Introduction
“Natural law and natural rights” are two closely related concepts that have been the subject of extensive debate and analysis in legal and moral theory. As John Finnis argues, “Natural law and natural rights are not two different things, but aspects of the same reality”.1 At their core, natural law, and natural rights both posit the existence of a higher, objective law that is grounded in the nature of the world and of humanity. This law is not something that is created or imposed by human beings, but rather discovered through reason and observation. As Lon Fuller noted, “The natural law…is not the product of human design, but an objective reality”.2
One of the most significant implications of natural law and natural rights is the recognition of fundamental human rights that are inherent to all individuals. As Robert George and Jean Bethke Elshtain argue, “There are certain rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue of their humanity, and these rights cannot be taken away by Governments or other human authorities.”3 Examples of such rights include the right to life, liberty and property, which are often cited as natural rights that are not created or granted by Governments, but are instead recognised and protected by them. This idea is reflected in the US Declaration of Independence, which states that “all men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.4
The relationship between natural law and natural rights is complex and has been the subject of much debate among jurists and philosophers. Some argue that natural law provides the foundation for natural rights, while others view natural rights as a subset of natural law. Regardless of the precise relationship, it is clear that the two concepts are intimately connected and mutually reinforcing. As John Finnis writes, “Natural rights and natural law are mutually supportive, mutually implied, and mutually clarifying.”5
In practice, natural law and natural rights have had a profound impact on legal systems around the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 19486, is based on the idea of natural rights that are inherent to all human beings. Similarly, landmark court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka7, which struck down racial segregation in US public schools, were based on the recognition of natural rights that are violated by discriminatory laws and practices. As George and Elshtain note, “the idea of natural rights has been a driving force behind many of the most significant social and political movements of the modern era”.8
This research paper will explore the concept of natural law and natural rights in greater detail, drawing on the works of leading jurists and philosophers such as Finnis, Fuller, George and Elshtain. Through an examination of case law and legal theory, this paper will demonstrate the enduring relevance and importance of natural law and natural rights in contemporary legal thought and practice.
We begin by defining the concept of natural law and tracing its historical development from the ancient Greeks to the modern era, exploring the relationship between natural law and natural rights, examining different perspectives and arguments regarding the nature of this relationship. The paper will also discuss the implications of natural law and natural rights for contemporary legal systems, including their role in constitutional law, human rights law, and international law.
“In examining the concept of natural law, one must first recognise its historical development.”As Brian Tierney notes, natural law is a “philosophical and legal tradition that stretches back to classical Greece and Rome”.9 The Stoic philosophers, for example, posited the existence of a higher law that is inherent in nature and accessible through reason. Similarly, the Roman jurist Cicero argued that true law is the right reason in agreement with nature.10
In the medieval period, natural law was further developed by Christian theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, who argued that natural law is grounded in the nature of God and reflects the divine plan for humanity.11 This view was later challenged by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who emphasised the importance of individual autonomy and self-interest in shaping human behaviour and legal systems. Nevertheless, the idea of natural law persisted, particularly in religious and moral discourse.
The concept of natural rights, on the other hand, emerged in the context of enlightenment thought and the rise of liberal democracy. As John Locke argued, individuals have certain natural rights that are not created or granted by Governments, but are instead inherent in their status as human beings.12 This idea was further developed by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant, who posited the existence of a social contract in which individuals voluntarily surrender some of their natural rights in exchange for protection and security from the State.
The recognition of natural rights has had a profound impact on legal systems around the world. In the United States, for example, the Bill of Rights enshrines fundamental natural rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights13 recognises a range of natural rights that are protected by law, including the right to a fair trial, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to privacy.
Despite the centrality of natural law and natural rights to legal and moral theory, there are numerous debates and controversies surrounding these concepts. Some argue that natural law and natural rights are based on outdated or overly abstract notions of human nature and morality, while others contend that they are necessary for ensuring justice and protecting human dignity. The aim of this research paper is to explore these debates in greater detail, drawing on the works of leading jurists and philosophers in the field.
Overall, this paper will demonstrate that natural law and natural rights remain an important and influential framework for understanding legal and moral theory. By examining the historical development, contemporary relevance, and ongoing debates surrounding these concepts, this research paper aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of law, human rights, and justice in the modern era.
Understanding Natural Law and its evolution
The concept of natural law is a topic of great interest for jurists and philosophers alike, as it has played a significant role in shaping the development of western legal systems. Natural law is rooted in the belief that there is a higher law, or set of moral principles, that governs human behaviour and is inherent in the nature of the universe. This paper will provide an in-depth exploration of the evolution of natural law, from its ancient origins to its modern-day significance, drawing on the works of leading jurists and philosophers in the field.
The concept of natural law has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle believed that the natural world was governed by certain laws that were inherent in the nature of things, and that human beings had a natural inclination to act in accordance with these laws. He argued that the ultimate purpose of human life was to achieve eudaimonia, or happiness, which could only be achieved by living in accordance with the natural law.14
Similarly, Plato argued that there was a higher realm of moral and intellectual principles that transcended the physical world, and that these principles could be discovered through reason and contemplation. He believed that there was a natural order to the universe, and that this order was reflected in the natural law.15
In the Middle Ages, natural law became intertwined with Christian theology, particularly through the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas believed that the natural law was a reflection of God’s eternal law, and that it was discoverable through reason and revelation. According to Aquinas, the natural law provided a framework for understanding human behaviour and for distinguishing between right and wrong. He believed that the natural law was universal and applicable to all human beings, regardless of their cultural or religious background.16
The modern concept of natural law emerged during the enlightenment period, particularly through the works of John Locke and Immanuel Kant. Locke argued that natural law was based on the principle of natural rights, which he defined as the rights to life, liberty, and property. He believed that these rights were inherent in the nature of human beings and that they provided a basis for the development of a just and equitablesociety.17
Kant, on the other hand, believed that natural law was based on the principle of universal reason, which he believed was inherent in the nature of human beings. He argued that reason was the source of all moral and ethical principles, and that these principles could be discovered through the application of reason.18
Natural law has played a significant role in shaping the development of Western legal systems, particularly through its influence on the development of common law. Common law is a legal system based on judicial precedent and custom, and it is rooted in the belief that there are certain inherent legal principles that govern human behaviour. These principles are often seen as being derived from natural law.
For example, in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka19, the US Supreme Court relied on natural law principles in striking down segregation in public schools. The Court argued that segregation violated the principle of equal protection under the law, which was seen as a natural right inherent in the nature of human beings. The decision had far-reaching implications for civil rights in the United States and helped to cement the principle of equality under the law as a fundamental natural right.
Natural law theory has been the subject of debate among jurists for centuries. The idea of natural law dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, where philosophers such as Aristotle and Cicero argued that there was a universal moral law that could be discovered through reason and observation of the natural world. This idea was further developed in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas, who argued that there were certain natural principles that were inherent in the world and could be discovered through reason. He believed that these principles were not created by humans but were instead part of the natural order of the world.
One of the key aspects of natural law theory is that it is grounded in objective principles that exist independently of human society. As legal scholar Robert P. George notes, “The natural law is the moral law that is grounded in the nature of the human person as a rational and free being.”20 This means that natural law is not subject to the whims of individual societies or cultures. Rather, it is a universal law that is applicable to all humans, regardless of their nationality, religion, or culture.
However, there are different interpretations of natural law theory. Some, such as Aquinas, argue that natural law is grounded in the will of God, while others, such as John Locke, argue that it is grounded in reason and the natural order of the world. Despite these differences, there is a general consensus among natural law theorists that there are certain objective moral principles that can be discovered through reason and observation of the natural world.
One of the most notable applications of natural law theory in the legal system is in the area of human rights. Natural law theorists argue that there are certain fundamental human rights that are inherent in the natural order of the world. For example, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are often cited as natural rights that exist independently of human society.
In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade21, the United States Supreme Court relied on natural law theory to uphold a woman’s right to privacy in the context of abortion. Harry Blackmun, J. wrote that “the right to privacy…is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”. This decision was based, in part, on the idea that a woman has a natural right to control her own body.
Natural law theory has a long and complex history that has evolved over time. Despite this complexity, there is a general consensus among jurists that there are certain objective moral principles that can be discovered through reason and observation of the natural world. This theory has been influential in the development of human rights and continues to be a subject of debate among legal scholars and philosophers.
Understanding natural rights
Natural rights theory asserts that certain rights are inherent to human beings by virtue of their existence and that these rights are not dependent on any legal or social institutions. According to John Locke, a key proponent of natural rights theory, these rights include “life, liberty, and property”.22 Locke argued that individuals have a natural right to these things and that the role of Government is to protect these rights. This idea was later expanded upon by the American Founders, who included the concept of natural rights in the Declaration of Independence. As the Declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”23
While natural rights theory has been influential throughout history, it has also been subject to criticism. One common critique is that the concept of natural rights is too abstract and vague to be useful in practice. As legal scholar Ronald Dworkin writes, “Natural rights theories are notoriously difficult to apply to concrete legal problems.”24 Another criticism is that the concept of natural rights is culturally specific and may not be applicable to all societies. For example, philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that the concept of natural rights is rooted in a particular western tradition and may not be relevant in other cultural contexts.25
Despite these criticisms, natural rights theory continues to be a powerful force in contemporary legal and political discourse. The idea that certain rights are inherent to human beings and that these rights must be protected by the Government has played a key role in many movements for social justice and human rights. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, enshrines many of the same rights that are central to natural rights theory, including the right to life, liberty, and security of person.26
In conclusion, natural rights theory asserts that certain rights are inherent to human beings, and that these rights are not dependent on any legal or social institutions. While this theory has been subject to criticism, it continues to play a vital role in contemporary legal and political discourse, particularly in movements for social justice and human rights.
Concept of natural rights in India
The idea of natural rights has been present in India since ancient times. The concept of Dharma, which is central to Hindu philosophy, recognises the importance of natural law and rights. In the modern context, the concept of natural rights was enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which was adopted on 26-1-1950. The Constitution’s Preamble and fundamental rights provisions recognise the importance of natural rights as the basis for a just and equitable society. Indian Constitution is a document which is governed by the rule of law as propounded by Dicey and natural law is the backbone of that rule of law. There are certain rights which emanate from the natural law which came to be known as natural rights. The Indian Constitution pays special attention to these rights and has incorporated them in the constitution in the form of Fundamental Rights.
When we look closely, Articles 1427 and 2128 of the Indian Constitution are synonymous to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the essence that it captures the concept of natural rights as contended under the scheme of natural law.
Over the years, the Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing natural rights. One of the most significant judgments in this context was Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala29, in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s basic structure could not be altered even through a constitutional amendment. This judgment ensured that the Constitution’s fundamental rights provisions, including natural rights, remained intact.
Another landmark judgment in this context was that in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India30, in which the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad was a part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. This judgment expanded the scope of natural rights and affirmed the importance of personal liberty as a core component of a just and equitable society. The concept of natural rights was also upheld in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.31wherein the Supreme Court laid down that even if terminating the job of a persona was statutorily allowed if he had overstayed the leave period, it could not be allowed to be done without giving him a hearing as this would amount to gross violation of the right under Article 21.
Analysis of natural rights and natural law
Natural law and natural rights are two distinct legal concepts, yet they are closely related and interconnected. Natural law posits that there are certain moral principles that are inherent in the nature of human beings and can be discovered through reason. These principles are seen as universal and immutable, and they serve as the foundation for all laws and legal systems. On the other hand, natural rights are the individual rights that are seen as inherent and inalienable, and they are grounded in the principles of natural law.
As jurist John Finnis explains, “Natural law and natural rights are closely linked, since the content of natural law can be seen as providing the basis for the recognition and protection of natural rights.”32 In other words, natural law serves as the underlying philosophical framework for the recognition and protection of natural rights.
One of the most famous cases that illustrate the intersection of natural law and natural rights is Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka33. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the principle of “separate but equal” in public education is unconstitutional, as it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court relied heavily on the principles of natural law in reaching this decision, stating that:
Segregation…has a detrimental effect upon the coloured children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group…. Any language in contrary to this is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.34
In India, natural rights have been recognised and protected by the Constitution, which enshrines a number of fundamental rights that are seen as inherent and inalienable. As jurist Upendra Baxi notes, “The Indian Constitution is founded on the belief in the dignity and worth of the individual, and it recognises a number of fundamental rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and equality before law, which are seen as inherent and inalienable.”35 These rights are grounded in the principles of natural law, and they serve as a basis for the protection of individual liberties and freedoms.
Natural law is the basis for recognising and protecting natural rights. As previously discussed, natural law is the moral and ethical principles that are inherent in human nature and the universe. Natural rights, on the other hand, are those rights that are recognised as being inherent to human beings, such as the right to life, liberty, and property.
According to legal philosopher John Finnis, natural law is “the principle that human beings are entitled to certain basic goods, such as life, health, knowledge, and friendship, which are necessary for a fulfilling life”.36These basic goods are recognised as natural rights because they are necessary for human flourishing and are inherent to human nature. Natural law serves to protect these natural rights by providing a framework for ethical and moral decision-making, as well as for the creation and enforcement of laws that uphold these rights.
Moreover, natural law also serves to limit the power of the State and prevent the State from infringing on the natural rights of individuals. As legal scholar Brian Tierney has noted, “the purpose of natural law is to ensure that no human authority may violate the inherent rights of individuals”.37 This means that the State is obligated to protect the natural rights of individuals and any laws or actions that violate these rights are considered to be illegitimate.37
Therefore, natural law and natural rights are inherently linked, with natural law providing the framework for recognising and protecting natural rights. We can say that natural law works in protection of natural rights by providing the ethical and moral principles necessary for recognising and upholding these rights, as well as by limiting the power of the State and preventing the violation of these rights by the State or other individuals.
Another question which comes up is whether natural rights can exist without the natural law being in place. Although the question is a difficult one to answer, we can safely deduce from the above discussions that natural law provides the framework upon which natural rights are claimed. The entire premise of natural law is based on the claim that there exists a higher authority of law (natural law) under which we function; if we remove that philosophical basis that upon, what stance will we base the natural rights on? Finnis has also stated that natural law provides the only plausible understanding for the maintenance of the rights such as that of life and liberty.38
Conclusion
In the concluding remarks of the paper on natural law and natural rights which remains an interesting field of discussion and an ever-expanding discourse we need to understand the importance of the two. Natural law is the basis of nearly all laws, either directly or indirectly, the Indian Constitution itself is a document which is inspired by the natural law. The rule of law by Dicey is based on the concept of natural law. When we see that there are ample number of legislations and democracies around the world which pay homage to the natural law setup, we cannot just dismiss it without understanding the inherent schematics.
Natural law is the basic set of principles governing humans as well as animal kind, nature runs in a certain way, there are defined ways of life and natural dos and don’ts all these combine to form the natural law system. Is it perfect? Maybe not, but it is the basis of all law and hence, should be revered. There are those certain morals which need to be followed by the population at large which can be found by the appropriate use of reason and this law which is derived by reason constitutes natural law.
When we come to natural rights, in layman’s terms we may understand them to be the offshoots of the natural law. Natural law lays down the bedrock from which these natural rights emanate. It is not possible for them to be present without the philosophical basis of natural laws. Natural law can be seen as the protector of natural rights, the right to equality is protected by the basic principle that all men are created equal and hence, should be treated equally. Hence, natural rights are the product of natural laws, and the natural laws work to protect these natural rights, the relationship is inextricably complex in nature.
*Second year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. Author can be reached at <ayushtripathi@nlunagpur.ac.in>.
**Second year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. Author can be reached at <smritisharma@nlunagpur.ac.in>.
1. John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1979).
2. Lon Luvois Fuller, The Morality of Law (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1964).
3. George, R. P., and Elshtain, J.B., The Meaning of Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1996).
4. US Declaration of Independence, 1776.
5. Nicholas Aroney and Bradley Miller, “Finnis on Liberty” in Suri Ratnapala and Gabriël A Moens (eds), Jurisprudence of Liberty (LexisNexis Butterworths,2011).
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
7. 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 44: 347 US 483 (1954).
8. R. P. George and J.B. Elshtain, The meaning of natural rights(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996).
9. Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law and Church Law (Catholic University of America Press, 1997) pp. 1150-1625.
10. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Letters, (43 BC) cited from Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights (Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1997), pp. 63–64
11. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1265-1274) p. 91.
12. David Armitage, “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of Government”, Political Theory, Vol.32(5) (2004) pp. 602-627.
13. European Convention on Human Rights, 1950.
14. Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2011).
15. Desmond Lee (Tr.), Plato‘s The Republic (2nd Edn.,PenguinClassics, 2007).
16. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1265-1274).
17. C.B. McPherson (Ed.), John Locke’sSecond Treatise of Government, (Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge, 1980).
18. Marcus Weigelt (Tr.), Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (Penguin Classics, London, 2003).
19. 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 44: 347 US 483 (1954).
20. Francis K. Peddle, “Principal Concepts in Henry George’s Theory of Natural Law: A Brief Commentary on the Science of Political Economy”, (2012) 71 American Journal of Economics and Sociology 714-744.
21. 1973 SCC OnLine US SC 20 : 410 US 113 (1973).
22. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690).
23. Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence (Applewood Books, Jackson, 1997) para 2.
24. Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard University Press, 1978) p. 315.
25. Martha Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach (Harvard University Press, 2011) p. 5.
26. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 3.
27. Constitution of India, Art. 14.
28. Constitution of India, Art. 21.
32. John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1979).
33. 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 44: 347 US 483 (1954).
34. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 44 : 347 US 483 (1954).
35. Upendra Baxi, “The Indian Constitution and Natural Law” (1986) 28 Journal of Indian Law Institute 21, 30.
36. John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1979).
37. Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law and Church Law, (1997) 1150-1625.
38. John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1979).
