Monday, January 26, 2015

Differences between Fundamental and human rights




There are some Fundamental distinction between Human Rights and fundamental rights:

01.  Fundamental rights are peculiar. These are the rights that differentiate a citizen from a resident or a visitor. They are the basic rights necessary for our existence as a member of a particular state. Human rights on the other hand are those inalienable rights  that we possess as a human being.
02.  The source of a fundamental right is the Constitution whereas the source of human rights is the international law.
03.  The issue of context cannot be removed in the determination of fundamental rights but human rights enjoy a sort of universal context. For example the right to live is universal but the right to live in a state is fundamental according to the rules set up by the state to guide such right.
04.  Human rights are more basic in nature than fundamental rights and apply to all human beings on the face of the earth whereas fundamental rights are country specific.
05.  Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law and they create justiciable rights in favour of individuals and the courts can enforce them against the government. Again, the courts are competent to declare as void any law that is inconsistent with any of the fundamental rights.

On the other hand, human rights are not enforceable in a court of law and they do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals.
06.  Fundamental rights are mandatory in nature whereas human rights are declaratory in nature as they have expressly been excluded from the preview of the courts.
07.  The fundamental rights create negative obligation on the state, i.e., the state is required to refrain from doing something. Human rights, on the other hand, impose positive obligation on the state i.e., to implement these principles the state will have to achieve certain ends by its actions.
08.  The human rights may be described as inchoate fundamental rights while the fundamental rights are full-fledged i.e. the former requires legislation to become effective while the latter need not requires such legislation.
09.  Fundamental rights are primarily aimed at assuring political freedom to citizens by protecting them against excessive state action while human rights are aimed at securing social and economic freedom by appropriate state action.
10.  While there is no consensus on universal human rights, fundamental rights are specific and have legal sanction
11.  Human rights are relatively new while fundamental rights enshrined by constitutions of various countries are older.
12.  All fundamental rights are human rights but all human rights are not fundamental rights.
13.  Fundamental rights are like genus, human rights are like species. Human rights are the whole of which fundamental rights are a part.

Obligatory bequest




Obligatory bequest rule is applicable for the orphan grandchild in Islamic law of succession. In order to give property to the child of the pre-deceased son of the praepositus In Pakistan and Bangladesh the rule of representation and in the middle-east country the rule of obligatory bequest is applied.
Traditionally in sharia law the orphan grandchild doesnot allowed to take propertyof his or her predeceased father or mother.So the system of Obligatory bequest is introduced by many muslim countries.
To solve the problem of exclusion of the orphan grandchildren from inheritance a special provision prescribing of bequest in their favour equal to what the parent would have inherited had he survived provided that this does not exceed to the total one third of the praepositus property is called as Obligatory Bequest.
It will be put into effect by operation of law and not through the voluntary act off the testator.
In Quranin Sura Baqara,verse 180 it is says about bequest in favour of parents and relatives.
Almighty Allah says, It is prescribed for you, when death approaches any of you, if he leaves wealth, that he make a bequest parents and next of kin, according to manners. This is a duty upon the pious.
Some jurist says that this above verse should not be applied for the legal heirs. But Imam Shafi and some other Islamic jurist opins that the above verse of quran is not applicable for those heirs who got the property by inheritance.
Ibn Hazm also says that the quranic verse implied a definite legal obligation to make bequest in favour of close relatives who were not legal heirs and that if the deaceased had failed in his duty to make this obligatory bequest the court should make it for him.
The Egyptian reformers introduced this doctrine at first for the benefit og orphan grandchild.
Some scholars say that the obligation of making bequest means that whoever makes it will be rewarded for that and whoever does not make it will be sinful.
If a person dies before making a bequest for his desecendant’s children, they are to be given out of his property an amount equal to that which he was to bequeath during his lifetime. This is because it is a debt on his part and if he dies before writing his bequest in this regard, this debt is not to be cancelled because of his death.