The concept of natural law has taken several forms.

The idea began with the ancient Greeks' conception of a universe governed in every
particular by an eternal, immutable law and in their distinction between what is just by nature and just by convention. Stoicism provided the
most complete classical formulation of natural law. The Stoics argued that the universe is governed by reason, a rational principle; they
further argued that all humans have reason within them and can therefore know and obey its law. Because human beings have the faculty of
choice (a free will), they will not necessarily obey the law; if they act in accordance with reason, however, they will be "following nature."

Christian philosophers really adapted Stoic natural law theory, identifying natural law with the law of God. For Thomas Aquinas, natural law
is that part of the eternal law of God ("the reason of divine wisdom") which is knowable by human beings by means of their powers of
reason. Human, or positive, law is the application of natural law to particular social circumstances. Like the Stoics, Aquinas believed that a
positive law that violates natural law is not true law. With the secularization of society resulting from the Renaissance and Reformation,
natural law theory found a new basis in human reason. The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not
only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live
in harmony with one another. Fran this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law.

Natural law theory eventually gave rise to a concept of "natural rights." John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free
and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. When they enter society they surrender only such rights as are necessary for their security and for
the common good. Each individual retains fundamental prerogatives drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property
(natural rights). This natural rights theory provided a philosophical basis for both the American and French revolutions. Thomas Jefferson
used the natural law theory to justify his trinity of inalienable rights which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.

To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:

i. is not made by human beings;

ii. is based on the structure of reality itself;
iii. is the same for all human beings and at all times;
iv. is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;
v. is a means by winch human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.

In the legal field, the early centuries of the modern age were dominated by a new form of natural-law philosophy, which we have designated
as the natural law of the classical era. This classical natural law philosophy which, in various and often discrepant manifestations dominated
Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a legal by-product of the forces which transformed Europe as a result of the
Protestant revolution. It cannot be said, however, as has sometimes been asserted, that the classical natural law constituted a complete break
with medieval and scholastic legal theory. There are many links and influences connecting Aristotelian and scholastic thinking with the
doctrines of the classical law of nature philosophers, especially those of the seventeenth century. On the other hand, the new law of nature,
in spite of the notable diversity of views expressed by its representatives, possessed certain distinct characteristics which make it necessary
to set it apart from medieval and scholastic natural law.

From its early beginnings in the modern age, the classical law-of-nature doctrine found a rival in another doctrine found a rival in another
doctrine which in some respects was a product of the same political, social, and economic forces that helped shape the rationalistic and
individualistic natural law philosophy. This rival was the doctrine of raison detat (reason of state), which received its most influential
formulation in the writings of the Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527). Machiavelli glorified the omnipotence of
the state and subordinated ethical principles in public life entirely to the political necessities of statecraft. Drawing an uncomplimentary
picture of the passions, weaknesses, and vices of men, he counselled the rulers to be hard-boiled and cynical in using their subjects as
instruments for the building up of powerful, unified, national states. This end, in his opinion, justified the employment of means which
might easily be considered reprehensible from a purely moral point of view.

CONCEPTUAL JURISPRUDENCE The principal objective of conceptual (or analytic) jurisprudence has traditionally been to provide
an account of what distinguishes law as a system of norms from other systems of norms, such as ethical norms. As John Austin describes,
conceptual jurisprudence seeks "the essence or nature which is common to all laws that are properly so called". Accordingly, the task of
conceptual jurisprudence is to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of law that distinguishes law from non-
law in every possible world.

CLASSICAL NATURAL LAW THEORY All forms of natural law theory subscribe to the Overlap Thesis, which asserts that there is
some kind of non-conventional relation between law and morality. According to this view, then, the notion of law cannot be fully articulated
without some reference to moral notions. Though the Overlap Thesis may seem unambiguous, there are a number of different ways in which
it can be interpreted. The strongest construction of the Overlap Thesis forms the foundation for the classical naturalism of Aquinas and
Blackstone. Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of law: (1) eternal law; (2) natural law; (3) human law; and (4) divine law. Eternal law is
comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an eternal universe; as Susan Dimock puts it, one can think of eternal law as comprising
those entire scientific ( physical, chemical, biological, psychological, etc.) laws by which universe is ordered. Divine law is concerned with
those standards that must be satisfied by a human being to achieve eternal salvation. One cannot discover divine law by natural reason alone;
the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation. The natural law is comprised of those precepts of the eternal law
that govern the behavior of beings possessing reason and free will. The first precept of the natural law, according to Aquinas, is the
somewhat vacuous imperative to do well and avoid evil. Here it is worth noting that Aquinas holds a natural law theory of morality: what is
good and evil, according to Aquinas, is derived from the rational nature of human beings. Good and evil are thus both objective and
universal.
GROTIUS Among the chief axioms of natural law enumerated by Grotius are the following: to abstain from that which belongs to other
persons; to restore to another any goods of his which we may have; to abide by pacts and to fulfil promises made to other persons; to repay
any damage done to another through fault; and to inflict punishment upon men who deserve it. Many of the more detailed and specials rules
of the law, in his opinion, represented merely necessary derivations from these general precepts. To the law of nature Grotius opposed the
volitional law, whose rules could not be deduced from immutable principles by a clear process of reasoning and which had their sole
source in the will of man. A combination of both forms of law, in his opinion, existed in the law of nations. Grotius devoted the main part of
his lifework to investigating this combination. To him the law of nations consisted of those rules which had been accepted as obligatory by
many or all nations, but he sought its deeper roots in the natural principles of social life which followed from mans social impulse, namely
in the principles of the law of nature. The state was defined by Grotius as a complete association of free men, joined together for the
enjoyment of rights and for their common interest.

PUFENDORF A system of natural law even more elaborate than that of Grotius was worked out by Samuel Pufendorf, a German law
professor. Pufendorf was in accord with Thomas Hobbes that man is strongly motivated by self-love and egotism and that there is a certain
amount of malice and aggressiveness inherent in his nature. But at the same time he believed, like Grotius, that there is in man also a strong
inclination to seek, association with other men and to live a peaceful and sociable life in society. These inclinations, according to Pufendorf,
coexist in mans soul, and both are implanted in man by nature. The law of nature is an expression of this dual character of human existence.
It acknowledges the fact that nature has commended self-love to man, but it also takes cognizance of the fact that self-love is tempered by
mans social impulse. In accordance with these two sides of human nature, there are two fundamental principles of natural law. The first of
these principles tells man to protect life and limb as far as he can, and to save himself and his property. The second axiom demands that he
not disturb human society, or, in his words, that he not do anything whereby society among men may be less tranquil. These two principles
of natural law were combined and integrated by Pufendorf into one single fundamental precept, which he formulated as follows: That each
should be zealous so to preserve himself that society among men be not disturbed.

HOBBES Thomas Hobbes proceeded from anthropological and psychological assumptions quite different from those of Grotius. While
Grotius believed that man is an essentially social and gregarious being, Hobbes pictured him as intrinsically selfish, malicious, brutal, and
aggressive. In the state of nature- a theoretical construct used by Hobbes to denote the absence of organized government- each man is wold
to every other man and, in an atmosphere of hate, fear and mutual distrust, everybody is at war with everybody else; in this war all men were
considered by Hobbes to be of equal strength, since even the weakest is able to kill the strongest. According to Hobbes, there exists no right
or wrong in the moral or legal sense in the state of nature. Everybody has a right to all things, and profit is the only measure of lawfulness.
Furthermore, every individual in this state possesses the natural right to preserve his life and limbs with all the power he has against the
aggression of others. Hobbes pointed out, however, that men have certain passion that incline them to prefer peace to the warlike state of
nature. These are, first, a strong fear of death; second, the desire for things necessary to commodious living; and third, the hope of obtaining
these things by industry. Since these passions cannot be satisfied in the state of nature, reason suggests to mankind certain convenient
articles of peace termed by Hobbes the laws of nature.

SPINOZA Hobbess theories of law and government have often been compared to those of the great philosopher Benedict Spinoza. Indeed,
there are some striking resemblances, although divergences also exist between the two philosophies. Spinoza believed, like Hobbes, that
man in his natural state is ruled less by reason than by desire and the will to power. According to Spinoza, the right of an individual in the
state of nature extends as far as his power. Every individual has sovereign right to do all that he can; in other words, the rights of an
individual extend to the utmost limits of his power, as it has been conditioned. Now it is the sovereign law and right of nature that each
individual should endeavour to preserve itself as it is, without regard to anything but itself. Whatsoever an individual does by the laws of its
nature, it has a sovereign right to do inasmuch as it was conditioned by nature, and cannot act otherwise. So far Spinozas doctrine largely
conforms to that of Hobbes, but their ways separate when they express their views on the scope of governmental functions and the best form
of government. For Hobbes, the function of government exhausts itself in preserving peace and security, and granting to the citizens a
harmless liberty which does not include the right of free speech or even free thought. Spinoza, on the other hand, considered liberty to be the
highest aim of the government. The object of government is not to change men from rational beings into beasts or puppets, but to enable
them to develop their minds and bodies in security, and to employ their reason unshackled; neither showing hatred, anger, or deceit, nor
watched with the eyes of jealousy and injustice.

LOCKE In the political theory of John Locke, this new tendency became very obvious. Locke assumed that the natural state of man was a
state of perfect freedom, in which men were in a position to determine their actions and dispose of their persons and possessions as they saw
fit, and that it was, furthermore, a state of equality, in the sense that no man in this state was subjected to the will or authority of any other
man. This state of nature was governed by a law of nature, which looking toward the peace and preservation of mankind, taught men that, all
persons being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. As long as the state of nature
existed, everybody had the power to execute the law of nature and punish offences against it with his own hand. This situation was fraught
with disadvantages, inconveniences, and dangers. In the first place, the enjoyment of the natural rights of life, liberty and property was
uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasions of others. Second, in punishing infractions of the law of nature, each man was a judge in
his own cause and liable to exceed the rule of reason in avenging transgressions. In order to end the confusion and disorder incident to the
state of nature, men entered into a compact by which mutually they agreed to form a community and set up a body politic. In contrast to
Hobbes, who construed the social contract as a pact of complete subjection to an absolute sovereign, Locke asserted that men in establishing
a political authority retain those natural rights of life, liberty, and property which were their own in the prepolitical stage. The law of
nature said Locke stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. Only the right to enforce the law of nature was given
up to the organs of the body politic.

MONTESQUIEU Montesquieus fame rests above everything else on his political theory of the separation of powers. Constant experience
shows us, he said, that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. To prevent such
abuses it is necessary that power should be checked by power. In Montesquieus opinion that form of government will be safest in which the
three powers- legislative, executive, and judicial- are separated; that is, made independent of each other and entrusted to different persons or
group of persons. Furthermore, according to him, they should be so constituted that they hold one another in check. By this device, he hoped
to prevent an undue extension and arbitrary use of governmental authority in general. Montesquieu believed that his scheme for a division
and mutual balancing of governmental powers had been observed and carried out by an unwritten constitution of England. In reality,
however, the executive and judicial powers, under the British system of government, are inferior in strength to the legislative power, which
for all practical purposes is regarded as omnipotent. As professor Hanbury has pointed out, By a curious irony Montesquieu, searching, like
the children in Maeterlincks play, for the Blue Bird of Happiness, imagined that it had already taken tangible form in the neighbouring
wood, whereas his thought had really called it into being in the Country of the Future. That is to say, abandoning the language of metaphor,
the system, whose existence he wrongly ascribed to contemporary England, was destined to see the light for the first time in the USA.

ROUSSEAU Jean Jacques Rousseau, a native of the Swiss city of Geneva, may be said to belong to the classical tradition of natural law in
the sense that he firmly believed in the existence of natural rights of the individual. But it has been asserted that, at least in some parts of
his teaching, he deserted this classical tradition by seeking the ultimate norm of social life, not in the protection of indestructible personal
rights, but in the supremacy of a sovereign and collective general will. It is not altogether easy to follow the rather complex deductions of
Rousseau. To him the fundamental problem was to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force
the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as
before. In order to achieve this goal, each individual must by a social contract alienate all his natural rights without reservation to the whole
community. Rousseau asserted that the general will is always in the right, although the judgment which guides it may not always be
enlightened. Law, according to Rousseau, must be general in character and equally applicable to all within the purview of its mandates. It
cannot be directed to a particular man or a particular object. For particular acts of authority, the community institutes a government, a
commission for the execution of the general will. There is no contract of subjection between the people and the government, such as had
been constructed by Hobbes. Expressed in legal language, government is nothing but an agency, which may be revoked, limited, or modified
at the will of the sovereign people. The depositaries of public power are not the masters of the people, but merely their officers. The
government exists by grace of the sovereign and does not itself possess any attributes of the sovereignty.

PHILOSOPHY OF NATURAL RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The combination of Lockes theory of natural law with Montesquieus doctrine of separation of powers forms the philosophical basis of the
American system of government. The constitutional division of government into three independent branches, accompanied by an intricate
system of checks and balances to forestall a decisive supremacy of any one these three branches, owes its inspiration to Montesquieu.
Among other details, the grant of the veto power to the chief executive, the vesting in the legislature of the power to impeach and try high
officials, and the delegation to the legislative branch of the prerogative to make appropriations of money may be traced back to
Montesquieus renowned treatise. The Lockian theory of natural rights, on the other hand, together with Lockes doctrine of justified
resistance against governmental oppression, formed the philosophical background of the Declaration of Independence. It also influenced the
interpretation of certain clauses of the Bill of Rights, especially the due-process clauses, by the United States Supreme Court during certain
periods of its history. There are rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such
rights, which held the lives, the liberty and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of
even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. There are limitations on such power which grow out of the
essential nature of all free governments, implied reservations of individual rights, without which the social compact could not exist, and
which are respected by all governments entitled to the name. The link between Montesquieu and Locke in the system of American
government was forged chiefly by the doctrine of judicial review. The United States Supreme Court has taken the position that, in order to
guarantee the enforcement of natural rights, the power to make the laws must be separated not only from the power to execute the laws, but
also from the power to review the laws with regard to their conformity with higher law principles, as recognized by the United States
Constitution. Thus, in the United States the courts, especially the Supreme Court, have assumed guardianship over natural law.

CONCLUSION Natural law helped in denouncing the divine authority of the Church. It helped in generating a favourable climate for
reformation, renaissance and provided a sound foundation for fundamental human rights. Natural law also played an important part in the
development of modem law. legal history testifies that it was natural law which directly or indirectly provided a model for the first man-
made law. Appreciating the contribution of natural law Roscoe Pound said. "The uncertainty of the higher law is preferable to the
arbitrariness and insolence of naked force". Despite the merits of natural law philosophy, it has been criticized for its weakness on the
following grounds:'

1. 'Ought to be' may not always necessarily conform to the needs of the society. For instance. It is natural for men to beget children,
as it is for trees to bear fruit. But many would like to take the help of family planning measures in order to restrict the growth of
population but no one would like to restrict the growth of fruit on trees. Therefore, giving birth to children may be a natural
phenomenon but it may not always be considered as obligatory moral duty of men to conform to this conduct.
2. The rules of morality embodied in natural law are not amenable to changes but the legal rules do need a change with the
changing needs of society.
3. The concept of morality is a varying content changing from place to place; hence, it would be futile to think over the universal
applicability of law. It depends on the society. One society may adhere to monogamy while the other one may permit plurality of
marriages.
4. Disputes relating to laws of nature and morality cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny as the verdict may always be questioned
since it is based on subjective discretion of the judge.