Page 2 :
Thesries of Rights: From time to time, various explanations, -egarding the origin and nature of rights have been’given that have led, to the emergence of different theories in this direction. These are:, , In the first place, we take up the. rheory of natural rights. It holds, that rights being rationally deducible from man’s nature have their, universal application irrespective of the difference of place, time and, environment. The nature is the author of certain rights that have a, universal, rational, eternal and immutable character. The Stoics of, ancient Greece upheld the right to equality as given to us by nature., The Roman thinkers like Polybius and Cicero emphasised the existence, of law of nature to which the laws of the state must conform. The, Pprincinies of the law of nature may be understood by man by his, Tational power. But these principles are of a universal and eternal, characier. In modern times, Thomas Hobbes defined right to life as a, natural right which even the sovereign of the state could not jeopardise. But the name of John Locke is very important who treated three, rights {relating to life, liberty and property) as natural rights. Effective, protection of the natural rights is the responsibility of the state. In, case the sovereign authority is incapable of fulfilling the trust of the, people, the contract may be dissolved and a new sovereign may be, chosen in stead for securing effective protection of natural rights., , The doctrine of natural rights became so popular in the early phase, of the modern age that it saw its incorporation into important, declarations as those of American independence of 1776 and of, French Revolution of 1789. Even the Universal Declaration of Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, , 9. N.P. Barry; An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, pp. 186-87., , 10. H.A.L. Hart: “Are There any Natural Rights?” in Anthony Quinton (ed.):, Political Philosophy, pp. 60-64,

Page 3 :
RIGHTS, LIBERTY AND EQUALITY 179, , invokes the spirit of this theory when it says: “All human beings are, born free and equal in dignity and rights.” In fine, the whole idea of, natural rights is based on the assumption that irrespective of his mzrit, as an individual in his personal or moral capacity, man is at least, equal to all others in human worth. Even convicted criminals who, have violated the rights of others and, therefore, donot score highly in, moral grading, still have the right not to be treated in cruel or inhuman ways by the jail staff,.2, The implications of ‘natural rights’ are:!2, , 1, There is an historical affirmation that man pre-existed society., , 2. There is a moral and metaphysical assumption that man is a, creature who possesses certain rights by virture of the general, nature and plan of the universe and of the part -which he has, to play in carrying out the plan of the universe., , 3. In order that these rights may be preserved, he° forms, society., , 4, Rights, then, are not created by society, but are brought by, men into society., , 5. The purpose of society is to secure man’s rights.’, 6. If it does not do so, the individual has a right to rebel., 7. Man has no right to rebel, even if he does not, because society, , is, after all, formed to secure his rights, as a whole, and, even if on a particular occasion it appears to violate one of, them, it does so only that it may better secure them asa, whole; or it does so only in order that it may better secure, the rights of the most of its members even if it does not, secure the rights of a particular member at’ a particular, moment, or of a particular member at any moment., , The theory of natural rights may be criticised on some important, grounds, First, it is incorrect to say that rights may be available in the, pre-poli:ical stage. To say that some rights are created by nature is, to say that some rights are available to man just after his birth. But,, as we have already seen, there are no rights unless there is some, machinery to give them effective recognition or protection. The second, difficulty is that rights are created in a well-organised social system., A man living in a forest or in some unknown island bas no rights of, his own, Robinson Crusoe had no rights until he met Man Friday.!®, , ll. Barry, op. cit., p. 192., 12. C.E.M. Joad: Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Politics, p. 545., 13, Benn and Peters: Social Principles and the Democratic State, p. 97.

Page 4 :
180 PRINCIPLES OF MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE, , Third, it is impossible to prepare a list of natural rights. We may, refer to the names of Cicero, Hobbes and Locke, but we may not, offer a precise definition of the term ‘natural right’, nor can we prepare a catalogue of such rights. The fact is that there “is no official,, or complete, or generally agreed upon list of natural rights.”!4 Last,, to treat rights as pre-political is to make them absolute or beyond the, control of the state. The doctrine of natural rights becomes like a, dogma at the hands of anti-statists. The new notion is that all rights, are subject to the consideration of social welfare. The state may, impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise or enjoyment of any, right that a man possesses. That is, our rights must be associated with, the consideration of usefulness or utility to the community. Jeremy, Bentham, therefore, scoffed at the doctrine of natural rights by calling, them as ‘rhetorical nonsense upon stilts’, Laski also rejects the whole, case of natural rights, and yet he realises the significance of this, theory in a different way 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,’?!5