A Portrait of the Conception of Human Rights from a Social Contract Perspective

By Muhammad Haaziq Bujang Syarif

01 Jan 2025 01 January 2025 18:47 WIB 11 min read reading time: 11 minutes 3 read

Dissecting the concept of Human Rights (HAM) through the perspective of Social Contract Theory. This article explores criticisms of the state responsibility paradigm and its implications for social justice.

A Portrait of the Conception of Human Rights from a Social Contract Perspective

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

6 sections

Problem Issues
Social Contract as the Basis for the Establishment of the State
The Concept of Human Rights and its Critical Side
Critical Opinion on Human Rights Issues
Conclusion
References

Legal Literacy - Dissecting the concept of Human Rights (HAM) through the perspective of Social Contract Theory. This article explores criticisms of the state responsibility paradigm and its implications for social justice.

Problem Issues

Human Rights (HAM) can be said to contain many controversial aspects depending on what point of view will be used and what paradigm becomes the starting point. These controversial issues will not be exhausted since the emergence of the conceptual idea of human rights itself until today. The author also realizes that grappling with issues that have long been debated only brings a little freshness to the discursive space. But on the other hand, the author finds that the spirit contained in the conception of human rights itself must always be ignited and must not be extinguished.

Conceptual issues of human rights must always be debated so that the conceptual essence itself can occupy its most established position. Like objects of scientific discipline in general, the concept of human rights must always be open for debate. The main goal is none other than to prevent the dynamics of knowledge itself from stagnating. It is very possible that new ideas that bring freshness will be born from the friction of healthy debate in such a discursive space.

Among these controversial issues is the placement of obligations only on the state. In the eyes of human rights, only the state is positioned as the holder of obligations in the enforcement, protection, and fulfillment of human rights. The author does not completely reject this paradigm. However, the consequences of this paradigm, according to the author, have loopholes that can be exploited and actually injure human rights themselves.

For example, if a citizen deprives another person's right to life, it cannot be called a violation of human rights because it is not a state apparatus that does it. On the other hand, citizens who violate these rights must still have their human rights upheld and the state is prohibited from seizing human rights by revoking their right to life. The argument built by human rights to answer this issue is that the state is formed because of the will of humans or citizens to protect their human rights. It is illogical if the state as an existence created to protect human rights instead revokes these human rights.

The author tries to capture this from a different angle, namely from the angle of Social Contract Theory as the basis for the establishment of the state. The author also tries to integrate the perspective of Contract Law because the author sees that Social Contract Theory is also basically a contract or agreement. Both give rise to rights and obligations that arise from the contract or agreement. The difference lies, and is not limited only, to the scope of the parties bound. Based on the Social Contract Theory, all citizens bind themselves to the agreement to form and grant power to the state. However, based on Contract Law, there is only a bond in a much smaller scope than Social Contract Theory.