to promote freedom and prevent abuses by the government or the majority. This is very similar in most European countries; however, much of the discourse about individual rights are geared towards negative rights. In China, individual rights are used as a way to prevent the upheaval of society and promote a stronger central power. This is accomplished by combining negative rights with positive rights, essentially defining a parameter of what the individual can and cannot do.

To determine which individual rights exist, society uses a combination of self-determination and political philosophy through legal means. Most nations around the world mandate the positive and negative laws in a form of codified law such as a constitution for the nation or state. Certain philosophies state that the only reason for a government to exist at all is to identify and codify these respective rights so they are upheld by society.
Throughout history, singular rights have been the principle behind many revolutions and rebellions. Both the American and French Revolutions made the rights of the individual a central theme of the reason behind the conflicts and social changes. Inversely, the collective rights of each individual together was essential in the Bolshevik Revolution which brought the Communist Party to power in the Soviet Union. These individual rights were defined to benefit the entire population.

(EN) THE LAND OF THE FREE. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

By Jonathan Turley,January 13, 2012

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)