All about the Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Theory explains how political authority, government and legal obligations may arise from an agreement among individuals to live together under an organised system of rules. The theory is mainly associated with Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. 

Each thinker gave a different explanation of human nature, the state of nature, consent, sovereignty and the purpose of government, making social contract theory an important part of jurisprudence and political philosophy.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

What Is Social Contract Theory?

Social Contract Theory is the idea that the authority of the State and the obligation of individuals to obey law arise from an agreement, either actual or hypothetical, among members of society.

The theory starts with the assumption that individuals once existed, or can be imagined as existing, without an organised government. This condition is called the state of nature. Since life without political authority may create insecurity, conflict or uncertainty, individuals agree to form a political community and establish a government.

Through this agreement, individuals surrender some degree of freedom in exchange for protection, peace, security and orderly social life. The theory therefore deals closely with questions concerning the source and legitimacy of sovereignty.

Social Contract Theory is concerned with several fundamental questions:

• Why should individuals obey the State? The theory attempts to identify the basis on which political and legal authority becomes binding upon members of society.
• What gives a government legitimate authority? It examines whether political power can be justified through consent rather than force, inheritance or divine authority.
• Why is political power necessary? Social contract thinkers considered whether organised authority was required to provide security, enforce rights or maintain collective freedom.
• What rights do individuals retain after forming society? Different thinkers disagreed about whether natural freedom and rights are surrendered, retained or transformed by the contract.
• Can citizens resist an unjust government? This became especially important in Locke’s theory of limited government.
• How should individual liberty be balanced against State authority? This question remains central to constitutional and political theory.

Different social contract thinkers answered these questions in very different ways.

What Is the Meaning of Social Contract?

A social contract refers to an agreement among individuals through which they establish society, political authority or government.

The word “contract” does not necessarily mean that individuals literally signed an agreement at a particular point in history. Social contract theories generally use the contract as a philosophical method of explaining why political institutions may legitimately exercise authority.

The basic idea is that individuals accept certain restrictions upon their natural freedom because organised government provides benefits that cannot be secured effectively in a condition without enforceable law.

The social contract therefore creates a relationship between:

• individuals and society;
• citizens and the State;
• liberty and authority;
• rights and legal duties; and
• political power and political legitimacy.

The exact nature of this relationship differs significantly in the theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

What Is the State of Nature in Social Contract Theory?

The state of nature is a hypothetical condition in which individuals live without an organised government, political institutions or enforceable civil law.

It provides a conceptual starting point for Social Contract Theory. By imagining how people would live without the State, social contract thinkers attempted to explain why political authority became necessary.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all relied upon the state of nature, but their descriptions of it were substantially different.

Hobbes on the State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes considered the state of nature to be highly insecure.

In the absence of a common political authority, every individual would possess considerable freedom but would also face danger from others. There would be no effective authority to enforce agreements, punish wrongdoers or conclusively resolve disputes.

Competition, distrust and concern for self-preservation could therefore produce continuing conflict.

For Hobbes, the state of nature demonstrated why a powerful sovereign was necessary.

Locke on the State of Nature

John Locke did not consider the state of nature to be completely lawless or necessarily violent.

According to Locke, individuals were naturally free and equal. They possessed rights independently of the State and were governed by principles of natural law.

Locke’s philosophy is therefore closely connected with the development of the theory of natural rights.

However, serious practical problems existed because there was no neutral and commonly recognised authority to interpret natural law, decide disputes and enforce rights.

Government became necessary primarily to overcome these difficulties and provide more effective protection to life, liberty and property.

Rousseau on the State of Nature

Jean-Jacques Rousseau adopted a comparatively positive view of natural human beings.

He believed that early human beings were largely independent and simple. Many inequalities and conflicts associated with organised society developed gradually as social relationships, competition and private property became more complex.

Rousseau therefore concentrated not merely upon escaping disorder but upon finding a form of political association that could preserve human freedom within organised society.

Why Did Social Contract Theory Develop?

Social Contract Theory developed as an explanation of political authority that did not depend entirely upon divine right, hereditary monarchy or religious authority.

Earlier theories frequently justified the authority of rulers by claiming that kings ruled because of divine sanction or inherited status.

Social contract thinkers offered a fundamentally different basis of political legitimacy. Authority could be justified by reference to the individuals over whom that authority was exercised.

This changed the focus of political philosophy.

The legitimacy of government could now be examined by asking:

• whether political authority rested upon consent;
• whether government protected individual interests and rights;
• whether State power remained within legitimate limits; and
• whether citizens could challenge arbitrary authority.

This intellectual shift later became closely associated with constitutional government, protection against arbitrary power and the Rule of Law.

Who Are the Main Thinkers of Social Contract Theory?

The three classical thinkers most closely associated with Social Contract Theory are:

1. Thomas Hobbes
2. John Locke
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Although all three philosophers relied upon the concept of agreement or social contract, their conclusions were very different.

Hobbes used the contract to justify powerful sovereign authority. Locke used it to support limited government and protection of natural rights. Rousseau connected the contract with popular sovereignty and collective self-government.

These differences make the Social Contract Theory a collection of related theories rather than a single uniform doctrine.

What Is Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory?

Thomas Hobbes developed one of the earliest systematic versions of Social Contract Theory in his famous work Leviathan, published in 1651. His ideas concerning political authority later became important in discussions of law, sovereignty and the Analytical School of Jurisprudence.

Hobbes believed that political authority was necessary because life without government would be extremely insecure.

Hobbes’ View of Human Nature

Hobbes considered human beings broadly equal in their vulnerability and ability to threaten one another.

Individuals are influenced by self-preservation, competition, fear and the desire for security. Without an authority capable of controlling conflicting interests, these tendencies could produce instability.

Political organisation therefore becomes a rational means of self-preservation.

Hobbes’ State of Nature

In Hobbes’ state of nature, there is no common political authority capable of enforcing rules.

Individuals possess extensive natural liberty, but this liberty exists alongside serious insecurity.

Even if some persons prefer peace, they cannot be certain that others will respect agreements. The absence of an effective enforcement mechanism therefore makes cooperation unstable.

The central problem is not simply human wickedness. It is the absence of an authority powerful enough to guarantee order.

Hobbes’ Social Contract

To escape this insecurity, individuals agree with one another to establish sovereign authority.

They authorise a sovereign to exercise political power and surrender substantial freedom so that laws can be made and enforced.

The social contract therefore takes place mainly among the individuals who establish sovereign authority.

The sovereign itself does not enter the contract in the same manner as the subjects.

Sovereignty Under Hobbes

Hobbes supported strong and substantially indivisible sovereignty.

The sovereign must possess sufficient power to:

• make binding laws;
• enforce legal rules;
• punish offenders;
• settle disputes;
• maintain internal peace; and
• protect society against external threats.

The relationship between command, sovereign authority, duty and sanctions later became particularly significant in legal positivist theories such as John Austin’s Command Theory of Law.

Purpose of Government According to Hobbes

The principal purpose of government under Hobbes’ theory is peace and security.

Hobbes therefore gives considerably greater importance to political order than to extensive individual political liberty.

Strong government becomes justified because the alternative is a condition in which personal security cannot reliably be guaranteed.

What Is John Locke’s Social Contract Theory?

John Locke presented a substantially different form of Social Contract Theory, particularly through his Two Treatises of Government.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke did not believe that individuals completely surrendered their natural rights when political society was created.

Government exists principally to protect those rights.

Locke’s Theory of Natural Rights

Locke believed that individuals possess certain rights naturally.

These include:

• Life: Every individual has a natural interest and right in personal preservation.
• Liberty: Individuals are naturally free and should not be subjected to arbitrary political authority.
• Property: Locke connected property with labour and argued that individuals may acquire rights over resources through their labour.

Locke’s labour-based understanding of property later became influential beyond political theory and can also be seen in the natural rights justification of intellectual property.

Natural rights exist before government.

The State does not originally create these rights. Instead, government is established so that rights can be protected more effectively.

This idea significantly influenced the later historical development of human rights.

Locke’s State of Nature

Locke’s state of nature is a condition of freedom and equality.

It is not necessarily a condition of continuous conflict.

Individuals remain governed by natural law and are expected to respect the rights of others.

However, the condition contains important practical defects. There is:

• no commonly established authority to conclusively settle the meaning of natural law;
• no neutral judge with final authority over disputes; and
• no reliable institution capable of enforcing decisions.

Political society is formed to overcome these difficulties.

Locke’s Social Contract

Individuals consent to establish a political community and government.

Unlike Hobbes’ theory, Locke’s social contract does not justify unlimited political authority.

Political power is entrusted to government for a particular purpose: protection of natural rights.

Government therefore exercises power in trust for society.

Limited Government Under Locke

Locke’s theory strongly supports limited government.

Political authority must not become arbitrary. Government must act according to established law and must exercise power for legitimate public purposes.

This principle is closely connected with modern constitutional ideas that State power must remain subject to legal limitations. In India, the supremacy of the Constitution ensures that governmental institutions exercise authority within constitutional boundaries.

Right to Resistance

An important feature of Locke’s theory is the possibility of resistance against a government that fundamentally breaches the trust placed in it.

If government systematically destroys the rights that it was created to protect, its legitimacy can be questioned.

Lockean thought therefore became closely associated with:

• constitutional government;
• limited State power;
• civil liberties;
• representative government;
• protection of individual rights; and
• resistance to arbitrary authority.

What Is Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed his theory in The Social Contract, published in 1762.

Rousseau addressed a different political problem: how individuals could remain free while simultaneously living under political authority.

His theory therefore places particular emphasis upon collective sovereignty and the general will.

Rousseau’s View of Freedom

For Rousseau, the central problem was not merely maintaining peace.

Political organisation must also explain how individuals can obey law without becoming completely subject to another person’s private will.

Political authority becomes legitimate when citizens participate, directly or conceptually, in creating the collective authority under which they live.

Rousseau’s Social Contract

Under Rousseau’s theory, individuals unite and form a political community.

Each individual becomes part of a collective political body.

Instead of merely transferring political power to a ruler, the people collectively become sovereign.

Sovereignty therefore ultimately belongs to the political community.

What Is the General Will?

The general will refers to the collective will directed towards the common good.

It does not simply mean the private wishes of every person added together.

Rousseau distinguished between individual interests and the common interest of the political community.

Law is legitimate when it reflects the general will rather than merely serving particular private interests.

Popular Sovereignty Under Rousseau

Rousseau argued that sovereignty belongs ultimately to the people collectively.

It cannot simply be transferred permanently to a monarch or another ruler.

This concept closely resembles the modern idea of popular sovereignty, under which the ultimate source of political authority lies in the people.

Rousseau’s theory consequently became influential in democratic and republican political thought.

How Do Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Differ?

Although all three philosophers rely upon Social Contract Theory, they reach substantially different conclusions regarding human nature, rights and political authority. LawBhoomi’s earlier comparative analysis of Social Contract Theory also reflects these differences among the classical theories and later Rawlsian thought.

The comparison demonstrates why Social Contract Theory cannot be reduced to one proposition about the State. Each thinker uses the idea of consent to justify a different form of political organisation.

What Are the Main Elements of Social Contract Theory?

Despite their differences, classical social contract theories generally contain certain common elements.

Individuals Exist Conceptually Before Political Authority

The social contract approach begins with individuals rather than assuming the natural authority of the State.

Government must consequently be justified in relation to those individuals.

State of Nature

A condition without organised political authority is imagined.

The difficulties associated with that condition provide a reason for establishing political society.

Consent

Political authority is connected with some form of consent or agreement.

The meaning of consent differs from one theory to another. It may be actual, implied, tacit or hypothetical.

Creation of Political Society

Individuals agree to organise themselves under common institutions, rules and political authority.

The agreement transforms an unorganised collection of individuals into a political community.

Rights and Duties

Political society creates a relationship involving both rights and obligations.

Individuals receive security and other social benefits but must also comply with valid legal rules and respect the rights of others.

This relationship is central to the wider jurisprudential study of legal rights and their characteristics.

Legitimacy of Government

The government must satisfy whatever conditions are required by the particular social contract.

For Hobbes, legitimacy is closely connected with security. For Locke, it depends upon protection of rights. For Rousseau, legitimate political authority must reflect popular sovereignty and the general will.

What Is the Role of Consent in Social Contract Theory?

Consent is one of the central ideas of Social Contract Theory because it attempts to explain why naturally free individuals can legitimately become subject to political authority.

If individuals are naturally free, government cannot simply be treated as morally legitimate merely because it possesses greater physical power.

Some justification is necessary.

The social contract provides that justification by connecting authority with agreement.

However, consent creates significant theoretical difficulties.

Actual and express consent is rarely given by every citizen. Most persons are born within an already established political system.

Social contract theories must therefore consider concepts such as:

• Express consent, where political authority is consciously accepted;
• Tacit consent, inferred from conduct such as continuing to live within a political community;
• Implied consent, derived from participation in political and social institutions; and
• Hypothetical consent, based upon what rational individuals would agree to under specified conditions.

This produces an important jurisprudential question: Can an obligation to obey the State genuinely arise without express individual consent?

The issue remains one of the strongest criticisms of classical social contract theories.

What Is the Relationship Between Social Contract Theory and Sovereignty?

Social Contract Theory provides three significantly different understandings of sovereignty.

For Hobbes, sovereignty must be strong because peace cannot be guaranteed if ultimate political authority is fragmented.

For Locke, government possesses limited authority because political power exists to protect pre-existing natural rights.

For Rousseau, sovereignty belongs collectively to the people and is expressed through the general will.

The theory therefore raises an important distinction between political authority and mere political power.

A government may possess the ability to compel obedience, but social contract theory asks whether the exercise of that power is legitimate.

How Is Social Contract Theory Connected with Law?

Social Contract Theory has an important place in legal philosophy because it attempts to explain the foundation of legal obligation.

Law is not merely advisory. The State can impose penalties, restrict conduct, resolve disputes and compel compliance.

Social contract thinkers seek to explain why such coercive authority may nevertheless be legitimate.

Organised legal authority provides benefits that rational members of society may regard as necessary, including:

• maintaining public order;
• protecting life and property;
• resolving disputes peacefully;
• preventing private violence;
• protecting rights;
• creating predictable rules; and
• organising collective social life.

Social Contract Theory therefore creates an important connection between law, State authority and political legitimacy.

The issue also relates to the broader jurisprudential debate concerning the relationship between law and morality, since the legal power to compel conduct does not automatically settle the moral question of whether such power is justified.

How Did Social Contract Theory Influence Constitutionalism?

Social Contract Theory made an important contribution to the development of constitutional government.

Locke’s theory was particularly significant because it treated political authority as limited by the purpose for which government was created.

The broader social contract tradition strengthened several principles that later became important within constitutional democracies:

• political power ultimately requires justification;
• government derives authority from the governed;
• rulers are subject to law;
• individual rights can limit State action;
• government exists for public purposes;
• arbitrary political power lacks legitimacy; and
• institutions should remain accountable.

These principles can be seen within the wider structure of Indian constitutional law, where constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights, democratic government and judicial review operate as restraints upon public power.

What Is the Importance of Social Contract Theory in Jurisprudence?

Social Contract Theory is important in jurisprudence because it examines some of the most fundamental questions concerning the nature and justification of legal authority.

Explains Political Obligation

The theory attempts to explain why individuals should obey law.

Rather than treating obedience as automatic, it searches for the circumstances under which political authority becomes legitimate.

Distinguishes Authority From Power

A government may possess physical power to compel conduct. Social Contract Theory asks whether it also possesses the moral and political authority to do so.

Emphasises Individual Consent

Social contract thinkers shifted attention away from the inherent authority of monarchs and towards individuals whose consent was considered relevant to legitimate government.

Supports Rights-Based Government

Locke’s theory provided an important philosophical foundation for the idea that individuals possess rights that government cannot arbitrarily remove.

Natural rights later became important to the development of modern constitutional and fundamental rights.

Supports Popular Sovereignty

Rousseau strengthened the principle that political sovereignty ultimately rests with the people rather than the ruler.

Explains the Purpose of the State

The theories provide different justifications for government.

Hobbes emphasises peace and security, Locke emphasises rights and Rousseau emphasises political freedom and collective self-government.

What Are the Advantages of Social Contract Theory?

Social Contract Theory has several important strengths.

Provides a Rational Basis for Political Authority

Government is not treated as legitimate merely because a ruler possesses power, inherited a throne or claims divine approval.

Political authority must have some rational justification.

Places Individuals at the Centre of Political Theory

The theory begins with individuals and asks what form of government they could reasonably accept.

This significantly changed the traditional understanding of the relationship between citizens and rulers.

Supports Accountable Government

Locke’s theory, in particular, treats political authority as a trust.

Government must use power for the purposes for which that authority was granted.

Connects Rights With Duties

Political organisation provides protection and security while individuals accept corresponding responsibilities to respect lawful authority and the rights of others.

Provides Foundations for Constitutional Democracy

Ideas such as limited government, popular consent, rights and accountability became central features of constitutional democracies.

The modern understanding of constitutional morality similarly requires public institutions to operate according to constitutional principles rather than merely exercising power because they formally possess it.

What Are the Criticisms of Social Contract Theory?

Despite its influence, Social Contract Theory has faced several important criticisms.

No Historical Contract

There is generally no identifiable historical event in which all members of a State formally entered into a social contract.

The theory therefore cannot ordinarily be treated as a literal historical explanation for the creation of political society.

It is more commonly understood as a philosophical device.

Problem of Actual Consent

Most individuals are born into already existing political societies.

There is no moment at which every citizen expressly accepts the authority of the State.

This makes it difficult to claim that legal obligations are based entirely upon actual consent.

Problem of Tacit Consent

Some versions of contract theory argue that individuals implicitly accept political authority by remaining within a State, using public institutions or enjoying legal protection.

Critics argue that this may not amount to genuine consent.

Remaining within a country may result from family relationships, economic conditions, nationality or the practical difficulty of migration rather than voluntary acceptance of every political institution.

Problem of Future Generations

Even if an original generation entered into an agreement, it is difficult to explain why generations born centuries later should automatically become parties to the same contract.

The theory therefore faces difficulties in explaining continuing political obligation solely through original consent.

Excessive State Power Under Hobbes

Hobbes has been criticised for granting extremely broad powers to the sovereign.

If sovereign authority faces very few legal or political restraints, the theory may provide insufficient safeguards against oppressive or authoritarian government.

Modern constitutional systems instead generally place legal restraints upon governmental action. The Rule of Law in India is based upon the principle that governmental power must operate within established legal limits and should not become arbitrary.

Ambiguity of Rousseau’s General Will

Rousseau’s general will is difficult to identify in practice.

The common interest of society may not always be obvious, particularly where different groups have conflicting political, social and economic interests.

A government might also claim to represent the general will while suppressing disagreement.

This creates a possible tension between collective authority and individual freedom.

Excessive Individualism

Classical Social Contract Theory often begins with independent individuals who conceptually exist before political society.

Critics argue that individuals do not develop completely outside social relationships.

Language, culture, family, identity and social obligations are themselves shaped by society.

The assumption of entirely independent pre-social individuals can therefore be unrealistic.

Unequal Participation

Historical societies frequently excluded women, workers, enslaved persons, minorities and other groups from meaningful political participation.

This creates an important question regarding whether consent can legitimately justify a political order where significant sections of society were never given equal participation.

Rights of Minorities

A purely majoritarian understanding of consent may also threaten minority rights.

The preferences of the majority cannot automatically establish justice if individuals or vulnerable groups are subjected to serious disadvantage.

This concern later became particularly important in John Rawls’ criticism of utilitarian and majoritarian approaches to justice.

Is Social Contract Theory Still Relevant Today?

Social Contract Theory remains relevant because modern States continue to face the same fundamental questions about political legitimacy.

Governments:

• impose laws;
• levy taxes;
• punish offences;
• regulate property;
• restrict conduct;
• exercise emergency powers; and
• enforce obligations.

The existence of State power therefore continues to raise the question of why such authority should be considered legitimate.

Modern constitutional democracies often answer this through ideas closely related to the social contract tradition, including:

• democratic representation;
• consent of the governed;
• fundamental rights;
• constitutional limitations;
• public accountability;
• equality;
• judicial review; and
• rule of law.

The theory therefore remains useful even if the idea of a literal historical contract is rejected.

What Is the Modern Understanding of Social Contract Theory?

Modern Social Contract Theory generally does not depend upon proving that an actual agreement once took place.

Instead, the social contract may operate as a hypothetical method of determining whether political and social institutions could be accepted under fair conditions.

The question changes from:

“Did people actually agree to these institutions?”

to:

“Would free and rational individuals agree to these institutions under fair conditions?”

This modern approach is strongly associated with John Rawls.

Rawls revived the contract tradition in A Theory of Justice. Rather than imagining Hobbes’ state of nature, Rawls introduced the original position, in which individuals select principles for governing society without knowing their own eventual place within it.

This uncertainty is created through the veil of ignorance.

Rawls believed that fair principles of justice could emerge when no person designing social institutions knew whether they would ultimately be rich or poor, powerful or disadvantaged.

His approach developed the idea of justice as fairness and became one of the most influential modern extensions of contractarian philosophy. The concepts of original position, veil of ignorance and the two principles of justice are central to Rawls’ Theory of Justice.

Rawls’ ideas have also become important in discussions of distributive justice, particularly regarding how rights, opportunities and social resources should be distributed within society.

What Is the Difference Between Social Contract Theory and Divine Right Theory?

Social Contract Theory and Divine Right Theory provide fundamentally different explanations of political authority.

Under Divine Right Theory, the authority of a ruler ultimately derives from divine sanction.

The ruler’s legitimacy therefore exists independently of popular consent.

Under Social Contract Theory, political authority is justified through the consent, agreement or rational acceptance of individuals.

The distinction may be understood simply:

Divine Right Theory: Authority flows from God to the ruler.

Social Contract Theory: Political authority originates from individuals or the political community.

The transition towards consent-based political authority was historically important because it challenged the idea that monarchs possessed an inherent and unquestionable right to rule.

What Is the Difference Between Social Contract and Legal Contract?

A social contract is not the same as an ordinary contract recognised by private law.

A legal contract is an agreement between identifiable parties that creates obligations recognised and enforceable by law.

A social contract, in contrast, is primarily a concept of political and legal philosophy.

It normally does not involve:

• individually identified contracting parties;
• written contractual terms;
• formal signatures;
• offer and acceptance in the ordinary contractual sense; or
• enforcement through private contractual remedies.

Its function is theoretical rather than commercial.

The social contract explains how political authority, political obligation and organised society may be justified.

How Does Social Contract Theory Relate to Human Rights?

Social Contract Theory, particularly Locke’s version, contributed significantly to the philosophical development of human rights.

Locke’s argument that individuals possess rights to life, liberty and property before government established an important principle: certain rights do not depend entirely upon the will of the State.

Government exists partly to protect these rights.

This natural rights tradition eventually influenced modern understandings of inherent human rights. The development can also be seen in the constitutional protection of life and liberty, including the expansion of Article 21 from a human rights perspective.

Modern human rights law is not identical to Locke’s philosophy, but the idea that individuals possess fundamental claims against governmental power remains an important legacy of the social contract tradition.

How Does Social Contract Theory Relate to Natural Law?

Social Contract Theory and Natural Law Theory overlap considerably, particularly in Locke’s philosophy.

Natural law generally holds that certain principles of justice, morality or right exist independently of positive law created by governments.

Locke’s Social Contract Theory assumes that individuals possess natural rights even before organised government is established.

The State is consequently not the original source of every right.

This differs from strict legal positivist approaches in which legal validity depends primarily upon recognised legal sources rather than upon natural morality.

These competing approaches form part of the broader study of the definition and nature of jurisprudence.

Conclusion

Social Contract Theory explains political authority through the idea that individuals agree, expressly or hypothetically, to live under an organised system of government. Thomas Hobbes regarded the contract as necessary to secure peace and prevent disorder. John Locke viewed government as a limited institution created to protect natural rights, while Jean-Jacques Rousseau connected legitimate authority with popular sovereignty and the general will.

The theory transformed political and legal thought by shifting attention from the inherent authority of rulers to the justification of power in relation to individuals. Its influence can be seen in ideas of constitutionalism, individual rights, limited government, consent, popular sovereignty, accountability and rule of law.

Social Contract Theory nevertheless faces serious objections. There is no identifiable historical contract binding all citizens, actual consent is difficult to establish and classical theories do not always adequately address inequality, minority rights or later generations.

Despite these limitations, Social Contract Theory remains highly important in jurisprudence. Modern thinkers such as John Rawls have adapted the contractual method to questions of fairness and justice rather than relying upon an actual agreement. The continuing importance of consent, rights, legitimacy and limits upon State power ensures that Social Contract Theory remains relevant to the study of law, political authority and modern constitutional government.