The dilemma of finding a correct approach to distinguish an inherent human right from a privilege has been present since the problem was brought into international discourse. Thereby, abundant discussions complicated the topic, as a great number of philosophers, sociologists, economists, and lawyers pondered on the subject, unraveling the true nature of the question from different viewpoints. In the present essay, an attempt to further unfold the phenomenon was made – touching upon the problematic of entitlement and privilege, as well as their implications in the legal framework – if they are plausible there at all. Workers’ rights, in that sense, constitute one of the most important aspects of the human rights issue because many workers are willing to face peril if the market is able to pay a sufficient price (Gibson, 2007). Labor market is the place where people are the most vulnerable – particularly because their intention of undertaking dangerous work comes from their desire to meet their basic needs. In a case study concerning Le Clemançeau, it is evident that the workers there rely on this job because of their poor financial state. This means that in reality, they are forced to work there by their conditions – in spite of taking the job by their own choice. Out of understanding of this concept arises a question – whether or not these workers should be allowed to put themselves at risk or a respective legislature should be put into place. The market seems to have decided that there is an appropriate price for any sort of damage. However, there should be a regulatory force that mediates the relationship. In that sense, side constraints become a useful tool – certain actions, violating natural rights, are prohibited (Gibson, 2007). A personal stance of the author is of legal naturalism, which asserts universal human rights of “liberty, property and security” as being above the law (Gibson, p. 129). Here it would be appropriate to define rights and privileges – privileges being the “powers we are given, but may be withdrawn”, and operating only within legal framework; and natural rights, which remain with the individual in any circumstance. For the reason of insisting on the fact that rights are integral, legal naturalism is the approach that makes the most sense. Legal naturalism is also quite logical when applied to real-life situations. To illustrate this, one could study the Niger delta case, in which native peoples’ natural rights were left unprotected (Gibson, 2007). The Ogoni people, after being denied their rights for clean water and satisfactory conditions, were left helpless in the face of intensifying threat to their health – Shell’s incompetent oil drilling practices. From observing this instance, it becomes evident that human rights should be placed above legal systems and such issues can only be resolved internationally. The reason for this is quite simple: Nigerian government, being led by a military dictator at the time, was unable to protect its own people. As Gibson (2007) expressed this idea, “if rights can only derive from a legal system, what do you do when the government is corrupt?”, thus, banishing a legal positivist viewpoint (p. 134). The government, as well as