It depends on the arguments as the law is not one way traffic. The reasoning from individual is relative to the different given approaches to the topic

That is a very big question. Human rights can exist in both constitutional law in one jurisdiction, and outside of it in a bilateral manner - but there are some that will disagree, and want to combine and always assume human rights exist within a constitutional framework and nothing else.

To answer clearly: You can divide it up as much as is reasonable, if you want to analyse very small aspects of each right - and you can analyse how each right is enforced and the obligations a state has in as much minute detail as you'd want to. Just remember that each jurisdiction may have different implementations and maybe even understandings of a specific right, or a subset of a right, which means that you can either keep it focused on one jurisdiction (like purely US law), instead of for example comparing two or more (like US and German law), as this will require the use of comparative law as well.

Debieran. La naturaleza de los DDHH hace imposible pensar que cualquier Contrato Social, Pacto o Constitución Política del Estado prescinda de ellos. Los Estados son soberanos de adscribir normas internacionales de Derechos Humanos, sin embargo al excluirse, de una u otra forma manifiestan la fragilidad de su sistema político y de su democracia. Las normas constitucionales DEBEN contemplar en sus bases insritucionales PRINCIPIOS básicos de Derechos Humanos, asi por ejemplo, el principio de Justicia Social en un marco Juridico de IIIa o IVa generación debe quedar explicitamente manifiesto, de no hacerlo ¿qué sentido tiene una Constitución que no es capaz de guardar a sus ciudadanos?.

Yes we can divde constitutional law to more than one part

In my opinion you cannot do that except if allowed by the Constitution itself . In western societies human rights determine not only the principles of living together but also the goals to be achieved and the way they have to be achieved . In one set of rules the Constitution sets the whole scene . In making parts this unity is disregarded . Kind regards.

Dear Laith,

A Constitution is a "social contract" and is essentially no more than a piece of paper where those who have signed it may not even be alive, where actual power (political "deep structure" and realities of "political culture") may be hidden (corporate/economic power, military/police/national security power, power of international actors or international organizations, ideological influences) and where most of the real holders of power may not even have signed and most of those who are subject to it may never have really agreed. This is the reality of law. Like many laws and many contracts, enforcement depends on the reality of the legal and political system and powers of the actors. We treat Constitutions like they are holy/religious documents with some sort of supernatural power of their own and this is often how they are used, as symbols that may divert attention from reality and sanction hidden or arbitrary power in ways that appear legitimate. So the answer to your question is that some parts may be enforceable by some people with some existing power and other parts may be symbolic. You need to do an analysis of the structures of power and decision-making to know which parts can be and are enforced by whom and for what purposes. Of course you might "wish" it to be different, but the reality of law and our "wishes" about religious documents and written contracts are very different. Start with this reality in the tradition of the "Legal Realists" and also of classic social scientists, like Lasswell ("who gets what, why and how"), public intellectuals who analyze deep structures of power like Chomsky, and those who wrote constitutions (in the U.S., the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists). You might also want to read Thomas Jefferson's views on the need for constitutions to be rewritten every 20 years so that each generation would analyze and assure that this contract protected them in every sphere of their lives, individually and as ethnic communities and geographic communities and in the workplace, though he assumed a level of citizen awareness and skill that may not exist today with contemporary mass media and public education, that also need to be fully open and overseen in social contracts/ constitutions.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

International human rights lawyer and Member, California Bar

The human rights rules found in the constitution that include basic rights and freedoms have less legal force than other constitutional rules that regulate the form of government because we find daily penetration of human rights rules by the state itself, especially in developing countries, but they adhere more to the constitutional rules that regulate the form of the state and the formation of government.

Dear Laith Hameed,

To enrich the discussion, let me try this answer:

Consistent with an orthodox constitutional theory, in my country, Mexico, it is said that the Constitution is made up of two parts, known as dogmatic and organic. The dogmatic part states human rights and social guarantees. The organic part corresponds to the separation of powers and State institutions.

In 2011, a major constitutional reform on human rights was carried out. Since then, a system of constitutional control has been established in which the dogmatic part is taken care of with special attention, special principles are established and international pacts, treaties and conventions are given more preponderance, compared to the organic part.

In 2011, a major constitutional reform on human rights was carried out. Since then, a system of constitutional control has been established in which the dogmatic part is taken care of with special attention, special principles are established and international treaties are given more preponderance, compared to the organic part.

These differences can be detected if the text of article 1st is compared with that of article 133th.

• The first one states: «… Las normas relativas a los derechos humanos se interpretarán de conformidad con esta Constitución y con los tratados internacionales de la materia favoreciendo en todo tiempo a las personas la protección más amplia…» («… The norms related to human rights will be interpreted in accordance with this Constitution and with the international treaties on the matter, favoring people at all times the broadest protection…»).

• The second one (133th) states: «Esta Constitución, las leyes del Congreso de la Unión que emanen de ella y todos los tratados que estén de acuerdo con la misma, celebrados y que se celebren por el Presidente de la República, con aprobación del Senado, serán la Ley Suprema de toda la Unión. Los jueces de cada entidad federativa se arreglarán a dicha Constitución, leyes y tratados, a pesar de las disposiciones en contrario que pueda haber en las Constituciones o leyes de las entidades federativas…» («This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union [i.e. the legislative branch of the federation] that emanate from it and all the treaties that are in accordance with it, those that have been signed and those that will be signed by the President of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, will be the Supreme Law of the entire Union [i.e. the mexican federation]. The judges of each federative entity shall abide by said Constitution, laws and treaties, despite the provisions to the contrary that may exist in the Constitutions or laws of the federative entities [i.e. the states that make up the federation]»).

You can consult the full text of the Mexican constitution (in Spanish) at: .

Remarkable explanation

Constitutional law should support and protect the individual’s “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. The Science of Rights in the evolution of global civility:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356475384_THE_SCIENCE_OF_RIGHTS

Just another aspect added to this conversation. In Hungary, we divide constitutional law into two main parts. State law (German Staatrecht) and fundamental rights. This distinction exists due to historical purposes. After WWII, Hungary was strongly influenced by the Soviet Union, even though we remained a separate country. However, the socialist regime did not accept that individual rights were necessary, since everyone was working for the common good. (Interestingly Rousseau's basic idea was the same) Therefore, we had no such field of law as constitutional law, because only the structure of the state was the recognized field, we taught at the law school only the structure of the socialist state. We called it the state law. Then, after the regime change in 1989, we became free of the Russian/Soviet regime and introduced constitutional law, which has two main parts: state law and fundamental rights.

However, this is important in teaching and at an abstract level, but as it was explained in the previous answers, you can dig deep into either one fundamental right, or even draw the line between human rights, fundamental rights and citizen rights. Discuss the duties and roles of different branches of power, etc.

In sum, historical aspects can strongly influence your understanding of constitutional law as a concept.

I hope, it did provide you with some help regarding your research.

Tamás Pongó, PhD, LLM

Hungary, Constitutional lawyer

Dear all , from the perspective of a ‘ real’ democracy , the distinction between fundamental rights,and the organisation of the State makes no sense and if it is made it likely points out that the organisation of the State may at the end of the day not be that democratic. As the ECHR ruled at several occasions the HR are at the core of democracy , they are its fundamental principles determining the living conditions ( security, health, education, freedom ) of all , protected by a democratic State . The purpose of HR is moreover to improve the living conditions of all , the State and its ( constitutional) organisation being the most appropiate instrument thereto . Its organisation has to make it possible to turn theoretical HR in effective ones allowing comparable living conditions thanks to ‘reasonable’ laws as defined a.o. by the ECHR

Dear Ludo Cornelis, in my answer, I introduced what constitutional law teaching at Hungarian universities looks like in the last 30 years. Concerning your first few lines, I was really surprised, why did you say it has no sense. All I said is that this is the teaching method because first, we introduce to students the structure of the State, so they understand the roles and duties of the organizations, and then we teach them the protection of fundamental rights both in the national and international context. For that, knowing the institutional background is essential. Honestly, I feel some political opinion echoing in your comment, which seems to be completely unnecessary since I just wanted to provide some help for a fellow colleague in his research. Please, do not forget that political leadership does not define the people in the country.

I think that Ludo she is not making a statement for your comment. she agree with you I think but h/S criticizes that the socialist ideas which are imposed in your constitution were not mak sense @Tamás pongó dr

Dear all , I did not want to comment on Hungerian or any other public legal system but underline in general that , in my opinion, a Constitution is to be taken and analysed as a whole ( not as separate parts ) in accordance with my research , the result of which is available in open access on www.lawbackontrack.org ( please look for publications and click on ‘ Ordre public et démocratie ‘ )

Taken as a whole , it results from most constitutions in the western global Norrh that the organisation of a ( democratic ) state is nothing more than a tool designed to make the constitutional righrts effective by means of ‘ reasonable ‘ laws in accordance with the purpose of democracy . I of course agree that democracy refers to politics and believe that politics and law are unavoidably and very closely linked . Kind regards

When Italian Constitution becames into force (in 1948) and Constitutional Court did not yet exist, the Italian judges divided constitutional norms in "precettive" (preceptives) and "programmatiche" (programmatic). The first ones were those linked to the constitutional organization and were cosidered immediately in force. The second ones were those linked to the constitutional rights and were considered not immediately preceptive, because they needed an application by law. In this way, the most innovative constitutional rules remained unapplicated until the Constitutional Court started to work in 1956. With its first sentence, the Court rejected this difference and affimred that all the provisions of the Constitution are "precettive" and have to be immediately respected.

I hope this answer could be useful.

The Constitutional Law of India enshrines the concept of fundamental rights, human rights and obligations of State as provided in Directive Principles. Even though human rights are part of fundamental rights but all human rights are not the fundamental rights, henceforth they are non- justifiable

The Constitutional Law of India enshrines the concept of fundamental rights, human rights and obligations of State as provided in Directive Principles. Even though human rights are part of fundamental rights but all human rights are not the fundamental rights, henceforth they are non- justifiable

The Constitutional Law of India enshrines the concept of fundamental rights, human rights and obligations of State as provided in Directive Principles. Even though human rights are part of fundamental rights but all human rights are not the fundamental rights, henceforth they are non- justifiable.

Los derechos humanos son innatos y existen por sí sólo, sin necesidad de su reconocimiento por alguna norma sea constitucional o legal. Ejemplo el derecho a la vida es un derecho de rango constitucional, que también lo refrenda el Código Civil y hasta el Código del Niño y del Adolecente; sin embargo, el respeto a la vida siempre será exigido en la sociedad, sin importar que esté o no en alguna norma constitucional o legal. Por tanto vale más el derecho consuetudinario.

Los derechos humanos son innatos y existen por sí sólo, sin necesidad de su reconocimiento por alguna norma sea constitucional o legal. Ejemplo el derecho a la vida es un derecho de rango constitucional, que también lo refrenda el Código Civil y hasta el Código del Niño y del Adolecente; sin embargo, el respeto a la vida siempre será exigido en la sociedad, sin importar que esté o no en alguna norma constitucional o legal. Por tanto vale más el derecho consuetudinario.

Los derechos humanos son innatos y existen por sí sólo, sin necesidad de su reconocimiento por alguna norma sea constitucional o legal. Ejemplo el derecho a la vida es un derecho de rango constitucional, que también lo refrenda el Código Civil y hasta el Código del Niño y del Adolecente; sin embargo, el respeto a la vida siempre será exigido en la sociedad, sin importar que esté o no en alguna norma constitucional o legal. Por tanto vale más el derecho consuetudinario.

May be according to demand of public welfare and justice.

Yes, indeed. In the 1978 Spanish Constitution, and following the majority doctrine, a distinction is made between three groups of rights and freedoms.

1. Rights and freedoms of Article 14 and Section One, Chapter Two of Title I ("Fundamental rights and public freedoms", Articles 15 to 29), which enjoy the maximum guarantees using reinforced or preferential protection. The Constitution protects here the right to life, liberty, or honour. Art. 53(2) considers a particular, preferential, and summary procedure for such rights before ordinary courts, plus a unique and complementary remedy before the Constitutional Court. In addition, this category of rights is binding on the public authorities. The laws that regulate them shall respect their essential content and are therefore subject to the control of constitutionality of the laws.

2. The second group comprises those rights recognised in Section Two, Chapter Two of Title I (right to work, private property, freedom of enterprise…). They can also be directly invoked before a court without a developing rule, and the laws that regulate them shall respect their content.

3. Finally, the so-called "guiding principles of social and economic policy" are contemplated in Chapter Three of the same Title (Articles 39 to 52). Article 53 states that they shall inform legislation, judicial practice, and the actions of the public authorities. They may only be invoked before the ordinary courts following the provisions of the laws that develop them. Some of these include principles such as the equitable distribution of income, social and economic progress, and some social and economic rights (right to health protection, housing).