RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW PUNJAB, PATIALA

POLITICAL SCIENCE MINOR

TOPIC: “RIGHT ENTAILS DUTIES”

SUPERVISED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

MR.SAURAV SARMAH SIR ANAGH KUMAR TIWARI

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE) 18203

GROUP 19
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Meaning and Definition of Rights

3. Characteristics of Rights

4. Types of Rights

5. Theories of Rights

6. Correlativity of Rights

7. Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION

Basically, rights are legitimized claims that require activity or limitation from others that is,
force positive or negative obligations on others . An enormous variety of rights are claimed,
ranging from so called human rights, via rights to unemployment benefits and free
prescriptions, to one side to sit at high table or utilize the officials' restroom. To start to
understand discuss rights it is fundamental to make a few refinements. From the broad
assortment of such refinements that show up in philosophical and legitimate works propose to
center around two that are especially critical in this unique circumstance. The first is among
legitimate and other institutional rights from one viewpoint and good rights on the other. Inside
the class of good rights I will endeavor to recognize all inclusive rights that are controlled by
everybody and rights controlled by a few yet not all individuals either because of earlier
activities, for example, promising or making an agreement or emerging out of exceptional
connections or specific social jobs . With regards to these qualifications I will consider quickly
what is implied by "natural," "human," and "basic" rights.’ The second qualification I will
consider is that between rights that expect others to act and rights that expect others to abstain
from acting. The real credit of development of human civilization goes to law and its
prohibitive process which apprised man of his rights and duties as a unit of the society. 1’ At
the point when individuals come in contact as individuals from society, they have certain
legitimate rights and obligations towards each other. These rights and obligations are controlled
by the law pervasive in the general public. It is notable that the principle reason for law is to
ensure human enthusiasm by controlling the direct of people in the general public. For the
fulfilment of this goal, it is essential that state should make utilization of its physical power for
the requirement of legitimate rights and rebuff the individuals who abuse these rights.

It, accordingly, pursues that in every enlightened society law comprises of those principles
which direct human lead and it is the state which authorizes the rights and obligations made by
such guidelines. The origination of right in like manner is of crucial criticalness in present day

1
Subbarao G.C., Jurisprudence (3rd ed.) p. 161.
lawful hypothesis since rights are essential for every respectful society and are perceived and
upheld by the state.

It is to be noticed that the term 'right' is firmly associated with the term 'duty'. It would,
subsequently, be attractive to allude to them before investigating the idea of right.

A Duty is a required demonstration i.e., it is a demonstration the opposite would not be right.
Along these lines obligations and wrong are for the most part co-related. The commission of a
wrong is the break of obligation and the execution of an obligation is evasion of off-base.

Obligations are of two sorts, in particular (1) Legal and (2) Moral.

An obligation might be moral yet not lawful or it might be legitimate but rather not good or it
might be both good and lawful without a moment's delay. Salmond outlines this by a precedent.
In England, there is a lawful obligation not to offer, have available to be purchased debased
drain whether purposely or something else, and with no inquiry of carelessness. Since this
obligation is independent of learning and carelessness, it is only lawful; and not an ethical
obligation. Then again, there is no lawful obligation in England to avoid hostile interest about
one's neighbour, regardless of whether its fulfilment does them hurt. Here it is plainly a break
of good obligation and not of lawful obligation. Not to take is both, one's good and lawful
obligation.
 MEANING

A privilege is portrayed as a qualification or legitimized guarantee to a specific sort of positive

and negative treatment from others, to help from others or non-obstruction from others. As it
were, a privilege is something to which each person in the network is ethically allowed, and
for which that network is qualified for lack of respect or necessarily expel anything that hinders
even a solitary individual getting it. Rights have a place with people, and no association has
any rights not straightforwardly gotten from those of its individuals as people; and, similarly
as a person's rights can't reach out to where they will interrupt another person's rights,
correspondingly the privileges of any association whatever must respect those of a solitary
individual, regardless of whether inside or outside the association.’ Rights are those essential
states of public activity without which no individual can for the most part understand his best
self. These are the fundamental conditions for strength of both the individual and his general
public. It is just when individuals get and appreciate rights that they can build up their identities
and contributes their best administrations to the general public.2’

Definition

‘A proper definition of the term ‘right’ should, therefore, involve all the three ingredients. First,
it is a claim of the individuals. However, not every claim can be a right. It is required that a
claim should be like a disinterested desire, or something which is capable of universal
application. Secondly, it is also required that a claim of an individual must receive social
recognition. For instance, an individual’s claim that none should take his life, receives social
recognition as every individuals will in the same direction. A recognition of the claim of this
type leads to the creation of right to life. Lastly, we come to the point of political recognition.
Rights are moral declarations, until they are protected by the state. 3’

‘According to Bosanquet: “A right is a claim recognized by the society and enforced by the
state.” 4’

2
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/law-essay/rights-meaning-features-and-types-of-
rights/40373
3
J.c.Joahri, Principles of modern Political Science, Sterling publishers,2015, pp 135

4
N.Jayapalan, Comprehensive Political Theory, Atlantic publishers,2002, pp 197
‘Laski defines rights “as those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in
general, to be himself at his best.” They are the sum total of the opportunities which ensure an
adequate development and expression of an individual’s personality”.5’

T. H. Green explained that “Rights are powers necessary for the fulfilment of man’s vocation
as a moral being.”

Beni Prasad stated that “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which
are necessary or favourable to the development of personality”.

Other moral theorists like Isaiah Berlin defines rights in terms of positive liberties and negative
freedoms. A positive right is an entitlement to; A right to free expression, for instance, entitles
one to voice opinions publicly. A negative right is a freedom from; Freedom of person is a right
to be free of bodily interference. Most rights are both positive and negative.

Characterstics of Rights

1. Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.

2. Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.

3. Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.

4. Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.

5. Since rights in here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.

6. Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their
development in society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised against
social good.

7. Rights are equally available to all the people.

8. The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.

5
N.Jayapalan, Comprehensive Political Theory, Atlantic publishers,2002, pp 197
9. Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining
public health, security, order and morality.

10. Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them “No
Duties Ho Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to respect the rights
others in society”.

11. Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These are
protected and enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the rights of
the people.

Types of Rights:

1. Characteristic Rights:

Various researchers believe in characteristic rights. They communicated that people secure a
couple of rights from nature. Before they came to live in people in general eye and state, they
used to live in a state of nature. In it, they esteemed certain basic rights, like one side to life,
fitting to opportunity and perfect to property. Standard rights are parts of human intuition and
reason. Political theory keeps up that an individual goes into society with certain central rights
and that no organization can deny these rights.

In built up political thinking "characteristic right" shows to the objective rightness of the right
things, paying little mind to whether the integrity of a soul, the exactness of a movement, or
the flawlessness of an everyday practice. Aristotle communicated in Politics that no one would
call a man playful who was thoroughly sickly in quality, balance, value, or knowledge. A man
who was easily frightened, unfit to control any drive toward sustenance or drink, willing to
destroy his mates for a play, and generally senseless couldn't in any capacity, shape or frame
have a better than average presence. In spite of the way that shot may intermittently shield
incredible exercises from having their conventional outcomes, so that once in a while cynics
charge better than conquered men, strength is still fairly better than shortcoming. The
moderation and exercises that add to the extraordinary life, and the activities characteristic for
the incredible life, are regularly right.
The bleeding edge thought of characteristic rights ended up out of the out of date and medieval
standards of customary law, yet for various analysts, the possibility of regular rights is
extraordinary. Rights are the consequences of social living. These can be used just in an overall
population. Rights have behind them the affirmation of society as ordinary cases for
development, and that is the reason the state guarantees these rights. John Locke (1632– 1704),
the most enticing political pragmatists of the propelled period, battled that people have rights,
for instance, the benefit to life, opportunity, and property that have a foundation self-sufficient
of the laws of a particular culture. Locke declared that men are ordinarily free and comparable
as a noteworthy part of the protection for understanding true political government as the
eventual outcome of a certain understanding where people in the state of nature prohibitively
trade a bit of their rights to the lawmaking body with the true objective to all the more promptly
ensure the enduring, pleasant joy in regards to their lives, opportunity, and property. Since
governments exist by the consent of the overall public with the true objective to guarantee the
benefits of the all inclusive community and advance individuals when all is said in done
extraordinary, governments that disregard to do accordingly can be restricted and replaced with
new governments.

2. Moral Rights:

Moral Rights rely upon human mindfulness. They are reinforced by great intensity of human
identity. These rely upon human sentiment of goodness and value. These are not helped by the
intensity of law. Feeling of goodness and mainstream assumption are the approvals behind
great rights.

If any individual bothers any moral right, no legitimate move can be made against him. The
state does not actualize these rights. Its courts don't see these rights. Moral Rights consolidate
models of good immediate, friendliness and of good direct. These stay for good faultlessness
of the all inclusive community.
Moral rights were first perceived in France and Germany, before they were consolidated into
the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928. Canada seen
great rights in its Copyright Act. The United States transformed into a signatory to the custom
in 1989, and joined an adjustment of good rights under its copyright law under Title 17 of the
U.S. Code. There are two critical great rights under the U.S. Copyright Act. These are the
benefit of attribution, moreover called the benefit of paternity and the benefit of decency.

Legitimate Rights:

Legitimate rights are those rights which are recognized and approved by the state. Any sullying
of any legal right is rebuked by law. Law courts of the state approve legitimate rights. These
rights can be executed against individuals and besides against the assembly. Thusly, legal rights
are remarkable in connection to moral rights. Legitimate rights are correspondingly available
to all of the locals. All nationals seek after legitimate rights with no isolation. They can go to
the courts for getting their legal rights actualized.

Lawful Rights are of three kinds:

1. Civil Rights: Civil rights are those rights which offer opportunity to each person to lead
a mingled open action. These fulfill key needs of human life in the general population
field. Fitting to life, opportunity and correspondence are social freedoms. Social
freedoms are anchored by the state.

2. Political Rights: Political rights are those rights by restraint of which inhabitants get an
offer in the political methodology. These empower them to take a working part in the
political method. These rights fuse fitting to cast a vote, perfect to get picked, perfect
to hold open office and perfect to censure and limit the organization. Political rights are
greatly open to the overall public in an impartial state.

3. Economic Rights: Economic rights are those rights which give money related security
to the all inclusive community. These connect all subjects to make genuine use of their
 normal and political rights. The major needs of every individual are related to his
sustenance, clothing, safe house, and helpful treatment. Without the fulfillment of these
no individual can really benefit as much as possible from his normal and political rights.
It is thusly key, that every individual must get the benefit to work, perfect to adequate
wages, fitting to diversion and rest, and perfect to government overseen investment
funds if there ought to be an event of disorder, physical inadequacy and status.

Human and Legal Rights:

There is some distinction between good or human rights and legitimate rights. Lawful rights
require for their support a current arrangement of law. Lawful rights are, generally, what the
law says they are, at any rate seeing that the law is upheld. Lawful rights gain their power as a
matter of first importance through enactment or declaration by a legitimately approved expert.
The individuals who bolster reception of laws building up lawful rights frequently advance to
an idea of human rights. Laws against burglary may interest thoughts of an ethical ideal to
possess property. However, human or good rights must pick up their legitimacy through some
other source other than lawful rights, since individuals can engage human or good rights to
scrutinize the law or backer changes in the law (or legitimate rights), and individuals couldn't
do this if moral rights depended on the law.

Authoritative Rights:

Authoritative rights started from the act of guarantee keeping. They apply to specific people to
whom legally binding guarantees have been made. Legally binding rights climb from particular
demonstrations of agreement making. They ordinarily appear when the agreement is made, and
they mirror the authoritative obligation that another gathering has procured in the meantime.
Because of an agreement, party A has an authoritative obligation, say, to convey some great or
administration to party B, who has a legally binding appropriate to the great or administration.
Authoritative rights might be maintained by the law, and in that sense can settle upon legitimate
rights, however it is conceivable to think about contracts made outside of a lawful structure
and to rest simply upon good standards. In any case, such contracts are less secure than
contracts made inside a legitimate system, for evident reasons. There are various models of
authoritative rights, for example,

- Rights to buy a specific item or administration

- Rights to be offer an item or administration

- Rights to be the main merchant or purchaser

- Rights to conveyance and auspicious installment

- Rights to discounts or fixes

- Various rights as indicated by the particular aims of each gathering.

Theories of rights:

There are compelling theories of rights offered by several theorists.

Utilitarianism:
For the utilitarian, the simply activity is what, in respect to all other conceivable activities,
augments utility or "the great" (characterizing "the great" is the subject of philosophical guess
and past our extension here). This is the utility standard. Utilitarianism is exclusively
consequentialist; the equity or foul play of an activity or situation is resolved only by the
outcomes it achieves. On the off chance that an activity boosts utility, it is simply. On this
record, along these lines, rights are simply instrumental. It is likewise significant that numerous
in the utilitarian convention have communicated threatening vibe toward the thought of
privileges of any kind. Utilitarian will respect a privilege if and just in the event that it will
prompt the expansion of utility. This announcement likewise demonstrates the points of
confinement all things considered. On the off chance that the activity of a specific won't boost
utility, the utilitarian is committed to damage that individual's rights for utility. The time when
the letter of the correct nullifies the point (i.e. the time when the activity of a specific right
won't expand utility) is the time when society may fairly diminish that right.

Rights are restricted by the utility standard. In the event that the activity of a privilege boosts
the great, the privilege should hold. In the event that it neglects to do as such, the privilege
might be evenhandedly shortened.

Challengers of the utilitarian record of rights contend that now and again it expands rights too
far and in different cases it limits rights unreasonably.

Kantianism (Deontology):

Kant recommends that the quintessence of ethical quality is caught by what has been known as
the Categorical Imperative. In underneath reword, this peruses:

Act just on those standards of activity that you could be all inclusive laws.
The Categorical Imperative is a standard for testing principles of lead. It will bar as corrupt any
standard of direct that suggests that one individual may accomplish something yet another, in
appropriately comparable conditions, may not. At the end of the day, it requests consistency.
What's good for me is okay for you if our applicable conditions are comparable. On the off
chance that I may toss my dangerous waste into the stream to set aside extra cash for myself,
at that point you may do as such similarly. Obviously I would not need you to do that, so it
would not be right for me.

This is pertinent to human rights, since we consider human rights as generally relevant to
individuals. What's more, Kant says that what is ethically passable applies to every single sane
being. It is additionally pertinent that this test will in general underwrite principles of activity
that ensure our most essential interests, only the sorts of things that rights secure.

Kantianism is an expressly non-consequentialist ethic. Kant trusted that the results of our
activities are regularly controlled by relevant factors outside the ability to control of the person.
Respect and fault are just intelligible ideas where the subject is in charge of what they have
done. In all interests to outcomes, the locus of obligation should essentially be uprooted to a
wide exhibit of elements, just a single piece of which is the office of the person being referred
to. Moral obligation regarding result, in this manner, is unintelligible. Morals must involve
goals, these being the main things we can assess without outward impact. The correct activity
consequently is what is done in similarity with our ethical obligation, paying little heed to
result.

In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant contended that one should "act just as
indicated by that saying whereby one can, in the meantime, will that it ought to wind up an all
inclusive law." as it were, our very own lead is just at any point simply in the event that we can
in all still, small voice will that each other individual acted a similar way. In a similar work, he
likewise declared that one should "Treat mankind, never simply as a necessary chore, however
dependably in the meantime as an end." Similarly, our direct is just barely if, in acting, we don't
utilize some other individual as an instrument to accomplish our very own targets. In like
manner way, our ethical obligation is to just act where our activities fulfill the two tests
sketched out - universalizability and the finishes/implies prerequisite.

Laski's Theory of Rights: Harold Laski, a persuasive figure and imaginative essayist of political
theory, who wrote around 20 books, has explained the hypothesis of rights and it is in numerous
regards a great portrayal. He depicts rights as "those states of public activity without which no
man can look for, when all is said in done, to act naturally getting it done". Laski calls rights
as states of public activity. Rights are social idea and profoundly connected with public activity.
‘The vitality of rights is set up by the way that people guarantee them for the advancement of
their best self. He puts rights, people and state on a similar board as in they can't be isolated
from one another and there is no opposition between them. Laski suggests the since quite a
while ago esteemed view that the state has a critical task to carry out in the acknowledgment
and, before that, acknowledgment of human rights. On lawful hypotheses of rights, Laski looks
at the lawful hypothesis of state. The focal standard of the lawful hypothesis of rights is that
they totally rely on the organizations and acknowledgment of state. An individual can't
guarantee rights if those are not perceived by the state. Negligible acknowledgment, besides,
isn't adequate for the activity of rights. The state must, through law and organizations, execute
the rights.6’

The most noteworthy piece of Laski's hypothesis is utilitarian part of rights. It underscores on
the connection among right and obligation. He expressed that Rights are correlative to
capacities. The utilitarian hypothesis underlines that an individual is qualified for case rights
just when he performs obligation generally the case or interest for right can't be engaged. This
certainly restricts broadly known hypothesis of lawful hypothesis of rights. In any case, today,
rights are perceived and ensured fundamentally on political contemplations.

Barker's Theory of Right: Barker's view isn't hypothetically different from that of Laski. Both
are liberal scholars, yet Barker has an unmistakable inclination to vision. The principle reason
for each political association called state is to see that the identity of the individual gets
adequate extension for advancement. It is the obligation of the state to ensure and secure the

6
http://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/theory-of-rights/theory-of-rights-laski-barker-and-marxists-
theories/781
conditions basic for that objective. These anchored and ensured conditions are called rights.
Person's identity can't grow consequently or under most unfavorable or hostile condition.
Advancement of identity requires good conditions and these are to be ensured by the state
through the order of law.

Barker additionally talks about the ethical part of rights. He says, that law of the state causes
me to anchor rights. Be that as it may, rights are claims and the starting point is simply the
person. The individual is an ethical individual and it is his assurance that he will build up his
ethical identity through the rights. His motivation isn't to incur any mischief upon the general
public. The ramifications of good being is,- he discharges his earnest attempts for the general
welfare of society.

Rights vs Duties

‘It is commonly held that rights "correlate" with duties. By this is usually meant at least that
rights imply duties (even if not all duties imply rights) and also that claims of individual rights
need not be recognized unless backed by proof that corresponding obligations obtain. Such a
doctrine of correlativity also forms part of the view that rights must be understood or analyzed
in terms of duty or obligation.7’

Rights are equally an entitlement and a duty. Individuals have a reciprocal obligation to
respect the rights of others if they expect to have their own rights respected in turn.

Take, for example, the right to religious expression. This right ensures that members of
religious minorities are protected from interference in the exercise of their religious freedom;
at the same time, it means that they must display the same tolerance when it comes to other
religious practices that may differ from their own. In taking advantage of one’s own
freedoms, one accepts an obligation to respect the freedoms of others. Only in this way can
the rights of all be protected and a measure of social harmony is achieved.

‘The belief that rights and duties are correlative is dominant among philosophers. This view
conceptualizes rights and duties as flip sides of the same coin; one person’s right exists by
exerting a duty upon others. For example, the right of free speech “is understood in terms of
the recognition that an individual’s interest in self-expression is a sufficient ground for

7
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2214291.pdf
holding other individuals and agencies to be under duties of various sorts rather than in terms
of the detail of the duties themselves” 8’

‘Logical correlativity affords a measure of flexibility to the formulation of international human

rights standards. Correlativity is crucial because it means that the framing of moral claims in
terms other than rights is not necessarily problematic.9’

For Example: -

If Adam has a right to payment of $10by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is
called the correlativity of rights and duties. Although never thoroughly developed, it was
suggested that the reverse correlation holds as well, that the duty of one person entails the
rights of another person. This view is called the correlativity of duties and rights.

Many duties of obedience imposed by legal rules are not "owed" to other persons, but rather to
some wholly impersonal authority like "the law" or a painted stop sign.

1. ‘If I fail to obey a red light at a crowded intersection, then I have clearly violated the
active rights of other motorists to proceed safely through the intersection. However,
ignoring a red light at three a.m. would weaken our habit of stopping at other red lights
and, hence, increase the likelihood that we might ignore a red light at a crowded
intersection. When I fail to stop at a deserted intersection, then, I violate the right of
some future motorist by developing a bad habit which will contribute to my actually
ignoring his right of way on a future occasion.10’

CONCLUSION

To outline, rights are viewed as vital to human advancement, being seen as set up mainstays of
society and culture. Generally, Rights are moral laws determining what a man ought to be
allowed to do, and they originate from God. In other way, rights are political laws determining
what a man is allowed to do, and they are made by governments. Third classification depict
that rights are moral laws determining what a man ought to be allowed to do, and they are
intrinsic in man's inclination. The idea of human right is depicted as rights are moral standards
or standards, which portray certain guidelines of human conduct and are frequently ensured as
lawful rights in civil and worldwide law. These are moral cases which are unchallengeable and

8
http://www.academia.edu/20333204/The_Correlativity_of_Duties_and_Rights
9
http://www.academia.edu/20333204/The_Correlativity_of_Duties_and_Rights
10
http://www.academia.edu/20333204/The_Correlativity_of_Duties_and_Rights
inalienable in every single individual by ethicalness of the individual from the humankind
alone. Today these cases are verbalized and detailed and called as human rights. It very well
may be assumed that human rights replicate the base norms fundamental for individuals to live
with dignity. Human rights give individuals the opportunity to pick how they live, how they
communicate, and what sort of government they need to help, among numerous different
things. Human rights additionally guarantee individuals the methods important to fulfill their
fundamental needs, for example, nourishment, lodging, and instruction.