To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Civil liberties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil liberties or personal freedoms are personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by judicial interpretation, without due process. Though the scope of the term differs between countries, civil liberties may include the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    605 975
    4 016
    30 704
    17 744
    4 591
  • ✪ Civil Rights & Liberties: Crash Course Government #23
  • ✪ Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (AP US Government and Politics)
  • ✪ AP GOV Explained: Government in America Chapter 4
  • ✪ Introduction to Civil Liberties
  • ✪ What are Civil Liberties?


Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we're finally, at long last, moving on from the structures and branches of government and onto the structures and branches of trees. This is a nature show now. Okay, we're not moving on completely, because we're still talking about courts, but today we'll be discussing actual court decisions, and the kind of things that courts rule on, rather than how they do it. That's right, we're moving onto civil rights and civil liberties. [Intro] Okay, first I want to talk about something that I find confusing: the difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Usually in America, we use the terms interchangeably, which adds to the confusion, but lawyers and political scientists draw a distinction, so you should know about it. Then you can go back to calling civil liberties "rights" and civil rights "liberties," and most people won't care, but I'll care. I'll be disappointed in you. So civil liberties are limitations placed on the government. Basically, they are things the government can't do that might interfere with your personal freedom. Civil rights are curbs on the power of majorities to make decisions that would benefit some at the expense of others. Basically, civil rights are guarantees of equal citizenship, and they mean that citizens are protected from discrimination by majorities. Take, for example, same sex marriage. You could think of it as a liberty, except that not everyone is free to marry at any given time. Six year olds can't get married, and you can't marry your sibling. But same sex marriage is a civil rights issue because in the states that don't allow it, the majority of voters is denying something to a minority, creating inequality in the way that the laws work. Now, just to make things more confusing, lawyers often talk about the difference between substantive and procedural liberties, but they usually call them rights instead of liberties. That's a lawyer eagle. A legal eagle. Substantive liberties are limits on what the government can do. For example, the first amendment says that congress shall make no law establishing religion. So this means that they cannot create a national church or declare that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism is the official religion of the US. Procedural liberties are limits on how the government can act. For example, in America in courtroom dramas, there is a presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption means that in criminal cases, juries and judges have to act as though the accused is innocent until the prosecution convinces them otherwise. If they are not convinced, the accused person doesn't go to prison. So now that we understand the difference between civil rights and civil liberties perfectly because of my amazing explanation, let's focus on liberties and try to figure out what they are and where they come from, with some help from Thought Bubble. So civil liberties are contained in the incredibly unhelpfully named "Bill of Rights," which isn't even called that in the Constitution. It's just a name that we give to the first 10 amendments. The 9th amendment is included to remind us that the list of liberties and/or rights in the other amendments isn't exhaustive. There might be other rights out there, but the constitution doesn't specifically say what they are. Thanks constitution. In some cases, it's pretty clear. The first amendment, for example, says that "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press to assemble or to infringe the right to petition the government for redress of grievances." Pretty straight forward. But other cases are not so clear. The second amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but it doesn't say by whom. Same thing with the 5th amendment guarantees against self incrimination. Could congress force you to incriminate yourself? How would they do that? And the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, like presumably shock pens, but it doesn't say who is forbidden from cruelly and unusually punishing. My mom wasn't forbidden from keeping me from playing video games. As usual, we might expect the Supreme Court to sort out this mess, but initially they were no help at all. In a case that you've probably never heard of, called Barron vs. Baltimore, decided in 1833, the court said that the Bill of Rights applied to the national, meaning federal government, not to the states. They said that every American has dual citizenship, but not the good kind. They meant you are a citizen of the US and of the state in which you reside, and basically that the constitution only protected you from the federal government. In other words, if the state of Indiana wanted to punish me cruelly or unusually, they could. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So Barron vs. Baltimore left Americans in a bit of a civil liberties pickle, and not the good kind of pickle. They were protected from the national government doing terrible things, like quartering troops in their homes, but not from the state doing the same thing. And since the state was close to home and the national government was far away and, compared with today, tiny and weak, these protections were pretty weaksauce, so what happened to change this? I hope something, because I like a zesty government sauce. The 14th amendment and the Supreme Court happened. After the Civil War, as part of the reconstruction, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were added to the constitution. Of these, the 14th is the most important, probably the most important of all amendments. What does it say? Well the first section, which is the one that really matters, and I'm not going to read the whole thing okay? It reads "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this means is that the federal government's like: "Listen states, you can't be dumb. Just stop it. Okay? We're all in this together. Alright?" It means states can't deny equal protection, civil rights, or due process, which in this case encompasses civil liberties. This in theory makes it impossible for states to infringe upon the liberties and the Bill of Rights. But the legal system being what it is, it's not quite that simple. Did you think it'd be simple? The Supreme Court could have just ruled that all the rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights applied to the states, which seems to be what the 14th amendment implies, but they didn't. Instead they ruled that each of the rights or liberties had to be incorporated against the states on a case-by-case basis. This is a concept called selective incorporation, and it supposedly reserves more power to the states. What it really means is that when the people thought that the states were violating liberties, they had to go to the Supreme Court, which by now has incorporated almost every clause in the Bill of Rights against the states. You want examples? We've got them. In the famous case of Gitlow vs. New York, the court ruled that the first amendment protection of the freedom of speech could not be violated by a state. In this case, it was New York, but once a liberty is incorporated against one state, it's incorporated against all of them. In Mapp vs. Ohio, the court ruled that states couldn't use evidence gathered from warrantless searches. In Benton vs. Maryland, the right against Double Jeopardy, being tried for the same crime twice, was incorporated against the states. By now, almost all the rights and liberties mentioned in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated against the states. This means that individuals are protected from all their governments taking away their liberties, and that's a good thing. I loves my liberties. So we'll be talking about civil rights and civil liberties for a number of episodes, and this topic, while confusing, can be lots of fun. We might play liberties bingo, or civil rights kickball. I don't know what those things are, but they sound like fun. The main thing to remember is that going all the way back to the framers, Americans have been concerned about a too powerful government taking away citizens' freedoms. Yes, these liberties apply mostly to citizens, although some do apply to non-citizens, too. In order to put limits on government, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1789, but this didn't mean that those limits applied to the states, probably because the founders expected states to be the main protectors of rights, and in fact, many state constitutions have provisions that copy or in some ways, go beyond what's in the US Constitution. Only after the 14th Amendment was passed, following the Civil War, did the national government get around to addressing this issue of states denying people's liberties. Even then, it took numerous court cases for us to get to the point that most civil liberties that we assume cannot be taken away by the government have actually been guaranteed through the process of selective incorporation. It's taken a long time to get where we are, and there's still a long way to go. Protecting civil liberties requires vigilant citizens to be aware of the ways that government is overstepping its bounds, but that's only half the equation. It's also vital that our majority pay attention the civil rights of others, and that we ensure that everyone is afforded the same protections and benefits promised by our system of law. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time. Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Crash Course is made with the help of these nice people who are innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for watching.



Broken Liberty: Istanbul Archaeology Museum
Broken Liberty: Istanbul Archaeology Museum

Many contemporary states have a constitution, a bill of rights, or similar constitutional documents that enumerate and seek to guarantee civil liberties. Other states have enacted similar laws through a variety of legal means, including signing and ratifying or otherwise giving effect to key conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The existence of some claimed civil liberties is a matter of dispute, as are the extent of most civil rights. Controversial examples include property rights, reproductive rights, and civil marriage. The degree that democracies have involved themselves in needs to take into fact the influence of terrorism.[1] Whether the existence of victimless crimes infringes upon civil liberties is a matter of dispute. Another matter of debate is the suspension or alteration of certain civil liberties in times of war or state of emergency, including whether and to what extent this should occur.

The formal concept of civil liberties is often dated back to Magna Carta, an English legal charter agreed in 1215 which in turn was based on pre-existing documents, namely the Charter of Liberties.[2]



The Constitution of People's Republic of China (which applies only to mainland China, not to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan), especially its Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens, claims to protect many civil liberties. Taiwan, which is separated from China, has its own Constitution.


The Fundamental Rights—embodied in Part III of the constitution—guarantee liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace as citizens of India. The six fundamental rights are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion, cultural and educational rights and right to constitutional remedies.[3]

Huge rallies like this one in Kolkata are commonplace in India.
Huge rallies like this one in Kolkata are commonplace in India.

These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, incorporated in the fundamental law of the land and are enforceable in a court of law. Violations of these rights result in punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. These rights are neither absolute nor immune from constitutional amendments. They have been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-independence social practices. Specifically, they resulted in abolishment of un-touchability and prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid human trafficking and unfree labour. They protect cultural and educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages and administer their own educational institutions.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have the right to approach the High Courts or the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. In public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation".[4] High Court and Supreme Court judges can also act on their own on the basis of media reports.

The Fundamental Rights emphasize equality by guaranteeing to all citizens the access and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply for persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression are applicable only to the citizens of India (including non-resident Indian citizens).[5] The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to overseas citizens of India.[6]

Fundamental Rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary State actions, but some rights are enforceable against private individuals too.[7] For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on State action and actions of private individuals. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of national interest. In the Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala case, the Supreme Court ruled that all provisions of the constitution, including Fundamental Rights can be amended.[8] However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, separation of powers. Often called the "Basic structure doctrine", this decision is widely regarded as an important part of Indian history. In the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court extended the doctrine's importance as superior to any parliamentary legislation.According to the verdict, no act of parliament can be considered a law if it violated the basic structure of the constitution. This landmark guarantee of Fundamental Rights was regarded as a unique example of judicial independence in preserving the sanctity of Fundamental Rights. The Fundamental Rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, hence their inclusion is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.[9] The imposition of a state of emergency may lead to a temporary suspension of the rights conferred by Article 19 (including freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) to preserve national security and public order. The President can, by order, suspend the constitutional written remedies as well.


Since 1947, Japan, a country with a constitutional monarchy and known for its socially “conservative society where change is gradual,” has a constitution with a seemingly strong bill of rights at its core (Chapter III. Rights and Duties of the People).[10] In many ways, it resembles the U.S. Constitution prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that is because it came into life during the Allied occupation of Japan. This constitution may have felt like a foreign imposition to the governing elites, but not to the ordinary people "who lacked faith in their discredited leaders and supported meaningful change."[11] In the abstract, the constitution strives to secure fundamental individual liberties and rights, which are covered pointedly in articles 10 to 40. Most salient of the human dignity articles is article 25, section 1, which guarantees that all “people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living.”[12]

Despite, the adoption of this liberal constitution, often referred as the "Postwar Constitution" (戦後憲法, Sengo-Kenpō) or the "Peace Constitution" (平和憲法, Heiwa-Kenpō), the Japanese governing elites have struggled to usher in an inclusive, open and Pluralist society.[13] Even after the end of World War II and the departure of the Allied government of occupation in 1952, Japan has been the target of international criticism for failing to admit to war crimes, institutional religious discrimination and maintaining a weak freedom of the press, the treatment of children, minorities, foreigners, and women, its punitive criminal justice system, and more recently, the systematic bias against LGBT people.[14][15][16]

The first Japanese attempt to a bill of rights was in the 19th century Meiji constitution (1890), which took both the Prussian (1850) and British constitutions as basic models.[17] However, it had but a meager influence in the practice of the rule of law as well as in people’s daily living. So, the short and deliberately gradual history of struggles for personal rights and protection against government/society's impositions has yet to transform Japan into a champion of universal and individual freedom.[18][19][20] According to constitutional scholar, Shigenori Matsui,

People tend to view the bill of rights as a moral imperative and not as a judicial norm. The people also tend to rely upon bureaucrats to remedy social problems, including even human rights violations, rather than the court.

— Shigenori Matsui, “The protection of ‘Fundamental human rights’ in Japan.”[21]

Despite the divergences between Japan's social culture and the Liberal Constitutionalism that it purports to have adopted, the country has moved toward closing the gap between the notion and the practice of the law. The trend is more evident in the long term. Among several examples, the Diet (bicameral legislature) ratified the International Bill of Human Rights in 1979 and then it passed the Law for Equal Opportunity in Employment for Men and Women in 1985, measures that were heralded as major steps toward a democratic and participatory society. In 2015, moreover, it reached an agreement with Korea to compensate for abuses related to the so-called “women of comfort” that took place during the Japanese occupation of the peninsula.[22] However, human rights group, and families of the survivors condemned the agreement as patronizing and insulting.[23]

On its official site, the Japanese government has identified various human rights problems. Among these are child abuses (e.g., bullying, corporal punishment, child sexual abuse, child prostitution, and child pornography), frequent neglect and ill-treatment of elderly persons and individuals with disabilities, Dowa claims (discrimination against the Burakumin), Ainu people (indigenous people in Japan), foreign nationals, HIV/AIDS carriers, Hansen's disease patients, persons released from prison after serving their sentence, crime victims, people whose human rights are violated using the Internet, the homeless, individuals with gender identity disorders, and women. Also, the government lists systematic problems with gender biases and the standard reference to sexual preferences for jobs and other functions in society.[24]

Human rights organizations, national and foreign, expand the list to include human rights violations that relate to government policies, as in the case of daiyo kangoku system (substitute prison) and the methods of interrogating crime suspects.[25] The effort of these agencies and ordinary people seem to pay off. In 2016, the U.S. Department of State released a report stating that Japan's human right record is showing signs of improvement.[26]


Although Australia does not have an enshrined Bill of Rights or similar binding legal document, civil liberties are assumed as protected through a series of rules and conventions. Australia was a key player and signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)

The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

  • the right to freedom of religion and;
  • the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)

Certain High Court interpretations of the Constitution have allowed for implied rights such as freedom of speech and the right to vote to be established, however others such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association are yet to be identified.

Refugee issues

Within the past decade Australia has experienced increasing contention regarding its treatment of those seeking asylum. Although Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (1951), successive governments have demonstrated an increasing tightening of borders; particularly against those who seek passage via small water vessels.

The Abbott Government (2013) like its predecessors (the Gillard and Howard Governments) has encountered particular difficulty curbing asylum seekers via sea, increasingly identified as "illegal immigration". The recent involvement of the Australian Navy in refugee rescue operations has many human rights groups such as Amnesty International concerned over the "militarisation" of treatment of refugees. The current "turn-back" policy is particularly divisive, as it involves placing refugees in government lifeboats and turning them towards Indonesia. Despite opposition however, the Abbott government's response has so far seen a reduction in the number of potential refugees undertaking the hazardous cross to Australia, which is argued by the government as an indicator for its policy success.


European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights, to which almost all European countries belong (apart from Belarus), enumerates a number of civil liberties and is of varying constitutional force in different European states.

Czech Republic

Following the Velvet Revolution, a constitutional overhaul took place in Czechoslovakia. In 1991, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms was adopted, having the same legal standing as the Constitution. The Czech Republic has kept the Charter in its entirety following the dissolution of Czechoslovakia as Act No. 2/1993 Coll. (Constitution being No. 1).


France's 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen listed many civil liberties and is of constitutional force.


The German constitution, the "Grundgesetz" (lit. "Base Law"), starts with an elaborate listing of civil liberties and states in sec. 1 "The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all public authority." Following the "Austrian System", the people have the right to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany ("Bundesverfassungsgericht") if they feel their civil rights are being violated. This procedure has shaped German law considerably over the years.

United Kingdom

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom date back to Magna Carta in 1215 and 17th century common law and statute law, such as the 1628 Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Bill of Rights 1689. Parts of these laws remain in statute today and are supplemented by other legislation and conventions that collectively form the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom. In addition, the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights which covers both human rights and civil liberties. The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the great majority of Convention rights directly into UK law.

In June 2008 the then Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigned his parliamentary seat over what he described as the "erosion of civil liberties" by the then Labour government, and was re-elected on a civil liberties platform (although he was not opposed by candidates of other major parties). This was in reference to anti-terrorism laws and in particular the extension to pre-trial detention, that is perceived by many to be an infringement of habeas corpus established in Magna Carta.


The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees in theory many of the same rights and civil liberties as the U.S. except to bear arms, i.e.: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and assembly, freedom to choose language, to due process, to a fair trial, privacy, freedom to vote, right for education, etc. However, human rights groups like Amnesty International have warned that Vladimir Putin has seriously curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association amidst growing authoritarianism.[27]

North America


The Constitution of Canada includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees many of the same rights as the U.S. constitution, with the notable exceptions of protection against establishment of religion. However, the Charter does protect freedom of religion. The Charter also omits any mention of, or protection for, property.

United States

The United States Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. Human rights within the United States are often called civil rights, which are those rights, privileges and immunities held by all people, in distinction to political rights, which are the rights that inhere to those who are entitled to participate in elections, as candidates or voters.[28] Before universal suffrage, this distinction was important, since many people were ineligible to vote but still were considered to have the fundamental freedoms derived from the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This distinction is less important now that Americans enjoy near universal suffrage, and civil liberties are now taken to include the political rights to vote and participate in elections. Because Indian tribal governments retain sovereignty over tribal members, the U.S. Congress in 1968 enacted a law that essentially applies most of the protections of the Bill of Rights to tribal members, to be enforced mainly by tribal courts.[29]

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan on August 10, 1988. The act was passed by Congress to issue a public apology for those of Japanese ancestry who lost their property and liberty due to discriminatory actions by the United States Government during the internment period.

This act also provided many other benefits within various sectors of the government. Within the treasury it establishes a civil liberties public education fund. It directs the Attorney General to identify and locate each individual affected by this act and to pay them $20,000 from the civil liberties public education fund. It also established a board of directors who is responsible for making disbursements from this fund. Finally, it requires that all documents and records that are created or received by the commission be kept in the United States archives.[30]

See also

Notes and references

  1. ^ Hunter, Lance Y. (2015-09-18). "Terrorism, Civil Liberties, and Political Rights: A Cross-National Analysis". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 39 (2): 165–193. doi:10.1080/1057610x.2015.1084165. ISSN 1057-610X.
  2. ^ Hugh Starkey, Professor of Citizenship and Human Rights Education at UCL Institute of Education, London. "Magna Carta and Human rights legislation". British Library. Retrieved 22 November 2016.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Constitution of India-Part III Fundamental Rights.
  4. ^ "Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69". [World Legal Information Institute]. Retrieved 2006-05-25. This was the case where public interest litigation was introduced (date of ruling 15 December 1995).
  5. ^ Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-25
  6. ^ "Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003" (PDF). Rajya Sabha. p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-04-25. Retrieved 2006-05-25.
  7. ^ "Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty; 1995 ICHRL 69". [World Legal Information Institute]. Retrieved 2006-05-25. This was the case where Fundamental Rights were enforced against private individuals (date of ruling 15 December 1995).
  8. ^ Kesavananda Bharati vs. state of Kerala; AIR 1973 S.C. 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225 – In what became famously known as the "Fundamental Rights case", the Supreme Court decided that the basic structure of the constitution was unamendable.
  9. ^ Tayal, B.B. & Jacob, A. (2005), Indian History, World Developments and Civics, p. A-24
  10. ^ Ellington, Lucien (2002). apan: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p. 209. ISBN 978-1576072714.
  11. ^ Law, David S., The Myth of the Imposed Constitution (May 26, 2013). The Social and Political Foundations of Constitutions (Denis Galligan & Mila Versteeg eds., Cambridge University Press 2013, pp. 239-68); Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-05-01. Available at SSRN:
  12. ^ Yokota, Yozo, & Chiyuki Aoi (2000). "Japan's foreign policy towards human rights: uncertain changes" (PDF). Human Rights and Comparative Foreign Policy: Foundations of Peace, Edited by David Forsythe. United Nations University Press: Chapter 5.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Haddad, Mary Alice (2012). Building Democracy in Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-1107014077.
  14. ^ "Japan veering away from global human rights standards, says Amnesty International". The Japan Times. Kyodo News. February 25, 2015. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  15. ^ Suzanne Trimel (July 25, 2014). "UN Urges End to Discrimination Against LGBT Individuals in Japan". Analysis. Outright International. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  16. ^ Osumi, Magdalena (June 26, 2015). "U.S. rights report slams Japan on child abuse, prison conditions, asylum system". News report. Japan Times. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  17. ^ Kazuhiro Takii and David Noble, The Meiji Constitution: The Japanese Experience of the West and the Shaping of the Modern State (Tokyo, Japan: International House of Japan, 2007), 181.
  18. ^ Andrew Gordon, Postwar Japan As History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993, p. 91.
  19. ^ Henderson, Dan Fenno (2015). "Chapter 11: Law and Political Modernization in Japan". In Ward, Robert E. Political Development in Modern Japan: Studies in the Modernization of Japan. Princeton University Press. pp. 441–45. ISBN 978-1400871667. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  20. ^ Ugo Dessì, Japanese Religions and Globalization. London: Routledge, 2013, p. 64.
  21. ^ “The protection of ‘Fundamental human rights’ in Japan,” a chapter in Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA, edited by Peerenboom, R. P., Carole Petersen, and Hongyi Chen (London: Routledge, 2006), 149
  22. ^ "Japan and South Korea agree WW2 'comfort women' deal". BBC. December 28, 2015. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  23. ^ Sanghani, Radhika (December 29, 2015). "The horrific story of Korea's 'comfort women' - forced to be sex slaves during World War Two". Telegraph. London. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  24. ^ Government of Japan (March 6, 2009). "Major Human Rights Problems". Human Rights Bureau. Ministry of Justice, Japan. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  25. ^ Jeffrey Flynn, Reframing the Intercultural Dialogue on Human Rights: A Philosophical Approach (London: Routledge, 2014), 114.
  26. ^ Wanklyn, Alastair (April 14, 2016). "Japan human rights improve but problems persist: U.S. State Department". Japan Times. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
  27. ^ Putin rolling back civil rights, warns Amnesty | World news | The Guardian
  28. ^ America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar
  29. ^ Robert J. McCarthy, Civil Rights in Tribal Courts; The Indian Bill of Rights at 30 Years, 34 IDAHO LAW REVIEW 465 (1998).
  30. ^ Foley, Thomas (1988). "Civil Liberties Act of 1987 - Conference Report". Retrieved 2015-06-18.

Further reading

External links

This page was last edited on 29 March 2019, at 01:17
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.