Difference and Complementary Issues between Legal Studies and Sociological Orientation in Teaching Human Rights.

The teaching of human rights is often practiced as a legal discipline. It allows imperative morality based on tradition or duty, recurrent in legal circles, and places as unfavorable position the knowledge that rights reach effectiveness in the multiple social frameworks. It is an understanding that implies negation of conceptual thought, described as the problem of distance between assignment of rights and the real situation.

Facing such concern, legal studies on human rights highlight the numerous collisions of rights and value that it would not be enough to announce a right in order that duty of protection starts acting.

Although their frame of reference is, certainly, the statement of rights to coexist, the reason for it is the activity of weighting, that they mainly contemplate the rights that are confirmed in the courts of the country, without direct application of the International pacts.

The contribution of the sociologist, in the other hand, is that he understands the coexistence of rights, not in terms of judicial hierarchy, but according to human sociability, especially a peculiar partial fusion of the prerogatives of some and the obligations of others. This social fact anticipates the said activity of weighing, as unique for courts.

Sociology values the well-known propagation of constitutional amendments that, in the 1990s, together with globalization of economy, occurred in a hundred countries, with human rights incorporations.

It has been a formidable collective effort to demonstrate, itself, the undeniable tendency for universalization of these rights and that it meant an undeniable refutation of a position that do not consider human rights as a system of effective checks and balances of globalization.