S imilarities between domestic legal traditions and human rights practices in all regions of the world
The legal system of states across the world provides the context within which the norms of the human rights can advance into greater consideration of respect for human rights. In both the domestic and human rights practices, there is definition of supplemented efforts geared towards ensuring that the treaty norms are internalized in either the domestic legal or cultural system, while the level of enforcement of these treaties is similar in both the domestic legal practices and the human rights practices. The institutional design of the domestic legal practices and the human rights practices are relatively effective producers of independent judiciaries and the consequent follow-up of the rule of law. This means that both practices are by far extended towards addressing the systems of violence among individual states across the world, while at the same time addressing the critical issues abounded to repression ( Mitchell et al., 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Just as the practices within the domestic legal traditions, the human rights practices are perceived to harbor some willingness to ratify the treaties or work in collaboration in either repression of citizens. Since the willingness of repression of citizens in both practices stems from the contingency with the political, economic and cultural factors, this implies that the practices rely on the courts, the judges and the lawyers in upholding the principles that define the virtue of being human. However, legal systems vary from country to country across the world, depending on the domestic legal traditions and the human rights practices that define normalcy of the human rights ( Chilton & Posner, 2015) .
It is imperative that in both the domestic legal system and the human rights practices, courts play multiple roles, which include adjudication, administration, and review of the constitution, coupled with the enforcement of criminal behavior. This implies that the court entirely guides the morals for consideration of the definition of the virtues of being and acting like a human being. On the other hand, the judges serve as overseers of the entire political system, where they provide adequate and timely checks on the powers bestowed within the legislature and the executive. Different countries have different understanding of the rights and virtues of the human being, which has created a variation in the expectations of effectiveness of these legal institutions. Even though there are such variations, the extent of prevalence of the rule of law, the degree of independence of the judiciary from the state and the nature of establishment of the legal system among individual countries relies on the domestic legal traditions and the human rights practices ( Mitchell et al., 2013).
Differences between domestic legal traditions and human rights practices in all regions of the world
The defining difference between the civil law and the common law lies in the social contact between the state and the individuals among states across the world. In the first place, the civil law system begins with the definition of the state as being supreme, while the role of the individual is explicit obedience to the state. Putting it in another way, the common law systems have developed with the ideology of protecting the rights of an individual from the state as its primary goal. In real essence, the law is utilized as an instrument for the expansion and advancement of administrative roles to the empire, which in turn relegates the citizens as opposed to their protection from the state’s encroachment. This implies that in as much as the human rights practices try to govern relations between citizens across the country, the legal practices govern relations between the citizens and the state in the same country ( Chilton & Posner, 2015) .
The other major difference between the human rights practices and the domestic legal systems is that the legal systems try to over-depend on the judicial structure, which is basically an instrument of the state that is designed to promote the conformity of the will of those in governance. This implies that in as much as the legal system recognizing the distinctions between the state and the individual, and critically defining the individual as being part of the state, the legal system delineates the individual rights through promotion of the conformity to the will of those who govern the same individual ( Chilton & Posner, 2015) . The broader perspective of the legal practice is to make the powers of the state transcend the rights of the individual, which in turn defines the variation between the domestic legal practices and the human rights practices.
The doctrine of judicial precedence operates in the common law systems, while it is virtually absent in the civil law. This judicial precedence signifies that when a law has been passed by the judicial system, it is considered to be part of the precedent and thus it cannot be departed from the law afterwards. However, this consideration changes in the legal practices, with judges in the common law system being constrained by the past decisions, contrary to the civil laws ( Mitchell et al., 2013). This implies that in the event of subversion of the human rights of a person through the traditional legal systems, one has the jurisdiction of seeking a form of redress in the human rights practices as opposed to the stringent rules put forth in the domestic legal traditions like in the Islam law.
Why some countries have issues between their
domestic legal traditions and human rights practices and this could be resolved.
It is evident that countries with domestic legal traditions have better economic freedoms since the common law states give emphasis to the articulation of better human rights principles. This is from the fact that the procedural features of the common law with relations to the adversarial trial system has resulted in the greater independence of the judicial system and protection of the rights of individuals in these countries. On the other hand, the judicial precedent that operates in the common law systems is absent in most of the civil law and Islamic law systems. The major advantage that the countries which practice the common laws have over the other countries is that the judicial precedence allows for the judges in common law to be constrained by the past decisions ( Mitchell et al., 2013). This is different from the judges in other systems like the civil systems, where judges may face little or no constraints.
The countries with the common law the advantage of alignment to consistency in the creation and application of principles with regard to the individual branch of the law. For instance, such countries that practice the common law have the provision of creation of appellant courts, which protects the human rights since the appellant court has the power to examine and reverse a mistreatment from the state, contrary to the countries governed under civil laws. This can be resolved by the discarding of the legal systems imposed by colonial powers, which exhibit weaker qualities. On the other hand, the government in each country should stratify the population and reinforce the relationship of power that exists between the past colonies and the current citizens ( Chilton & Posner, 2015) .
References
Chilton, A. S., & Posner, E. A. (2015). The Influence of History on States’ Compliance with Human Rights Obligations. University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Research Paper , (719).
Mitchell, S., Ring, J., Spellman, M. (2013). Domestic legal traditions and states' human rights practices. Journal of Peace Research, 50(2), 189-202
