Right To Education: Difference between revisions

From
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 24: Line 24:


====Angola====
====Angola====
The Constitution of Angola, written in 2010, states “The fundamental tasks of the Angolan state shall be …To promote policies that will ensure universal access to compulsory free education under the terms defined by law” (Angola Constitution, 2010, Article 21).
Source: Angola Constitution, 2012, Article 21
====Antigua and Barbuda====
====Antigua and Barbuda====
====Argentina====
====Argentina====

Revision as of 19:39, 28 March 2022

History

What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?

What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE

Afghanistan

The Afghanistan Constitution of 1964 is the oldest written source in Afghanistan that mentions the right to education. It grants all citizens the right to education, saying “Education is the right of every Afghan and shall be provided free of charge by the State and the citizens of Afghanistan… Primary education is compulsory for all children in areas where facilities for this purpose are provided by the State” (Afghanistan Constitution, 1964, Article 34).

Source: Afghanistan Constitution, 1964, Article 34).

Albania

According to scholars, through the 1933 Royal Constitution in Albania, “‘primary education for all Albanian citizens is compulsory and free of charge’” (Kola, 2014, 424). Today, Article 57 of the Albanian Constitution states, “Everyone has the right to education” (Albanian Constitution, 1998, Article 57).

Source: Bedri Kola, “Development of Education During the Years 1944-1948 in Albania,” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, No. 4 (March 2014), 423-428

Algeria

Algeria became a country in 1962, and the year following its founding in 1963, it included the right to education in its constitution, making it the oldest written source in Algeria that discusses the right to education. Article 18 of the Algerian Constitution states, “Education is obligatory; instruction is offered to all, with no discrimination except those resulting from the aptitudes of each individual and the needs of the collectivity” (Algerian Constitution, 1963, Article 18).

Source: Algerian Constitution, 1963, Article 18

Andorra

The oldest source in Andorra that mentions the right to education is their constitution. Article 20 of the Andorra Constitution states, “All persons have the right to education, which shall be oriented towards the dignity and full development of the human personality, thus strengthening the respect for freedom and the fundamental rights” (Andorra Constitution, 1993, Article 20)

Source: Andorra Constitution, 1993 Article 20

Angola

The Constitution of Angola, written in 2010, states “The fundamental tasks of the Angolan state shall be …To promote policies that will ensure universal access to compulsory free education under the terms defined by law” (Angola Constitution, 2010, Article 21).

Source: Angola Constitution, 2012, Article 21

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

The Bahamas

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Belarus

Belgium

Belize

Benin

Bhutan

Bolivia

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

Brazil

Brunei

Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada

Cape Verde

Central African Republic

Chad

Chile

China

Colombia

Comoros

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Republic of the Congo

Costa Rica

Croatia

Cuba

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Djibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

East Timor

Ecuador

Egypt

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Fiji

Finland

France

Gabon

The Gambia

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

Greece

Grenada

Guatemala

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Republic of Ireland

Israel

Italy

Ivory Coast

Jamaica

Japan

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Laos

Latvia

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Madagascar

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mexico

Federated States of Micronesia

Moldova

Monaco

Mongolia

Montenegro

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

Nauru

Nepal

Kingdom of the Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

North Korea

North Macedonia

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Palau

Panama

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Qatar

The first mention of the right to education in Qatar is in its constitution, which states, “Education is a right to every citizen. The State endeavors to achieve compulsory and free public education, according to the rules and laws in force in the State” (Qatar Constitution, 2003, Article 49).

Source: Qatar Constitution, 2003, Article 49

Romania

The first time the right to education is mentioned in Romania is in the constitution, which says, “The right to education is ensured through compulsory general education, high school and vocational education, higher education, and other forms of instruction and advanced training” (Romanian Constitution, 1991, Article 32).

Source: Romanian Constitution, 1991, Article 32

Russia

Article 43 of the Russian constitution is the first mention of the right to education in Russia, stating “Everyone shall have the right to education” (Russian Constitution, 1993, Article 43).

Source: Russian Constitution, 1993, Article 43

Rwanda

The first mention of the right to education in Rwanda is in the constitution, which says, “Every Rwandan has the right to education” (Rwandan Constitution, 2003, Article 20).

Source: Rawandan Constitution, 2003, Article 20

Saint Kitts and Nevis

The first mentions of the right to education in Saint Kitts and Nevis is in the Education Act of 2005, which says “Subject to available resources, all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in accordance with the provisions of this Act” (Education Act of 2005, 2005, 12).

Source: Education Act of 2005, 2005, page 12

Saint Lucia

The Education Act of 1999 is the first mention of the right to education in Saint Lucia. This Act states, “Subject to available resources, all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in accordance with this Act” (Education Act of 1999, 1999, 22).

Source: Education Act 1999, 1999, page 22

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

The first document that mentions the right to education in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is the Education Bill of 2005. This bill states under the section “Division 1 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities” that one of the rights of the students is the “right to education” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Education Bill 2005, 2005, 2).

Source: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Education Bill 2005, 2005, page 2

Samoa

There is currently no mention of the right to education in Samoa.

San Marino

There is currently no mention of the right to education in the country of San Marino.

São Tomé and Príncipe

The São Tomé and Príncipe constitution is the first mention of the right to education in the country. Article 55 of the constitution states, “Education, as a right recognized to all the citizens, strives for the whole formation of man and his active participation in the community” (São Tomé and Príncipe Constitution, 1975, Article 55).

Source: São Tomé and Príncipe Constitution, 1975, Article 55

Saudi Arabia

The oldest source that mentions the right to education in Saudi Arabia is the constitution, which states, “The State shall provide public education and shall commit itself to the eradication of illiteracy” (Saudi Arabia Constitution, 1992, Article 30).

Source: Saudi Arabia Constitution, 1992, Article 30

Senegal

The first document that mentions the right to education in Senegal is the constitution, which states, “The Republic of Senegal guarantees to all citizens the fundamental individual freedoms, the economic and social rights as well as the collective rights. These freedoms and rights are notably: … the right to education” (Senegal Constitution, 2001, Article 8).

Source: Senegal Constitution, 2001, Article 8

Serbia

The oldest document in Serbia that mentions the right to education is their constitution. Article 71 of their constitution states, “Everyone shall have the right to education. Primary education is mandatory and free, whereas secondary education is free. All citizens shall have access under equal conditions to higher education” (Serbia Constitution, 2006, Article 71).

Source: Serbia Constitution, 2006, Article 71

Seychelles

The constitution of Seychelles is the first mention of the right to education, stating, “The State recognises the right of every citizen to education” (Seychelles Constitution, 1993, Section 33).

Source: Seychelles Constitution, 1993, Section 33

Sierra Leone

The first mention of the right to education in Sierra Leone is in their constitution, which states “The Government shall direct its policies towards ensuring that there are equal rights and adequate educational opportunities for all citizens at all levels” (Sierra Leone Constitution, 1991, Section 9).

Source: Sierra Leone Constitution, 1991, Section 9

Singapore

There is currently no mention of the right to education in Singapore.

Slovakia

The constitution of Slovakia is the first document that mentions the right to education in this country, which states “Every person shall have the right to education. School attendance is compulsory. Length of attendance shall be fixed by law” (Slovakia Constitution, 1992, Article 42).

Source: Slovakia Constitution, 1992, Article 42

Slovenia

The first document that mentions the right to education in Slovenia is the constitution, stating “Freedom of education shall be guaranteed. Primary education is compulsory and shall be financed from public funds. The state shall create the opportunities for citizens to obtain a proper education” (Slovenia Constitution, 1991, Article 57).

Source: Slovenia Constitution, 1991, Article 57

Solomon Islands

There is currently no mention of the right to education in the Solomon Islands.

Somalia

The constitution of Somalia is the first document that mentions the right to education, stating “Education is a basic right for all Somali citizens” (Somalia Constitution, 2012, Article 30).

Source: Somalia Constitution, 2012, Article 30

South Africa

Article 29 of the constitution of South Africa is the first written document in the country mentioning the right to education, stating “Everyone has the right- a. to a basic education, including adult basic education; and b. to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible” (South Africa Constitution, 1996, Section 29).

Source: South Africa Constitution, 1996, Section 29

South Korea

Article 31 of the constitution of South Korea is the first mention of the right to education in the country, stating “All citizens shall have an equal right to an education corresponding to their abilities” (South Korea Constitution, 1948, Article 31).

Source: South Korea Constitution, 1948, Article 31

South Sudan

The South Sudan constitution of 2011 is the first document in this country that mentions the right to education. It says, “Education is a right for every citizen and all levels of government shall provide access to education without discrimination as to religion, race, ethnicity, health status including HIV/AIDS, gender or disability” (South Sudan Constitution, 2011, Article 29).

Source: South Sudan Constitution, 2011, Article 29

Spain

The first mention of the right to education in Spain comes in its constitution, which says “. Everyone has the right to education. Freedom of teaching is recognized” (Spain Constitution, 1978, Section 27).

Source: Spain Constitution, 1978, Section 27

Sri Lanka

The earliest mention of the right to education in Sri Lanka is in the constitution, which says “the complete eradication of illiteracy and the assurance to all persons of the right to universal and equal access to education at all levels” (Sri Lanka Constitution, 1978, Section 27).

Source: Sri Lanka Constitution, 1978, Section 27

Sudan

The constitution is the first document in Sudan that mentions the right to education, stating “Education is a right for every citizen. The state guarantees access thereto without discrimination on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, gender or disability” (Sudan Constitution, 2019, Section 62).

Source: Sudan Constitution, 2019, Section 62

Suriname

The earliest mention of the right to education in Suriname is the constitution, which states “Everyone shall have the right to education and cultural expression” (Suriname Constitution, 1987, Article 38).

Source: Suriname Constitution, 1987, Article 38

Sweden

The constitution of Sweden is the earliest mention of the right to education in the country, stating “All children covered by compulsory schooling shall be entitled to a free basic education in the public education system. The public institutions shall be responsible also for the provision of higher education” (Sweden Constitution, 1974, Article 18).

Source: Sweden Constitution, 1974, Article 18

Switzerland

The earliest document that mentions the right to education in Switzerland is the constitution, which says “The right to an adequate and free basic education is guaranteed” (Switzerland Constitution, 1999, Article 19).

Source: Switzerland Constitution, 1999, Article 19

Syria

The earliest mention of the right to education in Syria is in the constitution. Article 29 says “Education shall be a right guaranteed by the state, and it is free at all levels. The law shall regulate the cases where education could not be free at universities and government institutes” (Syria Constitution, 2012, Article 29).

Source: Syria Constitution, 2012, Article 29

Tajikistan

Tanzania

Thailand

Togo

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Tuvalu

Uganda

Ukraine

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

United States

Uruguay

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela

Vietnam

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Is there another noteworthy written source from the past that mentions this right?

Is the identification of this right associated with a particular era in history, political regime, or political leader?

What specific events or ideas contributed to its identification as a fundamental right?

When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right?

What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?

Legal Codification

Is this right protected in the Constitutions of most countries today?

Is it contained in the US Constitution?

Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?

Are there any exceptions in American law to this right?

Is this right enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties?

Philosophical Origins

What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?

Buddhism

Platonism

Aristotelian thought

Ancient Chinese Philosophy

Stoicism

Early Indian Philosophy

Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)

Roman Legal and Political Thought

Early Christianity

Thomism and medieval Christianity

Medieval Islamic Thought

Medieval Judaism

Early Modern Rationalism

Absolute Idealism

Reformation Christianity

Hobbesian Thought

Lockean Thought/English Empiricism

Physiocrats

Scottish Enlightenment

Modern Capitalism

Rousseau's Thought

Kantianism

German Idealism

Benthamite Utilitarianism

Millian Utilitarianism

Current Utilitarianism

Transcendentalism

Marxism

Early Sociology

Pragmatism

Weberian Thought

Process Philosophy

Social Darwinism

    Social Darwinism was a philosophical field of thought that “believed that the processes of natural selection acting on variations in the population would result in the survival of the best competitors and in continuing improvement in population. Societies were viewed as organisms that evolve in this manner” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021). William Graham Sumner, from the United States, and Herbert Spencer, from Hebert Spencer from England, were the two most prominent philosophers of social darwinism. Of these men, Herbert Spencer was most involved with the right to education. Two of Herbert Spencer’s books, Man Versus the States and Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects touch on the topic of education. 
    Tienken, in his article “Neoliberalism, Social Darwinism, and Consumerism Masquerading as School Reform”, writes “In education policy social Darwinism is visible through the use of one-size-fits-all mandated curricula standards and the use of results from mandated standardized testing to make important decisions about children and teachers” (Tienken, 2013, 305). Because of ‘survival of the fittest’ being one of the main points of social Darwinism, these philosophers often want to see what happens when students are all given access to the same schooling and curriculum and who comes out on top after that. 
    Spencer, in his book, Man Versus the State, writes “There is a rising demand, too, that education shall be made gratis (i.e., tax supported), for all. The payment of school-fees is beginning to be denounced as a wrong: the State must take the whole burden” (Spencer, 1916, 22). During Spencer’s lifetime there was a push to make education free for all, by making it be funded by tax dollars. This would, in turn, ensure that more children would have the right to an education. 
    In Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects, Spencer writes, “The notion that an ideal humanity might be forthwith produced by a perfect system of education, is near akin to that implied in the poems of Shelley, that would mankind give up their old institutions and prejudices, all the evils in the world would at once disappear” (Spencer, 1911 86). Social Darwinists believed in ‘survival of the fittest’, a term originally coined by Spencer himself. Thus, these philosophers believed that it was possible that the ideal version of society could be created via the use of education. 

Sources:

Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State, Truxton Beale, ed., New York, 1916

Herbert Spencer, Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects, London & Toronto, 1911

Encyclopedia Britannica, “social Darwinism”, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism (accessed 22 March 2022)

Christopher H. Tienken, “Neoliberalism, Social Darwinism, and Consumerism Masquerading as School Reform” Interchange (March 2013) 295-316

British Idealism (19th cen.)

Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School

Behaviorism

Feminist Thought

Postmodernism

Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?

What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?

    The major legal theories, including positive law, natural law, and critical legal studies all have different takes on the right to education. The natural law legal theory sees the right to education as a natural right that all children have. As Albert Grande states, “every child has a natural right to education that will enable him to perform all domestic, social, civil, and moral duties. Education is as natural to the child as breathing and seeing: ‘a child without education is poorer and more wretched than a man without bread’” (Grande, 2006, 70). This branch of legal theory holds that children have a natural right to receive an education, and that an education is one of the most important things that a person can receive in life. The right to education is the basis for many things, and it is through receiving an education that an individual will be able to better themselves and create a better life. 
    In the area of who is responsible for accessing a proper education for their children, natural law holds that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are being educated via their right to an education. As Melissa Moschella says, “from the natural law perspective, parents legitimately claim that they are the ones primarily responsible for the education and upbringing of their children, and thus that they have the authority to make decisions about how best to carry out their task” (Moschella, 2014, 199). The natural law area of legal theory sees that the right of education for children is in the hands of their parents. We can see this belief upheld in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case, which Moschella also discusses in her article. This case involved an Amish family in Wisconsin in which the parents did not want to send their children to school past the eighth grade, despite the state’s compulsory education laws, because the parents claimed that an education past the eighth grade went against their religious beliefs as an Amish family. The court ruled in their favor, and allowed the parents to keep their children out of school. This ruling falls in line with the beliefs of natural law in relation to education because the courts ultimately let the parents make the final decision about what educational decision was the best choice to raise their children. Regarding the outcome of this case, Moschella says, “parents are the ones with the authority to make controversial decisions about what type of education is in the best interests of their children” (Moschella, 2014, 218). This belief system gives parents, rather than the state, the ultimate authority to make decisions for their children, including when it comes to making decisions about education. In this way, parents are responsible for whether or not children have the right to an education.
    The natural law legal theory is also the basis on which Horace Mann, one of the most well known education reformers, derived his beliefs about education. However, Mann did not hold the belief that the right to education and schooling fell into the hands of parents, he believed that the burden of education fell on the state. Mann has been dubbed the father of the public school because of his beliefs regarding the right to education. He believed that school should be both free and public which came from natural law, “his passionate belief in the common school movement rested upon natural law, which compels the state to provide schools that prepare individuals to perform all the duties essential to citizenship” (Grande, 2006, 69). Horace Mann’s take on the natural law legal theory and education is that it is the responsibility of the government to provide a free education for people. This leads into his belief that the government should be responsible for providing a free education for its citizens. 
    Andrei Marmor talks about the social thesis that exists within the realm of legal positivism, “according to the social thesis, law is a social phenomenon, it is a social institution, and therefore, what the law is, is basically a matter of social facts” (Marmor, 2006, 686). Legal positivism sees law as being related to social facts and society. The right to education is a core part of society.
    When it comes to positive law legal theory, also known as legal positivism, H.L.A. Hart is one of the leading legal philosophers in this field. Hart held that, “legal positivism, as a general theory about the nature of law, is basically descriptive and morally neutral” (Marmor, 2006, 684). Marmor provides a definition for this, “by ‘descriptive’ I mean that such an account does not purport to justify or legitimize any aspects of its subject matter. By ‘morally neutral,’ I mean that the theory need not take a stance on any particular moral or political issues, nor is it committed to any moral or political evaluations” (Marmor, 2006, 683). By these definitions, it means that legal positivism does not exist to have distinct opinions on any particular things or ideas, including rights. 
    One of the few mentions of the right to education within the field of positive legal theory comes in H.L.A. Hart’s essay “Between Utility and Rights”, when he writes, “Why should there not be included a basic right to the positive service of the relief of great needs or suffering or the provision of basic education and skills when the cost of these is small compared with both the need to be met and with the financial resources of those taxed to provide them?” (Hart, 1979, 835). Hart believed that people should have access to basic services and things that would allow them to create a better life for themselves. 

Sources:

Grande, Albert. “Education as a Natural Right” Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 21, No. 1 (Fall 2006) 53-72

H.L.A. Hart. “Between Utility and Rights” Columbia Law Review 79, No. 5 (June 1979) 828-846

Andrei Marmor. “Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 No. 4 (2006) 683-704

Moschella, Melissa. “Natural Law, Parental Rights, and Education Policy” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 59, No. 2 (2014) 197-227

Culture and Politics

Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively

Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?

Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?

Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?

Conflicts with other Rights

Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

Is there a perception that this right is above or higher than other fundamental rights, or in general, that it has a particular place in a hierarchy of rights?

What specific examples of hierarchies, manifestos, constitutions, or prioritized descriptions of rights cite this right’s high status? Low status? No status at all?

How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to?

Limitations / Restrictions

What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?

Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?

Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?

Have political theorists or philosophers discussed the permissibility of exceptions to this right?

Should this right be limited when limiting it would jeopardize democratic norms?

Is this right often perceived as threatening to government authorities?

Is this right often curtailed by government authorities for reasons other than those which are generally viewed as permissible?

Is this right at times curtailed by private actors?

Is this right subject to specific limitations in event of emergency (war, brief natural disaster [weather, earthquake], long-run natural disaster [volcano, fire, disease])? Can such limitations be defined in advance with reference to the disaster in question?

Utilitarian / Fairness Assessments

Is there a cost attached to protecting and enforcing this right? What kinds of costs are implicated?

As of 2022, the United States spends $586.4 billion dollars on K-12 education, which equates to about $14,455 per student (Education Data Initiative). This cost covers the cost of paying teachers and other school staff, as well as textbooks and school supplies. This money helps to provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students can receive the right to an education. Other costs that may be associated with protecting and enforcing the right to education are court costs. When cases go to court regarding the right to education, such as Wisconsin v. Yoder, there are court costs associated, such as the cost of lawyers and judges, to protect the right to education.

Sources: Melanie Hanson, “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics” Education Data Initiative, https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics (accessed 28 March 2022).

Short-term economic cost in general

The short-term economic cost of the right to education is the cost it takes to run a school on a daily basis.

Long-term economic cost in general

The long-term economic cost of the right to education is the cost that it makes to run a school on a yearly basis, and beyond that.

Cost to those least able to economically absorb the cost

Cost to perceived democratic legitimacy

Cost to consistency or coherence of the law as a whole

Cost to the legitimacy or effectiveness of other rights

Cost to considerations of social equality

Cost to other non-material goods not so far specified

What are the financial consequences, if any, of making this right a legally protectable right?

Are there any groups that are uniquely disadvantaged by the exercise of this right?

Are there any groups that uniquely benefit from the exercise of this right?

Are there instances when this fundamental right can lead to unfairness or inequities?

Are there objective ways to measure the utilitarian nature of this right?

If so, where can one draw the line: when does this right stop being useful or economically viable?

Looking Ahead

How can we expect this right to change and evolve in the years ahead?

How is the future likely to shape the exercise of this right?

Will the exercise or protection of this right be affected by technological changes?

Under what conditions would this right become irrelevant?

Are questions of fairness and utility pertaining to this right likely to change in the years ahead?

Policy Recommendations

Can the practice or exercise of this right be shaped through executive action?

In the US context, are there particular parties with a stake or interest in amending or reconceptualizing this right?

In the US context, can this right be altered legislatively, or would it require a constitutional amendment?

Is this right best addressed at the national level? The sub-national level? The international level?

To what extent is this right shaped primarily by judicial decisions?

If this right is best addressed through the amendment process, how should it proceed?

If this right were unlimited, what might be the consequences (positive and negative)?

If this right were eliminated, what might be the consequences (positive and negative)?