"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."
> Everybody should be able to agree on them.
The major problem with rights-based reasoning is that, while you might be able to get people to agree on the rights, you can't necessarily get people to agree on the implications or interpretation of the text.
E.g. Article 8 ECHR effectively overrides the immigration system, which is not immediately obvious from the text.
http://echr-online.info/right-to-property-article-1-of-proto...
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."
> Everybody should be able to agree on them.
The major problem with rights-based reasoning is that, while you might be able to get people to agree on the rights, you can't necessarily get people to agree on the implications or interpretation of the text.
E.g. Article 8 ECHR effectively overrides the immigration system, which is not immediately obvious from the text.
E.g. US commerce clause in Wickard v. Filmore.