Abstract
In an increasingly inward-looking world governed by populist
governments, existing theories of rights are struggling to protect
and expand individual rights. This failure can be attributed both to
the present conception of rights as well as the absence of a unifying
theme to address the existence and conflict of rights. In the present
paper I argue that this unifying theme, which is necessary for
protection and expansion of individual rights, is provided by
“meaning” in an existential and linguistic sense. I assert that the
greatest challenge faced by individual rights is in form of a faceless populist doctrine called “public interest.” As long as the issue of
conflict of rights will be addressed in a numerical manner,
individual rights will stand defeated. We need to come up with a
new model for resolution of conflict of rights, which does not
examine right holders as integers but as human beings. This paper,
which is a continuation of my previous effort on the subject,
elaborates upon the existential role of rights and seeks to construct
an inviolable nucleus of rights by examining the essence and core
meaning of rights. The paper’s final contribution lies in developing
a semantical framework for resolution of conflict of rights.