“In our increasingly divided societies,” writes RFI’s Paul Marshall for Providence, “the possible meanings of politically relevant words are also divided, confused, and obfuscated.” Elaborating the point, “Though the competition for the most contested words is intense—’fascism,’ ‘democracy’ and ‘liberal’ are surely near the top of the list—’rights’ is surely a contender, used in many different, confusing, and contradictory ways.”

Part of the remedy for this problem can be found in making necessary distinctions between “legally recognized rights” and those discerned within a “transcendent moral order” (i.e., natural rights). Another is distinguishing between the “substantive protection of human rights [and] adherence to a particular legal mechanism for such protection.”

One conclusion Marshall draws is that “One can be a fervent believer in natural rights while also recognizing that the ways in which they should be protected will properly vary.” This is undoubtedly true when it comes to securing the free exercise of religion in any given society.

Read the full article: “International Courts and Military Action: Clarifying the Distinctive Ways of Protecting Human Rights.”