LNAT Practice Test Essay – Who should have the final say on human rights: elected officials or constitutional courts?

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Who should have the final say on human rights: elected officials or constitutional courts?

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

Human rights are fundamental entitlements that belong to every individual, regardless of nationality, race, religion, or any other characteristic. The protection and promotion of human rights are key components of democratic governance, as they ensure that individuals can live in dignity and participate freely in society. A critical question in the realm of human rights is whether elected officials or constitutional courts should have the final say in determining and upholding these rights. This essay will explore the roles of both elected officials and constitutional courts in the protection of human rights and argue for a balanced approach that involves both institutions in ensuring the safeguarding of these rights.

The Role of Elected Officials

Elected officials, such as legislators and executives, play an essential role in the protection and promotion of human rights. As representatives of the people, they are responsible for enacting laws and implementing policies that respect and uphold the fundamental rights of their constituents. In this capacity, elected officials have the power to shape the legal framework within which human rights are recognized and enforced.

The democratic nature of the election process ensures that elected officials are held accountable for their actions and decisions related to human rights. Citizens have the opportunity to express their preferences and concerns through the ballot box, influencing the policies and priorities of their representatives. In this sense, the involvement of elected officials in the protection of human rights can be seen as a reflection of the will of the people.

The Role of Constitutional Courts

Constitutional courts, on the other hand, serve as the guardians of the constitution and the rights enshrined therein. Their primary function is to interpret the constitution and ensure that laws and policies enacted by elected officials do not violate the fundamental rights of citizens. In this capacity, constitutional courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and maintaining a system of checks and balances within the democratic process.

One of the key strengths of constitutional courts is their independence from the political process. Unlike elected officials, judges are not subject to the pressures of electoral politics, which allows them to make decisions based on legal principles and human rights standards rather than political expediency. This independence enables constitutional courts to serve as a counterbalance to the potential excesses of elected officials and helps ensure the protection of human rights, even when they may be unpopular or politically contentious.

A Balanced Approach

The author argues that a balanced approach, which involves both elected officials and constitutional courts, is necessary to ensure the effective protection of human rights. While elected officials have the power to enact laws and implement policies that uphold human rights, they may sometimes be influenced by political considerations or fail to prioritize the protection of these rights. In such cases, constitutional courts can serve as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that the actions of elected officials do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

In order to strike this balance, it is essential for both institutions to respect and support each other’s roles in the protection of human rights. Elected officials should be mindful of their responsibility to uphold the constitution and the rights enshrined therein, while constitutional courts should be judicious in their interpretation of the constitution and exercise restraint in overturning the decisions of elected officials.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the protection of human rights requires the involvement of both elected officials and constitutional courts. As representatives of the people, elected officials play an important role in shaping the legal framework for human rights and implementing policies that respect and uphold these rights.

At the same time, constitutional courts serve as the guardians of the constitution and the rights it enshrines, ensuring that the actions of elected officials do not violate the fundamental rights of citizens. By working together in a balanced and cooperative manner, both institutions can contribute to the effective protection and promotion of human rights in a democratic society.