China The
Constitution of the 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 mainland China, has its own Constitution. Although the 1982 constitution guarantees civil liberties, the
Chinese government usually uses the "
subversion of state power" and "protection of
state secrets" clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the
state leaders.
India The Fundamental Rightsembodied in Part III of the constitutionguarantee 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 the right to constitutional remedies. 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 the 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 the abolishment of untouchability and prohibited
discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. They forbid
human trafficking and
unfree labour. They protect the 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 the public interest, anyone can initiate litigation in the court on their behalf. This is known as "
public interest litigation". 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 all citizens access to and use of public institutions and protections, irrespective of their background. The rights to life and personal liberty apply to persons of any nationality, while others, such as the freedom of speech and expression apply only to the
citizens of India (including
non-resident Indian citizens). The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to
overseas citizens of India. For instance, the constitution abolishes untouchability and prohibits
begar. These provisions act as a check both on State actions and the 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. However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution like secularism, democracy, federalism, and 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 violates 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. 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.
Japan 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). 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." 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." 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. 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. 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. However, it had but a meagre influence in the practice of the rule of law as well as in people's daily lives. 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. According to constitutional scholar,
Shigenori Matsui, 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. However, human rights group, and families of the survivors condemned the agreement as patronizing and insulting. 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. 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. 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. ==Australia==