Theories of Human Rights PDF

**THEORY OF NATURAL RIGHT\'S** It states that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and no government can deny these rights. The natural rights evolved out of the-natural law that peoples are the creatures of nature. They exist their lives and organize their society on the bas...

**THEORY OF NATURAL RIGHT\'S** It states that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and no government can deny these rights. The natural rights evolved out of the-natural law that peoples are the creatures of nature. They exist their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and principles laid down by nature. When the idea of individualism developed in the 17th century, theory of natural law was modified and focussed on the rights of the individuals4.Itcannot be violated by anyone or by any society because they are natural beings. Therefore, we can clearly say that today\'s human rights are the child of ancient natural rights. The most notable expression of this doctrine is found in the writings of John Locke. John Locke argued that all individuals were gifted by nature with the inherent rights to life, liberty and property of their own and could not be removed or abolished by state. Two things are evident from his view of natural rights, one is the-individual is an autonomous being capable of exercising choice and the second is the legitimacy of government depends not only upon the will of the people, but also upon the government\'s willingness and ability to protect those individual natural rights. Accordingly, human beings are rational and good by nature and they carried the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society into political society and important among them are freedom of worship, the right to a voice of their own government and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempts to settle the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. Rousseau declared that natural law conferred inalienable sovereignty on the citizens of the state as a whole. The most significant details of idea of natural rights came from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine made the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution Positivists strongly oppose these theories because they gave importance to society not for individual rights. **THEORY OF SOCIAL RIGHTS** The theory of Social rights states that rights are the conditions of society. It is the creation of society, law, customs, traditions and yield to what is socially useful or socially desirable. What is socially useful should have for its test the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The real advocators of this theory were Bentham and Mill. They established the principle of greatest happiness of the greatest number and made it for the measure of utility. But utility should be determined by considerations of reason and experience according to them. Laski accepts utility as the basis of rights. He agreed that the test of right is utility and the utility of a right is its value to all the members of the State. Rights are not independent of society, but inherent in it. One\'s rights are built upon one\'s contribution to the well-being of society. Rights are built upon their utility to the individual and the community. Utility is the measuring rod of a particular right. The theory has its appeal in the sense of justice and reason. **THEORY OF LEGAL RIGHTS** According to this theory rights are created and maintained by the state\". The state is the only source of right and outside the state an individual has no rights at all and never claim rights against state. The theory further maintains that rights are not natural to man. The political pluralists object this theory, because the state does not create rights but it only recognizes them. One of the main exponents of this theory was Austin. There are lot of criticism about this theory because it does not provide an adequate basis of right. It might tell us the character of a particular state but it does not tell us what rights need recognition. This theory will lead to despotic state and tyranny of laws. It does not provide a basis to know what right ought to be ensured. Rights are in fact not what the state grants what the man needs for his self-development and what the state should grant. **THEORY OF HISTORICAL RIGHTS** According to this theory, rights are the product of history and originate in its customs? which passed from one generation to another. It gives emphasis to custom. They are considered fundamental to the growth and development of man, because they are maintained by a long unbroken custom and the generations have habitually followed them. The scholar Burke maintains that the French Revolution was based on the abstract rights of man, whereas the Glorious Revolution of England was based on the customary rights of the people of that country. There is much truth in what Burke says because the French Revolution itself was the result of the prevailed conditions of that country, but its slogan was liberty, equality and fraternity These three abstract principles were universally applied. On the other hand, the Glorious Revolution was simply a reaffirmation of the historic liberties of English, had their heritage since the days of the Anglo Saxons. It found due expression in Magna Carta, Petition of Rights and various other documents of constitutional importance. It is to note that many of our rights are really originated in our primitive customs. At the same time it does not mean the origin of all rights can be traced to customs and traditions. When rights are rigidly tied to customs alone, we entirely ignore the dynamic nature of society and the changing capacities of rights. Rights change with the facts of time and place. **THEORY OF ECONOMIC RIGHTS** It finds its inspiration in the teaching of Karl Marx. It rejects the concept of natural and other rights, stated from time to time as an explanation of the nature of rights. Marx\'s idea is simple and even convincing too to certain extent. According to him the State is powerful agency to uphold the particular type of social organisation and law is a tool of the State that preserves and safeguards the interests of the dominant group in the society\'. He explained that political, social, religious and other institutions are determined by economic components, which is essentially the mode of production. To each stage of production in the development of society corresponds as appropriate political form and an appropriate class structure. Every system of production lead to the rise of two opposite classes \-- the exploiters and the exploited. Laski agrees with Marx\'s idea and maintains that the way the economic power is distributed at any given time and place will shape the character of legal duties which are imposed on that time and place. The economically powerful group in society dominates, controls and regulates the machinery of the government and occupies all the key positions of power. The laws are so made and the policies of the governing class are so devised and formulated that they protect the interests of this group alone. Consequently, the dogmas of equality before the law and other fundamental rights of the people are only a cloak of inequality, i.e. slavery. Rights are, as such, neither the product of human nature nor their origin can be traced to the ancient customs, or in their inherent utility, nor are rights the result of external conditions essential to man\'s internal and real development. The economic structure of society at a given period of time is the foundation on which the political system of a country is built. In a capitalist society, the aim and nature of rights are to promote and foster the interests and privileges of the dominant economic group that owns productive forces. For the masses rights are the instruments of their enslavement. Karl Marx finally believes that rights can exist and flourish only in a classless society where all are equal and no one is to be an exploiter. He ignored all talk of rights in the capitalist society and regarded fundamental rights the pillars of democracy and the fetish of bourgeois jurisprudence. **CONCLUSION** The description of theories of rights express the fact that rights are originated inherently in human beings. However, it is helpful to the development of the human beings. Rights are the properties of human beings. It is necessary and useful for the social development. Human life is upgraded through these rights. Human rights are not just a product of morality but protect the basic freedom and well-being necessary for human agency. Human rights represent a social choice of a particular moral vision of human potentiality, which rests on a