With the help of this industry, most of the young dwellers of the area, this previously did not have any job and thus no means to feed their family and themselves, would now be able to survive by providing labor in this industry. Now suddenly Government wakes up and says that since the environment will get polluted because of the industrial wastes produced by this industry therefore any operation of this manner should not be initiated. There definitely is a trade off between the two human rights- the right to food and the right to good environment. The former being the inherent right and the latter being contingent. But clearly, the right to food over here must be given preference over the right to environment. The primary responsibility of the Government here is to safeguard the right to food for its citizens and there by providing an alternate solution to stopping the work of the industry. The alternate means could be any of the plantations of more trees as an initiative by the Government or by the industry upon the directive of the Government. The Government should also give utmost care to proper disposal of industrial wastes by any such operation, but should not stop the operations of the industry which is providing the basic necessities of livelihood to the citizen.
While there are human rights which I think are really inherent (right to food, clothes and shelter) there are several others which I think are continge...
1) Nations which provide most of the inherent as well as contingent rights to their citizens. These are generally the economically developed nations of the World. Not only most of the citizens have access to food, clothing and shelter but also they have the access to good quality of these basic necessities. Proper laws are in place to punish the individuals andor companies which are involved in malpractices related to tempering of the quality of the basic necessity.
2) Nations which provide most of the inherent rights to their citizens but are not able to provide the contingent rights. These are generally the developing nations of the world.
3) Nations which provide neither the inherent nor the contingent rights to their citizens. These are generally underdeveloped nations of the world.
Compare the dangers posed by, and the argument of necessity, regarding drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists.
Necessity is one of the major excuses those criminals across the globe have been using most of the times, as a deterrent to avoid severe penalty. Needless to say, in some of the cases, they are even able to dupe the law thereby avoiding the strictest of punishments. For heinous crimes, any argument of necessity should not be given any heed else it will be a severe deterrent against the path of justice. With the presence of the clause of necessity, the criminal, even after committing the atrocious act, still have a room of escape based on the prudence of the jury of a particular country. A drug dealer may resort to an excuse in which he says that due to economic crisis of his family, he had to resort to such a heinous crime and may seek to smaller punishments like getting jailed for a few years. After the tenure of the punishment is