Rights: Meaning, Features and Types of Rights

Rights are those essential conditions of social life without which no person
can generally realize his best self. These are the essential conditions for
health of both the individual and his society. It is only when people get and
enjoy rights that they can develop their personalities and contributes their
best services to the society.

Rights: Meaning and Definition:

In simple words, rights are the common claims of people which every
civilized society recognizes as essential claims for their development, and
which are therefore enforced by the state.

1. “Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek
in general, to be himself at his best.” -Laski

2. “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfillment of man’s vocation as a

moral being.” -T. H. Green

3. “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are
necessary or favourable to the development of personality” -Beni Prasad

As such, Rights are common and recognized claims of the people which are
essential for their development as human beings.

Features/Nature of Rights:
1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.

2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.

3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.
4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their
society.

5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the
society.

6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which

really means their development in society by the promotion of social good.
Rights can never be exercised against social good.

7. Rights are equally available to all the people.

8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of tim e.

9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential
for maintaining public health, security, order and morality.

10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship
between them “No Duties Ho Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights
it is my duty to respect the rights others in society”.

11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the
people. These are protected and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the
duty of a state to protect the rights of the people.

1. Natural Rights:
Faith in natural rights is strongly expressed by several scholars. They hold
that people inherit several rights from nature. Before they came to live in
society and state, they used to live in a state of nature. In it, they enjoyed
certain natural rights, like the right to life, right to liberty and right to
property. Natural rights are parts of human nature and reason.

However, several other scholars regard the concept of natural rights as

imaginary. Rights are the products of social living. These can be used only
in a society. Rights have behind them the recognition of society as common
claims for development, and that is why the state protects these rights.

2. Moral Rights: Moral Rights are those rights which are based on
human consciousness. They are backed by moral force of human mind.
These are based on human sense of goodness and justice. These are not
backed by the force of law. Sense of goodness and public opinion are the
sanctions behind moral rights.

If any person violates any moral right, no legal action can be taken against
him. The state does not enforce these rights. Its courts do not recognize
these rights. Moral Rights include rules of good conduct, courtesy and of
moral behaviour. These stand for moral perfection of the people Legal
Rights.

Legal rights are those rights which are recognized and enforced by the state.
Any violation of any legal right is punished by law. Law courts of the state
enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced against individuals and
also against the government. In this way, legal rights are different from
moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens
enjoy legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for
getting their legal rights enforced.

Legal Rights are of three types:

1. Civil Rights:
Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to
lead a civilized social life. These fulfill basic needs of human life in society.
Right to life, liberty and equality are civil rights. Civil rights are protected
by the state.

2. Political Rights:
Political rights are those rights by virtue of which citizens get a share in the
political process. These enable them to take an active part in the political
process. These rights include right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold
public office and right to criticise and oppose the government. Political
rights are really available to the people in a democratic state.

3. Economic Rights:
Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the
people. These enable all citizens to make proper use of their civil and
political rights. The basic needs of every person are related to his food,
clothing, shelter, medical treatment etc. Without the fulfillment of these no
person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is therefore essential,
that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right
to leisure and rest, and right to social security in case of illness, physical
disability and old age.

THEORIES OF RIGHTS

There are numerous theories of rights which explain the nature, origin and
meaning of rights. The theory of natural rights describes rights as nature;
the theory of legal rights recognises 17 rights as legal; the historical theory
of rights pronounces rights as products of traditions and customs; the
idealistic theory, like the theory of legal rights, relates rights only with the
state; the social welfare theory of rights regards rights as social to be
exercised in the interest of both the individual and the society. The
development of rights as have come to us had a modest beginning: civil
rights with the contractualists; rights as the outcome of traditions, with the
historicists, rights as ordained by law, with the jurists; political rights, with
the democrats; social rights, with the sociologists and the pluralists; socio-
economic rights, with the socialists and the Marxists; human rights, with
the advocates of the United Nations. This explanation oversimplifies what
our rights are and how they came to us.

Theory of Natural Rights

The theory of natural rights has been advocated mainly by Thomas Hobbes
(Leviathan, 1651), John Locke (Two Treatises on Government, 1690) and
J.J. Rousseau (The Social Contract, 1762). These contractualists, after
having provided the social contract theory, hold the view that there were
natural rights possessed by men in the state of nature and that these rights
were attributed to individuals as if they were the essential properties of men
as men. The contractualists, therefore, declared that the rights are
inalienable, imprescriptable and indefeasible. The theory of natural rights
is criticised on many grounds. Rights cannot be natural simply because they
were the possessions of men in the state of nature. There can never be
rights before the emergence of society: the notion of pre-society rights is a
contradiction in terms. If at all there was anything in the state of nature,
they were mere physical energies, and not rights. Rights presuppose the
existence of some authority to protect them. In the state of nature where no
state existed, how can one imagine rights in the absence of a state: who
would defend people’s rights in the state of nature? The contractualists
have no answer. To say that natural rights existed in the state of nature is to
make them absolute or beyond the control of society. For Bentham, the
doctrine of natural rights was ‘a rhetorical non-sense upon stilts.’ Laski also
rejects the whole idea of natural rights. Rights, as natural rights, are based
on false assumptions that we can have rights and duties independently of
society. Burke had pointed out, rather eloquently, when he said that we
cannot enjoy the rights of civil and uncivil state at the same time: the more
perfect the natural rights are in the abstract, the more difficult it is to
recognise them in practice. Rights are natural, and not that there are
natural rights, in the sense that they are the conditions which human
beings need to realise themselves. Laski realises the significance of rights
when he says that rights ‘are not natural in the sense that a permanent and
unchanging catalogue of them can be compiled, rather they are natural in
the sense that under the limitations of a civilised life, facts demand their
recognition.’

Theory of Legal Rights

The theory of legal rights or the legal theory of rights connotes the same
sense. The idealist theory of rights which seeks to place rights as the
product of the state can be, more or less, seen as another name of the
theory of legal rights. Among the advocates of such theories, the names of
Bentham, Hegel and Austin can be mentioned. According to them, rights
are granted by the state, regarding rights as a claim which the force of the
state grants to the people. The essential features of these theories, then, are:
(i) the state defines and lays down the bill of 18 rights: rights are neither
prior nor anterior to the state because it is the state which is the source of
rights; (ii) the state lays down a legal framework which guarantees rights
and that it is the state which enforces the enjoyment of rights; (iii) as the
law creates and sustains rights, so when the content of law changes, the
substance of rights also changes. The theories which point out rights having
originated from the state are criticised in numerous ways. The state,
indeed, defends and protects our rights; it does not create them as the
advocates of these theories make us believe. If we admit that the rights are
the creation of the state, we will have to accept the view that if the state can
give us rights, it can take them away as well. Obviously, such an opinion
would make the state absolute. In that case, we would have only those
rights which the state would like to give us.

The Historical Theory of Rights

The historical theory of rights, also called the prescriptive theory, regards
the state as the product of a long historical process. It holds the view that
rights grow from traditions and customs. The conservative Burke argued,
while throwing his weight to the prescriptive theory, that the people have a
right over anything that they exercise or enjoy uninterruptedly over a fairly
long passage of time. So considered, every right is based on the force of long
observance. As traditions and customs stabilise owing to their constant and
continuous usage, they take the shape of rights. The theory has its origins in
the 18th century in the writings of Edmund Burke and was adopted later by
the sociologists. The historical theory of rights is important in so far as it
condemns the legal theory of rights. It is also important in so far as it denies
the theory of natural rights. The state recognises, the advocates of the
historical theory of rights argue, what (the rights including) comes to stay
through long usage. The historical theory of rights suffers from its own
limitations. It cannot be admitted that all our customs result in rights: the
Sati system does not constitute a right nor does infanticide. All our rights
do not have their origins in customs. Right to social security, for example, is
not related to any custom.

The Social Welfare Theory of Rights

The social welfare theory of rights presumes that rights are the conditions
of social welfare. The theory argues that the state should recognize only
such rights as help promote social welfare. Among the modern advocates of
the social welfare theory, the name of Roscoe Pound and Chafee can be
mentioned though Bentham can be said to be its advocate of the 18th
century. The theory implies that rights are the creation of the society in as
much as they are based on the consideration of common welfare: rights are
the conditions of social good which means that claims not in conformity
with the general welfare, and therefore, not recognized by the community
do not become our rights. The social welfare theory of rights is also not
without its faults. It dwells on the factor of social welfare, a term too vague
to be precise. The Benthamite formula ‘greatest good of the greatest
number’ is different to different people. The theory turns out to be the legal
theory of rights if, in the end, the state is to decide what constitutes ‘social
welfare’. A critic like Wilde is of the view that ‘if rights are created by the
consideration of social expediency, the individual is without an appeal and
helplessly dependent upon its arbitrary will.’

The Marxist Theory of Rights

The Marxist theory of rights is understood in terms of the economic system

at a particular period of history. A particular socio-economic formation
would have a particular system of rights. The state, being an instrument in
the hands of the economically dominant class, is itself a class institution
and the law which it formulates is also a class law. So considered, the feudal
state, through feudal laws, protects the system of rights (privileges, for
example) favouring the feudal system. Likewise, the capitalist state,
through the capitalistic laws, protects the system of rights favouring the
capitalist system. To secure rights for all in a class society, the Marxists
argue, is not the object of the class state; rather its aim is to protect and
promote the interests of the class wielding economic power. According to
Marx, the class which controls the economic structure of society also
controls political power and it uses this power to protect and promote its
own interests rather than the interests of all. In the socialist society which
follows the capitalist society, as the Marxian framework suggests, the
socialist state, through the proletarian laws, would protect and promote the
interests/rights of the working class. As the socialist society, unlike the
capitalist society, is a classless society, its state and laws protect the rights
not of any particular class but of all the people living in the classless society.
The Marxists say that the socialist state, as an instrument of social and
political and economic change, would seek to establish socialism which will
be based on the principle of ‘from each to his ability to each according to his
work’, the system of rights for all would follow this pattern: economic rights
(work, social security) first, followed by social rights (education) and
political rights (franchise rights). The Marxist theory of rights, like Marxism
itself, suffers from its deterministic ideology, though its emphasis on non-
exploitative socialist system is its characteristic feature. Neither the
economic factor alone provides the basis of society nor the superstructure is
the reflection of only the economic base; for non-economic forces also play
their role in determining the superstructure.

Rights are social claims necessary for the development of human

personality. These belong to the individuals and they provide conditions
without which they cannot seek to be themselves. They are social: given by
the society and secured by the state. Even the state cannot take them away
from the individuals. They reflect a particular stage of the development of
society. As the society changes, so do the character and content of rights.
Theories regarding rights reflect partial treatment about their meanings,
origin and nature. The theory of natural rights is correct so long as it lays
emphasis on the fact that rights are natural because they are in the nature
of social claims. Likewise, the legal theory of rights speaks the truth in so
far as it makes the state the guarantor of our rights. Rights are of numerous
kinds. Those rights which are available to human beings include: right to
life, equality, security of person and property, freedom, education, work,
freedom of religion, to vote, to hold public office. The liberal democratic
societies lay more emphasis on personal and political rather than economic
and social rights. The socialist societies advocate the opposite arrangement
of rights. Laski, as a liberal leaning towards the Left, considers rights
essential for individual development, but grants economic rights followed
by social and political rights. The UN Declaration of Human Rights
provides for a list of basic rights available to human beings as human
beings.
Evolution of Human Rights

“Human rights” are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of our
nationality, residence, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, national
or ethnic origin, color, religion, language or any other status. We are all
equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.
This is the modern concept of our fundamental rights but it was not always
this way. The belief that everyone, by virtue of her or his
humanity, is entitled to certain human rights is fairly new and is
something stemming from an evolution of the consideration of
human dignity over the last centuries. Its roots lie in earlier tradition
and documents of many cultures.
The origins of Human Rights are ideally pinpointed to the year 539 BC.
when the troops of Cyrus the Great, conquered Babylon. Cyrus freed the
slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion,
and established racial equality. These and other principles were recorded
on a baked-clay cylinder known as the Cyrus Cylinder, whose provisions
served as inspiration for the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
Another cornerstone in Human Rights History is represented by
the promulgation of the Magna Charta in 1215 which introduced a raw
concept of “Rule of Law” and the basic idea of defined rights and liberties to
all persons, which offers protection from arbitrary prosecution and
incarceration. Before the Magna Charta, the rule of law,  now considered as
a key principle for good governance in any modern democratic society,  was
perceived as a divine justice, solely distributed by the monarch or the king
or, in this case, King John of England.
An evolution of the concepts expressed by the Magna Carta is represented
by the English Bill of Rights. It was an act signed into law in 1689 by
William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the
overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and
civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Many
experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the
stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being
an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791).
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted in
1789, by France’s National Assembly , represents one of the basic charters
of human liberties, containing the principles that inspired the French
Revolution.
The basic value introduced by the Declaration was that all “men are born
and remain free and equal in rights”, which were specified as the rights of
liberty, private property, the inviolability of the person, and resistance to
oppression. All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right
to participate in legislation directly or indirectly; no one was to be arrested
without a judicial order. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech were
safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law”. Private property
was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state
only if an indemnity were given and offices and positions were opened to all
citizens.
It is in this historical period that the concept, mostly based on political
concerns, of Civil and Political Rights was defined. These rights, also known
as first generation rights, recognise the existence of certain things that the
all-powerful rulers should not be able to do and that people should have
some influence over the policies affecting them. The two central ideas were
those of personal liberty, and of protecting the individuals against
violations by the State. They serve negatively to protect the individual from
excesses of the State.
The steps forward made since the time of Cyrus were impressive, yet
still many of these concepts, when originally translated into policies,
excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious,
economic, and political groups.
Prime examples to overcome this situation are represented by the efforts in
the 19th and early 20th centuries to prohibit the slave trade and to limit the
horrors of war.
Significant is the adoption of the first three Geneva Conventions and
the Hague Conventions expressing the deep concern of the
public opinion to promote a respect of a basic level of Human
dignity of individuals even in wartime and posing the
foundations of  modern International Humanitarian Law. The
concerns over the protection of certain minority groups, which were raised
by the League of Nations at the end of the First World War, and the
establishment of the International Labor Organization (ILO) to oversee
treaties protecting workers with respect to their rights, including their
health and safety, manifest the increased positive attitude toward the
recognition of the importance of Human Rights as we know them today.
The time for a revolution and a deep progress in the protection and
promotion of human dignity was ripe. Eventually, it took the catalyst of
World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the
global conscience. The unprecedented cruelties perpetrated during the
conflict and outside it such as the extermination by Nazi Germany of over
six million Jews, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), homosexuals, and persons
with disabilities horrified the world. The idea of human rights thus emerged
even stronger than ever after World War II. The Trials held in Nuremberg
and Tokyo after World War II, introduced the rather new concepts of
"crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity."
Governments then committed themselves to establishing the United
Nations, with the primary goal of bolstering international peace and
preventing conflict. People wanted to ensure that never again would anyone
be unjustly denied life, freedom, food, shelter, and nationality.
It was the 1945 and the fifty founding members of the United Nations
stated, in the preamble of the UN Charter, that they were determined to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our
lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person,
in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations
arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be
maintained in order to promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom.
In the first article of the same Charter, Member states pledged “to achieve
international co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and, in promoting
and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
A strong political commitment was set and to advance on these goals, a
Commission on Human Rights was immediately established and charged
with the task of drafting a document spelling out the meaning of the
fundamental rights and freedoms proclaimed in the Charter. Three years
later, The Commission, guided by Eleanor Roosevelt’s forceful leadership,
captured the world’s attention, drafting the 30 articles that now make up
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Declaration was presented to the world, acting for the first
time as a recognized and internationally accepted charter, whose
first article states that “All human beings are born free and equal
in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood."
The UDHR, although not legally binding, introduces the concept that how a
government treats its own citizens is now a matter of legitimate
international concern, and not simply a domestic issue, and that  the
exercise of a person's rights and freedoms may be subject to certain
limitations, which must be determined by law, solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition of the rights and freedoms of others and of
meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society.
Its Preamble eloquently asserts that: recognition of the inherent dignity
and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family
is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world. It restates the
already identified civil and political rights and introduces the so-called
second generation rights, fundamentally economic, social, and cultural in
nature, furthermore claiming that all rights are interdependent and
indivisible.
The message was clear and powerful, the realization of one Right is linked
to the realization of the others. All human rights are indivisible, whether
they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the
law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as
the rights to work, social security and education, or collective rights, such
as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible,
interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates
advancement of the others. Similarly, the deprivation of one right hampers
the improvement and enjoyment of the others.
The influence of the UDHR has been substantial and together with
the  International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  and
on Civil and Political Rights it constitutes the so defined “International Bill
of Rights” that lays down the obligations of Governments to act in certain
ways or to refrain from specific acts, in order to promote and protect
human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

The UDHR, the ECHR and other treaties cover a wide range of different
rights, so we shall look at them in the order in which they were developed
and were recognised regionally or by the international community. The
most established way of classifying these rights is into 'first, second and
third generation' rights.

Civil and Political Rights (first generation rights)

These rights began to emerge as a theory during the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries and were based mostly on political concerns. It had
begun to be recognised that there were certain things that the all-powerful
rulers should not be able to do and that people should have some influence
over the policies that affected them. The two central ideas were those of
personal liberty, and of protecting the individual against violations by the
state.
Civil and political rights today are set out in detail in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and in the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (ECHR), and they include rights such as the right to participate
in government and the prohibition of torture. These rights have
traditionally been regarded by many – at least in "the West" – as the most
important human rights.
Human rights are prone to political abuse
During the Cold War, the countries of the Soviet block were severely
criticised for their disregard of civil and political rights. These countries
responded by criticising the western democracies, in turn, for ignoring key
social and economic rights, which we shall look at next. There was at least
an element of truth in both criticisms. It also illustrates how human rights
are prone to political abuse
Social and Economic Rights (second generation rights)
These rights concern how people live and work together and, the basic
necessities of life. They are based on the ideas of equality and guaranteed
access to essential social and economic goods, services, and opportunities.
They became increasingly a subject of international recognition with the
effects of early industrialization and the rise of a working class. These led to
new demands and new ideas about the meaning of a life of dignity. People
realized that human dignity required more than the minimal lack of
interference from the state as proposed by the civil and political rights.
Social, economic and cultural rights are outlined in the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and also in
the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe.
Social, economic and cultural rights are based on the ideas of equality and
guaranteed  access to essential social and economic goods, services, and
opportunities.
 Social rights are those that are necessary for full participation in the
life of society. . They include at least the right to education and the
right to found and maintain a family but also many of the rights often
regarded as 'civil' rights: for example, the rights to recreation, health
care, privacy and freedom from discrimination.
 Economic rights are normally thought to include the right to work, to
an adequate standard of living, to housing and the right to a pension
if you are old or disabled. The economic rights reflect the fact that a
certain minimal level of material security is necessary for human
dignity, and also the fact that, for example, a lack of meaningful
employment or housing can be psychologically demeaning...
 Cultural Rights refer to a community's cultural "way of life" and are
often given less attention than many of the other types of rights. They
include the right to participate freely in the cultural life of the
community and, possibly, also the right to education. However, many
other rights, not officially classed as "cultural" will be essential for
minority communities within a society to preserve their distinctive
culture: for example, the right to non-discrimination and equal
protection of the law.

Solidarity rights (third generation rights)

The list of internationally recognised human rights has not remained
constant. Although none of the rights listed in the UDHR has been brought
into and further developed serious question in over 60 years of its
existence, new treaties and documents have clarified some of the basic
concepts that were laid down in that original document.
These additions have been a result of a number of factors: they have partly
come about as a response to changing ideas about human dignity, and
partly as a result of new threats and opportunities emerging. In the case of
the specific new category of rights that have been proposed as third
generation rights, these have been the consequence of a deeper
understanding of the different types of obstacles that may stand in the way
of realising the first and second generation rights.
The idea at the basis of the third generation of rights is that of solidarity;
and the rights embrace collective rights of society or peoples, such as the
right to sustainable development, to peace or to a healthy environment. In
much of the world, conditions such as extreme poverty, war, ecological and
natural disasters have meant that there has been only very limited progress
in respect of human rights. For that reason, many people have felt that the
recognition of a new category of human rights is necessary: these rights
would ensure the appropriate conditions for societies, particularly in the
developing world, to be able to provide the first and second generation
rights that have already been recognised.
The specific rights that are most commonly included within the category of
third generation rights are the rights to development, to peace, to a healthy
environment, to share in the exploitation of the common heritage of
mankind, to communication and humanitarian assistance.