Natural Law->Human Rights->International Law

I have not been to law school except for having taken "Public Policy Dispute Resolution" at UT Austin law school. My musings on law are therefore probably way off. The origins or reasons for law are studied in jurisprudence courses. Jurisprudence is a fancy way of saying "Legal Theory" or a "Philosophy of Law." I noticed that quite a few professors taught in the law school, government department, and philosophy department while I was at grad school. It almost seemed as if law and government were merely objects of applied philosophy.

The acts of law are fourfold:
1)To Allow
2)To Command
3)To Prohibit
4)To Punish

That which is not prohibited is allowed. That which is commanded is implicitly allowed. Without responsibilities, human beings need no legal rights. We have rights insofar are they are necessary for us to become fully human.

The acts of law can be observed wherever law is in effect. There is law made in family life in how parents run the household. In the workplace with office policies, etc.

How ought a person live? In the answer to that question, lies the origin of all law. Natural law is one line of inquiry in moral philosophy that attempts to answer the question. Human rights flow from how we ought to live. International law flows from the human rights to which all humans are entitled. It seems like the other side of the coin is sometimes forgotten, namely "how ought humans live."