Fundamental Human Rights | AQA A-Level Law
For Specification 7162
AQA A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 45 minutes
Fundamental Human Rights A-Level Law revision examines what makes a right important enough to receive the special status of a Human Right. AQA requires you to analyse the scope of “fundamental human” rights rather than simply memorise a fixed definition. This raises difficult questions about which interests deserve protection, whether Human Rights should be universal and inalienable, and how individual rights should be balanced against other rights and wider social interests. These theoretical debates provide the foundation for studying the specific Convention rights later in the course.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain what is meant by a fundamental Human Right.
Explain why Human Rights may be regarded as having a superior status to other rights.
Analyse possible principles for determining which interests qualify as fundamental Human Rights.
Analyse the ideas of universality and inalienability.
Apply ideas such as dignity, autonomy and human development to particular Human Rights.
Evaluate competing understandings of the appropriate scope and protection of fundamental rights.
Revision Notes 📚
What does the AQA specification require?
AQA places the scope of “fundamental human” rights within its theory of Human Rights, alongside:
theories of rights
rights contrasted with liberties.
The word scope is important.
You are not simply required to know that fundamental Human Rights exist. You should be able to consider:
Which interests should count as fundamental Human Rights?
Why should those rights receive special protection?
How extensive should that protection be?
How should fundamental rights be treated when they conflict with other rights or social interests?
These questions build directly on rights theory [Lesson 162. Theories of rights] and the distinction between rights and liberties [Lesson 163. Rights and liberties].
What is a fundamental Human Right?
A fundamental Human Right can be understood as a right regarded as sufficiently important to human existence, dignity or development to deserve a special or superior level of recognition.
AQA assessment material describes the designation of rights as Human Rights as potentially giving them a superior or fundamental status over other rights.
This separates fundamental Human Rights from many ordinary legal rights.
For example, a person may possess many different legal rights arising from:
contracts
ownership
legislation
other areas of civil law.
Human Rights make a stronger claim. Their theoretical basis is that certain interests are so closely connected to human beings and human life that they should receive fundamental protection.
Human Rights as inherent rights
One explanation of their fundamental status is that Human Rights arise inherently from the quality of being human.
On this view, individuals possess Human Rights because they are human beings, rather than because a government has chosen to grant the rights.
This has important consequences.
If a Human Right derives from being human, it may be argued that it should be:
universal
inalienable
possessed by people regardless of whether a particular State approves of the right.
This gives Human Rights a different theoretical status from privileges which may be granted or withdrawn by political authorities.
Fundamental rights and universality
Universality means that Human Rights are claimed to belong to all human beings.
The logic is:
Human Rights arise from being human → every human being possesses them → the rights are universal
This provides a powerful basis for fundamental protection because it prevents basic rights from depending simply upon:
nationality
status
popularity
membership of a majority
government approval.
AQA's assessment materials identify universality as one of the implications of viewing Human Rights as inherent rights.
Equality and universality
AQA's 2023 mark scheme connects Human Rights with a fundamental moral vision involving:
equality
universality
inalienability.
Under this view, fundamental rights reflect the idea that human beings possess a basic equality which makes certain interests deserving of protection.
The right to life, liberty and private life can, for example, be seen as protecting the integrity of the individual.
Freedom of expression may be seen as protecting the individual's ability to develop and achieve self-realisation.
This provides a moral explanation for why particular interests receive Human Rights protection rather than being treated simply as matters of government policy.
Is universality straightforward?
Not necessarily.
One of the evaluative issues expressly raised in AQA's assessment material is whether rights-based thinking may itself particularly reflect liberal Western democratic ideas.
This raises a challenge to the claim of universality.
If different societies have different:
moral traditions
cultural values
political arrangements
views concerning individuals and communities,
there may be disagreement about exactly which interests deserve fundamental status.
This produces two competing approaches.
Universal understanding | Critical understanding |
Human Rights arise from being human and therefore belong to everyone. | Ideas about which rights matter may be influenced by particular cultural and political traditions. |
Basic rights should not depend upon decisions of individual States. | Societies may disagree over the content and scope of particular rights. |
Fundamental protection can safeguard individuals and minorities. | A single understanding of rights may not reflect every society's values in exactly the same way. |
⚠️ This is a theoretical debate about the justification and scope of Human Rights. It does not mean that a State can simply disregard the legal obligations which apply to it.
Fundamental rights and inalienability
Inalienability is the idea that Human Rights cannot simply be treated as privileges which may be removed whenever the State wishes.
If a right exists because an individual is human, rather than because government granted it, government cannot logically be regarded as the ultimate source of the right.
This explains why fundamental Human Rights can operate as limits upon State power.
The individual is not merely asking:
“Will the State allow me to have this protection?”
Instead, the claim is:
“This protection is fundamental to my status as a human being.”
This is one reason Human Rights are capable of having particular constitutional and legal significance.
Inalienability does not mean unlimited exercise
A common misunderstanding is that an inalienable Human Right must always operate without restriction.
That is not what the AQA Human Rights course shows.
The specification expressly requires students to study:
Article 2.2 justified exceptions to the right to life
circumstances justifying deprivation of liberty under Article 5
restrictions under Articles 8.2, 10.2 and 11.2.
Therefore:
Fundamental status ≠ unlimited exercise
A right may be regarded as fundamental while the law still recognises circumstances in which interference can be justified.
The strength of the protection lies partly in requiring any interference to satisfy the relevant legal rules.
The scope of fundamental rights
The scope of fundamental Human Rights can be considered in two connected ways.
Scope question 1: Which interests qualify?
The first question is:
Which human interests are important enough to become fundamental Human Rights?
AQA assessment material raises the problem of finding a principle which identifies what is sufficiently fundamental to qualify as a Human Right.
Possible principles include whether the interest promotes:
human dignity
human agency or autonomy
human development.
These do not provide a mechanical formula. They provide ways of analysing why a particular interest may deserve special protection.
Scope question 2: How far should the protection extend?
Even after an interest is recognised as fundamental, another question remains:
How much protection should the right receive?
For example:
Should protection impose only duties not to interfere?
Should it sometimes require positive action?
When may the right be restricted?
What happens when two fundamental rights conflict?
What happens when an individual's right conflicts with the interests of society?
These questions are central to the detailed ECHR Articles studied later in the course.
Human dignity
Human dignity is one possible basis for deciding that a right is sufficiently important to qualify as fundamental.
Dignity focuses upon the inherent worth of human beings.
An interest may therefore deserve protection if failing to protect it would undermine the basic respect owed to a person as a human being.
This helps explain the fundamental importance of interests such as:
life
physical integrity
liberty
privacy.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme describes rights to life, liberty and private life as potentially reflecting a moral rule which protects the integrity of the individual in a broad sense.
Applying dignity to the right to life
The right to life is an obvious example of an interest which can be justified through dignity and human integrity.
If human beings possess inherent worth, protection of their existence is fundamental.
This helps explain why Article 2 receives strong legal protection.
However, even Article 2 is not expressed as an unlimited protection. The AQA specification requires students to understand the justified exceptions in Article 2.2.
This illustrates a recurring feature of Human Rights law:
The law may strongly protect a fundamental interest while still recognising exceptional circumstances in which other interests must be considered.
You will examine this in detail in the right to life [Lesson 172. Article 2: right to life].
Human autonomy
Autonomy, or human agency, is another possible basis for fundamental Human Rights.
Autonomy concerns the individual's ability to:
make choices
control important aspects of their life
act independently
develop their personality and identity.
A right may therefore deserve fundamental protection because it gives individuals the freedom necessary to direct their own lives.
AQA assessment material expressly identifies human agency or autonomy as a possible principle for deciding which rights deserve fundamental status.
Liberty and autonomy
The right to liberty illustrates this connection.
Being free from unjustified deprivation of liberty is important because physical freedom affects an individual's ability to make choices and act independently.
This can provide a theoretical justification for the protection of liberty under Article 5.
However, Article 5 also recognises circumstances in which deprivation of liberty can be justified.
The theoretical argument is therefore not:
“Liberty can never be restricted.”
It is:
“Liberty is sufficiently important to human autonomy that any deprivation requires legal justification.”
This distinction becomes central in liberty and security [Lesson 173. Article 5: liberty and security].
Privacy and autonomy
Privacy can also be understood through autonomy.
Control over:
private life
family life
home
correspondence
can be closely connected with the ability of an individual to live and develop independently.
This gives a theoretical basis for treating privacy as more than a matter of convenience.
It becomes an interest connected to the individual's integrity and ability to control important aspects of their life.
The substantive right is examined in privacy [Lesson 175. Article 8: privacy].
Human development
AQA also identifies human development as a possible principle for deciding whether an interest deserves fundamental protection.
Human beings require opportunities to:
develop their personalities
express ideas
form beliefs
interact with others
participate within society.
Protection of these interests may therefore be justified because they contribute to a meaningful and fulfilled human life.
The 2023 examiner report noted that stronger responses linked rights such as liberty and freedom of expression with the ability to live a meaningful and fulfilled life, rather than making vague claims about Human Rights generally.
Freedom of expression and human development
Freedom of expression provides a particularly clear example.
AQA's 2020 mark scheme identifies theoretical arguments based upon:
moral autonomy or independence
self-expression
personal development
self-fulfilment.
From this perspective:
people need freedom to form and communicate ideas
expression allows individuals to develop themselves
suppression of expression may interfere with autonomy and self-realisation
freedom of expression can therefore be regarded as sufficiently important to qualify as a fundamental Human Right.
This is developed through freedom of expression [Lesson 176. Article 10: freedom of expression].
Fundamental rights may also protect society
The justification for fundamental Human Rights does not have to focus only upon individual development.
Freedom of expression, for example, can also be justified because it contributes to:
open debate
discussion
political participation
access to information
the functioning of a democratic society.
This shows that fundamental rights may protect both:
individual interests, and
wider social interests.
The two may reinforce one another.
However, individual and social interests can also conflict.
Fundamental rights and competing interests
Human Rights law frequently involves competing interests.
These may include:
one individual's right against another individual's right
an individual's interest against the interests of society
minority interests against majority interests
freedom against public order
privacy against expression.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme specifically recognises Human Rights as involving both private or individual interests and the interests of the State or society.
This means that declaring a right “fundamental” does not automatically determine every dispute.
Law must often decide how competing interests should be reconciled.
Competing fundamental rights
A particularly difficult situation arises when two protected rights conflict.
For example, one person's privacy may conflict with another person's freedom of expression.
The AQA materials dealing with Articles 8 and 10 emphasise that neither right necessarily has automatic priority over the other. Instead, courts may have to balance the competing rights.
This demonstrates something important about the scope of fundamental Human Rights:
Fundamental does not necessarily mean superior to every other fundamental right.
Both interests may deserve protection.
The task is to determine how they should operate together in the circumstances.
Fundamental rights and majority rule
One justification for fundamental Human Rights is that they can protect individuals and minorities even where a majority might prefer a different outcome.
If everything were decided only by majority preference, there could be a risk that important interests of unpopular individuals or minority groups would receive insufficient protection.
Treating particular interests as fundamental therefore places limits upon what may legitimately be done simply because it has political support.
This supports the idea that fundamental rights should have a superior status over ordinary political preferences.
A competing view: democratic decision-making
AQA assessment material also raises a significant criticism.
There may be concerns that extensive rights-based thinking can encroach upon matters that properly belong within political decision-making in a democratic society.
The argument can be developed in the following way:
Fundamental rights restrict what governments may do.
Courts may become responsible for interpreting the meaning and scope of those rights.
Some issues involve difficult choices between competing social interests.
Critics may argue that such choices should sometimes be made through elected political institutions rather than being transformed into questions of individual rights.
This creates a genuine theoretical tension:
Strong fundamental rights protection | Democratic decision-making concern |
Protects individuals against State power. | Can restrict decisions made by elected governments. |
Protects minorities from majority preference. | Some disputed issues may involve legitimate political choices. |
Gives important interests superior legal status. | There may be disagreement over which interests deserve that status. |
Encourages compatibility of domestic law with Human Rights. | An expanding rights framework may reduce the area left to ordinary politics. |
Neither side automatically provides a complete answer. This is precisely why AQA requires evaluation of the scope of fundamental Human Rights.
How wide should the category of fundamental rights be?
If almost every desirable interest were described as a fundamental Human Right, the concept could become extremely broad.
This creates a problem of recognition:
What principle separates a fundamental Human Right from an ordinary interest or ordinary legal right?
AQA's 2020 assessment material explicitly raises this problem and suggests possible criteria such as:
dignity
autonomy
human development.
A careful answer should therefore avoid saying:
“Anything important to a person is a Human Right.”
Instead ask:
Is the interest central to human dignity?
Is it necessary for meaningful autonomy?
Does it contribute fundamentally to human development?
Is it something which should belong to all human beings?
Is it sufficiently important to impose corresponding duties upon others or the State?
Fundamental rights as claim-rights
The previous lesson distinguished claim-rights from liberties.
This matters here because the fundamental status of a Human Right may have consequences for other parties.
A claim-right corresponds with a duty.
Designating an interest as a fundamental Human Right can therefore impose obligations concerning how governments and public authorities act.
AQA's 2020 mark scheme connects the superior status of Human Rights with the need for compliance and compatibility in the development of domestic law.
This makes the decision to classify something as a fundamental Human Right legally significant.
It is not merely a statement that the interest is morally desirable.
Negative and positive protection
The scope of a fundamental right can also concern the type of protection required.
A fundamental right may require that the State does not interfere unjustifiably with an individual.
In some contexts, Human Rights protection may also require the State to take action to protect the individual.
For example, AQA assessment material concerning Article 2 recognises both:
a negative obligation concerning the taking of life
positive obligations concerning protection and preservation of life.
This demonstrates why the scope of a right cannot always be understood simply as:
“The State must leave people alone.”
Some rights may require more active protection.
Protection does not mean every claim succeeds
Calling something a fundamental Human Right does not mean that every person who invokes the right must win.
A proper legal analysis may still require consideration of:
whether the right is actually engaged
the precise scope of the protected interest
whether another right is involved
whether wider interests are involved
whether interference is legally justified.
AQA examiner reports repeatedly emphasise the need to analyse the specific right and specific legal rules, rather than making generic statements about Human Rights.
Fundamental rights under the ECHR
For AQA, the substantive Convention rights studied are:
Article | Protected interest | Possible theoretical basis |
Article 2 | Life | Human dignity, integrity and existence |
Article 5 | Liberty and security of person | Autonomy, agency and personal integrity |
Article 8 | Private and family life, home and correspondence | Dignity, autonomy and personal development |
Article 10 | Freedom of expression | Autonomy, self-development and democratic participation |
Article 11 | Peaceful assembly and association | Participation, expression and association with others |
The theoretical basis does not replace the legal rules of each Article.
Instead, it helps answer:
Why might this interest deserve the special status of a Human Right?
Different rights may receive different forms of protection
The Convention rights required by AQA are not all structured in the same way.
The specification separately identifies:
Article 2.2 justified exceptions
Article 5 provisions governing lawful deprivation of liberty
Article 8.2 restrictions
Article 10.2 restrictions
Article 11.2 restrictions.
This means that the scope of protection must be understood right by right.
Students should therefore avoid assuming that a general statement about one Convention Article automatically applies to another.
The 2023 examiner report identified confusion where students treated the requirements for justifying interference under different ECHR Articles as though they were all the same.
Fundamental rights and balancing
Balancing is one of the main ways in which the law deals with the fact that fundamental rights operate within society rather than in isolation.
AQA's 2022 mark scheme identifies Human Rights disputes as potentially involving:
private or individual interests
State or societal interests
different groups within society, including majorities and minorities.
The law may therefore have to reconcile important but competing interests.
For example:
Privacy ← balance → freedom of expression
or:
Individual liberty ← balance → prevention of crime and protection of others
This does not necessarily reduce the importance of the right.
Instead, it recognises that more than one legitimate interest may exist at the same time.
Is balancing a strength or weakness?
There are arguments on both sides.
Balancing can be a strength
It may:
prevent one right from automatically defeating every competing interest
recognise that several people may have legitimate claims
allow rights to operate within complex social situations
accommodate individual protection alongside legitimate public interests.
Balancing can create uncertainty
However:
the outcome may depend heavily upon the circumstances
reasonable people may disagree about the appropriate balance
protection of a supposedly fundamental right may appear less certain
different values may be given different weight.
The fact that balancing is difficult is not itself proof that it should be abandoned.
Instead, it demonstrates why protecting fundamental Human Rights often requires evaluation rather than mechanical rule application.
A framework for analysing whether a right is fundamental
A useful examination framework is:
1. Identify the claimed interest
What does the proposed right protect?
2. Consider its connection with human beings
Does the claim arise from a fundamental aspect of human existence?
3. Consider dignity
Does protection preserve the inherent worth or integrity of individuals?
4. Consider autonomy
Does protection enable meaningful personal choice or independence?
5. Consider human development
Does it enable individuals to develop, participate or achieve self-realisation?
6. Consider universality
Is there a convincing argument that all human beings should possess this right?
7. Consider inalienability
Should the right exist independently of the State's willingness to grant it?
8. Identify corresponding duties
What obligations would recognition of the right impose?
9. Consider competing interests
Would the right conflict with other fundamental rights or legitimate social interests?
10. Reach a reasoned conclusion
Is the interest sufficiently fundamental to deserve Human Rights status, and how far should its protection extend?
This is a much stronger approach than simply asserting that something is “important”.
From theory to international Human Rights protection
The question of why certain rights deserve fundamental protection leads naturally into the historical development of international Human Rights law.
The next stage of the course considers the Second World War and Human Rights [Lesson 165. The Second World War and Human Rights], followed by the development of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Lesson 166. The United Nations and UDHR].
These lessons show how ideas about fundamental rights came to be expressed through international Human Rights arrangements.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Fundamental Human Right | A Human Right regarded as sufficiently important to deserve a special or superior level of protection. | Explain why some interests may receive stronger recognition than ordinary legal rights. |
Universality | The idea that Human Rights belong to all human beings. | Evaluate whether Human Rights can genuinely be regarded as universal. |
Inalienability | The idea that Human Rights are not simply privileges which can be removed at will. | Explain why Human Rights may limit State power. |
Human dignity | The inherent worth of human beings, which may justify protection of particular interests. | Analyse why life, liberty or privacy may deserve fundamental status. |
Autonomy | The ability of individuals to make choices and exercise control over their lives. | Explain why liberty, privacy or expression may deserve Human Rights protection. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Move beyond generic statements such as “Human Rights are important”. The 2023 report found that better answers focused on specific protected interests and explained why rights such as life, liberty and expression contribute to meaningful and fulfilled human life.
Examiner hint: When discussing competing interests, identify exactly what the competing interests are. Examiner commentary has criticised responses which merely asserted that a balance was fair or unfair without explaining the rights and legal rules involved.
Examiner hint: Keep the rules for different Convention Articles separate. The 2023 report identified confusion over the legal requirements allowing interference with different ECHR rights. Articles 8, 10 and 11 have similar structures, but Articles 2 and 5 operate differently.
Examiner hint: Strong evaluation should explain how the law achieves a balance, rather than merely stating that balancing takes place. Recent examiner commentary has praised answers which identified conflicting interests and then examined the mechanism used by the relevant legal rules.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining a fundamental Human Right simply as an important right
Why this is incorrect: This does not explain what gives the right its special status.
How to improve: Develop the answer using concepts such as human dignity, autonomy, human development, universality and inalienability.
Mistake: Assuming every important interest is automatically a Human Right
Why this is incorrect: AQA assessment material specifically raises the difficulty of deciding which interests are sufficiently fundamental to qualify as Human Rights.
How to improve: Ask what principle justifies giving the interest fundamental status. Consider dignity, autonomy and human development.
Mistake: Saying all Human Rights are unlimited
Why this is incorrect: The AQA specification expressly includes justified exceptions, lawful deprivation of liberty and restrictions on Convention rights.
How to improve: Remember:
fundamental does not mean unrestricted.
Mistake: Treating universality and inalienability as the same idea
Why this is incorrect: Universality concerns who possesses the right. Inalienability concerns the right's status and whether it can simply be withdrawn.
How to improve: Remember:
universal = everyone, inalienable = not merely removable at will.
Mistake: Assuming a fundamental right must always defeat another right
Why this is incorrect: Two fundamental rights can conflict. AQA materials concerning Articles 8 and 10 recognise that neither necessarily has automatic priority.
How to improve: Identify both rights and analyse how the law reconciles them.
Mistake: Making only theoretical points without connecting them to Human Rights law
Why this is incorrect: AQA extended questions require students to draw theory and substantive Human Rights law together.
How to improve: Connect each theoretical concept to a specific interest, for example autonomy → liberty, dignity → life, or human development → expression.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which concept describes the idea that Human Rights belong to all human beings?
A. Inalienability
B. Universality
C. Autonomy
D. Liberty
[1 mark]
Question 2
State two possible principles which may help determine whether an interest is sufficiently important to qualify as a fundamental Human Right.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Explain what is meant by describing Human Rights as having fundamental status.
[3 marks]
Question 4
Explain the difference between describing a Human Right as universal and describing it as inalienable.
[5 marks]
Question 5
A student argues:
“The right to liberty deserves fundamental protection because a person cannot exercise meaningful control over their life if the State can deprive them of their freedom without justification.”
Explain how autonomy supports this argument.
[5 marks]
Question 6
A government claims that an individual's freedom of expression should always give way whenever the majority strongly dislikes what the individual says.
Using the concept of fundamental Human Rights, explain why this argument may be challenged.
[5 marks]
Question 7
Explain why describing a Human Right as fundamental does not mean that the right can never lawfully be restricted.
[5 marks]
Question 8
Examine the view that fundamental Human Rights should be universal and inalienable. Discuss the extent to which human dignity, autonomy and human development provide a convincing basis for deciding which interests deserve fundamental protection.
[15 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1: [1 mark]
B. Universality.
Question 2: [2 marks]
Award 1 mark for each valid principle, up to 2 marks:
human dignity
human agency or autonomy
human development
Question 3: [3 marks]
Indicative content:
Fundamental Human Rights are regarded as having a special or superior status compared with ordinary rights.
They protect interests regarded as particularly important to human beings.
Their fundamental status can require respect for and compatibility with those rights in the operation and development of domestic law.
Question 4: [5 marks]
Indicative content:
Universality concerns possession of Human Rights.
It means that rights are claimed to belong to all human beings.
Inalienability concerns the status of those rights.
It means they are not simply privileges which may be taken away whenever the State chooses.
Both concepts can be linked to the argument that Human Rights arise inherently from being human.
Question 5: [5 marks]
Indicative content:
Autonomy concerns the individual's ability to make meaningful choices and exercise control over their life.
Physical liberty enables people to make and act upon those choices.
Arbitrary deprivation of liberty severely reduces the individual's ability to act independently.
Liberty can therefore be regarded as closely connected to human agency.
This provides a theoretical justification for giving liberty fundamental Human Rights protection.
Question 6: [5 marks]
Indicative content:
Fundamental Human Rights may protect individuals against the power of the majority.
Rights are not necessarily dependent upon whether a person's views are popular.
If expression contributes to autonomy, personal development or democratic debate, it may deserve protection despite majority opposition.
Treating expression as fundamental gives it a status beyond an ordinary political preference.
However, fundamental status does not mean that expression can never be subject to lawful restrictions.
Question 7: [5 marks]
Indicative content:
Fundamental status concerns the importance and protected position of the right.
It does not mean that every exercise of the right is unlimited.
The ECHR rights studied by AQA contain different provisions allowing justified interference.
Article 2 contains justified exceptions, Article 5 permits specified deprivations of liberty, and Articles 8, 10 and 11 contain provisions governing restrictions.
The key question is therefore whether interference satisfies the relevant legal requirements.
Question 8: [15 marks]
Indicative content:
AO1 knowledge and understanding may include:
Human Rights as inherent in the quality of being human.
Human Rights as having an alleged superior or fundamental status.
Universality.
Inalienability.
Human dignity.
Human agency or autonomy.
Human development.
Human Rights as claim-rights involving corresponding duties.
The existence of restrictions or exceptions affecting ECHR rights.
AO3 analysis and evaluation may include:
The argument that if Human Rights arise from being human they logically apply universally.
The argument that this foundation also supports inalienability.
The value of universality in protecting individuals and minorities regardless of majority preference.
The criticism that rights-based thinking may particularly reflect liberal Western democratic traditions.
The difficulty of identifying a single principle determining which interests are sufficiently fundamental.
Human dignity as a basis for protecting life, liberty and personal integrity.
Autonomy as a basis for protecting liberty, privacy and freedom of expression.
Human development as a justification for protecting expression and participation.
The possibility that different principles may justify different rights rather than there being one universal test.
The need to balance fundamental rights against other rights and legitimate social interests.
The concern that expanding rights-based reasoning too widely may move matters from democratic political decision-making into legal rights disputes.
Recognition that fundamental status does not necessarily imply absolute or unlimited protection.
A reasoned conclusion about whether dignity, autonomy and development provide a sufficiently convincing foundation for identifying fundamental Human Rights.
A strong answer should evaluate what makes a right fundamental, rather than simply listing Convention Articles. It should also recognise that the difficult issue is not only whether Human Rights deserve strong protection, but which interests should receive that status and how far their protection should extend.
Comments