What is a characteristic of each state
Gudula Geuther is the legal and domestic policy correspondent for Deutschlandfunk. As a radio correspondent in Karlsruhe, her work previously focused on observing the courts there, especially the Federal Constitutional Court.
Mathias Metzner worked as a research assistant at the Federal Constitutional Court and in the fundamental rights department of the Federal Minister of Justice. He is Vice President of the Kassel Administrative Court.
"Human dignity is inviolable. It is the duty of all state power to respect and protect it" - this sentence begins after the preamble not only in the basic rights section, but in the entire text of the Basic Law. Human dignity is the reason why there are human rights, says Article 1 of the Basic Law. They are "the basis of every human community, of peace and justice in the world".
The Basic Law itself speaks of human rights first. But then it says in Article 1, Paragraph 3: "The following basic rights bind legislation, executive power and jurisdiction as directly applicable law." The Basic Law therefore names both basic and human rights, because both terms designate something very similar, but not the same. The concept of human rights originally comes from philosophy and the theory of the state. Since the 19th In the 19th century, with a focus on the western world, the idea that every human being has rights from birth has prevailed. This goes back to the Enlightenment and humanism, which saw these human rights as part of human nature, from a Christian point of view they are given by God. They are inalienable, which means that nobody can do without them, they are indivisible and apply worldwide. So humans have these rights even without the state granting them. That is why they are unwritten law, so their limits are also not precisely defined. A However, all member states of the United Nations have signed a definition: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Fundamental rights are something very similar: in terms of their content, they are often identical to human rights. The difference is that the state itself has recognized them; they are guaranteed by the state, just as the basic rights are in the Basic Law. Because the state recognizes them, their formulation has been given a more concrete form and - depending on the state and system - can be enforced and enforced by the individual. The Basic Law thus refers to the idea of human rights and makes it clear that it wants to implement them with basic rights. The concept of human rights is used internationally in this way - in this distinction to basic rights. At the same time, there is another distinction that is also used in science for the basic rights of the Basic Law: There, a distinction is made between human and civil rights.
Fundamental rights can be differentiated according to why they apply, what their content is, to whom they apply and how they work.
Why do the fundamental rights apply?
This list is also intended to clarify what is particularly important for the community. This is obvious with the rights that affect the community in particular, such as freedom of assembly or freedom of association. For the community, however, it is just as important that each individual can live as a self-determined personality. Therefore, rights such as freedom of belief or freedom of occupation must be a concern for her, although freedom does not have to be perceived positively, for example to go to church. The so-called negative freedoms are just as protected, for example the right to live without religion.
Restriction optionsThe Basic Law often formulates the fundamental rights in a very general way and defines them very broadly. If, for example, it says in Art. 2, Paragraph 2: "The freedom of the person is inviolable", then it sounds as if nobody should be locked up. In fact, however, the fathers and mothers of the Basic Law assumed that prison sentences, closed institutions in psychiatry and police custody should be possible. This is expressed in the formulation: "These rights may only be encroached upon on the basis of a law."
In practice this means: a fundamental right must not be violated. But whether it has been violated can only be determined after a specific examination: Is the so-called protection area of the fundamental right being encroached upon? Specifically, this means here: A person's freedom may only be restricted - for example by imprisonment - if a law - in this case the Criminal Code - clearly states when and why. The legislature cannot completely arbitrarily think up why people are locked up. The accused must be able to defend himself against unjustified measures, which is why the law of criminal procedure is often determined by constitutional law. The punishment must also be proportionate to what the convicted person has done. This, too, follows directly from the constitution. If such so-called barriers of the constitution cannot be seen directly from its text, for example if various fundamental rights cannot be realized at the same time, then the legislature or the implementing authority must ensure that they do justice to each fundamental right as far as possible.
- What programmers hate
- How can you start over at 25?
- What are laws based on
- How tall are Indian girls
- Where to learn MMA in India
- Who is an employee
- How do I learn email copywriting
- What do boys think of shy girls
- How long can you pray Maghrib
- How thick are potatoes
- When do couples stop having sex?
- Are there psychological causes for bad breath
- What does a romantic do
- Indian women like muscular men
- Are labor rights human rights
- How do brokers get customers
- What are the best Bollywood movies
- What are the typical South Indian dishes
- Why do children hate eating cooked tomatoes?
- Why is Northern Australia sparsely populated
- Hasn't religion become irrelevant now
- Mafias are afraid of something
- Is Jennifer Lawrence Asian
- Why are wages so high in Denmark?