The Development of Human Rights: From Hammurabi to the Universal Declaration

by Ahmed Souaiaia

While the earliest appearance of the phrase “human rights” in written records can be traced back to the first half of the 19th century, the concept of “rights” as ethical and legal claims extends far beyond the modern era. Throughout history, organized societies with hierarchical governments have established norms and rules to protect life, safeguard property, and foster respect for the dignity of others.

As early as 1760 BCE, the Babylonian king Hammurabi promoted the “wellbeing of the people” and enshrined this principle in a legal code known as the Code of Hammurabi. Around 539 BCE, when Babylon was conquered by the Persian king Cyrus, he issued a series of decrees granting people under his rule the right to choose their own religion, limiting enslavement, and establishing racial equality.

More than 500 years later, the Roman Empire (27 BCE – 476 CE) developed concepts of natural law and the rights of citizens. Religious leaders also played a significant role in advocating for ethical norms and legal rules that promoted equality regardless of sex, ethnicity, or economic status. For example, during his ministry in Palestine (26–33 CE), Jesus Christ preached equality before God, declaring, “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” Similarly, around 500 years later, Prophet Mohammed (613–632 CE) in the Arabian Peninsula challenged the rulers of Mecca, the Quraysh, in the name of principles such as equality, justice, and compassion, which he believed were revealed to him by God in the Qur’ān.

In 1215 CE, in Britain, King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, a landmark legal document that declared, “Free men are entitled to judgment by their peers,” and established that even a king was not above the law. About 400 years later, in 1689, the English Parliament adopted the Bill of Rights, which limited the monarch’s power, protected individuals from torture, and rejected punishment without trial.

By the 19th century, the British Parliament abolished slavery through the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. A century later, after two devastating world wars that impacted much of the globe, the newly established United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. This declaration marked a pivotal moment, shifting the promotion of civil, cultural, and economic rights from national endeavors to international commitments. Over the next 75 years, this shift led to the ratification of more than a dozen multilateral treaties and conventions, embedding human rights into global institutions and bringing both individuals and states under the jurisdiction of international humanitarian law.

Once human rights norms were enshrined in international treaties and national laws, it was only natural that permanent institutions dedicated to human rights would emerge. In the 1990s, legal scholars, human rights organizations, NGOs, and activists campaigned for the establishment of a permanent criminal court to adjudicate the most egregious human rights violations worldwide. In 1998, the UN General Assembly adopted the Rome Statute, and in 2002, after 60 countries ratified the treaty, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established. The ICC began its work on July 1, 2002, with jurisdiction over four categories of crimes: (1) genocide, (2) war crimes, (3) crimes against humanity, and (4) aggression.

Placing these developments in context, it is important to note that while the modern discourse on “human rights” is only a couple of centuries old (dating to around 1831), the idea and practice of promoting and enshrining some “rights” have existed for thousands of years across many cultures. What makes the modern concept of human rights unique are a few key principles:

1. Universality: Human rights are promoted as universal, applying to every human being regardless of citizenship status or the legal regime governing their location. Unlike civil rights, which are tied to national laws, human rights transcend borders.
2. Immutability: While civil rights can be rescinded due to changes in national laws or governing regimes, human rights, as framed in modern discourse, are considered universal and immutable. They are upheld by multilateral treaties and global institutions, making them resistant to rollback by individual states.
3. Conflict with National Laws: Even when national laws conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights advocates argue that such laws cannot undermine universal principles. For example, while some countries retain the death penalty—contrary to the UDHR’s protection of the right to life—human rights discourse insists that the goal is to make the right to life absolute. This perspective holds that even a person who commits murder does not forfeit their own right to life. This interpretation has influenced many communities worldwide, with the European Union, for instance, making the abolition of the death penalty a condition for membership. To date, more than 110 countries have fully abolished the death penalty, reflecting the growing influence of human rights norms.

While we celebrate the milestones achieved in building a culture that respects the rights of all living and non-living beings, we must not overlook the persistent legacy of power abuse and aggression. Ancient kings, often glorified for granting limited rights to their subjects, were ultimately conquerors who seized lands, exploited resources, and pillaged the territories of others. Similarly, the nation-states that laid the foundation for modern civilization and championed bills of rights were also colonizers. They waged devastating wars within their own continent, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions, and extended their conflicts beyond Europe, decimating indigenous communities and overexploiting their resources. This relentless extraction pushed the natural environment beyond its capacity to heal and renew, leaving lasting scars on the planet.

From this context, the discourse on human rights is fundamentally an exercise in managing power and its impact on vulnerable individuals and social groups. This positions the State as both the primary suspect and frequent perpetrator of human rights abuse. The struggle for human rights has always been a work in progress—and all evidence suggests this will remain the case for the foreseeable future. Those in power will inevitably abuse the rights of one social group or another. From the perspective of human rights advocacy, the goal cannot be to eliminate all abuses entirely; rather, it should focus on minimizing violations of rights, mitigating the harm they cause, and establishing legal and political mechanisms to deter abuses by those in power. The true driving force behind oppression, exploitation, and the abuse of rights lies not in the justifications offered but in the underlying motivations. Those in power will always find a way to rationalize their misuse of authority.