A government must ensure that any limitation on a right is done in which manner?

The correct approach for a government to ensure that any limitation on a right is handled properly is through a proportional manner with a three-part test. This principle is rooted in international human rights law, which emphasizes that any restriction on rights must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate to the objective pursued.

The three-part test typically involves assessing whether the restriction is aimed at a legitimate aim, whether the limitation is necessary in a democratic society, and whether it is proportionate, meaning that the benefits of the restriction outweigh the harm caused to the right in question. This framework helps ensure that any limitations imposed are not arbitrary or overly broad, but rather carefully considered and justified.

In contrast, a random and flexible process lacks the structured analysis needed to responsibly limit rights, potentially leading to arbitrary restrictions. Evaluating limitations solely on a case-by-case basis could miss the broader implications and potential for abuse if not guided by consistent criteria. Similarly, requiring input from the general populace, while important in many decision-making processes, does not inherently guarantee that limitations on rights are justified or proportional, and crowdsourced opinions may not always reflect the nuanced legal standards required in human rights discourse.