You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Human rights are fundamental entitlements that belong to every person by virtue of their humanity. They represent the basic standards of treatment to which all individuals are entitled, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or any other status. Understanding the nature and development of human rights is essential for AQA A-Level Law, as it provides the philosophical and historical foundations upon which modern human rights law is built.
This lesson traces the evolution of human rights thinking from early philosophical theories through to the modern international framework. You will explore the key debates about the source and scope of human rights, the different categories or "generations" of rights, and the particular challenges that arise in the UK context where there is no codified constitution.
John Locke is often regarded as the father of modern natural rights theory. Writing in his Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke argued that human beings possess certain inalienable rights that exist independently of any government or legal system. These rights — life, liberty, and property — are derived from the "state of nature" and exist prior to the formation of civil society.
Locke's key arguments include:
Locke's influence on human rights cannot be overstated. His ideas directly shaped the American Declaration of Independence (1776), which declared that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Rousseau took a different approach to natural rights in his work The Social Contract (1762). While he agreed that humans possess natural freedom, he argued that the social contract transforms natural liberty into civil liberty, which is protected by the "general will" of the people.
Key aspects of Rousseau's theory:
Rousseau's ideas profoundly influenced the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), which proclaimed that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights."
Thomas Paine, in his work Rights of Man (1791), defended the French Revolution against Edmund Burke's criticism and argued that each generation has the right to determine its own form of government. Paine distinguished between natural rights (those that individuals possess in their own right, such as freedom of thought) and civil rights (those that arise from membership of society, such as the right to a fair trial).
Legal positivism presents a fundamentally different view of rights from natural rights theory. Positivists argue that rights are not inherent or God-given but are created by human-made laws. Key positivist thinkers include:
Bentham famously described natural rights as "nonsense upon stilts." He argued that:
Austin, building on Bentham's work, defined law as a command issued by a sovereign and backed by sanctions. Under this view, rights are simply legal entitlements created by the sovereign legislature. If a right is not recognised by law, it does not exist in any meaningful legal sense.
Hart, a more modern legal positivist, argued in The Concept of Law (1961) that while natural rights theory is philosophically problematic, there is a "minimum content of natural law" necessary for any society to function. This suggests some convergence between natural law and legal positivism in recognising basic standards of treatment.
| Theory | Source of Rights | Key Thinker | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural Rights | God/Nature/Reason | Locke | Universal application | Difficult to prove existence |
| Legal Positivism | Human-made law | Bentham | Certainty and enforceability | Rights depend on political will |
| Social Contract | Agreement of the people | Rousseau | Democratic legitimacy | Hypothetical, not actual consent |
The atrocities of the Second World War — including the Holocaust, mass civilian bombings, and widespread torture — demonstrated that the protection of human rights could not be left solely to individual states. The international community resolved to create a universal framework for the protection of fundamental rights.
The United Nations was established in 1945 with the stated purpose of promoting "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms." In 1946, the UN Commission on Human Rights was established under the chairmanship of Eleanor Roosevelt, with the task of drafting an international bill of rights.
The drafting committee included representatives from diverse legal and cultural traditions:
The UDHR was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 (now celebrated as International Human Rights Day) by a vote of 48 in favour, none against, and 8 abstentions (including the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa).
The UDHR contains 30 Articles covering civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Key provisions include:
The UDHR is a declaration, not a legally binding treaty. However, it has acquired significant moral and political authority, and many of its provisions are now considered to reflect customary international law. It provided the inspiration for two binding international covenants adopted in 1966:
Together, the UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR form the International Bill of Human Rights.
In 1979, the Czech-French jurist Karel Vasak proposed a framework for categorising human rights into three "generations," drawing on the ideals of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.
These rights correspond to the ideal of liberty and are primarily concerned with protecting individuals from state interference. They are often described as "negative rights" because they require the state to refrain from certain actions.
Examples include:
These rights are enshrined in the ICCPR and the ECHR.
These rights correspond to the ideal of equality and are concerned with ensuring that individuals have access to basic necessities and opportunities. They are often described as "positive rights" because they require the state to take action to provide services and resources.
Examples include:
These rights are enshrined in the ICESCR. They are generally considered more difficult to enforce because they require significant state expenditure and are subject to "progressive realisation."
These rights correspond to the ideal of fraternity and are concerned with the rights of peoples and groups rather than individuals. They are the most recent and controversial category.
Examples include:
These rights are sometimes found in regional instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981).
graph TD
A["Three Generations of Human Rights"] --> B["First Generation"]
A --> C["Second Generation"]
A --> D["Third Generation"]
B --> B1["Civil & Political Rights"]
B1 --> B2["Right to life, liberty,<br/>fair trial, expression"]
B --> B3["Negative rights:<br/>State must not interfere"]
C --> C1["Economic, Social &<br/>Cultural Rights"]
C1 --> C2["Right to work, education,<br/>health, housing"]
C --> C3["Positive rights:<br/>State must provide"]
D --> D1["Collective/Solidarity<br/>Rights"]
D1 --> D2["Self-determination,<br/>clean environment, peace"]
D --> D3["Group rights:<br/>Peoples and communities"]
style B fill:#2980b9,color:#fff
style C fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
style D fill:#8e44ad,color:#fff
| Generation | Type | Nature | Key Instrument | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | Civil & Political | Negative (freedom from) | ICCPR, ECHR | Right to life |
| Second | Economic, Social & Cultural | Positive (right to) | ICESCR | Right to education |
| Third | Collective/Solidarity | Group-based | African Charter | Right to development |
The Magna Carta (Great Charter) is often cited as the foundation of English liberties. Signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215 under pressure from rebellious barons, it established several principles that remain significant today:
While the Magna Carta was primarily a feudal document protecting the interests of the barons, it established the fundamental principle that even the King is subject to the law. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times — the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."
The Bill of Rights 1689 was enacted following the Glorious Revolution, when William of Orange and Mary replaced James II on the throne. It established key constitutional principles:
The Bill of Rights 1689 established the principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority — a principle that has profound implications for human rights protection in the UK.
Unlike most other democracies, the UK does not have a single, written constitutional document. Instead, the UK constitution is made up of multiple sources:
This lack of a codified constitution means that human rights in the UK are not entrenched in the same way as they are in countries with a written constitution and a constitutional court. Parliament can, in theory, repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 by a simple majority vote.
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy) is the cornerstone of the UK constitution. As formulated by A.V. Dicey, it means:
This doctrine creates a fundamental tension with human rights protection. If Parliament is supreme, then rights ultimately depend on the willingness of Parliament to protect them. There is no constitutional court with the power to strike down legislation that violates human rights (unlike the US Supreme Court, the German Federal Constitutional Court, or the South African Constitutional Court).
The Human Rights Act 1998 attempted to address this tension through a carefully designed mechanism: courts can issue declarations of incompatibility (s4) when legislation conflicts with Convention rights, but they cannot strike down the legislation. Parliament retains the final word.
One of the most significant ongoing debates in human rights theory concerns whether human rights are truly universal or whether they reflect particular cultural values.
Universalists argue that human rights apply to all people everywhere, regardless of cultural, religious, or political differences. Key arguments include:
Cultural relativists argue that human rights norms are not truly universal but reflect Western liberal democratic values. Key arguments include:
The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights, attempted to resolve this debate by stating:
"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms."
This formulation affirms universality while acknowledging cultural diversity — a compromise that remains contested.
| Position | Core Claim | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Universalism | Rights apply to all people | Prevents state abuse of "culture" defence | May reflect Western bias |
| Cultural Relativism | Rights are culturally determined | Respects diversity | Can justify oppression |
| Vienna Compromise | Universal but context-sensitive | Balanced approach | Lacks clear guidance |
This content is aligned with the AQA A-Level Law specification.