A right can be defined as a justified claim that individuals make on others as members of society. Rights are essentially social claims that enable a person to reach their fullest potential and develop their own personality. These claims must be justified not only by the individual but also by the society in which they live. For instance, if someone has the right to freedom, they have a justified claim to be left undisturbed by others, and society has a duty to respect that. Similarly, if someone has the right to education, they are entitled to the provision of educational resources.
In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold a framework where such rights are properly recognized and protected. Politically, rights are considered inherent to human beings by virtue of their birth, meaning no formal recognition is needed to exercise them. States do not grant rights; they merely recognize and safeguard them. Likewise, governments do not provide rights but protect individuals from any violation of those rights.
Rights are fundamentally social, as they arise from specific social conditions and originate within society. While they are held by individuals, making them individual rights, no one can strip a person of their rights. These rights exist to ensure both personal and public development within the social structure.
Table of Contents
Idea of Rights
In Political Science, the concept of rights serves as a crucial tool for understanding the relationship between the state and the individual. Political philosophers have long debated this relationship, with one key question being: who holds greater importance and authority—the state or the individual? Thinkers like Plato placed greater emphasis on the state, believing that individuals should fulfill their duties to it, as only the state can provide justice. In contrast, philosophers such as John Locke valued the individual more highly, viewing individual rights as sacred and inalienable. For Locke, the state exists as a means to serve the individual, who is the ultimate end.
The idea of individual rights is a relatively modern concept, emerging in Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. It gained prominence as a tool to resist state absolutism and the unchecked power of rulers. The evolution of rights stemmed from the voices of people protesting against the oppression inflicted by dominant and powerful groups within society. These protests and struggles led ordinary people to demand rights in response to the tyrannical use of power by the ruling classes. In modern times, the concept of rights has become associated with human emancipation and liberation, not merely as demands but as principles embedded in constitutions. This ensures that everyone is granted equal opportunities to lead a better life.
Concepts of Negative and Positive Rights
Rights are a dynamic and evolving concept that must be continuously reviewed and redefined in line with societal developments. As modern society and political awareness have progressed, the understanding of individual rights has expanded in two key directions. First, it has been argued that rights should not be exclusive to a particular class or group based on wealth or power, preventing them from enjoying privileges over others. Second, the role of the state should not be reduced, but rather enhanced, to benefit a larger portion of society. This evolving perspective reflects a shift from an emphasis on negative rights to positive rights.
Negative rights focus on limiting the state’s role and protecting individual freedoms. These rights prevent government interference in personal liberties, such as freedom of speech, religion, or protection from slavery. In contrast, positive rights recognize the state’s crucial role in safeguarding and providing for individuals, especially the vulnerable and marginalized. Positive rights impose an obligation on the state to take action in securing rights, such as providing education, healthcare, and other social services.
Negative rights, whether moral or legal, emphasize individual autonomy by restricting state involvement. Examples include the right to free speech, habeas corpus, and freedom from slavery. Positive rights, on the other hand, are often social and economic in nature, requiring individuals to comply with laws and regulations for the common good. Paying taxes to fund education and healthcare is an example of a positive right, as is the right to education itself, which demands that the state provide schools and necessary resources. Meanwhile, the right to a secure home is an example of a negative right, as it requires the state to refrain from interfering in one’s personal space, thereby limiting government jurisdiction.
Major Theories of Rights
This section explores various theories related to the concept of rights, including the natural rights theory, moral rights theory, legal rights theory, Marxist theory, historical theory, and social-welfare theory of rights. The natural rights theory explains rights through the lens of natural law, viewing them as inherent to human nature. The legal rights theory approaches rights from a legal standpoint. The historical theory regards rights as an outcome of long-standing traditions and customs within society. The moral rights theory bases rights on human conscience, emphasizing notions of good, bad, and evil. Lastly, the social-welfare theory examines rights in relation to the broader goal of societal welfare.
Theory of Natural Rights
The theory of natural rights is rooted in liberal political thought and gained prominence in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. It frames natural rights as a generalization of natural law, emphasizing that these rights are not granted by the state but arise from human nature itself. This theory is built on two main foundations: the contractual basis, which explores the emergence of the state through liberal theory, and the teleological basis, which examines human rights in relation to the purpose and significance of human life.
The contractual basis of natural rights is closely tied to the social contract theory, championed by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his book Leviathan (1651), Hobbes describes a “state of nature” where individuals relinquish their natural rights in favor of a more stable society, with the weaker members surrendering their rights to the stronger ones. He viewed this as a total surrender of natural rights in exchange for societal order. Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), offers a different perspective, suggesting that natural rights must be traded for civil rights, and both he and Hobbes argue that natural rights lose their relevance in civil society.
John Locke, however, disagrees. In his work Two Treatises on Government (1690), Locke argues that certain natural rights—such as the rights to life, liberty, and property—should not be surrendered and must be protected by the state. If the state fails in this duty, Locke asserts, citizens have the right to rebel and establish a government that safeguards these fundamental rights.
The teleological basis of natural rights views them as inherent to human life. Teleology refers to the idea that things are defined by their ultimate purpose or goal. According to this view, natural rights are not derived from institutions but exist by virtue of human nature, serving the basic aims of life. Tom Paine, a key proponent of this approach, rejected the social contract theory, arguing that each generation should have the freedom to determine its own values without being bound by the norms of the past.
The theory of natural rights has faced criticism from various thinkers. Some argue that rights cannot exist without the state, and that pre-society rights are a myth, existing only as abstract concepts. Harold Laski contended that rights and duties can only arise within a social context. Similarly, Edmund Burke criticized the idea of natural rights, asserting that it is difficult to reconcile the coexistence of civil and non-civil rights in practice.
Ultimately, the concept of natural rights is subjective and varies depending on how different groups in society interpret it. It is a fluid and dynamic concept, rather than a fixed set of rights. Groups facing injustice may invoke natural rights as a justification for their freedom, but such rights depend on the conditions and norms established by human beings rather than any intrinsic, unchangeable standard.
Theory of Moral Rights
Moral rights derive their legitimacy from the principle of moral conscience within society. They are grounded in society’s fundamental sense of right and wrong, good and bad. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “moral” as “pertaining to character or disposition, considered as good or bad, virtuous or vicious; relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical.” Despite variations in customs, traditions, laws, and cultural values, it is expected that most societies will share common moral values.
The theory of moral rights places moral principles above laws and customs, viewing them as the foundation from which all laws and customs emerge. As Morris Ginsberg noted in On Justice in Society (1965), individuals cannot be judged solely based on general legal rules when resolving disputes; rather, moral values that have evolved within society must be considered. Thus, moral values play a critical role in societal conflicts and the pursuit of justice.
Immanuel Kant, a key proponent of moral rights, argued that all human beings should be treated as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. Kant believed in the intrinsic goodwill of humans and that if people approach each other and society with moral intent, they will naturally respect one another, following the principles of moral rights. Similarly, T.H. Green contended that the true basis of rights is not divine law, as Locke suggested, but the moral character of human beings, which serves as the foundation for human rights.
Theory of Legal Rights
The theory of legal rights asserts that rights do not exist until they are recognized by the state. According to this view, no rights are absolute; all rights derive from a specific source, and they are relative, evolving with changes in time and context. This theory suggests that rights did not exist before the state and only came into being with its establishment. In any society, all rights fall under the state’s jurisdiction, and no rights can exist outside the legal framework of the state. Therefore, the state plays a crucial role in recognizing and validating rights.
Thomas Hobbes argued that individuals do not possess rights independently; it is the state that grants rights, and people must comply with the rules and laws of society. Individuals are only entitled to rights that do not conflict with the state, which has greater authority to protect rights than any individual. Jeremy Bentham, a key proponent of legal rights theory, dismissed the idea of natural rights as a dogmatic and irrational concept, invented by idealists without any logical basis. He considered natural rights to be a false, unrealistic idea lacking reasonable foundation.
However, the theory of legal rights has been criticized for its claim that the state creates rights. Critics argue that the state does not create rights but rather protects them. If rights were granted by the state, it would imply that the state could also revoke them at any time, making the state an absolute power. This would undermine the very notion of inherent rights and lead to the dangerous conclusion that the state’s authority over rights is unlimited.
Marxist Theory of Rights
The Marxist theory of rights, developed in the mid-19th century, emerged as a critique of liberal-individualist rights, which underpinned the capitalist system. Marxists argued that these rights primarily served the interests of the bourgeoisie, the upper class that controlled the means of production, leaving the working class subject to exploitation. In the capitalist system, the so-called rights of the individual were seen as tools that upheld the economic dominance of the bourgeoisie, offering little benefit to the common people.
Marxist theory opposed liberal-individualist rights by emphasizing the importance of economic equality and social justice. It called for a system in which everyone has an equal opportunity to earn a livelihood, reducing exploitation and injustice by the upper class. Marxists advocated for cooperation and collective development, rejecting the free market as an instrument of exploitation that favored the wealthy while hindering the economic growth of the working class.
Karl Marx argued that in a capitalist state, the ruling class—the bourgeoisie—holds all power, shaping laws and policies to serve its own interests. The state becomes a tool for the bourgeoisie, legitimizing and maintaining the capitalist system and its values. Marx observed that the class controlling the economy also controls the political and civil dimensions of society. As a solution, he championed a society run by the working class, supporting the establishment of socialism, where the rights and interests of workers are prioritized.
Marx’s vision for a socialist society aimed at creating a classless system based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” In such a society, the rights of all members—not just a privileged class—would be protected, ensuring social, economic, and political justice for the entire community.
However, Marxist theory has been criticized for its narrow focus on economic factors, neglecting other key aspects of society, such as social and political dynamics. Critics argue that by concentrating solely on economic determinism, Marxism overlooks the complexity of societal structures, where non-economic factors also play a crucial role in shaping rights and social organization. This limited perspective makes the practical application of Marxist theory problematic in addressing the full range of issues within a society.
Historical Theory of Rights
The historical theory of rights emphasizes the significance of historical events in shaping the evolution of rights within society. According to this view, historical developments play a key role in the emergence and transformation of rights, which change over time in different societies. Customs and traditions also influence rights, with their interpretation and application varying across generations.
This theory, which gained prominence in the 18th century, is rooted in conservative political thought. Proponents of the historical theory of rights advocate for evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. One notable supporter, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), opposed the French Revolution of 1789, which introduced the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, challenging the established norms of Europe at the time. In contrast, Burke supported the English Revolution of 1688, which he saw as a reassertion of the long-standing rights of Englishmen. To him, the English Revolution reflected the principles of conservatism, whereas the French Revolution rejected established customs and traditions.
The historical theory is also known as the prescriptive theory because it arises from the long observation of historical events and places great value on customs and norms that have persisted in society over time. However, this theory has faced criticism, as not all rights originate from customs or traditions. For instance, rights like the right to security and the right to privacy have no clear foundation in historical customs. Additionally, certain practices, such as the Sati system, were followed in society but cannot be considered rights, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on tradition as a basis for rights.
Social-Welfare Theory of Rights
The social-welfare theory of rights aims to establish a foundational standard for determining which rights should be recognized and enforced in society. This theory asserts that rights should primarily serve the purpose of promoting social welfare. In any given society, only those rights that contribute to the greater good and collective well-being should be acknowledged.
One of the key philosophical movements supporting this theory is the Utilitarian school, led by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. Utilitarianism holds that the happiness of the greatest number is the ultimate standard for legislation and the recognition of rights. Key proponents of the social-welfare theory of rights include Zechariah Chafee (1885-1957) and Roscoe Pound (1870-1964). Chafee argued that natural rights, laws, and customs should align with values that promote the functioning of society. Similarly, Pound emphasized that laws should reflect the aim of social welfare and support societal progress.
The central idea of the social-welfare theory is that rights should first and foremost contribute to the welfare of society. Without this focus, the advancement of individuals and communities is not possible. However, the theory has notable limitations. The concept of social welfare is often vague and difficult to define, leading to challenges in practical application. Furthermore, it is frequently the elite groups in society that determine what constitutes social welfare, potentially skewing the interpretation of rights in their favor. Additionally, the theory suggests that rights only become meaningful when legally interpreted, ultimately aligning it with the legal theory of rights.
Three Generations of Rights
The concept of rights is dynamic, evolving alongside societal progress. As society advances, the need to safeguard individual rights becomes increasingly important. Adapting to changing standards of rights requires creating favorable conditions to achieve these goals. In the modern world, rights are often categorized into three generations, a concept rooted in the ideals of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Czech jurist Karel Vasak was the first to formally classify rights into these generations, enhancing both the study of and dialogue around them. The three generations are as follows: (a) The First Generation, focusing on civil and political rights; (b) The Second Generation, encompassing social and economic rights; and (c) The Third Generation, addressing newly recognized rights, including the cultural rights of minority groups in multicultural societies. The evolution of these generations allows for a systematic understanding of rights and their development within society. Importantly, for rights to be meaningful, these three generations must coexist.
First Generation of Rights
The First Generation of rights focuses on civil and political rights, which are divided into two main categories. The first category addresses norms related to “physical and civil security,” including the prohibition of torture, slavery, and inhumane treatment. The second category concerns “civil-political liberties or empowerments,” encompassing rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of movement, and freedom of thought and expression.
These rights primarily emphasize individual liberties and are fundamental to democratic societies, forming the core of democratic rights. During the Cold War era, these rights were the subject of intense debate, as philosophers discussed the extent of individual rights in relation to government interference.
Second Generation of Rights
It became evident that the First Generation of rights did not adequately address the needs of the weaker and disadvantaged sections of society. To bridge this gap, a new set of rights was introduced, recognizing the role of society in uplifting these groups. These are known as Second Generation rights.
Second Generation rights are divided into two main categories. The first focuses on basic needs like nutrition and healthcare, which should be provided through social welfare programs. The second category addresses economic rights, ensuring fair wages, the right to work, the right to housing, and other measures to guarantee a basic standard of living for all individuals.
Third Generation of Rights
The Third Generation of rights broadens the concept of collective or “class” rights, addressing concerns beyond the individual to encompass broader societal needs. These rights are divided into two key sub-categories. The first focuses on the self-determination of people, enabling communities to shape their own development while considering the political status of various groups. The second sub-category emphasizes the protection of minority rights in a multicultural society.
Historically, in large, diverse nations, the protection of different ethnic and religious groups has been essential. Third Generation rights safeguard religious freedoms, including the protection of sacred texts, sites, and places of worship. Additionally, they stress environmental rights, such as the right to clean air, clean water, and a pollution-free environment.
These rights are often classified as “soft law” since they are not legally binding, meaning adherence cannot be enforced. Notable examples of Third Generation rights include the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Human rights are universal moral and legal standards aimed at protecting individuals worldwide from political, legal, and social abuses. The philosophy of human rights explores their existence, content, nature, universality, and justification. As political norms, human rights dictate how governments and institutions should treat individuals, ensuring dignity and equality for all.
A landmark in this effort is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which sets a global standard for the protection of individual rights regardless of race, class, caste, gender, religion, or other distinctions. Adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, in the wake of World War II’s atrocities, the UDHR established a foundation for freedom, justice, and peace worldwide. It recognizes human rights as essential for these principles and serves as a guiding framework for equality and liberty.
The UDHR consists of a preamble and 30 articles. The preamble underscores the need for the recognition of equal rights as the basis for global justice and peace. The 30 articles outline various civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. These include protections such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of expression, the right to education, the right to asylum, and access to social security, healthcare, and housing.
Beyond the UDHR, numerous international agreements and institutions work to uphold and promote human rights globally. Significant initiatives include the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), the Helsinki Accords (1975), the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). These efforts collectively reinforce the global commitment to human rights.
Conclusion
Rights are essential social claims that play a crucial role in human development, and they are inherent to all individuals simply by virtue of being human. These rights are inalienable, meaning no one can deprive an individual of them. Since rights are social, the state has the responsibility to secure and protect them for every individual. As society evolves over time, so do the nature and scope of rights, adapting to new contexts and challenges.
Various theories have emerged to explain the concept of rights. The theory of natural rights asserts that certain rights existed prior to the formation of society and therefore cannot be taken away by the state. The theory of moral rights places emphasis on moral conscience, arguing that rights are rooted in the ethical principles of what is good or just, rather than being dependent on laws or customs. The theory of legal rights, on the other hand, contends that rights are not absolute but derive from specific legal frameworks. Marxist theory focuses on the economic structure of society, advocating for a classless society where the rights of the working class are prioritized.
To better understand rights, they are classified into three generations, covering different aspects such as civil and political rights, economic rights, and minority rights. These include fundamental rights like the right to life, freedom of movement, the right to health, employment, and access to clean air and water. Different societies emphasize various sets of rights: liberal democracies tend to prioritize individual and political rights, while socialist societies emphasize collective welfare and the overall development of all members of society.
References
- Bluhm, W. (1967). Varieties of Political Theory. Edited by David Easton.
- Bhargava, R. (2013). What is political theory and why do we need it? Oxford Univ. Press.
- Bhargava, R. and Acharya Ashok (2016). “Political theory: An introduction” Published by Pearson India.
- Gauba O.P. (2019). “An introduction to Political theory” published by Mayur paperback India.
- Wiseman, H., & Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science.
- Charlesworth, J. (1968). Contemporary political analysis. Free Press.
- Easton, D. (1981). The Political System Besieged by the State. Political Theory.
