Peter Jones in Rights contrasted the difference between natural and human rights1. The concept of natural rights is tied up in the idea where the citizens gave up to the governing body for the good of law and order and in return the governments protected and upheld within the law, i.e., Constitutions. Therefore the argument of natural rights has now become so diluted that it is no longer an effective model.
Human Rights as theory admits from the outset they are intangible and not from nature, therefore one cannot empirically observe or measure them, as Margaret MacDonald2 criticized the argument from nature. Human rights, as described by Jones, are prescribed by the fact of being human and part of humanity3. It picks up on the egalitarian theory of equality, whereby human beings are equal and therefore are afforded these basic rights. The arguments for these rights come from arguments, such as self-evidence, human worth and moral worth.
The basis of the core rights theorists is the work of Immanuel Kant. ...
How does Kant argue that this is an all-encompassing ethic outside of societal conventions, without the aid of a divine being Kant argues that it is the individual's ability to reason and autonomous will that is the basis of his a priori argument. Shestack5 describes the basis of Kant's argument as; 'rights then flow from the autonomy of the individual in choosing his and her ends, consistent with a similar freedom for all... In short, Kant's imperative is that the central focus of morality is 'personhood', namely the capacity to take responsibility as a free and rational agent for one's system of ends'.6 This ethic was one of the most influential arguments for universal human rights, in response to Nazism, eugenics and ethnic cleansing, which can be illustrated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with words such as inherent, inalienable and equality applied to rights and the basis of these rights are the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in world. Kant's theory is the basis of the core theorists and has been very influential in the drafting of the 20th Century human rights treaties and legislation. However how do we measure what should be included in these universal rights The answer to this question is at the heart of this discussion for the international treaties and human rights legislation does not seem to be meeting the needs to fulfil Kant's ethic as Evans argued modern human rights law is too legalistic. This is a core rights theory, which purports these rights transcend statehood therefore automatically requiring the state to extend these rights to all individuals and arguably future generations.
Rawl's, on the other hand, in his thesis for engendering human rights states that justice7 is the prime basis of all