DefinePK

Abstract

It is generally presumed that the discourse on human rights has universal application, yet its constitutional implementation is invariably mediated by distinct national contexts. This study comparatively analyzes the historical evolution and constitutional frameworks of fundamental rights in the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It examines how the development and application of these fundamental rights have been influenced by their distinct historical roots, philosophical foundations, and judicial philosophies. It employs a qualitative research approach centred on a structured and focused comparison of the two nations with a thorough examination of constitutional texts, landmark judicial rulings, and existing literature. The findings reveal some fundamental differences between the two nations. Pakistan's system incorporates Islamic principles, resulting in qualified rights developed amidst constitutional fragility, while the U.S. framework, which is based on secular liberalism, supports absolute right guarantees which are nationalized through judicial interpretation. Notwithstanding these divergences, both frameworks underscore the crucial role of judicial review in upholding and extending rights. The study concludes that the realization of universal human rights is a deeply national undertaking, showing that despite the aspirations being global, the local historical, philosophical, and political circumstances have a significant influence on how they are interpreted and applied.