Individual and Collective Rights

Human rights and freedoms derive from and belong to the individual, i.e. they are universal but individual. i.e. relate to everyone, but in their capacity as individuals with their own value and dignity. In some conflict with this postulate enter the thesis of so-called collective rights. Overnights of different groups and collectives of people who are relatively homogeneous and built mostly along ethnic, religious or linguistic basis. These groups and groups formed a distinct community in which the individual is closed and somewhat depersonalizes. Because by itself it is not a holder of certain rights and freedoms, is the collective holder. The important for the law is the collective rather than individual.
However, the precision, collective rights exist in two aspects: in view of the holder and to the manner of exercise. In view of the manner of exercising a right is collective, as far as there is in the existence of man is not in itself, but the existence of other people, groups, communities in which and with which man exercises his right. Or otherwise these are rights that people exercise together. The second aspect – the collective rights in the strict sense. Firstly, it is difficult delimitation of the family, ethnicity, nation and sexual orientation. However, it is assumed that a group, team talk when we have a distinct community, based on four key indicators – ethnic, racial, religious or linguistic.
Another discussion point is the volume of rights that these groups have (it is a specific, additional rights) outside the common sheet rights that all teams have. Generally accepted thesis is that these communities can and should be granted additional rights, principally in the consumer realm. As the right to profess their religion, the right to learn their mother tongue.
Whether these groups of communities to provide additional rights?
This question has both opponents and supporters. Whether to grant the right of self-government, including territorial autonomy. Likewise is the issue of exercise of the mother tongue in the public sphere, justice.
Supporters of this idea believe that it also preserves the diversity and respect differences between people. Opponents, however, believe that this additional specific rights by these communities receive a peculiar privilege, became the subject of positive discrimination. Them opposed to the other members of society, thus creating a situation of inequality. Theory of individual and collective rights is the basis of legal regulation of minority rights. This legal regulation at a global level is too inconsistent and contradictory. While the instruments of the United Nations stand fully the principle of discrimination.
Argument for collective rights view that all people should have equal rights holders, in a number of regional instruments on human rights, especially those of the Council of Europe, the idea of collective rights is prominently. For example, in the Council of Europe adopted a Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which provides for widespread use of these languages in the public sphere. However, this requirement is quite unacceptable to many European countries, and they refrain from ratification, which is why the Charter has not entered into force. Collective rights are recognized in the Framework Convention on National Minorities, adopted by the Council of Europe.
It should be noted that various statements interpreted in different countries restrict its application. There is even closing argument that do not have to talk about collective rights, because they undermine the idea of universality of human rights.