An Australian jurist has made the following argument about the relationship of an individual and the law:

The state is fair when its laws and institutions are such that   1.      each individual (not family head, religious leader, or any group leader)    2.       consents to be governed by that law. Consent here is a normative notion, not actual consent but consent which emerges if they thought clearly and in an unbiased way about it.    3.   everyone affected by the law has to be able to agree to it.* That’s why it is a moral matter and relativism or subjectivism are irrelevant.   4.  the law does not discriminate or favor one group or individal at the expense of another    5.       these considerations are the basis for legal rights: they justify them. In other word each person  would consent to laws that respected and protected our rights. The rights justify the laws, not the other way around. The laws do not create basic moral rights they protect them.

*Gratian, Decretum (ca. 1140) D.4 dictum after c.3:   Ordinances are instituted when they are promulgated;  they are confirmed when they have been approved by the usage of those who observe them.  Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet (What touches all must be aprroved by all)