Human rights, as they are understood by the modern Western world, took almost exactly one century to develop. The events responsible for formalizing the concept of human rights include the Glorious Revolution, which in 1688 brought King William and Queen Mary to the English throne; Thomas Jefferson’s writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776; the passage of the U.S. Bill of Rights in 1789; and the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen by the French Constituent Assembly, also in 1789. Those one hundred and one years coincided with the Age of Enlightenment, a time when writers and philosophers such as John Locke and Voltaire began to argue for the primacy of reason, science, and “natural rights”—rights that all people are entitled to, that cannot be taken away by any king or government. Locke and others protested intolerance, censorship, dogmatism, and anything else that limited human growth and the acquisition of knowledge.

　The turning point in the ideation of human rights, however, was the Glorious (or Bloodless) Revolution, which ended the reign of King James II of England. Fearful of the Catholic king and the possibility that his Catholic son might inherit the throne, key political leaders beseeched the Dutch prince William of Orange and his wife, Mary, (King James’s Protestant daughter) to come to England. They arrived with an army in November 1688 and overthrew King James, who fled to France. The next year, the Parliament passed a Bill of Rights. Although flawed by modern standards—for example, the bill banned Roman Catholics from the throne—the document made it illegal for the British monarch to impose taxes without the consent of Parliament or to suspend laws. It also prohibited excessive fines, bails, and cruel and unusual punishments.

　In 1690, the man who played arguably the greatest role in the development of human rights published his essay “Of Civil Government.” In that treatise, British philosopher John Locke declared, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” Locke also asserted that people are entitled to property and to the fruits of their labor. However, the philosopher argued that such liberties should not be accompanied by anarchy. Governments are necessary, but they are legitimate only through consent. According to Locke, the role of government is to ensure “the peace, safety, and public good of the people” while the role of citizens is to obey legitimate laws.

　The concept of modern human rights has continued to evolve since the Age of Enlightenment. In 1948, just three years after World War II and the Holocaust, the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These universal rights include the right to live in freedom, without fear of torture or slavery, the right to participate in government, the right to work, and the right to education. This ever-expanding concept of human rights has led to the creation of countless human rights organizations whose aim is to monitor the state of human rights around the world and to prevent human rights abuses.

　However, not every nation appreciates the work that these organizations do. Some countries do not believe in the universality of human rights or in the primacy of the Western view. Singapore diplomat Bilahari Kausikan observes, “The hard core of rights that is truly universal is smaller than the West [has] maintained.” Many people have argued that regional values must be taken into consideration and that Western Europe and North America are biased against the traditions of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Another con- cern is that the West emphasizes individual rights at the expense of national cohesion. Singapore ambassador Mark Hong contends: “In my view, the West may have overprivileged the individual to the point where the rights of society are undermined.”

　The universality of human rights, and the role of the West in formulating those rights, continues to be hotly debated. The state of human rights in the world today, and the best ways to guarantee those rights, are also of interest to countless scholars, politicians, and humanitarian organizations. In Human Rights: Opposing Viewpoints, the contributors explore human rights in the following chapters: How Should Human Rights Be Defined? What Is the State of Human Rights? What Should Be Done to Stop Human Rights Abuses? How Should the United States Respond to Crimes Against Humanity? In attempting to answer these questions, the authors illustrate that while human rights may have blossomed more than two centuries ago, the discussion about them has yet to wither.