Natural Rights and Human Rights
1. Natural Rights theory
The idea of ‘natural rights’ was given by seventeenth-century political thinkers, like John Locke
(1723- 1826), and later on developed by people like Thomas Jefferson and others. John Locke
identified these rights as the right to life, liberty, and property. These rights are ‘pre-social’ and
‘pre-legal’ meaning that rights existed before society and state came into existence. Neither society nor
the state is the creator of these rights. They are given by God.
Human beings are born with rights. Locke believed that these rights are essential for leading a truly
human existence and that they represent the most fundamental of human inner drives. A century later,
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), a political philosopher and the third president of the USA, used the
natural rights theory to defend the American struggle for independence and government by consent. The
American Declaration of Independence (1776) which was written by Thomas Jefferson, reflects the
influence of Locke’s theory on him. The Preamble to the American Declaration of Independence reads:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness……..”
The French Revolution (1789) was also inspired by the natural rights theories.
The natural rights theories arose out of the desire to establish limits upon the powers of the state and
to treat people in a particular manner. They laid down that the powers of the state were not absolute;
they were restricted by the people's ‘natural rights’.
Human Rights
Human rights developed out of the ‘natural rights’ theories, in the twentieth century. “Human Rights
are norms, that help to protect people everywhere from severe, political, legal and social abuses.” These
norms are in the form of “morality” or “law” which are prevalent at the international, regional and
national level.
Post- 1945 era has seen a number of global treatises and declarations concerning human rights and the
emergence of NGOs such as Amnesty International dedicated to their enforcement. Some Key
treatises, conventions and declarations are.
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
- The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(1948)
- The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
(1950
- The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
- The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (ICESCR) (1966)
- The American Convention on Human Rights. (1979)
- The International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. (CEDAW)
(1979)
- The African Charter on Human Rights and People’s Rights (the Banjul Charter)
- The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. (1984)
- The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1984)
- The Declaration of Principles of Indigenous Rights (1989)
- The Vienna Declaration and Action Programme (1993
The failure of the League of Nations, to promote international cooperation and international peace and
security led to the outbreak of the Second World War. The crimes, atrocities and oppression committed
against humanity during the gruesome war, led to the acknowledgement that basic rights of human
beings must be respected, under all circumstances.
The United Nations which was established after the Second World War to promote harmony amongst
nations of the world, acknowledged the rights of all human beings in the ‘Universal Declaration of
Human Rights’ (UDHR). It was the first international acknowledgement of the ‘inherent dignity and of
the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.’ Since UDHR was merely a
declaration and not binding, the General Assembly, of the UN, formulated two treaties to make it
binding on all the member states. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted in 1966.
These covenants along with optional protocols and UDHR form the International Bill of Human
Rights.
Classification
Some of the rights that have been given are positive and others are negative in character. Positive rights
are those rights which require the active participation of the state for their implementation (for instance-
the right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to education, and the right to clean water.);
negative rights are those rights which deal with civil and political liberties, which the state must not
encroach upon.
A Generational classification of Human Rights has also been given. The first-generation rights are those
rights which provide certain basic guarantees to individuals in relation to the state. It deals with civil and
political rights and liberties (Articles 3 to 21). The second-generation rights deal with socio- economic
rights of the individuals (Articles 22 to 27). First-generation and second-generation rights deal with
individuals, whereas third-generation rights deal with groups and communities. They are group/
community rights. The right to development, the right to participate in and benefit from the common
heritage of mankind and the right to a healthy environment, rights of indigenous communities fall within
this category of rights.
The General Idea of Human Rights.
1. Most of the human rights are claim rights. "A claim right is a right which entails duties,
responsibilities or obligations on others regarding the right holder ". For instance, a right
not to be tortured involves a corresponding duty or obligation on the state as well as
others not to torture.
A distinction is made between claim rights and liberty rights. Liberty rights unlike claim
rights do not entail obligations on others but rather only freedom or permission for the
right holder. The distinction between claim rights and liberty originates in American
jurist Wesley Newcomb Howfeld's analysis.
Joel Feinberg argues that rights are “valid claims”, as valid claims” rights entail duties
and responsibilities. However Feinberg holds that not all the claims are valid, the claims
that are not valid are merely demands. He also holds that natural and basic needs of
human beings relating to a healthy and balanced diet, education, and technical training in
conditions of scarcity are rights in the form of entitlements, something which is due to
human beings because of their status. They are not valid claims as there is no
determinate individual who has the responsibility or obligation to fulfil these needs.
Therefore, Fernberg calls the rights related to basic needs “manifesto rights", which
means that they are so vital that they should be included in the policy programmes of
the state. Manifesto rights are called “potential rights” by Fernberg.
2. Human rights are plural in character. They do not address a single issue but rather
numerous issues and problems, such as freedom from slavery and servitude, fair trial,
freedom from torture or freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, Right to education, and Preventing genocide. Many writers accept the
plurality of human rights but are opposed to an ever-expanding and over-proliferating
list of human rights. James Griffin maintains that over-proliferation of human rights
makes the rights “indeterminate”.
3. Human Rights are universal rights that are enjoyed by all human beings at all places
and at all times, They are independent of their political, social, cultural, practices and
moralities.
There is this notion of the “independent existence” of human beings embedded in the
idea of universality of rights. Although individuals are the focal point in human rights
some rights have been given to groups which are vulnerable - like children, aboriginals
and Indigenous groups, women, and minorities
Althought human rights are universal a lot of debate has been generated on the idea of the
universality of rights and the cultural rootedness of rights.
4. Human rights are inalienable rights. Inalienability here does not mean that they are
absolute. It means that they are of such “paramount importance”, that they cannot be
traded off so easily, they are hard to lose. For instance, a person’s freedom may be
temporarily suspended or forfeited only after he has been convicted by the court, for
committing a heinous crime. Violations of human rights are taken as a serious offence, a
“grave affront to justice”.
5. Human rights by nature are indivisible. The UDHR bestows different kinds of rights to
one and the same person (civil, political, economic, social and cultural). Indivisibility
means that assigning a hierarchy between the rights or prioritizing certain rights, is
not appropriate, they are guarantees bestowed to one and the same subject, the human
person.
6. Human rights are also interdependent upon each other. Interdependence means that
there are interconnections between various kinds of rights. Human rights enhance,
reinforce and complement each other. For instance, the right to vote does not have
much significance to a person who is starving, similarly, the right to work means little if
workers are not allowed to meet and assemble in groups to discuss their working
conditions.
The interconnections between various kinds of rights can be best explained by referring
to Amartya Sen's work on famine. Sen shows that civil and political rights play important
in preventing famine-like situations (a situation marked by a severe shortage of food that
leads to malnutrition, starvation, disease, and hish death rates). He says that with
opposition parties and free media, the government has political reasons to prevent
famine-like situations in a multi-party democracy. Citizens can also express their
concerns by making use of the media, public forums, and by exercising their right to vote.
Thus human rights should be seen as a whole and not in parts.
Tom Campbell, maintains that there is a “mutually supportive relationship” between
socio-economic rights and civil and political rights. He holds that “the logical and
practical differences between justiciable and non-justiciable, costless and costly rights
and negative and positive rights have been greatly exaggerated for ideological reasons.”
Similarly, John Tasioulas holds that the “bifurcation of human rights is untenable.” For
instance, he says that severe poverty does not merely refer to a significant level of
material deprivation, it poses a serious threat to various individual interests like health,
physical security, autonomy, understanding, friendship etc.
7. Many theorists support a minimal view of human rights, preferring few rights then too
many rights. These authors point out that if human rights are too expansive then it will be
difficult to uphold them because of cultural variations.
Michael Walzer talks about “thin and thick moralities”. He holds that there is a “set of
standard” which is upheld by all societies. For instance, all societies have rules against
murder, deceit, torture, and oppression. These standards are non-parochial and constitute
the “moral minimum” which can be upheld and endorsed by all in a “global moral
pluralism”.
R J Vincent writes that there is a “core of basic rights”,which is common to all basic
cultures. He calls the core the “lowest common denominator” which can be endorsed by
all societies.
Michael Ignatieff holds that “human rights can command universal assent only as a
decidedly ‘thin’ theory of what is right, ….. the minimal conditions for any life at all.” He
holds that if human rights are to apply to all then they must be acceptable to all and if
they are acceptable to all then they can only be “thin statements” on the protection of life
rather than expansive statements.
The argument concerning minimal rights is that if human rights become expansive then it
will be difficult to endorse by all societies. The authors upholding a minimal view of
human rights say that human rights should be “more concerned with avoiding the worst
than achieving the best.” It is held that a few human rights can give a lot of space for
democratic decision-making and manoeuvring at the national and local levels. New rights
can be created from the given set of rights by taking into account cultural variations of
the communities. Minimalism is considered to be a normative guideline in terms of what
international human rights should be.
Charles Beitz, on the other hand, argues that a list short list of human rights would
exclude many rights such as the right to religious toleration, the right to legal equality
(for women) as well as political rights, so it would be better to shift to an elaborate view
over which there is an “overlapping consensus of political moralities.”
Charles Beitz has a political and practical view of human rights. Human rights, according
to him have a role to play in contemporary world politics. This role is that of a “moral
touchstone, a standard of assessment and criticism for domestic institutions……..a
standard of evaluation for the policies and practices of international economic and
political organisations”. Because of the critical role that human rights play in
contemporary world politics, Charles Beitz says that there should be a consensus on these
rights.
8. Human rights are generally considered as moral rights, something which human beings
enjoy by virtue of being human. However, a different conception of human rights has
emerged from the writings of John Rawls, Charles Beitz and Joseph Raz, and this
conception is often called the political conception of human rights.