The Real Nature of Human Rights
What is the real nature of human rights? Is it something common to all states with the rule of law? Is it a legal presumption or purpose of modern law? What if it is just a source of inspiration for lawmakers? In this very article, we will try to find a real term for human rights and try to analyze modern definitions and theories about them.
Firstly, we will look through The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of United Nations. This document includes a wide range of rights, however without implementation of this provisions in a national law system the whole text remains to be claimant, but not a substantial remedy for purpose in question.
An adequate solution within the sphere of a European integration was made by The Council of Europe. It provided protection of basic human rights, which were enshrined through its convention. By the end of 2015 The Court had settled more then 18 000 disputes.
It is an important to mention that some of its decisions raised questions which concerned fair and independent trials. One of those examples can be The Yukos affair, According to decision Russian must pay $ 50 billion to owners of shares of violated company. Russian government reacted with suspicion, mainly because dispute was higly discussed within foreign media, that made them think that it was made with a hidden political purpose. This precedent lead to court decision, which the main court-mediator made - Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation from 14.07.2015 N 21-P which provided an opportunity not to exercise some of the Human rights Court decisions.
Do other regions have their own equivalent? We have The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights and The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, indeed these courts introduce problem of a lack of sufficient level of legal culture in the present states. The first one has not made any decision since the day of its foundation and the second is more effective, but it could not make any decision even during one year.
This is supported by the fact that there are some states such as The United Kingdom and The United States of America, which are “big players” in the international field without recognizing prior international law and determine it as non-existent.
A key answer on the question why this happens can be seen in history. Human rights were born many centuries ago, but there were many causes of conflict. Human rights were engulfed by different kinds of restrictions such as differentiation of statues of nationals or property qualification to have a right of entrance to elections. Just in the middle of the twentieth century we had fascist authorities in some European states. Moreover, divided Europe existed with socialistic camp full of censorship and one strict line of “right” behavior before the end of this century.
If we look at modern times there is the example of Lisbon treaty which was adopted against a large number of people who voted in the French and the Dutch referendums against the united European constitution. Factually, it includes 98 percent of the original text. A referendum is one of the cleanest and values of democracy and even it can be bypassed with help of legal quick fix.
All these over used facts brings to the decision that indeed human rights are something new for the whole world and coherence of its evolution is weaker that it seems to be from the first look.
In our opinion, human rights for modern legal order are purpose inspired by volume of past generations. Nowadays, it is obvious that fair society is more competitive and ready for social upheaval. The experience of The Soviet Union and many other conservative nations of the past illustrates this. As a result the modern part of society always wins in a competition. Only a high level of protection of human rights can provide stable growth of human beings.
All concept of collective interests seems to us virtual. Law as a living substantive platform cannot contravene the status quo if it is going to be an effective remedy, at the same time lawmakers have to admit presumptions to achieve their aimed purposes. Pursuing to prove that human rights is one of those presumptions, we are going to present the following argument of Gestalt psychology.
Human rights determined by the Cambridge dictionary as:
“The basic rights that it is generally considered all people should have, such as justice and the freedom to say what you think.”
The main idea of this term stands in opposition to Gestalt’s way of thinking which was easily compiled in the so-called Gestalt prayer of psychotherapist Fritz Perls:
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I…”
According to Gestalt all people are unique and have their own thoughts. A person can guess what is happening in the mind of another person, but he can never be one hundred present sure about it. Certainty about ideas and the behaviour of others is just an illusion of control which makes obstacles for personal expression. Moreover, a very small group of people can understand their own wishes and ideas therefore a person should rely on his own thoughts.
The above-mentioned facts brings us to the opinion that the concept of Gestalt’s cycology even if it is not always correct still sounds very realistic vis-à-vis human rights.
The future of the protection of human rights seems to us a source of inspiration for future integrational organizations and supranational organs. The experience of the Council of Europe presents that it is possible within a limited area states of which comprised by cultural similarities.
Different political volume can become the main reason for the differences. Even in European region country-neighbors still have controversial positions and open conflicts for example the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. That is why the future of building the real rule of law in the modern world seems to us a long ongoing process.
© 2017 Daniil Kamoylenko