Human Rights Issues in Tourism Development - Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues - page 380

liberty to determine his life. The state of nature was chaotic because of the
lack of a common authority to enforce the laws of nature, which granted
liberty to all individuals (van der Vyver, 1979). To avert chaos, Locke asserted
that the individuals in the state of nature came together and devised a social
contract through which they mutually agreed to form a political community
and set up a government. Despite the establishment of government, Locke
maintained that individuals in the political community retained their natu-
ral rights to life, liberty and property (Morgan, 2005; van der Vyver, 1979).
He maintained that government was obliged to protect the natural rights of
individuals in the political community (van der Vyver, 1979), and favoured
the idea of limited government or separation of powers (Morgan, 2005). He
further asserted that a revolution was sometimes necessary to remove a gov-
ernment if, and only if, a government neglected its obligations to protect the
natural rights (life, liberty and property) of the individuals in the political
community (van der Vyver, 1979). Locke's natural rights theory became a
major source of inspiration for the architects of the French Revolution (1789)
and the American Declaration of Independence (1776).
A major critique against natural law and natural rights theories was laun-
ched by a school of thought called 'positivism'. Positivism sought to raise
questions about the empirical basis of these theories solely grounded on moral
reasoning and subsequently trashed them as 'cognitively meaningless' (David-
son, 1993). The positivist movement arose during the Enlightenment and was
championed by scholars like David Hume and Jeremy Bentham. Positivism
sought to deny any ' a priori moral' sources of rights and asserted that all rights
derived their sources from state (positive) laws (Davidson, 1993).
One of the success stories of positivist thinking may be attributed to the
current international human rights regime, which provides legal systems and
mechanisms to protect human rights (Davidson, 1993; Shestack, 2000). Like
natural law and natural rights theories, positivism also flourished but not
without criticism. Shestack (2000) criticises the view held by positivists that
sought to separate legal systems from moral systems (more specifically,
denying the latter in any attempts to theorise about human rights). In other
words, he claims that positivism could encourage citizens to obey bad laws
irrespective of their moral consequences. On that score, Davidson (1993) also
makes a claim that, under positivism, a law to torture criminals may be
deemed 'right', irrespective of its ethical implications. Amartya Sen's 'cul-
tural critique' cautions that human rights should not be confused with 'leg-
islated legal rights', as some human rights issues are unknown or unfamiliar
within some cultures (Clapham, 2007; Sen, 1999).
Each of these theories, despite their shortfalls, has enormous influence
over the emergence and development of rights (Davidson, 1993: 29). Davidson
(1993) underscores the complementary roles each of these theories play in the
demand and protection of human rights. As he observes, natural law and
natural rights theories may be invoked by citizens as the basis of justification