Human Rights and Liberties from Naturalist and Positivist Point of View

Introduction

The most fundamental aspect every human being enjoys without undue influence from political or civil interference is the concept of Human Rights. In order for us to appreciate this assignment, it is of paramount importance to define Human Rights. Human rights has been accorded different definitions by different scholars. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Human rights as “the freedoms, immunities, and benefits that, according to modern values all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right in the society in which they live”. Hence, according to Mulembe Human Rights may be defined as “rights that every human being has by virtue of his or her human dignity”.

On the other hand, Nickel also defines Human Rights as “moral principles or norms for certain standards of Human behavior and are regularly protected”. These rights are held equally worldwide but, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) they might not be recognized, protected or enforced in the same manner across the world, instead, the universality of these Human Rights is the cornerstone of international Human Rights Law, meaning that everyone is equally entitled to Human Rights.

It must be understood therefore that different theorists, view human rights and civil liberties from different perspectives. Some view human rights as one of the natural rights every person is born with and hence it is regarded as natural-born with rights. On the other hand, other theorists such as positivists contended that people does not born with human rights, instead, their rights and liberties are embedded in the laws of their respective countries. Despite the different views from different scholars, generally, Human rights may be said to be norms that aspire to protect all people everywhere from severe Political, Legal, and social abuses. These rights are benefits that are necessary to any Human Being and in some cases collective, dignity and wellbeing

Since different theories view the concept of human rights differently as civil liberties, civil rights, and natural law, this assignment shall endeavor to explain the human rights from naturalist and positivists point of view.

Civil Rights

Civil rights are a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by government, social organizations, and private individuals. These are privileges that are provided for by the state through the constitution of the laws of Zambia. In our Zambian setup, part III of the 1996 Constitution Chapter 1 of the Laws of Zambia provides for these rights. This kind of rights guarantees of equality, social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics.

Some of the examples of such rights include; the right to life, right to education, right to shelter, right to vote etc. the civil rights are an essential component of democracy because, when a citizen is denied an opportunity to participate in political society, this means that they are being denied their civil right. The civil rights laws attempt to guarantee a full and equal citizenship across the board, but were enforcement of civil rights is found by many to be inadequate, then a civil rights movement may emerge in order to call for an equal application of the laws without discrimination. These kinds of rights can never be taken away from an individual as they are secured by positive government action often in the form of legislation. In this view, the western theory construct of human rights provides inherent and inalienable rights to all regardless of culture and tradition

Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are rights guaranteed by the constitution. They can also be called as freedoms that are accorded to every citizen by the government through the enactment of the statutes. These rights are provided for in the 1996 Constitution of the Laws of Zambia. Civil liberties are rights guaranteed by the constitution, such they have been described as a right which should be enjoyed by each person. A good example of civil liberties is the freedom of assembly was illustrated in the case of Christine Mulundika and 7 others v the Attorney General S.C.Z Judgment No. 25 of 1995 which were denied to be exercised contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. civil liberties actually operate as restraints on how the government can treat its citizens. Some examples of civil liberties are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, etc. civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed either explicitly identified in the bill of rights and the constitution, or interpreted or inferred through the years by the legislatures or the courts.

Despite civil liberties being enshrined in the constitution(part 3 of the 1996 constitution) it is important to note that liberty can be taken away from a citizen by the government if need be. During the Covid pandemic, the government through the Ministry of Health issued a directive for everyone to seize any public gatherings, and this included churches a right to religion as enshrined under statutory instruments 21, 22 of the laws of Zambia. The liberty of an individual is presumed to exist in our country unless a specific law dictates otherwise. This means that a person is entitled to be free from arrest or detention unless there are justifiable reasons, or the individual agrees to the loss of freedom. On occasions, the freedoms or liberties of the individual may conflict with the needs of the community as a whole, and in such cases, the right will be restricted by parliament or the courts. Indeed it can sometimes be said that our freedoms are what remains to us after the various restrictions have been taken into account.

Human Rights From a Naturalists Perspective

The main focus of Human Rights are to ensure that the essential needs of individuals or Human Beings are given irrespective of their various stations in life and to protect their rights, entitlements and to ensure respect is archived at all levels. Naturalists contended that human rights are rights that naturally come with every human being by virtue of him or her being human. These rights also focus on freedom, protection, status, or benefit for the rights holdersMorsink.These rights provide a means of enabling all of humanity with inalienable rights without regard to differences or cultural traditions, and as such,, the International human rights law is almost universally supported by states. The duties associated with human rights often require actions involving respect, protection, facilitation, and provision. Human rights are thus mandatory in the sense of imposing duties on their addressees

The rights of man are so opposable because they are supposedly natural rights arising from natural law, that is to say, rights naturally ordained by God. As such these rights are invested with higher moral authority and consequently binding as a regulatory social force. If it follows that since natural law is given by God, the creator of heaven and earth, man-made law is inevitably inferior to it. Natural rights are superior. This theory is important because it is applied to moral, political, and ethical systems today. It has played a large role in the history of political and philosophical theory and has been used to understand and discuss human nature.

Human Rights From a Positivists Perspective

Contrary to the naturalists, the positivist's view on the aspect of human rights is that people’s rights must be accorded by the law and not something to be born with. They contended that the rights that are enjoyed by human beings emanate from the statutes and not from the natural well-being. The Positivists argued that there is nothing mystical or divine about rights and that all rules of rights are man-made and acceptable as such. Under the positivist theory, the source of human rights is found only In the enactments of a system of law with sanctions attached to it, in its essence, positivism negates the moral philosophic basis of human rights.

In the view of the positivists, rights could only flow from the law of a particular society and could not come from any natural or inherent source. They are of the view that the position of the naturalists that rights are a gift from nature is subjective emotional reactions. Positivists make a clear demarcation between the laws of the physical universe, which govern the behavior of all physical entities in accordance with the inexorable principle of physical causation, and normative laws, which lay down norms of human conduct.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, it has been noted from this assignment that the naturalist point of view with regard to the human rights is that human beings are born with rights by virtue of being human. They further argued that the main focus of Human Rights are to ensure that essential needs of individuals or Human Beings are given irrespective of their various stations in life and to protect their rights.

It has also been noted on the other hand by the positivist that, the rights that are enjoyed by human beings emanate from the statutes and not from the natural wellbeing. The Positivists argued that there is nothing mystical or divine about rights and that all rules of rights are man-made and acceptable as such.

Reference

Books referred to

1. Black’s Law Dictionary.
2. Morsink, J. (1999).The universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting and intent.Philadephia.
3. Mulembe, E. (2000).Introduction to the concept of human rights.Defination and concept of Human rights: University of Pennsylvania press.
4. Nickel, J.W. (1993) the human rights to a safe environment.A study in the history of thought. Sage library of social Research. London: Sage publication.

CASES REFERED TO

1. Christine Mulundika and 7 others v the Attorney General S.C.Z Judgment No. 25 of 1995

STATUTES REFERED TO

1. Constitution of the Laws of Zambia Chapter of 1996.
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)