Hugo Grocio helped with the iusnaturalism:
In the evolution of natural law can perceive a common thread that allowed the transition from theological to secular natural law or rational. Hugo Grotius was in charge of separating the law and science, religion and theology, for it was based on the work of the scholastic philosophers who opened the door to the rational nature of man as a fundamental element of law. Recognized Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, the right arises or results from social instincts and rational man, as opposed to the schoolmen that while recognizing the sound quality of man, but as a result attributed to the will of God.
Undoubtedly supported and continued the tradition of scholastic philosophy, saying that God is the author of nature, and, recognizing that by divine men had certain characteristics-such as social and rational nature, which allowed them create derecho.21 Thus, Grotius said that the right derives from the appetitus socialis appetitus societatis man has, that is, for him, the law is not nothing but a product resulting from the social appetite or company men have to live in organized groups, where a common force prevails under the rule of natural law and reason.
This natural law is right reason given by men, which indicates that any action must correspond to the rational nature of man because the right is reduced to its content intrinsically right or natural. Grotius did not intend to separate the right of religion, but to give greater importance to the rational nature of human beings in the creation of law and not as a simple manifestation of the will of God. The consolidation of the separation between the science of law and theology is managed primarily for the development of the natural law school was founded in the movements of the Enlightenment and the encyclopedia.
These events led to the individualist and liberal conceptions that dominated the field of philosophical doctrines, legal and policy during the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. The natural law school includes among its principal exponents diverse authors as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Samuel Pufendorf, Christian Thomasius, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Christian Wolf, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant, among others.
Undoubtedly, however some incidental differences, a large substantial symmetry between them because they are based on a similar conceptual framework to explain what is right. Although called different ways, these philosophers agree with the idea of appetitus societatisde Grotius, who identifies himself with the thought generic social contract or covenant contained in various meanings, to explain the nature and basis of law.
For them, the right itself is the product of the nature of things but does not derive from the divine but the human being. Mainly, its rational and social character-not to mention other characteristics such as freedom, life, safety, property, among others, that have forced him to create by his will and artificially a body should be charged to protect their interests, according to the nature of man, from a natural state or society to a state or civil society. In summary, the natural law or rational secular law derives from human nature as the son of God but as rational and social. However, both positions reduces the intrinsic right to a fair or natural content, as for the natural-law-both theological and secular or rational-law is just or natural value.
