Rättigheter och skyldigheter i grundlagarna : I ljuset av den politiska filosofin

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this essay has been to compare different constitutions, and their outlook on citizenship, rights, obligations and natural duty. This has been done in the light of the political philosophy, in order to give the answer to four questions. These questions are: Which rights and obligations can be seen in the constitutions, and how can it be interpreted. Can there be signs of any political philosophy in the constitutions?  Are there any differences between the constitutions regarding citizenship, rights, obligations and natural duty? If so, what are the differences? Can the rights be seen in a further extent than the obligations in the constitutions? I have conducted a qualitative comparision study and analyzed the political philosophers and made a classification scheme of their views. Further I made a comparison between the constitutions of the countries, and their view on citizenship, rights, obligations and natural duty. This was later inflicted in to the classification scheme, to see if the countries could fit in to the political philosophers views, and also to find out if there would be any differences in values between the countries constitutions. To bind together the outlook on citizenship, rights, obligations and natural duty between the citizen and the state, I have used a social contract theory, to get better understanding regarding the relationship between the legal system and the citizen. My conclusions of this essay is that the political philosophers views of citizenship, rights, obligations and natural duty was sometimes similar, but the differences were clear in the light of the classification scheme. The countries constitutions were also similar, but I found that the constitutions could fit in different places in the classification scheme, giving the result that citizenship and rights, were important in all of the constitutions, but obligations and natural duty was not.