Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 3, Issue Special, May 2013
Notes

A Critical Analysis of Right to Life and Judicial Intervention in South Asian Countries

PDF
  • K. C. Prakash
K. C. Prakash
Kathmandu School of Law
Bio

Published 2013-05-31

How to Cite

Prakash, K. C. (2013). A Critical Analysis of Right to Life and Judicial Intervention in South Asian Countries. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 3(Special), 198–207. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/1015

Abstract

Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. The concept of right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital pun ishment, self defense, abortion and war. Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in medical ethics. It is most commonly used, especially in the media and popular discourse, to refer to opposition to abortion. More generally, the term describes a political and ethical view which maintains that human fetuses and embryos are persons and therefore have a right to live. Less commonly, it can be used to indicate abortion. Right to life is based on three things as food, clo th and shelter.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. See Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Press Syndicate of University of
  2. Cambridge 1995).
  3. ‘Social Contract Theory’ (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) < http://www.iep.utm.edu/soccont/>
  4. accessed 1 March 2013.
  5. United States Declaration of Independence(1976).
  6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res. 217 A (III).
  7. Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
  8. Freedoms (as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14) (4 November 1950) ETS 5.
  9. Convention on Rights of the Child (entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS.
  10. Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).
  11. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into
  12. force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) art 6.
  13. Amnesty International Report, Death Penalty in 2010 (2010) < http://www.amnesty.org/en/deathpenalty/
  14. death-sentences-and-executions-in-2010> accessed 1 March 2013.
  15. Ibid.
  16. Ibid.
  17. ‘Capital Punishments, Some Facts and Figures’ (Amnesty International)
  18. <http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/human-rights-fact-6/> accessed 1 March 2013.
  19. UDHR (n 4) art 5.
  20. Ibid 3.
  21. Ain O Salish Kendra et al v Government of Bangladesh et al 19 BLD (HCD)488 (1999).
  22. Bangladesh Society for the Enforcement of Human Rights et al v. Government of Bangladesh etal
  23. (14 March 2000).
  24. See USAID, Land Mark Judgment on Violence Against Women and Children from South Asia
  25. (2007).
  26. ASK v. Government of Bangladesh 19 BLD 488 (1999).
  27. Frances C. Mullin v Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 2 SCR 516 (1981).
  28. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR SC 180 (1986).
  29. Parmanand Katara v. India AIR SC 2039 (1989).
  30. Madhu Mehata v. India AIR SC 2299 (1989).
  31. Shivaji Jaising Babar v Maharastra AIR SC 2147 (1991).
  32. Madhav Kumar Basnet v PM Girija Pd. Koirala et al NLR 761 (2055).
  33. Surya Sharma Dungel v. Godavari Marble Industries WN 35/1992 (31 October 1995).
  34. Krishna Prasad Siwakoti v. HMG WN 6387/2050.
  35. Shoukat Ali v.Government of Pakistan PLD SC 342 (1997).
  36. Darshan Masih v State PLD SC 513 (1990).
  37. Shehla Zia v WAPDA PLD SC 693 (1994).
  38. Bulankulma et al v The Secretary ,Ministry of Industrial Development et al SC Application No.
  39. /99 (1999).