Theories of Human Rights — Human Rights Law Notes

Theories of Human Rights

When the Nuremberg tribunal (1945–46) tried Nazi officials who had obeyed German law to the letter, it needed a standard above that law to convict them. It found it in the old idea of natural law — that some things are wrong even when the State legalises them. Every theory in this topic is, at bottom, an attempt to answer the question Nuremberg forced: why do humans have rights the State cannot erase?

Rights rest on a philosophical claim, so rival theories compete to justify them. Read them as different answers to one question, not as unrelated headings.

A. Natural-law / natural-rights theory

The oldest and most examined theory. It holds that rights flow from human nature and reason, and exist prior to and above the State — so an unjust law is no true law. Thinkers: the Stoics, Aquinas, and above all Locke, who argued each person has natural rights to life, liberty and property that government exists to protect. Strength: it explains why rights bind even a wicked State. Critique: “human nature” is vague and contested — Bentham famously dismissed natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts.”

Rights are protected interests — society recognises a right where an individual interest is important enough to impose duties on others. Associated with utilitarian and sociological thinking, it grounds rights in the good they do for human welfare, not in metaphysics. Strength: practical and adaptable. Critique: if a right rests on collective welfare, a majority could argue the welfare is served by denying it to a few.

C. Dignity / equality-based theory

The modern favourite, and the one the UDHR adopts: rights derive from the inherent dignity and equality of every human being (UDHR Article 1). It fuses the moral force of natural law with a firmer, more universal base — human dignity — that needs no particular religion or philosophy.

Other strands you may name in passing: the positivist view (rights exist only when a State or treaty grants them), the Marxist view (rights are hollow without material equality), and the legal-realist view.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — a two-line natural-law short note

Facts. July/Aug 2026 sets a short note: “Concept of Natural Law.”

Rule. A short note wants a crisp definition plus one critique.

Apply. Definition: natural law is a higher, universal law derived from human nature and reason, binding on all persons and superior to man-made law; from it flow natural rights to life, liberty and property (Locke). Critique: its content is uncertain, which is why Bentham called natural rights “nonsense upon stilts.”

Conclusion. Definition + critique in four sentences earns the full short-note marks; padding does not.

UDHR, 1948, Article 1: “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.”

In Simple Terms: The Declaration picks the dignity theory: your rights come from being a human being with reason and conscience, and everyone starts equal. That is why no government can hand them out or take them away.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — natural-law theory vs positivist theory

Natural law says rights exist above and before the State — an unjust law is not binding. Positivism says a right exists only if the State or a treaty has created it — law is whatever the sovereign commands. The whole point of natural law is to convict a Nuremberg defendant who broke no national law; positivism cannot do that. Keep the two as opposites, not variations.

flowchart TD
    A["THEORIES OF HUMAN RIGHTS<br/>why do humans have rights?"]:::root
    A --> B["Natural law / natural rights<br/>from nature & reason - Locke<br/>above the State"]:::leaf
    A --> C["Social-welfare / interest<br/>rights = protected interests<br/>utilitarian base"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Dignity / equality<br/>UDHR Art 1 - modern base"]:::leaf
    A --> E["Positivist / Marxist / realist<br/>rival minor strands"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) — reflects natural-law thinking: some values are so fundamental that even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy them.
A.D.M. Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (1976) — the majority’s positivist refusal to protect life during Emergency was later repudiated, vindicating the natural-rights view.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Human Rights Law topics

Theories of Human Rights — Human Rights Law Notes