Critically discuss the origin, historical development and universalisation of human rights. In your answer, consider the contribution of:
- early legal and philosophical developments, including the Magna Carta and natural-rights theory;
Introduction
The concept of human rights as a universal system is a relatively recent development in international law, culminating in instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. However, its origins are found in much earlier legal and philosophical traditions. The statement that human rights evolved from "historically limited privileges and philosophical claims" is accurate. This essay will critically discuss this evolution by examining the contributions of two key historical foundations: the Magna Carta as a legal document of limited privilege, and natural rights theory as a set of philosophical claims. It will argue that while these were essential stepping stones, their inherent limitations demonstrate that the journey towards a truly universal system was a long and contested process.
The Magna Carta: A Charter of Privileges
The Magna Carta, sealed by King John of England in 1215, is frequently celebrated as a cornerstone of liberty and a precursor to modern human rights. Its significance lies in its establishment of the principle that a ruler is subject to the rule of law. Certain clauses, which have been reinterpreted over centuries, seem to echo modern rights. For instance, Clause 39 states that “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” (Magna Carta 1215, c 39). This is often viewed as an early guarantee of due process. Similarly, Clause 40, promising that “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice,” (Magna Carta 1215, c 40), appears to be an early protection against corruption in the justice system.
However, a critical perspective reveals the limitations of viewing the Magna Carta as a human rights document. It was not a declaration of rights for all humanity, or even for all English people. It was a peace treaty forced upon the King by a group of powerful barons to protect their own feudal privileges (Freeman, 2014). The term 'free man' in Clause 39 did not apply to the vast majority of the population, who were unfree peasants or serfs. Therefore, the rights it contained were not universal but were privileges confined to a small, elite class. While it established a vital legal precedent for constraining arbitrary power, its immediate effect was to secure the interests of the powerful, not to affirm the inherent dignity of every individual.
Natural Rights Theory: Philosophical Universalism
The philosophical shift towards universalism began in earnest during the Enlightenment with the development of natural rights theory. Thinkers like John Locke argued that individuals possess certain rights not because they are granted by a monarch or a law, but because they are inherent to human beings. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke identified these fundamental rights as “life, liberty and property,” which he claimed were inalienable and existed in a 'state of nature' before the formation of any government (Locke, 1689). The purpose of government, in this view, was to protect these pre-existing rights, not to create them.
This was a radical departure from the idea of rights as privileges granted to specific groups. Natural rights theory provided the philosophical language for later revolutionary documents, such as the American Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). These documents asserted that rights were universal and self-evident. However, these too were "philosophical claims" with limited practical application. As argued by scholars, the proclaimed universality of these rights often did not extend to all people. The authors of these declarations were primarily property-owning white men, and the rights they championed were often not applied to women, slaves, or indigenous populations (Ishay, 2008). Thus, while the philosophy was universal in its language, its practice remained exclusive, demonstrating a gap between abstract ideals and social reality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the evolution of human rights from their early origins to a modern international system was a gradual and complex process. The Magna Carta provided a crucial legal foundation by limiting the power of the sovereign, but its 'rights' were exclusive privileges for the elite, not universal human entitlements. Subsequently, natural rights theory offered a powerful philosophical claim for the universality of rights, asserting that they belong to all individuals by virtue of their humanity. Yet, even this philosophical universalism was not fully realised in practice during its time. Both developments were essential contributions, marking a shift from arbitrary rule to a system based on law and inherent rights. However, their significant limitations confirm that early human rights concepts were indeed "historically limited privileges and philosophical claims," and the struggle to make them genuinely universal would continue for centuries, culminating only in the international legal framework established after the Second World War.
References
- Freeman, M. (2014) Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach. 3rd edn. Polity Press.
- Ishay, M. R. (2008) The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. 2nd edn. University of California Press.
- Locke, J. (1689) Two Treatises of Government.
- Magna Carta 1215.
