Assess the relationship between law and rights To assess the relationship between law and rights we must

analyse contemporary society to see the correlation between the two terms, additionally we will seek out which and why one has more influence on the other and also which should have more influence on the other. Arguments from thinkers will be weaved in the support or criticise different positions. Lastly, before we analyse the relationship between the two, we must beforehand know what the two terms mean or are understood as, its objective and subjective definitions. Law has mainly an objective definition, it refers to the rules and regulations society holds in place which may be enforced through penalties. Because of this, whatever is law is absolute. Rights may generally refer to our natural rights which John Locke identifies as our God -given right. Existent before society, inalienable and universal, applicable to every-one individual despite character. Though what constitutes as a natural right is debatable. In contemporary society we have laws in place to keep order, we also have natural rights. Dominantly, the government (party who enforces laws and rights) upholds the idea of laws before rights to avoid anarchical consequences, as Bentham argued. In this sense, laws trump natural rights. Even more so if we adopt Benthams view that natural rights do not exist. He argues that the idea of natural rights are non -sense on stilts which may be understood as a new level of non-sense. Bentham believes the only rights that exist are legal rights, these are positive rights given to us by the government, because they are enforced by the government. If we accept this view, then we are likely to accept the idea that laws have an influence on rights, or that rights are shaped around the laws of society. This can be further proven through the ideas of Freeman, who highlights the events of honour-killings in countries such as Pakistan. He argues that these are infringements upon our natural rights, however they may even sometimes go unpunished. Conclusively law trumps and is more dominant than rights because rights, especially natural rights is theoretical and not realistic. On the other hand, if we strongly believe in the idea of natural rights. We believe in its characteristics. Moreso the fact that natural rights are universal, and inalienable. No law can trump our natural rights. Of course we should not forget that the fact these rights are almost fictional in a way. Because this is the case we may argue that governments should at very minimum subscribe to the idea of natural rights, basing their laws to suit and be shaped around them. Any law that does not cohere with the principles of natural rights can be argued to be an unjust law. Through ideas of cosmopolotanism