Introduction:

The philosophy of human rights tends to explain the true meaning of Human Rights while little
attempts were taken to explain it. Theories of Human rights may reveal the purpose of human
rights. These are not only concerned with individual protection under a state or gourmet’s
protection practice in certain aspects of their lives, but it is also concerned with providing
certain condition under which an individual can develop to their full protentional.
Change of time and cultural reform brought about a change in the rights, providing a completely
new outlook to the human rights. So, it is important to study human right theories as they
explain how, why and from where the concept of hum rights arose?

HUMAN RIGHT THEORIES

Following are the theories of human rights:

• Natural Right Theory:
The rights that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular
culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that
cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Some, yet not all, see them as
synonymous with human rights. [1] [https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-
worldhistory2/chapter/natural-rights/]

It mainly emphasizes on the rights given to man by nature. It is founded on the liberal
notion of the existence of rights prior to the emergence of a society or state. Among the
history, French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen ( August 26,1789) along with
American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) originated from natural right
theory.

A Dutch jurist Grotius, also called the father of international law referred to natural law
as natural rights. He insisted that there was no written natural law from God, according
to the early natural law theory. Also, he put forward a replacement of law with rights as
he believed that these mainly discussed about the rights of a human. Through these
subjective individual rights were recognized, as well as developing the modern school of
natural rights.

Natural rights have been considered since antiquity, but it was Enlightenment
philosophers who invented the contemporary concept of natural rights, which has been
important to modern republican governance and civil society.
Natural rights emerged as part of the social contract notion during the Enlightenment.
 The theory addressed the origins of society as well as the legitimacy of the state's
authority over individuals.

Natural rights were derived from Thomas Hobbes' idea of man in a "state of nature." He
opposed to attempts to derive rights from "natural law," claiming that the terms "law"
("lex") and "right" ("jus"), though frequently mistaken, relate to opposites, with law
referring to obligations and rights referring to the lack of responsibilities.

John Locke's most famous natural right formulation is that natural rights encompass
absolute equality and freedom, as well as the right to preserve life and property. John
Lilburne, Francis Hutcheson, Georg Hegel, and Thomas Paine were among the
Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers who developed and complicated
the concept of natural rights. In Rights of Man (1791), Thomas Paine explained that
rights cannot be granted by a charter as this would by legally imply that they can also be
revoked and reduced to privileges. [3] John Locke presented the enlightenment theory in
1689. According to Locke, all people are equal in the sense that they are born with
certain "inalienable" natural rights i.e, God-given rights that can never be taken away or
even given away. "Life, liberty, and property" are among these fundamental natural
rights. [2]

The concept of natural rights, which became crucial to European abolitionists' efforts,
was greatly influenced by the modern European anti-slavery movement.
• Natural Law Theory:
Certain rights or ideals are inherent in human nature and may be universally grasped
through human reason, according to this theory. It is the application of reason to
evaluate both social and personal human nature in order to derive binding principles of
moral behavior throughout history. Nature's laws, like nature itself, are universal.
Some of the laws of early natural philosophy were that the situation of all human
beings was determined by God, but all human beings, regardless of their status, were
subject to the authority of the prince restricted by the rules of God. However, all human
beings have been endowed with a unique personal identity that is separate from the
nation. It is evident that this theory was mostly theistic i.e., it needed belief in Deity to
give it a logical and consistent sense.
Modern school of natural law can be said to have developed in Middle Ages with the
help of early Christian philosophers, among them Saint Thomas Aquinas has high
importance. Aquinas believed that "[the law of nature] is nothing other than the light of
the intellect planted in us by God, by which we know what should be done and what
should be avoided. God gave this light and this law in creation... For no one is ignorant
that what he would not like to be done to himself he should not do to others, and similar
norms." [1]
[https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/natural-rights/]
• Social Contract Theory:
 Locke also argued that, in order to avoid the uncertainties of existence in the wild, men
had joined into a social contract or voluntary association in which the exercise of their
eligible rights was transferred to the state's ruler. If the ruler violates an individual's
natural rights, they are free to dismiss the ruler with a government that is willing to
respect those rights. This thought formed the basis of social contract theory i.e., an
individual is a self-governed being with the ability to make decisions. Also, government
legitimacy is based on the government's willingness and ability to defend individual
inherent rights, as well as the people's will. In simple words, it’s more of a power
contract of people with its state or government for existence.
• Legal Right Theory:
Unlike natural law theorists, who attained their concepts of rights from God, reason, or a
priori moral assumptions, positivists believed that the sole source of law's existence and
content was the laws of the state. The central principle of legal theory is that right has
meaning and realization only within the structure and framework of state and its
institution. Any right ignored by the state cannot be claimed by any induvial under
protection of the given state. Legal rights differ from moral rights in this way. All citizens
have equal access to legal rights. Without exception, all citizens adhere to their legal
rights.[9]
An English philosophy, Jeremy Bentham believed that: “Right is the child of law; from
real laws come real rights but from imaginary law, from “laws of nature”, come
imaginary rights….”
Two types of schools of legal right philosophy are interest and will theory. The will
theory of legal rights was presented by Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart (1907–1992), a
British legal scholar. The law must provide the citizens with liberty of expressing their
will. Austin Holland, Pollock, Vinogradoff, and Holmes characterize lawful privileges
according to will point of view. Jeremy Bentham (1748_1832) presented the interest
theory. This theory was offered by Rudolf von Ihering, a German jurist, and additional
details were added by John Salmond. Bentham was critical of the idea of moral rights
but accepted that rights could be beneficial in legal systems. The resolve of the law is to
guard the interest and not the citizen’s wills, according to Ihering. Salmond argued that a
right is an interest known and protected by the rule of all law. Most legal rights are
enforceable but it is not vital to the conception of a right. This theory is more ample
than the will theory. It can accommodate both irrevocable rights (whose possession may
be beneficial to the bearer) and incompetent rights (who have interest s that rights can
protect.) The interest theory also takes use of the logical link between having rights and
being better off. [10]
• Theory of Justice:
In its widest sense, is the principle that people receive that what they deserve. The
principle of justice, both historically and theoretically, is that everyone, regardless of
their legal, political, economic, or other circumstances, should have equal access to
money, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and opportunity. In modern practice, social
justice entails benefiting or condemning distinct sections of the population based on
value judgments about historical events, current situations, and group interactions,
regardless of any specific individual's decisions or actions.
There are four types of justice theory i.e., Rawlsian egalitarianism (justice as fairness),
 Dworkinian egalitarianism (or equality of resources), Steiner-Vallentyne libertarianism
(common ownership), and Nozickian libertarianism (entitlements).

In Rawlsian egalitarianism theory, John Rawls in his ‘Theory of Justice’ argues that
rights, duties, befits, and burdens among society’s individuals are distributed by justice.
He further state that every being is inviolable and that even the wellbeing of society
can’t transfer this inviolability: “Justice denies the loss of freedom for some is made right
by a greater good shared by others. Therefore, in a just society liberties of equal
citizenship are settled, the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining
or not to the calculus of social interest. “
In Dworkinian egalitarianism theory, Dworkin emphasizes the equality of resources
among individuals of a society. He stated that equality of resources is the view that a
distributional scheme treats people as equals when it ‘distributes or transfers resources
among them until no further transfer would leave their shares of the total resources
more equal’ [11]
The Steiner-Vallentyne libertarianism theory is presented by Rudolf Joseph Lorenz
Steiner, an Austrian philosopher, and Peter Vallentyne, an American philosopher.
Steiner–Vallentyne school of thought, believe it unlawful for anybody to claim private
possession of natural resources to the disadvantage of others. [12] This theory provides
support to some form of revenue redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each being
to be permitted to an equivalent share of natural resources.[13] Unappropriated natural
resources are either unowned or possessed in common and private appropriation is only
legal if every person can appropriate an equal amount or if private appropriation is taxed
to compensate those who are left out from natural resources. [14]
Nozickian libertarianism theory was formulated by Nozick, a right-libertarian in terms
of political theory. He believed that individuals own themselves and had a right to
private property. Nozick argued that only a very scaled-down version of government that
provides security to individuals and protects private property can be justified. This
means taxation aimed at building funds to be redistributed for welfare purposes (for
example, health care, education, poverty relief) are all illegitimate. [15]

• Theory of divine right:

It states that the authority to reign comes straight from God to a monarch. In history,
this right was used by roman empire to build influential monarch as the highest
authority and they were not answerable to anyone else. Thomas Hobbes and
Machiavelli generously contributed to this idea.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) an English Philosopher, presented the idea of Divine
rights of ruler or ruling party. Throughout his life he thought to attain an absolute
monarch, it is important to constitute a true and correct form of government. [4]
• Theory of utility:
 Jeremy Bentham gave a humanitarian approach to the amoral starkness of Hume’s
position which formulated the thesis of utilitarianism. The central concept of this
approach was that by increasing the human existence while diminishing the pleasure
and pain could result in improvement of a lot of mankind. The ultimate test of utility was
enacting laws that resulted in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number
of people. In any given state, this clearly had the potential to develop to tyranny of the
majority and oppression of the minority. [5]
By the time John Stuart Mill published his own work, Utilitarianism, in 1863, he had had
many years to absorb and think on Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism ideas. The following
is an important passage from the book: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the
reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by
unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. ” [6]
There are two unitarian ethics i.e., rule and act unitarian ethics. Rule utilitarianism is a
form of utilitarianism that states that an action is right because it follows a rule that
leads to the greatest benefit, or that the correctness or unfairness of a certain act is a
function of the exactness of the rule of which it is an instance. Richard Brandt and Brad
Hooker, both philosophers, are strong supporters of this approach. [7] Act utilitarianism
is a utilitarian ethical theory that states that a person's action is ethically good if and
only if it achieves the best possible results in the given situation. Happiness is defined by
classical utilitarian such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick as
pleasure and the absence of misery. [8]
References:
[1]
[1]  "St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on the Ten Commandments, prologue, sec. 'A fourfold
law'". Op-stjoseph.org. Archived from the original on 15 September 2009. Retrieved 20
November 2011.

[2]https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html#:~:text=Locke
%20wrote%20that%20all%20individuals%20are%20equal%20in%20the%20sense%20that
%20they%20are%20born%20with%20certain%20%22inalienable%22%20natural%20rights.
%20That%20is%2C%20rights%20that%20are%20God%2Dgiven%20and%20can%20never%20be
%20taken%20or%20even%20given%20away.%20Among%20these%20fundamental%20natural
%20rights%2C%20Locke%20said%2C%20are%20%22life%2C%20liberty%2C%20and
%20property.%22

[3] McLean, J. (n.d.). Natural Rights | History of Western Civilization II. Lumen Learning

Simple Book Production. Retrieved 22–01-01, from

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/natural-rights/

[4]
http://www.notable-quotes.com/h/hobbes_thomas.html
[5] Human Rights Protection: by B. D. Usmani [paper bag]. New Delhi: Wisdom Press;
2015. Available from: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ
HYPERLINK "https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"& HYPERLINK
"https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"lpg=PP1
HYPERLINK "https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"& HYPERLINK
"https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"pg=PP1#v=onepage HYPERLINK
"https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"&
HYPERLINK "https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"q HYPERLINK
"https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"&
HYPERLINK "https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=9bOcAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1"f=false
[6] Mill, J. S. (1859). Utilitarianism (1863). Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative
Government, 7-9. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"& HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"pg=PP11#v=onepage HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"& HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"q HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"& HYPERLINK
"https://d.docs.live.net/b499723ea5e0526b/Documents/iframe%20frameborder=
%220%22%20scrolling=%22no%22%20style=%22border:0px%22%20src=%22https:/
books.google.com.pk/books?id=hm4IAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP11&output=embed
%22%20width=500%20height=500%3e%3c/iframe"f=false
[7] Garner, Richard T.; Bernard Rosen (1967). Moral Philosophy: A Systematic Introduction to
Normative Ethics and Meta-ethics. New York: Macmillan. p. 70. ISBN 0-02-340580-5.
[8] Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2011). "Consequentialism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[9] Civil Service of India. (n.d.). Rights: Meaning and theories; different kinds of rights; concept
of Human Rights. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from
https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Political-Science/notes/rights-meaning-and-
theories.html
[10] More, H. (2021.–08-04). Theories of legal rights. The Fact Factor. Retrieved January 8, 2022,
from https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/legal_concepts/jurisprudence/theories-of-legal-
rights/17474/
[11] Brown A. (2009) Equality of Resources. In: Ronald Dworkin’s Theory of Equality. Palgrave
Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244467_3
[12]  Kymlicka, Will (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to
Philosophy. New York City: Oxford University Press. p. 516. "'Left-libertarianism' is a new term
for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption
that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian
premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the
right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such
as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural
resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to
claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private
appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who
appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was
once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert
Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel
Steiner." ISBN 978-0199264797.
 [13] Steiner, Hillel; Vallentyne, Peter (2000). Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The
Contemporary Debate. London: Macmillan. p. 1.
[14]  Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. Sage
Publications. p. 128.
[15] Robert Nozick: Political Philosophy. (n.d.). Internet Encyclopedia of Psychology. Retrieved
January 9, 2022, from https://iep.utm.edu/noz-poli/