From Ius Naturale to ius naturale: The Emergence of Rights

Natural Law & Human Rights, Madrid, İspanya, 13 - 18 Temmuz 2025, (Yayınlanmadı)

Natural rights are the best known and most discussed of the views that treat rights independently of

external conditions, and the most frequently cited when it comes to the origin of human rights.

Although it is referred to under a single title, its adventure spans a vast historical period. Over time,

natural law theory has been transformed into the discourse on natural rights; more precisely, rights

have been added to the natural law literature. In addition to the principles that human beings can

comprehend through their reason, we also began to speak of rights that arise from their nature.

The two different uses of the Roman term ius naturale are also reflected in the discourse: Ius

Naturale as natural law and ius naturale as natural rights are used to refer to two related but distinct

things. Although both mention something that is "true by nature", "true according to nature", "true

independently of external factors or opinions", it is important to distinguish natural rights from

natural law. Natural law, which emerged historically earlier, can be understood as a set of principles

inherent in the essence of the universe, based not on culture or convention but on nature itself.

These principles provide criteria for determining what is good or bad, right or wrong, when

evaluating moral, legal, or other social norms. It refers to the objective truth of right things, such as

the virtue of a soul, the propriety of actions, or the perfection of a form of government. Natural

rights are the rights that all people possess individually and it reflects the certain characteristics of

human nature.

This article argues that a very important factor in the transformation of natural law into natural rights

is the replacement of society by the individual, of being social by nature by socialization through

social contract. This change regarding the sociability of human beings is also reflected in the

definition of the term ius. To illustrate this, I will compare the definitions of ius and the approaches

to sociability of three different philosophers. The first philosopher I have chosen is Thomas Aquinas,

who revived the concept of ius for the first time after Roman law. The importance of Aquinas for this

article stems from the fact that he is a classical philosopher who explains socialization along the lines

of Aristotle and analyzes ius in detail. The second is Thomas Hobbes. As a prominent individualist, he

used the term ius with the meaning of individual rights, including authority and duty. Francisco

Suárez, the third philosopher I will talk about, forms a kind of bridge between these two extremes.

On the one hand, he explains socialization in accordance with the Aristotelian tradition; on the other,

he adds the meaning of authority to ius for the first time and takes an important step towards a

definition of ius as a right belonging to the individual.