Conflicts between Rights: Nature, Types, and Theoretical Responses
Introduction
Rights are central to modern political and moral theory. They protect individual freedoms, secure human dignity, and limit the power of the state. However, rights do not always coexist harmoniously. In many real-world situations, the exercise of one right can come into conflict with another. These situations are described as conflicts between rights.
The problem of conflicting rights raises fundamental theoretical questions: Are rights absolute or limited? How should competing rights be balanced? And who has the authority to decide which right should prevail? These questions make conflicts between rights a key topic in Debates in Political Theory, particularly for MA Political Science (Delhi University) students.
Conceptual Background: Understanding Rights Conflicts
A conflict between rights occurs when the fulfillment or exercise of one right necessarily interferes with the fulfillment of another right. This does not imply that one of the rights is illegitimate; rather, it shows that rights operate within complex social and political contexts.
For example, the right to freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy or the right to dignity. Similarly, the right to religious freedom may come into tension with gender equality or non-discrimination. Such conflicts reveal that rights cannot always be treated as isolated or absolute claims.
Are Rights Absolute?
One of the first theoretical responses to rights conflicts concerns the question of whether rights are absolute. Some philosophers, particularly natural rights theorists, have argued that fundamental rights are inviolable and must never be overridden.
However, most contemporary political theorists reject the idea of absolute rights. They argue that treating rights as absolute would make political life impossible, as even the most basic rights can clash under certain circumstances. Therefore, rights are generally understood as prima facie claims—strong but not unlimited.
Types of Conflicts between Rights
Conflicts between rights can take different forms. Sometimes, they involve conflicts between the same type of rights, such as liberty rights clashing with other liberty rights. In other cases, civil and political rights may conflict with social or economic rights.
There are also conflicts between individual rights and collective rights. For instance, indigenous communities’ cultural rights may conflict with individual property rights or state development projects. These different types of conflicts highlight the complexity of applying rights in diverse social contexts.
Liberal Responses: Balancing and Proportionality
Liberal political theory typically responds to rights conflicts through balancing and proportionality. According to this approach, when rights conflict, they must be weighed against each other in light of their importance and the context in which they are exercised.
Courts and constitutional systems often use proportionality tests to assess whether restricting one right is justified to protect another. This approach does not deny the importance of rights but accepts that trade-offs are sometimes necessary to achieve justice and social order.
Ronald Dworkin: Rights as Trumps
Ronald Dworkin offers a distinctive perspective on rights conflicts through his idea of “rights as trumps.” Dworkin argues that rights function as strong claims that protect individuals against collective goals such as economic efficiency or social welfare.
However, Dworkin does not deny the possibility of conflicts between rights. Instead, he suggests that conflicts should be resolved through moral interpretation, focusing on the underlying principles of political morality, such as equality and dignity. Rights are not overridden by policy considerations, but they may be limited by other rights grounded in the same moral framework.
Utilitarian and Consequentialist Approaches
Utilitarian and consequentialist theories address rights conflicts by assessing outcomes. When rights clash, the right that produces the greatest overall benefit or minimizes harm is given priority.
Critics argue that this approach risks sacrificing individual rights for collective welfare. However, defenders claim that in situations of genuine conflict, consequences cannot be ignored, especially when significant harm is at stake.
Communitarian and Feminist Perspectives
Communitarian thinkers argue that rights conflicts cannot be resolved without reference to social values and community norms. They emphasize that rights derive meaning from cultural and social contexts, and conflicts must be addressed through democratic deliberation rather than abstract principles alone.
Feminist theorists highlight how rights conflicts often reflect underlying power inequalities. For example, conflicts between religious freedom and women’s rights are not neutral but embedded in patriarchal social structures. Feminist approaches call for sensitivity to power, vulnerability, and lived experience when resolving rights conflicts.
Human Rights Framework and International Law
In international human rights law, conflicts between rights are common. Instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights recognize that many rights can be limited to protect other rights or public interests.
The human rights framework emphasizes reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality in resolving conflicts. This reflects a pragmatic approach that seeks to preserve the core of each right while allowing for contextual limitations.
Criticism and Ongoing Debates
Despite these approaches, there is ongoing disagreement about how rights conflicts should be resolved. Some critics argue that balancing reduces rights to mere interests, weakening their moral force. Others argue that rigid hierarchies of rights ignore context and democratic choice.
These debates reflect deeper disagreements about the nature of rights, the role of the state, and the limits of moral reasoning in pluralistic societies.
Contemporary Relevance
Conflicts between rights are increasingly visible in contemporary politics. Debates over free speech on social media, national security versus privacy, public health versus individual liberty, and religious freedom versus equality all involve competing rights claims.
Understanding these conflicts is essential for evaluating constitutional judgments, public policy, and democratic decision-making.
Conclusion
Conflicts between rights reveal that rights are not simple or absolute entitlements but complex moral and political claims that operate in tension with one another. Political theory offers multiple ways of understanding and resolving these conflicts, from balancing and proportionality to moral interpretation and contextual judgment. Studying these debates deepens our understanding of justice, freedom, and democratic governance.
Suggested Readings
- Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously
- John Rawls, Political Liberalism
- Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom
- Jeremy Waldron, Rights in Conflict
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Rights”
FAQs
Q1. What are conflicts between rights?
Situations where the exercise of one right interferes with another.
Q2. Are rights absolute?
Most contemporary theorists argue that rights are not absolute.
Q3. How does liberal theory address rights conflicts?
Through balancing and proportionality.
Q4. What does Dworkin mean by rights as trumps?
Rights protect individuals against collective goals but may conflict with other rights.
Q5. Why are rights conflicts important today?
They shape debates on free speech, privacy, security, and equality.
Q6. Do rights conflicts undermine the idea of rights?
No, they highlight the need for careful moral and political judgment.
