Sunwater Institute Rights and Liberties Project: Difference between revisions

From

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Revision as of 17:20, 3 August 2022

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Association

Freedom of Religion

Voting Rights and Suffrage

Freedom of the Press

Privacy Rights

Right To Education

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

Albania

Algeria

Andorra

Angola

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

Romania

Russia

Rwanda

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

São Tomé and Príncipe

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Serbia

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

Somalia

South Africa

South Korea

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

Sweden

Switzerland

Syria

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

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?

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?

Short-term economic cost in general

Long-term economic cost in general

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)?

Question Template

MediaWiki has been installed.

Consult the User's Guide for information on using the wiki software.

Getting started

Retrieved from "https://www.rightspedia.org/index.php?title=Sunwater_Institute_Rights_and_Liberties_Project&oldid=1372"

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 ====Hobbesian Thought====
 ====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====
-The issue of the right to privacy within the United States is a relatively new phenomenon following the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut in which the right to privacy was clearly established by the Supreme Court. However, it might be suggested that its origins and foundations can be traced back to the late 1600s when John Locke introduced the private sphere when it came to the conversation of religious tolerance. John Locke wrote “Letter Concerning Toleration” in 1689 that describes the way in which the right to privacy originates from the idea that the people can and should be separate from the government in certain aspects. Locke introduces the idea of a private sphere or the right to privacy when he discusses issues like religion since its discussion creates more problems preventing society from working efficiently.
-Locke recognizes that there are very divisive issues that prevent people from working together effectively within society. Specifically referring to spreading religious beliefs, he wrote that “If by these means the offenders will not be reclaimed, and the erroneous convinced, there remains nothing further to be done but that such stubborn and obstinate persons, who give no ground to hope for their reformation, should be cast out and separated from the society” (Locke 1689, 30). Locke claims that the divisions within the public sphere over religion can be remedied by the complete separation of such matters from the state since religion is its own society. Religion dividing society is evident throughout history as nations and their people fought wars over their competing religious values and beliefs. For Locke the separation between the two and separating the state from religion was a way to avoid conflict within a nation and come to the general agreement that not everyone is going to agree on the matter of religion. However, Locke challenges his own idea of religious tolerance by saying that all religions except Atheists, Unitarians, and Catholics deserve tolerance because these groups prioritize religious law rather than political law. Locke recognizes the fact that a lot of the political issues revolve around religion and to focus on the commonwealth, matters of religion need to be subjected to the individual rather than being a concern of the state. Furthermore, upon the creation of the private sphere “...it will be urged still that civil assemblies are open and free for anyone to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are more private and thereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations” (Locke 1689, 51). Locke develops the idea that all religions must be tolerated within the government in the best interest of the commonwealth, leaving the political conversation open for political conversation as to how the government should be run. If the state sphere should interfere with the individual sphere, Locke claims that greater problems would arise as the government wields a seemingly tyrannical power. Locke proposes this idea of the private sphere in order to avoid problems within the political sphere, but alongside this proposal, he builds the foundation for a right to privacy that is valued so much today. The rest of his arguments include the point that there is a realm of privacy in which the individual makes decisions that they believe will best benefit them.
-It was from Locke’s separation between the state and the individual that the right to privacy came to life off the premise that there is a place within society where the government should not be involved in the matters of the people. Locke continues for the advocation of a private sphere by claiming that, “In private domestic affairs, in the management of estates, in the conservation of bodily health, every man may consider what suits his own convenience and follow what course he likes best” (Locke 1689, 34). Throughout his letter of toleration, and through the rest of his theory, he is critical of government intervention in the affairs of the people and emphasizes this private sphere as a place to escape government intervention. This sort of foundation and sentiment expressed by Locke gave the people the perspective that the state is going to act within their own self-interest which might mean being involved in the actions of the people. Locke again remedies this problem with the private sphere as a space where the government cannot get involved in the choices of the individual when it comes to their lives. Specifically, Locke subtly turns the conversation slightly away from religion and into the idea of affairs, property, and health in general as a part of the private sphere that the government should not be a part of. To the rest of society, the government has always been involved in the lives of the people, so to have this idea proposed that people can and should be independent of government intervention changed the way the people saw the government and the power they had over the lives of the people. In addition, Locke then claims that when the magistrate makes laws, “...a private person is to abstain from the action that he judges unlawful, and he is to undergo the punishment which it is not unlawful for him to bear” (Locke 1689, 48). Locke paints a picture that the people can make decisions about the laws within this private realm that adds another dimension to the idea that the people have more power within their private space than they thought. Historically, the governments were involved in all affairs of the people, leaving them little room for voluntary actions that they wanted to pursue for themselves, and Locke’s sentiments provides them the space to become free thinkers outside of the government. Although his writings are in specific reference to religion being in the private sphere, the later sentiments expand to other areas of life that would be affected had religion been placed within the private sphere. This allows the people to believe that other aspects of their life that have been controlled by the government can enter the private sphere where the government will not have any control over the efforts of the people themselves. This created a life where the people had private lives, where the government was not involved in the lives of the people and where the people made decisions for themselves. As people saw the potential for the private sphere, the right to privacy became more prevalent as a boundary between the state and the people developed, despite the boundary between the public and the private being unclear sometimes. Although this line is imprecise, Locke’s notion of the private sphere when it comes to politics introduces the idea of the line in the first place and introduces a new level of understanding about the relationship between the people and the government.
-Locke created the idea of the private sphere based on the premise that doing so might help prevent a lot of the conflict that had been around during the time that created the bad relationship between the state and the people. However, by proposing this idea he shines light on the paradox on the relationship between rights in general and the government. It is the duty of the government to act within the interest of the people by providing them access to their rights regardless of what they are, but at the same time the government also wants to act within their self-interest to maintain law and order within society and therefore might see rights as an obstacle to their end goal. Furthermore, Locke writes about this topic in a time period where the legal framework looks incredibly different from what is present today and therefore writes from the perspective that religion causes these huge wars within nations and between major parties. All these factors contribute to the idea that the right to privacy has existed throughout history and throughout theory as criticism of government is an ongoing conversation that has many different perspectives and points of view. Locke’s writings about creating a private sphere for religion only reflect the sentiments known today as the right to privacy that has changed the way that people have viewed the relationship between the people and the government.
-Bibliography
-Locke, John. 1983. “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, edited by James H. Tully. Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
 ====Physiocrats====