Human Rights Vs. Individual Rights Vs. Fundamental Rights
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
England's constitution is unwritten. As a result, there is no such code of fundamental rights in England as there is in the United States constitution or other written constitutions around the world. This does not, however, imply that England does not recognise the fundamental human rights that democracy would be meaningless without. Individual rights in England are derived from Parliamentary common law.
In England, as elsewhere, the judiciary is the guardian of individual rights; however, there is a significant difference. While the courts in England have broad powers to protect individuals from executive tyranny, they are powerless to protect individuals from legislative violations of their rights. In short, the legislature in England is not bound by any fundamental rights.
Because the English parliament is theoretically 'omnipotent,' it can change any law. This is because, as previously stated, the English people's individual rights are derived from ordinary law, which, like other laws, can be changed by Parliament, and nothing prevents the English Parliament from doing so (Parliamentary Supremacy). As a result, there are no fundamental rights in England in the strict sense of the term. Another consequence of parliamentary supremacy is that English courts are unable to declare any law passed by the English parliament null and void on the basis of alleged fundamental or individual rights being violated.
In contrast to the English situation, the Bill of Rights in the United States is a true set of fundamental rights. They bind both the legislature and the executive branch equally. If a law passed by Congress violates any of the rights guaranteed by the American Bill of Rights, the American judiciary has the power to declare it null and void.
The fundamental difference in approach to the issue of individual rights between England and the United States is that, while the English were concerned about executive power abuses, the framers of the American constitution were concerned about tyranny not only from the executive but also from the legislature—that is, a group of men who, for the time being, form the majority in the legislature. As a result, we can deduce that in England, only individual rights exist, whereas in the United States, fundamental rights exist.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS?
'Rights,' in general, refers to a moral or legal claim to something. According to the law, rights are defined as an individual's reasonable claim that is accepted by society and legislated. It could be either fundamental or human rights. Fundamental rights are those rights that are essential to a country's citizens' daily lives. Human rights, on the other hand, refer to the rights that all human beings have regardless of their nationality, race, caste, creed, gender, or other factors.
The primary distinction between fundamental rights and human rights is that fundamental rights are limited to a single country, whereas human rights are universally recognised.