rights

1. Introduction

The concept of rights occupies a central place in moral philosophy, political theory, and law. In contemporary usage, rights are typically understood as justified claims or entitlements that individuals or groups hold, often correlating with duties or obligations in others. Philosophers and jurists have treated rights as key building blocks for analyzing liberty, authority, justice, and legitimate coercion.

Despite this apparent consensus, the idea of rights is historically contingent and conceptually contested. Ancient and medieval thinkers tended to focus on justice, law, and duty, and only gradually developed the notion of a subjective right—a position or claim that inheres in a particular person. Early modern natural law theorists formulated influential accounts of natural rights, while modern liberal and socialist traditions gave divergent interpretations of what rights protect and whose interests they serve. Twentieth‑century philosophy and jurisprudence further refined the analysis of different types of rights and their logical structure.

The modern vocabulary of human rights and legal rights reflects both these historical layers and ongoing theoretical disputes. Some theorists treat rights as fundamental moral constraints or as the primary units of justice; others view them as tools for protecting important interests; still others criticize rights discourse as individualistic, ideological, or culturally specific.

Subsequent sections examine the linguistic origins of “rights,” its semantic field, and key historical transformations—from customary orders and classical ideas of justice, through scholastic and early modern natural law, to Kantian, liberal, socialist, and Marxist frameworks. They also survey contemporary analytical taxonomies, debates about the foundations of rights, their relationship to duties, liberty, and justice, and their role in international and non‑Western contexts.

2. Etymology and Linguistic Origins

The English word “right(s)” derives from Middle English right, from Old English riht (also ryht), meaning “that which is straight, correct, just, or lawful.” This, in turn, stems from Proto‑Germanic *rehtaz and ultimately Proto‑Indo‑European *h₃reǵ- (“straight, rule, direct”), evoking the image of the “straight” as opposed to the “bent” or “wrong.”

Parallel to this Germanic lineage, the juridical and philosophical sense of rights in European thought was decisively shaped by Latin ius (plural iura), which could mean “right,” “law,” or “the just.” In Roman law, ius denoted both the body of law (ius civile, ius gentium) and the lawful position or entitlement of a person. Medieval scholastics elaborated ius naturale (natural right) and later moved toward a subjective understanding of ius as a facultas (power or faculty).

Modern European languages preserve this dual heritage:

This overlap between “right” as correct/just and “right” as entitlement has influenced philosophical debates. Some traditions emphasize objective right (the just order or correct norm), while others focus on subjective right (a legal or moral position held by a subject). The Greek vocabulary—dikaiosynē (justice), nomos (law), to dikaion (the just)—lacked a direct equivalent for subjective rights, which has led to interpretive difficulties when mapping ancient texts onto modern rights language.

3. Semantic Field and Related Terms

The semantic field of rights is intertwined with a cluster of legal, moral, and political terms whose meanings overlap but are not identical. Historical and contemporary theorists distinguish these concepts to clarify the structure of normative relations.

Key neighboring terms include:

Philosophers distinguish rights from mere permissions or privileges. A legal permission may allow an action without imposing duties on others; a right, in many theories, implies structured correlative positions (such as duties, liabilities, or immunities) in other agents or institutions.

The terms subjective right and objective right capture a historical shift. Objective right denotes what is just or lawful in an impersonal sense (“it is right that…”). Subjective right denotes a position held by a subject (“A has a right to…”). Medieval and early modern debates over ius often revolve around this transition.

In contemporary jurisprudence, especially following Hohfeld (see Section 10), “right” is sometimes used in a narrower, technical sense (as claim‑right) and sometimes in a broader, lay sense covering liberties, powers, and immunities, which can generate ambiguity if not specified.

4. Pre-Philosophical and Customary Usage

Before the crystallization of explicit rights theories, many societies regulated conduct through custom, status, and roles rather than through articulated individual entitlements. Normative language typically focused on what was proper, fitting, or in accordance with custom, rather than on what someone “had a right” to do or receive.

In early Indo‑European and Germanic cultures, the root of “right” denoted what was “straight” or “upright.” Old English riht covered correctness, justice, and conformity to law or custom. Similarly, in many early legal traditions (e.g., the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, ancient Near Eastern law codes), norms are framed as royal decrees or divine ordinances specifying obligations, penalties, and privileges attached to positions such as household head, vassal, or priest.

Social order was often conceptualized in status terms:

Within such frameworks, what later would be described as a “right” often appeared as a customary entitlement or privilege attached to a position (e.g., a noble’s right to certain revenues, a citizen’s access to common land). These entitlements were typically embedded in a web of reciprocal duties and could be conceptualized as part of the objective order of justice rather than as free‑standing claims of individuals.

Anthropologists and legal historians argue that many pre‑philosophical systems possessed functionally equivalent structures to rights—such as recognized claims enforceable by communal sanction—without employing an explicit subjective rights vocabulary. The transition to a language of individual rights thus represents not the creation of entirely new social practices, but a re‑description and re‑organization of existing normative expectations.

5. Ancient and Classical Antecedents

Ancient Greek and Roman thought did not prominently feature subjective rights, but developed concepts that later informed rights theories, especially ideas of justice, law, and personhood.

Greek Thought

Classical Greek philosophy centered on justice (dikaiosynē) and the just (to dikaion), understood as a virtue of individuals and a property of political arrangements. Plato and Aristotle analyzed distributive and corrective justice, focusing on proportionality and equality. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Politics discuss what individuals are “due,” but in terms of their place in a teleological social order rather than as universal individual rights.

The concept of citizenship in the polis entailed specific capacities—participation in deliberation and office‑holding—that resemble modern political rights, yet they were contingent on membership in a particular community and restricted by gender, status, and origin.

Stoicism and Natural Law

The Stoics developed a cosmopolitan perspective, asserting that all human beings share reason and belong to a universal community. Later Roman Stoics, such as Cicero, articulated the idea of natural law, a rational order binding all humans:

"

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.”

— Cicero, De re publica, III.22

While not framed in terms of rights, this universalist outlook provided a foundation for later natural rights theories.

Roman Law and Ius

Roman jurists elaborated sophisticated categories of ius (right/law). They distinguished:

Roman legal practice recognized protected legal positions—such as ownership, contractual claims, and familial authority—that some historians interpret as proto‑subjective rights. However, whether Roman ius should be translated as “right” in the modern sense is debated, since it often referred to the objective legal order and the judgments of magistrates rather than to individual claims as such.

6. Medieval Scholastic Transformations of Ius

Medieval scholasticism, drawing on Roman law and Christian theology, played a pivotal role in transforming ius from an objective notion of the just order into a more subjective conception of individual rights.

From Objective to Subjective Ius

Early scholastics, including Thomas Aquinas, primarily understood ius as the objectively just (id quod iustum est). In Summa Theologiae II–II, q.57, Aquinas defines ius as the “object of justice,” focusing on right relations rather than personal entitlements.

Later scholastics, especially in the late medieval and early modern period, began to describe ius also as a facultas—a moral power or capacity inhering in a person. Figures such as John of Paris, William of Ockham, and, in the Iberian School, Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez, contributed to this shift.

Dominium and Property

Debates over dominium (lordship, ownership) were central. Scholastics asked in what sense individuals could have rightful control over things and political communities. Some argued that natural law grants individuals a right to use and hold property; others emphasized that property regimes arise from human positive law but are constrained by natural justice (e.g., duties of charity in cases of necessity).

Political and Religious Contexts

Controversies about papal and imperial power, ecclesiastical property, and the treatment of non‑Christians prompted more explicit reference to rights:

• In just war and colonial debates, Vitoria argued that even non‑Christian peoples possessed natural rights to sovereignty and property.
• Discussions of consent and resistance to tyranny encouraged the idea that political communities and individuals had rights against rulers.

Scholars disagree on whether scholastic thought fully realized a modern subjective rights doctrine or merely approximated it. Nonetheless, this period bridges Roman legal concepts and the more individualistic natural rights theories of the early modern era.

7. Early Modern Natural Rights Theories

Early modern natural law thinkers articulated influential theories of natural rights—pre‑political entitlements held by individuals independently of positive law. These theories emerged amid religious conflict, state formation, and expanding commerce and colonization.

Key Figures and Themes

State of Nature and Social Contract

Many early modern theorists used the state of nature as a thought experiment to explain rights. In Hobbes’s account, the state of nature is a condition of insecurity where each has an unrestricted right to self‑preservation, leading to conflict. A social contract establishes a sovereign with extensive powers, while subjects retain only limited rights (e.g., to preserve life).

Locke, by contrast, depicts the state of nature as governed by natural law, where individuals already have rights to life, liberty, and property. Civil government is instituted chiefly to secure these rights more effectively, and when it fails to do so, people retain a right of resistance.

Property and Self‑Ownership

A central theme is the derivation of property rights from self‑ownership. Locke famously argues:

"

“Every man has a property in his own person.”

— Locke, Second Treatise, §27

Through mixing one’s labor with unowned resources, one acquires private property, subject to provisos concerning sufficiency for others.

Religious and Secular Foundations

Some natural rights theorists grounded rights in divine ownership and the law of God; others, like Grotius in a widely cited passage, suggested natural law would have validity even absent divine will. This raised questions about whether natural rights are theological, rational, or conventional in origin.

These early modern frameworks profoundly influenced later liberal political thought and constitutional traditions, as well as provoking critiques from communitarian and socialist perspectives (see Sections 9 and 18).

8. Kantian and German Idealist Conceptions of Recht

Immanuel Kant and subsequent German idealists reconceptualized Recht (right/law) in terms of external freedom and the rational structure of a just juridical order.

Kant’s Doctrine of Right

In The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Kant defines right as:

"

“The sum of the conditions under which the choice of one can be united with the choice of another in accordance with a universal law of freedom.”

Key features:

• External freedom: Rights concern external actions and possessions, not inner motives or virtue.
• Universalizability: A rightful condition is one in which everyone’s external freedom can coexist under universal laws.
• Coercion: Legitimate coercion by law is justified to secure this mutual freedom.

Kant distinguishes innate right (a basic right to freedom as independence from being subject to another’s choice) from acquired rights (e.g., property, contract). Private right governs relations between individuals; public right concerns the state (Staat), citizenship, and international relations.

Recht and the State

For Kant, the state has a duty to establish a “juridical condition” in which rights are determinate and enforceable. The rule of law and separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers are seen as requirements of right. However, he also maintains that once a civil constitution is in place, subjects lack a right to revolution, even against unjust rulers, a point that has been widely debated.

German Idealism after Kant

Subsequent German idealists, especially G. W. F. Hegel, further developed the concept of Recht within a broader social and historical framework. In Elements of the Philosophy of Right, Hegel analyzes:

• Abstract right: Personhood and property as expressions of individual will.
• Morality: Intention and conscience.
• Ethical life (Sittlichkeit): Family, civil society, and state as institutions that realize freedom.

Hegel interprets rights not merely as protections against others but as moments in the unfolding of objective spirit, embedded in social institutions and practices.

Debates persist over whether Kantian and Hegelian approaches support primarily individual‑centered or community‑embedded conceptions of rights, and how they relate to later liberal and social democratic theories.

9. Rights in Liberalism, Socialism, and Marxist Critique

Modern political ideologies interpret rights differently, often assigning them distinct roles in visions of social order and justice.

Liberalism

Liberal traditions typically treat rights as primary safeguards of individual freedom and autonomy. Classical liberals emphasize rights to life, liberty, property, and contract, often advocating limited government and strong protections against interference. Later welfare liberals (e.g., T. H. Green, John Rawls) broaden the catalogue to include social and economic rights (education, basic welfare, fair opportunity), arguing that effective liberty requires certain material conditions.

Socialism and Social Democratic Views

Socialist thinkers have offered ambivalent evaluations of rights:

• Some strands view civil and political rights as important achievements that must be preserved and extended, especially for workers and marginalized groups.
• Others argue that formal legal rights are insufficient without economic democracy and control over the means of production.

Many social democratic movements endorse robust social rights—to work, social security, healthcare, and education—as essential complements to classic liberal freedoms.

Marxist Critique

Karl Marx and later Marxists provided one of the most influential critiques of rights discourse. In “On the Jewish Question,” Marx argues that the “rights of man” proclaimed by bourgeois revolutions (e.g., the French Revolution) primarily protect the egoistic individual, severed from communal life:

"

“None of the so‑called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, man as he is, as a member of civil society; that is, an individual separated from the community.”

— Marx, “On the Jewish Question”

Marx contends that rights to property and equality before the law mask underlying class relations and material inequality. In capitalist societies, the formal freedom to contract conceals workers’ economic compulsion to sell their labor power. From this perspective, rights function both as products of capitalist social relations and as ideological veils legitimizing them.

Later Marxists diverged:

These debates shape ongoing disputes about whether rights inherently support individualistic, market‑oriented orders or can underpin collective emancipation and egalitarian transformation.

10. Analytical Taxonomies: Claim-Rights, Liberties, Powers, Immunities

Twentieth‑century analytical jurisprudence refined the concept of rights by distinguishing different Hohfeldian positions, named after legal theorist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld.

Hohfeld’s Four Basic Incidents

Hohfeld argued that “rights” are not a single kind of thing but a family of related normative positions:

For example, a right to repayment of a loan is typically analyzed as a claim‑right correlated with the borrower’s duty. Freedom of speech may be modeled as a complex of liberties (to speak), claims (that government not censor), and immunities (against certain forms of regulation).

Rights as Complexes of Incidents

Many jurists and philosophers treat concrete legal or moral rights as bundles of these incidents. Property rights, for instance, may comprise liberties to use, powers to transfer, claims against interference, and immunities against expropriation.

This analytical taxonomy serves several purposes:

• Clarifying legal reasoning (e.g., whether a “right” entails others’ duties).
• Distinguishing negative liberties (absence of interference) from positive claims (entitlements to provision).
• Illuminating conflicts between rights, by specifying which incidents collide.

Critics note that Hohfeld’s scheme is largely formal: it does not itself address the moral foundations or justification of rights (topics taken up in Section 12), but rather the logical relations among normative positions within a given system.

11. Natural, Human, and Legal Rights

Contemporary discourse commonly distinguishes natural, human, and legal rights, though the boundaries between these categories are contested.

Natural Rights

Natural rights are held to belong to persons by virtue of human nature, reason, or divine will, independent of social convention or positive law. Early modern theorists like Locke, Grotius, and Pufendorf posited natural rights in a pre‑political “state of nature.” Proponents regard such rights as:

• Universal (applying to all humans),
• Inalienable (not legitimately transferable or waivable, at least in core cases),
• Prior to the state (limiting what governments may do).

Critics argue that appeals to “nature” can be vague or reflect historically specific moral assumptions.

Human Rights

Human rights are a more recent, broadly universalist notion, often associated with post‑World War II international instruments, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). They are generally understood as:

• Rights held by all human beings as such, regardless of citizenship.
• Having both moral and legal‑political dimensions: some view them as independent moral standards, others as primarily products of international law and practice.
• Including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

Some theorists regard human rights as a secularized form of natural rights; others see them as a distinct, historically specific vocabulary centered on global concern for basic interests and protections.

Legal Rights

Legal rights are rights that exist because they are recognized and enforced by a particular legal system. They are:

• Jurisdiction‑specific (e.g., rights under a national constitution).
• Often codified in statutes, case law, or constitutional provisions.
• Variable over time, as legislatures and courts reinterpret or amend the law.

A person may have a moral right not to be tortured even where no legal protections exist; conversely, some legal rights (e.g., tax deductions) may lack an obvious independent moral foundation.

Relations Among the Categories

The relationships between these categories are conceptual and practical:

Philosophers disagree on whether natural/human rights are best understood as moral realities, social constructions, or practical tools, and how they should inform positive law.

12. Foundations of Rights: Will and Interest Theories

Debates about the foundations of rights concern what it means, at a deeper level, to say that someone “has a right.” Two influential families of theories are the will theory and the interest theory.

Will Theory

According to will theorists, a right is fundamentally a form of normative control over others’ duties. A right‑holder is someone who can exercise choice about whether a duty should be enforced, waived, or transferred.

Key features attributed to will theories:

• Rights protect and express autonomy or freedom of choice.
• Correlative duties are, in some sense, at the disposal of the right‑holder (e.g., waivable contractual rights).
• Only beings capable of choice and agency (e.g., competent adults) can be full right‑holders.

Proponents (e.g., H. L. A. Hart in “Are There Any Natural Rights?”) argue that this captures the distinctive agency‑protecting function of rights.

Critics note difficulties in accounting for widely recognized rights of those lacking full agency, such as children, severely disabled persons, or future generations, unless mediated through representatives.

Interest Theory

Interest theorists instead hold that a right is a protected interest—an aspect of a person’s well‑being sufficiently important to impose duties on others, or to justify legal or moral constraints.

Characteristic claims:

• Rights serve to advance or protect significant interests (e.g., bodily integrity, education, cultural identity).
• The capacity for choice is not essential; thus, entities without robust agency (children, animals, perhaps ecosystems) can in principle be right‑holders.
• Many rights are non‑waivable, since the underlying interests should not be sacrificed at will.

Prominent interest theorists include Joseph Raz, who argues that X has a right when an aspect of X’s well‑being is sufficient ground for holding others under a duty.

Hybrid and Critical Approaches

Some philosophers propose hybrid theories combining will and interest elements, suggesting that rights protect interests by giving right‑holders control powers where appropriate. Others challenge the entire project of foundational accounts, viewing rights as pragmatic tools or as embedded in specific legal and political practices rather than grounded in a single overarching function.

Disputes between will and interest theories affect discussions of:

• Who or what can be a rights‑bearer (see also Section 15).
• Which rights are alienable or waivable.
• The proper design of legal institutions and representation.

13. Rights, Duties, and Responsibilities

Rights are closely connected to duties and responsibilities, though theories differ on the nature and direction of these relationships.

Correlativity of Rights and Duties

A widely held view, influenced by both natural law and Hohfeld’s analysis, is that certain rights (especially claim‑rights) are correlative with duties: if A has a right that B do (or refrain from) φ, then B has a duty toward A regarding φ.

Some theorists extend correlativity to all genuine rights; others allow liberty‑rights or immunities without straightforward duty counterparts.

Duties Without Correlative Rights

Traditions of virtue ethics, religious morality, and civic republicanism highlight duties that do not necessarily correspond to individual rights, such as duties of beneficence, solidarity, or civic participation. For example, one might have a duty to aid those in extreme need even if no particular person can claim this aid as a right.

This raises questions about whether rights‑based moral frameworks are complete, or whether they overlook important aspects of ethical life.

Responsibilities and Social Roles

The term responsibility often denotes a broader set of expectations attached to roles (e.g., parent, doctor, public official). Responsibilities can include:

• Legal obligations (backed by sanctions).
• Moral duties (backed by social or conscience‑based pressures).
• Professional or role‑specific standards.

In some debates, especially about “rights talk,” critics contend that emphasis on rights may eclipse a sense of responsibility to others and to the community. Supporters of rights language may respond that properly understood, rights frameworks already embed duties and responsibilities, such as citizens’ duties to uphold just institutions.

Direction of Priority

Philosophers disagree on whether:

• Rights are primary, with duties derived from them, or
• Duties are primary, with rights emerging as corollaries.

Natural rights theorists often take rights as basic, while some neo‑Aristotelian and communitarian thinkers emphasize a duty‑centered or virtue‑centered starting point.

These differing emphases shape broader accounts of political obligation, distributive justice, and social ethics.

14. Rights, Liberty, and Justice

Rights intersect with the concepts of liberty and justice, and theories of rights often presuppose or help define these broader values.

Rights and Liberty

Liberty commonly refers to a condition of freedom from constraint or interference. Rights relate to liberty in several ways:

• Rights to liberty: Specific liberties (e.g., expression, association, movement) are protected by corresponding rights.
• Negative vs positive liberty: Following Isaiah Berlin’s distinction, negative liberty involves absence of interference, while positive liberty concerns capacities to act or self‑realize. Rights discourse encompasses both: some rights protect against interference; others (e.g., education, welfare) aim to secure conditions for effective agency.
• Limits on liberty: One person’s liberty may conflict with another’s; rights frameworks specify legitimate constraints on liberty to ensure mutual freedom (as in Kant’s account of Recht).

Rights and Justice

Justice concerns what is due or owed to persons and how benefits and burdens should be distributed. Different theories of justice assign differing roles to rights:

Some theorists view rights as constitutive of justice—to specify just institutions is largely to specify who has which rights. Others argue that rights are derivative, grounded in more fundamental considerations such as happiness, capabilities, or social equality.

Conflicts and Balancing

Rights may conflict with one another or with collective goals (e.g., privacy vs security). Legal and philosophical discussions address:

• How to prioritize or balance rights (e.g., through proportionality tests).
• Whether some rights are absolute or non‑derogable (e.g., prohibitions on torture in many human rights instruments).
• How conceptions of justice inform legitimate limitations on rights.

Debates over the relation between rights, liberty, and justice continue to shape constitutional design, public policy, and theories of democratic legitimacy.

15. Collective, Group, and Future-Oriented Rights

While many rights theories focus on individuals, contemporary debates increasingly address collective, group, and future‑oriented rights.

Collective and Group Rights

Collective rights are rights held by groups as such (e.g., peoples, nations, minority cultures), not merely by their individual members. Examples include:

• Rights of peoples to self‑determination.
• Indigenous communities’ rights over traditional lands and cultural heritage.
• Linguistic or cultural minorities’ rights to maintain institutions and practices.

Supporters of group rights argue that:

• Some interests (e.g., cultural survival, political self‑rule) are inherently collective.
• Protecting individual rights alone may be insufficient to safeguard vulnerable groups against assimilation or domination.

Critics worry that:

• Group rights may conflict with individual rights within the group (e.g., gender equality vs traditional practices).
• Identifying and authorizing legitimate group representatives can be contentious.

Corporate and Institutional Rights

Some legal systems also recognize rights of corporations and other artificial persons (e.g., churches, NGOs). These rights (property, expression, due process) are often justified instrumentally, as enabling collective endeavors, though philosophical views diverge on whether corporate entities can genuinely be right‑holders or are mere legal fictions.

Future-Oriented and Intergenerational Rights

Debates about environmental protection, climate change, and public debt have prompted discussion of rights of future generations:

• Some theorists claim that people who will exist in the future have rights to a livable environment, resources, or social institutions.
• Others express conceptual reservations about ascribing rights to non‑existent or indeterminate persons.

Relatedly, the idea of rights of non‑human animals or even ecosystems has gained attention. Interest theorists may allow such rights insofar as animals or ecosystems have morally considerable interests (e.g., avoiding suffering, ecological integrity), while will theorists may require representation or alternative foundations.

These discussions challenge traditional assumptions about who can be a right‑holder and how rights frameworks can address long‑term collective goods and global environmental risks.

16. Translation Challenges and Conceptual Anachronism

Because the language of “rights” is historically specific, translating earlier or non‑Western texts into modern rights terminology poses significant difficulties.

Semantic Non‑Equivalence

Key terms—Latin ius, Greek dikaiosynē or to dikaion, French droit, German Recht—do not map neatly onto English “right.” They often combine meanings of law, justice, and entitlement. Translating:

• ius simply as “right” may suggest a subjective claim where the original text referred to an objective norm or legal order.
• Recht as “right” may obscure its dual reference to law and rights in German legal‑philosophical discourse.

Anachronistic Readings

Scholars caution against projecting modern liberal, individualistic conceptions of rights onto texts whose normative frameworks are organized around status, duty, or virtue. For example:

• Describing Roman property law as a system of “individual property rights” may understate its embedding in status hierarchies and patriarchal authority.
• Interpreting Aristotle’s account of the good citizen as a theory of “political rights” risks overlooking the teleological and virtue‑ethical structure of his politics.

Comparative and Non-Western Contexts

Similar challenges arise when engaging with non‑Western traditions (see Section 19). Terms in Islamic jurisprudence (haqq), Confucian ethics, or indigenous legal orders may function differently from modern rights language:

Translators and interpreters must decide whether to use the vocabulary of “rights” to highlight analogies or to avoid it to preserve difference. Both strategies have advantages and risks.

Methodological Approaches

Historians and philosophers propose various approaches:

• Contextualism: Interpreting terms within their historical and social context before relating them to modern categories.
• Genealogy: Tracing how contemporary meanings evolved from earlier concepts, highlighting both continuity and rupture.
• Conceptual engineering: Self‑consciously adapting or reshaping concepts (including “rights”) for present purposes, while acknowledging divergence from historical usage.

Awareness of these translation and interpretation issues is crucial for avoiding misleading claims about the “presence” or “absence” of rights in past or non‑Western cultures.

17. Rights in International Law and Human Rights Regimes

In the twentieth century, international law increasingly incorporated explicit rights language, giving rise to a complex system of human rights regimes.

Foundational Instruments

Key post‑1945 developments include:

Together, the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR are sometimes called the International Bill of Human Rights.

Regional Systems

Regional human rights instruments reinforce and elaborate on these norms:

• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 1950), enforced by the European Court of Human Rights.
• American Convention on Human Rights (1969), supervised by the Inter‑American Commission and Court.
• African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981), recognizing both individual and peoples’ rights.

These regimes provide complaint mechanisms allowing individuals, in certain circumstances, to bring cases against states.

Customary Law and Jus Cogens

Some rights, such as prohibitions on genocide, slavery, torture, and racial discrimination, are widely regarded as part of customary international law and even jus cogens (peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted). This status implies obligations erga omnes—owed toward the international community as a whole.

Implementation and Critique

States implement international rights obligations through domestic legislation, constitutional provisions, and judicial interpretation. However, enforcement mechanisms remain uneven, relying on:

• Reporting and dialogue with treaty bodies.
• Diplomatic pressure and “naming and shaming.”
• Regional courts with varying jurisdiction and compliance rates.

Critics point to issues such as:

• Selectivity and politicization in enforcement.
• Tensions between state sovereignty and international scrutiny.
• Debates over the universality versus cultural specificity of certain rights claims.

Nonetheless, international human rights regimes have become a prominent framework for evaluating state conduct, guiding policy, and mobilizing social movements.

18. Contemporary Debates and Critiques of Rights Discourse

Contemporary philosophy and social theory feature extensive debate about the scope, function, and limits of rights discourse.

Expansion and Proliferation

Some commentators note a proliferation of claimed rights (to internet access, culture, leisure, etc.), raising questions about:

• Over‑extension: whether rights language becomes diluted if applied too broadly.
• Prioritization: how to distinguish fundamental rights from less urgent claims.

Others argue that expanding rights reflects recognition of previously neglected interests and forms of injustice.

Cultural and Communitarian Critiques

Communitarian and multicultural theorists contend that:

• Rights discourse may be individualistic, undervaluing community, tradition, and shared goods.
• Western‑framed human rights norms may not align with all cultural contexts, potentially functioning as vehicles of cultural imperialism.

In response, some advocate “dialogical” or “inclusive” approaches that seek cross‑cultural justification of rights norms (see Section 19).

Feminist and Critical Race Perspectives

Feminist and critical race scholars offer ambivalent appraisals:

• On one hand, rights frameworks have been crucial for struggles against gender discrimination, racial segregation, and violence.
• On the other, they may individualize structural problems, obscure power relations, or prioritize formal equality over substantive transformation.

Intersectional analyses highlight how rights protections can be unevenly accessible across lines of race, gender, class, and citizenship.

Legal and Political Theory Debates

Within legal and political theory, disputes persist over:

• Judicialization: Whether strong rights‑based judicial review enhances protection of minorities or undermines democratic self‑government.
• Socioeconomic rights: How to conceptualize and enforce rights to health, housing, or social security, and whether courts are institutionally suited to adjudicate resource‑intensive claims.
• Rights vs. utilitarian policy: Whether rights should function as side‑constraints on policy aimed at aggregate welfare, or be weighed against other values.

Radical and Post-Structural Critiques

Some radical and post‑structural thinkers view rights discourse as:

• Embedded in liberal capitalist orders, stabilizing rather than challenging underlying relations of domination.
• Framing subjects as isolated rights‑bearers, potentially reinforcing the very forms of subjectivity that critical movements seek to transform.

Others argue that rights can be “redeployed” as tools of resistance, used strategically by social movements even if not regarded as ultimate normative foundations.

These contemporary debates reflect both the centrality of rights in modern political culture and ongoing disputes about their meaning, justification, and practical implications.

19. Comparative and Non-Western Perspectives on Rights

Non‑Western traditions present alternative ways of articulating norms, some of which intersect with, and others diverge from, modern rights discourse.

East Asian and Confucian Traditions

Classical Confucian thought emphasizes roles, ritual propriety (li), and humaneness (ren) rather than individual entitlements. Duties of filial piety, loyalty, and benevolence structure social relations. Some scholars argue that this framework leaves limited space for rights language; others identify functional analogues, such as expectations of just rule and constraints on arbitrary authority.

Contemporary debates in East Asia consider whether human rights norms can be grounded in Confucian values (e.g., dignity, social harmony) or require significant conceptual adaptation.

Islamic Perspectives

In Islamic jurisprudence, the term haqq can denote right, claim, or duty. Traditional classifications distinguish:

• Rights of God (huquq Allah), concerning public or religious interests.
• Rights of human beings (huquq al‑‘ibad), including claims in private law.

Modern Islamic human rights documents (e.g., the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990) attempt to harmonize universalist rights language with Shari‘a‑based norms, leading to debates about gender equality, freedom of religion, and compatibility with international human rights instruments.

Hindu, Buddhist, and Other South Asian Traditions

Many South Asian traditions historically emphasize dharma (duty, righteousness, order) rather than rights. Nonetheless, texts and practices contain ideas about just rule, non‑harm (ahimsa), and protection of the vulnerable, which some interpret as proto‑rights notions.

Post‑colonial constitutional developments in India and other states have incorporated extensive fundamental rights and directive principles, generating syncretic frameworks combining indigenous concepts with liberal rights models.

African and Indigenous Traditions

African philosophical discussions often highlight communitarian values, such as ubuntu (“a person is a person through other persons”), emphasizing relational identity and reciprocity. Some argue that this supports a distinctive approach to human rights, focusing on social harmony and shared responsibilities alongside individual protections.

Many indigenous legal orders (in the Americas, Oceania, and elsewhere) frame norms in terms of relationships to land, ancestors, and community. Recent legal innovations recognizing indigenous land rights and cultural rights often adapt rights language to express these relational understandings.

Universalism vs Relativism

Comparative scholarship addresses whether human rights are:

• Universal, grounded in cross‑culturally shared values (e.g., avoidance of cruelty, respect for persons).
• “Relative” to particular cultural contexts, requiring plural interpretations.
• Best understood via “overlapping consensus”, in which diverse traditions endorse similar rights from differing justificatory bases.

These perspectives inform ongoing efforts to make international rights regimes more inclusive of non‑Western experiences and conceptual resources.

20. Legacy and Historical Significance

The concept of rights has had far‑reaching historical significance, shaping legal systems, political movements, and moral discourse.

Constitutional and Legal Development

Rights language has been central to the development of constitutionalism, including:

• Early documents such as the English Bill of Rights (1689), the U.S. Bill of Rights (1791), and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789).
• Later constitutions incorporating extensive catalogues of civil, political, and social rights.

These constitutional rights have provided frameworks for judicial review, civil liberties protection, and limitations on state power.

Social and Political Movements

Rights claims have played key roles in:

• Abolitionist struggles against slavery.
• Women’s rights and suffrage movements.
• Labor and social rights campaigns.
• Civil rights and anti‑colonial movements.
• Contemporary activism around LGBTQ+ rights, disability rights, and environmental justice.

Such movements often mobilize rights discourse to challenge entrenched hierarchies and secure legal and social reforms.

International Order and Global Norms

Rights have become a foundational language of the post‑1945 international order, influencing:

• The creation of international human rights institutions and monitoring bodies.
• Global discussions of development, humanitarian intervention, and transitional justice.
• Normative benchmarks for evaluating state behavior and corporate responsibility.

Intellectual and Cultural Impact

The rise of rights has transformed moral and political philosophy, prompting systematic analyses of:

• Individual autonomy and dignity.
• Legitimate authority and the rule of law.
• The bases of equality and discrimination.

It has also reshaped everyday political vocabulary, making references to “my rights” or “our rights” a pervasive feature of public discourse.

At the same time, the historical trajectory of rights has generated critical reflection about their origins, functions, and limitations, as seen in Marxist, communitarian, feminist, and post‑colonial critiques. These controversies attest to the continuing importance of rights as both a tool of emancipation and an object of theoretical scrutiny in contemporary societies.