The US Declaration of Independence

as a Basis for the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Facharbeit von Mathis Richtmann

1

I. ......................................................................Introduction 4

II. ....................................The Declaration of Independence 4

i. Historical circumstances 4

ii. Drafting the Declaration 7

iii. The Declaration‘s Content and Language 9

III. ..................The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 10

i. Installation of the United Nations 10

ii. Drafting the Declaration 10

iii. Contents and Form of the Declaration 12

iv. Non-binding and Binding international law 13

IV. A Comparison of the US Declaration of Independence and

.............the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights 15

i. Equality 15

ii. Supreme Being and Right by Birth 15

iii. The Right to Petition 16

iv. The Right of Revolution 17

v. Three Generations of Rights and the Importance of Social, Economic and Cultural Rights 18

V. .........................................................................Conclusion 20

VI. ......................................................................Bibliography 22

i. Printed Media 22

ii. Internet Sources 22

iii. Images 22

3

I. Introduction

To US Americans the Fourth of July annually means to celebrate their highest

National Holiday. They celebrate becoming independent from their motherland Great

Britain. On this day passages of the very well-known Declaration of Independence are

recited and pictures of the founding fathers are brought up from the cellar and hung up in

stores and restaurants. The whole nation is covered in red and blue and the star-spangled

banner is hung up in the front yard. Americans love to celebrate this holiday because it

commemorates their nation's history as on this day in 1776 the declaration was signed. It is

also commonly known that this declaration made the American settlers independent from

the country they fled. What many people do not see is that this document is far more

important to the world than just stating independence from one country. It laid down a

philosophical thought that was extended in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man

and Citizen of 1789 and was developed over a time span of nearly two hundred years. In

1948 there was another document, which carried the 18th century idea to a next level.

The manifestation of human rights in the Declaration of Independence was a basic

guidepost to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the

United Nations General Assembly December 10, 1948.

II. The Declaration of Independence

i. Historical circumstances

To get an idea of why this United States Declaration of Independence became

necessary, we must jump back to a time about ten years prior to the document’s signing. In

1765 the British Parliament issued the so-called Stamp Act and with it the first direct

taxation on the colonies. This is when opposition against the British ruling started to grow

with James Otis’ cry of, “no taxation without representation”1. One year later the

Townshed Act was passed. It put taxes on paper, lead, paint and tea that was imported to

the colonies in order to better the financial situation of the British government. This led to

a boycott of British luxury goods in the city of Boston. As a result British troops arrived in

the colonies and occupied Boston. The presence of British troops meant trouble for the

colonists in many ways. Tensions between soldiers and colonists brought about what

4

1 The phrase was originally coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, but Otis became famous for it http://www.spotlight-online.de/blogs/eamonn-fitzgerald/no-taxation-without-representation

became commonly known as the Boston Massacre. The shooting which resulted from a

mob attacking one of the British soldiers was no real massacre – as cited by many sources 2 -

but was used by many propagandists like Samuel Adams to root for colonial passions. As an

effect the Townshed Act was repealed, except for the taxation on tea. Yet, in 1773 when the

Tea Act was established and the British Parliament thought to take steps in favor of the

colonists, a group of nearly 50 Boston colonists dumped tea from two ships of the East

India Company into the harbor calling it “saltwater tea”3. In response to this so-called

Boston Tea Party, the British Parliament passed the Coercive Acts - labeled Intolerable Acts

by the colonists - to reverse the trend of colonial resistance. The effect was the contrary. On

September 5, 1774 the First Continental Congress met at Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. Fifty-six representatives of twelve of the thirteen colonies attended the

meeting – Georgia did not want to diverge from the British at that time4. This Congress did

not seek independence from Britain, it solely wanted the British to right the wrongs

committed to the colonies5. They thought that a unified voice might be better heard in

London. One of their major accomplishments was the “Declaration of Rights and

Grievances”, which conceded to the parliament regulation of trade and declared loyalty to

King George III, but not to the parliament. Yet, the parliament declared the American

colonies as “in a state of rebellion”6 (February 1775). After the Battles of Lexington and

"The Destruction of Tea at Boston Harbor", lithograph depicting the Boston Tea Party, Nathaniel Currier, 1846

5

2 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h644.html3 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h646.html4 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html5 The Olive Branch Petition can serve as an indicator for thisMachan, T., Individual rights reconsidered - Are the Truths of the U.S. Declaration of Independence Lasting?, Stanford, California, Hoover Institution Press, 2007, page 16 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1284.html

Concord (April 19, 1775) - where the Americans managed to drive away the British

military forces and could thus boost their morale as they embarrassed the British Army -

the Second Continental Congress was established (May 10, 1775). This time all thirteen

colonies were at the table and although it lacked legal authority to govern, it still assumed

this responsibility and decided on military matters, legislation, diplomacy, financing the

coming war, and most importantly, a future outlook at the state of the colonies7.

On July 6, 1775, this Congress published the “Declaration of the Causes and

Necessity of Taking Up Arms”. The document, prepared by Thomas Jefferson and

Colonel John Dickinson, justified the legitimacy of an armed conflict with Great Britain.8

In the document, the Congress declared: “We have not raised armies with ambitious designs

of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states.”9 This document

was published in many newspapers all over the globe and, of course, in London where it

was brought to the king. This happened only one year before the same man would draft a

declaration, which was approved by the same men, which would separate exactly these

states from Great Britain forever. Already a whole year prior to the United States’ secession

a congress was established as a semi-governmental force in the colonies. It negotiated with

British representatives or appointed agents to pursue interests in Europe. For supporters of

independence in Congress “the question was not whether, by a declaration of

independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a

fact that already exists”, as Thomas Jefferson put it10. In order to legalize their thought the

founding fathers took King George’s statement as he had already declared in August 1775

that “American colonists are rebels and hence outside his monarchial protection”11. In the

meantime the Revolutionary War had really broken out.

It was early in the year of 1776 when the case for independency came to a new

height. The young and ambitious Thomas Paine had arrived in Philadelphia only two years

earlier and had gotten into trouble while working for the Pennsylvania Magazine. On

January 10 of that year Paine anonymously published his pamphlet “Common Sense”. It

immediately became a success. The fifty page paper sold over 120,000 copies in the first

three months, and paved the way for the Declaration of Independence. It argues, “that the

6

7 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h656.html8 http://www.nationalcenter.org/1775DeclarationofArms.html9 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp, my emphasis10 Thomas Jefferson: Debate on Independence http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-911690111 Armitage, D., The Declaration of Independence, A Global History, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2007 page 33

cause of America should not be just a revolt against taxation but a demand for

independence”12. In the closing paragraphs it is even written that, “nothing can settle our

affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence”13. Paine

continued his revolutionary and enlightened writing and published his “Crisis” papers

during the American Revolutionary War. In the papers he tried to encourage the colonists

to fight through simple black and white propaganda. They must have impressed George

Washington – at the time commander in chief of the Continental Army –as he had them

read to all the troops at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777.

ii. Drafting the Declaration

The Revolutionary War, in terms of

definition, was more like a civil war. It was

the colonists’ uprising against the governing

British. Thus the thinkers felt the necessity

to create a new legal basis to fight. As an

example, they could not ask the French for

help in the war as long as they were not an

independent country themselves. No outside

country could either sustain diplomatic

affairs with the colonies nor trade with

them, as they were not among the group of

sovereign nations14. On June 7th Richard

Henry Lee, representative from Virginia,

presented a resolution to Congress, which

called for a declaration of independence.

The part relating to independence reads:

“Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”15

Thomas Jefferson, Rembrandt Peale, New York Historical Society, 1805

7

12 "Paine, Thomas" Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 201013 Thomas Paine: Common Sense; http://www.constitution.org/civ/comsense.htm14 Armitage, page 3415 Richard Henry Lee, Resolution to Congress, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/lee.asp

Congress’ opinion on this topic was split. As a consequence it voted to adjourn

further decisions for three weeks and install a committee that was supposed to design a

declaration for independence, which could be adopted if Lee’s resolution was accepted in

July. It was John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas

Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of

Connecticut, who were appointed to the “Committee of Five” that was to draft the

Declaration. As they did not keep any notes on the drafting process and Adams’ and

Jefferson’s latter accounts are contradictory16, nothing precise can be said about this

procedure. Although, the committee did decide that it should be Jefferson to write the first

draft. And on July 2nd, after some additional revision and speech on the declaration,

Congress voted in favor of independency of Great Britain and the declaration itself was

adopted in its final version. The act of declaring independency was officially announced

two days later.

The Declaration of Independence - The picture shows the drafting committee presenting their work to Congress, John Trumbull, US Capitol rotunda, 1819

8

16 Pauline Maier, American Scripture, 97–105; Boyd, Evolution, 21 as cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

iii. The Declaration‘s Content and Language

The declaration itself is an announcement in form of an argument. It is set up

following the rules of logic, a technique Jefferson most likely had learned during his student

years at College of William and Mary in Virginia17. It is structured into four segments.

It starts out with the initial premise of explaining how declaring separation from

another country ought to be proclaimed. Separatists should “declare the causes”18 for their

secession in order of wholeheartedly vindicating their actions. The second part holds the

famous ideas and principles of the 18th century thinkers. These principles set the moral

basis for most of the following declaration. It contains the “self-evident truths”, that “all

men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [and] [t]hat to secure

these rights, governments are instituted among men [...]“. These rights derive from 18th

century enlightened thinking and the statement that a “long train of abuses and

usurpations” that preceded this document justifies a separation. The third section lists the

alleged “repeated Injuries and Usurpations” committed by King George III. Altogether

seventeen sentences beginning with “He has” make up for the explanation of the causes to

declare independence. In the fourth and closing paragraph the declaration concludes, that

“these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT

STATES”. This statement is much of the heart of the declaration. As the document should

be a means of declaring independence from Great Britain, the first three paragraphs are

ringing words and noble sentiments but not what the Declaration of Independence

declared in 177619.

The document introduces a new actor onto the world stage. Whereas it speaks of

“one people” in the beginning, the closing paragraph speaks of “free and independent

states”. The declaration thus was not only a letter addressed to King George, it was a

“general manifesto, published to all the world”20. Same as the opening paragraph remains

9

17 J. Jefferson Looney, „Thomas Jefferson‘s Last Letter“, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 112 (2004) 178-184 as cited in Armitage, page 2618 Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776; see appendix; this and the rest of the quotes from the document are taken from this source19 Armitage, page 2620 Ward, R. Plumer „An enquiry into the manner in which the different wars in Europe have commenced, during the last two centuries“ as cited in Armitage, page 31

imprecise concerning the rights of the people and only stating “certain” rights “among

[which] are”, the declaration’s concluding paragraph does the same. Here it enumerates

the rights possessed by independent states: “[A]nd that as free and independent states, they

have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce” but

remains uncertain on how far the rights of independent states go, concluding that the

United Colonies would be entitled “to do all other acts and things which independent states

may of right do”. The historian David Armitage reasons that through this flexible

definition of rights the founding fathers declare that they leave the boundaries of Great

Britain, but enter the international committee of sovereign states. It therefore is a

declaration of independence21.

III. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

i. Installation of the United Nations

In 1954, the world's powers realized that a third world war needed to be prevented.

The League of Nations, initially established to prevent wars through collective security, had

failed. Thus the idea for the United Nations Organization (UN) was born. The UN

Conference on International Organization met in San Francisco on 25 April, 1945 where

fifty governments and some non-governmental organizations gathered in order to draft the

Charta of the United Nations. The five permanent members (France, the Republic of

China, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States) of the newly

established Security Council formally established the UN with the ratification of the

Charter on 24 October, 1945. Article 1 of Chapter I of this Charter states the purposes of

the UN among others are "[to] promot[e] and encourag[e] respect for human rights and

for fundamental freedoms for all”. This new term “human rights” – after having used

natural law or rights of man – needed to be explained22 so the UN Commission on Human

Rights was formed in order to draft a document describing this matter.

ii. Drafting the Declaration

Eleanor Roosevelt, from the United Sates, chaired this commission and after John

Humphrey, a Canadian professor of Law and the UN Secretary of Human Rights

10

21 Armitage, page 31

22 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( (UDHR) ) ." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010

Director, authored the first draft. The other members, Chang Peng-chun, a Chinese

playwright, René Cassin, a French jurist and Charles Habib Malik, a Lebanese philosopher

and diplomat finished off what would later be called the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR).23

After systematic human rights abuses during World War II, an international human

rights instrument became necessary. The drafters underlined the interrelationship between

war prevention and human rights 24. Therefore the document has two ethic principles: The

commitment to the inherent dignity of every human being and the commitment to

nondiscrimination. The Commission passed its final draft of the Declaration on to the

Third Committee of the United Nations, which held representatives of all the fifty-eight

members of the UN. Although, most of the draft was not debated in this Committee, the

representatives highly philosophically discussed some aspects of it25. After minor changes

the final draft was passed on to the General Assembly of the United Nations, which

Eleanor Roosevelt and United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Spanish text, Franklin D Roosevelt Library Website, 1949

11

23 William Hodgson from Australia, Hernán Santa Cruz from Cile, Alexander E. Bogomolov from the Union of Soviel Socialis Republics and Charles Dukes from the United Kingdom of Great Britain were also members to the Commission but were more important during the alteration of the draft in the Third Committee of the United Nations24 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( (UDHR) ) ." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 201025 Morsink, J., The Philosophy of the Universal Declaration in Human Rights Quarterly, 1984 August, 209-334, page 2

adopted the Declaration unanimously with only few abstentions 26 on December 10, 1948.

This date today is celebrated as Human Rights Day.

iii. Contents and Form of the Declaration

The Declaration itself holds thirty articles containing key civil, political and

economic, social and cultural rights. The first two articles set the foundation for the whole

following argument, setting forth the argument for human dignity, liberty, equality and

brotherhood. Together with the seven paragraphs of the preamble, they give the reason for

declaring the succeeding rights-catalogue.

Whereas Articles 3 through 21 outline the civil and political rights, such as opposing

torture (5), remedy against violations of human rights (7) and the right to take part in

government (21), articles 22 through 27 describe the so-called economic, social and cultural

rights. Among these are the right to work (23), the right to rest (24) and the right to

education (26). Even though this division into two groups of rights is useful to explain

certain coherences, but it easily leads to misinterpretations of the whole declaration. The

linkage of many rights (19 and 26 or 20 and 23) manifests its unity and makes it indivisible.

This principle was not very well understood in times of the Cold War, which took place

right after the signing of the declaration. The Eastern Bloc considered the economic, social

and cultural rights more important, as they played along with a communist philosophy,

while the Western Bloc favored the civil and political rights which primarily emerge from

18th century European, western philosophers and which were solely mentioned in previous

natural rights documents. Thus the first 21 articles of the declaration serve like an 18th

century tree of political rights with 20th century economic, social and cultural scions.

Interestingly the importance of this second group of rights has even been debated by non-

governmental organizations working for human rights. For example Amnesty International

extended its mandate to work for them in public first in 2001 – a decision, which was

followed by a lot of criticism27 even inside the organization itself.

The last three articles explain the duties of a person in society and forbid an

interpretation the Document‘s articles contradictory to the motives of the UN and the

favoring of some articles over others.

12

26 Abstentious were: Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR, and Yugoslavia27 http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2006-01/artikel-2006-01-kann-mal-einer-amnesty-helfen-bitte.html

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights today serves as a standard to judge

philosophical theses on human rights 28 and is the only document containing this great

amount of rights that has been internationally agreed on. But still, it remains an ideal not a

treaty.

iv. Non-binding and Binding international law

The document is, as resolutions by the General Assembly are, not legally binding for

its member states - thus non-binding. This was viewed upon as a major weakness by some

of the signors as they could see no change through the declaration because authoritarian

states could still exert the powers upon their people that they found necessary. Still, Eleanor

Roosevelt promoted this attribute as an advantage of flexibility: Through its idealistic

approach the Declaration transcends plain international law and offers room for new

strategies to promote human rights as well as serving as a basis for numerous international

treaties binding to its members. Two of these treaties are The International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR) adopted in 1966 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

adopted in 1989. Other than the Universal Declaration these covenants are treaties that

need to be ratified29 by member states in order to come into effect. The ICCPR commits its

state parties30 to rights including the right to life, freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

The UN Human Rights Committee monitors whether or not a member state follows the rules of

the Covenant, while the Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC. This matter is

somewhat tricky, though. The United States for example has ratified the ICCPR31 in 1992

but it has not ratified its optional protocol 132 or 233. Optional Protocol One establishes a

mechanism enabling individuals to complain about human rights abuses. Thus if this

protocol is not ratified the whole treaty does not do too much good for the citizens since

13

28 http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/udhr/meetings_1948_3rd_3c_ga.shtml29 ‘Ratification’ is an act by which a State signifies an agreement to be legally bound by the terms of a particular treaty. To ratify a treaty, the State first signs it and then fulfils its own national legislative requirements. Once the appropriate national organ of the country – Parliament, Senate, the Crown, Head of State or Government, or a combination of these – follows domestic constitutional procedures and makes a formal decision to be a party to the treaty. The instrument of ratification, a formal sealed letter referring to the decision and signed by the State’s responsible authority, is then prepared and deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General in New York http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Definitions.pdf30 A ‘State party’ to a treaty is a country that has ratified or acceded to that particular treaty, and is therefore legally bound by the provisions in the instrumenthttp://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Definitions.pdf31 http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en

32 http://www.bayefsky.com/html/ccpr_opt_ratif_table.php

33 http://www.bayefsky.com/html/ccpr_opt2_ratif_table.php

they have no legal way to accuse their country of abuse. The second protocol abolishes the

death penalty, a treaty obviously not to be ratified by the US. All together 166 parties have

ratified the ICCPR. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by 194

countries, including all United Nations member states except Somalia and the United

States34.

Besides the UN bodies there are numerous non-governmental organizations

monitoring human rights abuses. There are big ones like Amnesty International or Human

Rights Watch which demand countries to work according to the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and small, regional NGOs like WOZA (Women and Men of Zimbabwe

Arise; working for Women’s rights) or Asociación Civil Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo

(Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo; working to find babies stolen during the Argentine

dictatorship) that work for a specific field of violations.

These treaties and non-governmental organizations that monitor human rights

abuses are the future of human rights in the world. Human rights need monitoring and

compliance as they affect every human in their everyday life as Eleanor Roosevelt put it in

a nutshell:

"Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world."35

14

34 The United States signed the Convention indicating the nation’s intent to consider ratification. US President Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the Convention as “embarrassing”.http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=18874&flag=news;35 http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm

IV. A Comparison of the US Declaration of Independence and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

i. Equality

In the famous second paragraph of the US Declaration of Independence Thomas

Jefferson put that “all men” have the rights he states later. Ironically, though, Jefferson

owned about 200 slaves who were not set free at any time36. This shows that the founding

fathers were only people of their time and could only declare what had been thought about

by then: The phrase “all men” meant all “all free, property-owning males”36. This way of

thinking changed very slowly. A first major step into the direction of equality among all

people was the American Civil War and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Also,

women‘s suffrage coming into effect in 1920 is another example that the phrase “all man”

could not possibly descent from „mankind“. The Universal Declaration on the other hand

is always clear that “all human beings” are granted these rights equally.

ii. Supreme Being and Right by Birth

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that it is “self evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”37.

Furthermore, it speaks of “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and the “Supreme Judge of the

world”.

The Universal Declaration has no reference to a deity or states that rights derive from

nature. It takes the founding fathers‘ thought a step further. Tibor R. Machan describes in

his introduction to “Individual Rights Reconsidered” that the founding fathers in their

declaration simply declared certain rights to be present to humans that needed no further

explanation but are based on enlightened thoughts 38. Jefferson wrote that they “hold these

truths to be self-evident”: It was only an assumption to base the whole declaration on39. But

to give grounds for their argument they needed God and Nature. This was one of the

parts, which were heavily debated during the eighty-one meetings of the Third Committee:

The Uruguayan representative stated that “no reference to a godhead should be made in a

15

36 http://mattbrundage.com/publications/jefferson-equality/37 Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776; see appendix; this and the rest of the quotes from the Declaration of Independence are taken from this source38 Machan, T., page xii39 Id at xii

United Nations document, for the philosophy on which the United Nations was based

should be universal”40.

Referring to equality the Declaration of Independence states that “[A]ll men are

created equal” whereas the UDHR says that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal”.

The phrase “born” caused a huge discussion in the Third Committee that Johannes

Morsink summarized in his Article “The Philosophy of the Universal Declaration”. For

some of the representatives the word born seemed too strong as to be simply put as a

statement. Among this group was the Iraqi delegate who asked to substitute the words “are

born” with “should be born”41 in order to move from a too idealistic approach to a more

practical one. Morsink states that delegates like Dr. Pedro de Alba of Mexico who

explained, “a human being's right to freedom and equality began from the moment of his

conception and continued after his birth”42 were opposing to this. Thus these rights should

be present unrestrictedly and not only be granted by birth. The phrase “are born”

prevailed in the end; a strong indicator that same as with the American Document from the

18th century the rights of mankind derive from a nature or other superiority and are

manifested as rights granted by the sole, passive and unwilling act of birth.

iii. The Right to Petition

A major difference between the two documents lies in the right to petition one’s

government that the American declaration granted but is not mentioned in the UN’s rights

catalogue. In the closing of the American listing of grievances, it can be read: “In every

stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our

repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” This was very important

to Jefferson since it directly addressed the problem the founding fathers were facing when

they began to meet as the Continental Congress. If it were the aim of a government to save

its people’s rights, then they in return should have the ability to tell its government about

the abuse of their rights. This principle can also be found as the first right granted by the

US Bill of Rights but it cannot be found in the UDHR, however far reaching this

document may be in other respects. There were attempts to bring it into the Universal

Declaration as Morsink hints43 but the delegates could not find a common basis.

16

40 Third Committee Records, supra note 3, at 101, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/215 as cited in Morsink, page 541 Third Committee Records, supra note 3, at 121, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/237 as cited in Morsink, page 742 Third Committee Records, supra note 3, at 100, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/237 as cited in Morsink, page 743 Morsink, page 9

Additionally, the declaration was formed as an ideal and thus implementation problems

were assumed since there was a fear44 of installing international jurisdiction devices

without overseeing the consequences. One step into the direction of granting a right to

petition was the permanent establishment of the European Court of Human Rights in

1998. It allows citizens of all member states of the Council of Europe to appeal in a last

resort on their rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights.

iv. The Right of Revolution

Another important right asked for in Jefferson’s proclamation is the right of

revolution. It states: “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to [the

stated] ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it“. Jefferson was largely

influenced by John Locke who stated in his “Two Treaties of Government” that “whenever

the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce

them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the

People”45. Right to revolution nowadays has become less important as overthrowing a

government is implemented into the legal system through popular vote. But still, modern

democratic law lists this thought, like the German Grundgesetz in its 20th Article

(“Widerstandsrecht”). To the founding fathers, though, who had based their argument

majorly on natural law, this kind of positive law was far away.

With the Universal Declaration the delegates saw other difficulties implementing this

right into the document. The Declaration being drafted in the aftermath of the Second

European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg

17

44 Morsink, page 13

45 Locke, John, Two Treatieses of Government http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

World War and following a Nazi Regime that had killed its citizens by the millions, it

seemed important to grant a right to stop governmental evils. For some delegates of the

Third Committee it was problematic to include this as they feared that it could be

interpreted as encouraging violent uprising against even non tyrannical government.

Additionally, they saw a difficulty in defining the beginning stages of tyranny and

oppression. In the end it found its way into the third paragraph of the Declaration

declaring: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last

resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected

by the rule of law[.]” Morsink is critical of the failure of the Third Committee to

implement both the right to revolution and the right to petition one‘s government and calls

it “a hesitation about the social-contract theory of government”, which “represents a

reluctance to spell out and state in the open that the rights of human beings, qua humans,

are not grounded in the acts of states or governments, but that instead the legitimacy of

states and governments depends upon their allegiance and adherence to these human

rights” 46.

v. Three Generations of Rights and the Importance of Social,

Economic and Cultural Rights

Even though the Universal Declaration has many rights in common with the rights

asked for in the Declaration of Independence it adds the so-called “second-generation” of

human rights to it. The Czech jurist Karel Vasak named three generations after the three

themes of the French Revolution in order to simplify the complex path of development of

human rights. After liberté (liberty) the first generation, thus, would be the civil and political

rights already to be found in the 18th century rights documents. Secondly, the theme égalité

(equality) implemented the economic, social and cultural rights, after 1948 to be found in

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The third generation should follow the

principle of fraternité (fraternity) and declared solidarity rights.

18

46 Morsink, page 17

This thought of economic, social and cultural rights was not a new one, though.

Thomas Paine spoke of them already in his 1791 published book Rights of Man:

“When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may that country boast its Constitution and its Government.”47

The argument in the Third Committee over where to place these second generation

rights shows the split in thought between the represented nations. The delegates of

Uruguay, Cuba, Lebanon, and Mexico attempted to strengthen these rights with an

amendment to alter article 3 into "Everyone has the right to life, honour, liberty, physical

integrity, and to the legal, economic and social security which is necessary to the full

development of the human personality"48. It was rejected, though, by a close vote twenty to

twenty-one, with seven abstentions 49 . Pedro de Alba of Mexico justified this correction

declaring, that it was based on the American principle of “pursuit of happiness” but

offered “a more timely concept which would embrace the social security of the

individual.”50 Interestingly, together with eighteen other countries of the Americas the

three Latin American countries had adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of

Man in April 1948 at the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogotá,

Colombia. The large representation of countries from Latin America is grounds for the

“progressive character of the Universal Declaration” as Morsink puts it51.

19

47 Thomas Paine, Rights of Man; http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/paine.htm48 U.N. Doc. A/C.3/274 (1948) Mexico joined on this approach later http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/udhr/docs_1948_3rd_3c_ga.shtml

49 Third Committee Records, supra note 3, at 188; as cited in Morsink page 1950 Third Committee Records, supra note 3, at 143; as cited in Morsink page 2051 Morsink, page 19

V. Conclusion

In his important work “Two Treatises for Government”, John Locke argues that in

the natural order of things, individual rights were ranked above governments:

“If Man in the State of Nature be so free, as has been said; If he be absolute lord of his own Person and Possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body, why will he part with his Freedom? [...] For all being Kings as much as he, every Man his Equal, and the greater part no strict Observers of Equity and Justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecured.”52

This is the thought the Founding Fathers took as important. They saw it as a right to

free themselves from a government that did not serve them but mistreated them. The same

thought served as the basis for the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UN General Assembly saw it as their imperative to give the people rights, which no

government - that was out to reign undisputed - would freely grant them.

Eighty-two percent of the national constitutions drafted between 1788 and 1948

contained some human rights, a number that even increased after the adoption of the

UDHR. Even ninety-three percent of the constitutions drafted between 1949 and 1975

held some human rights53. The Declaration of Independence only followed the Virginia

Declaration of Rights, but was much more important for later documents, as it set a basis

for later documents like the US Bill of Rights to be published. Many of the aspects of 18th

century philosophical thought can be found in the Universal Declaration, but the language

has become more settled and the reasoning secular, humanistic and not deistic anymore.

The harshness of the demands stated had to decline in the UN Declaration. The Founding

Fathers could demand everything as they were about to create a new state system, in which

they could have implemented whatever they believed to be just. The UN, though, had no

way to directly implement the rights they wanted to grant to the people into the legal

systems of sovereign nations. The document they adopted was purely idealistic and was an

appeal to the countries of the world. Thus the Declaration of Independence together with

other documents can truly be seen as a basis for the Universal Declaration of Human

20

52 Locke, John, Two Treatieses of Government http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

53 YH. van Maarseveen & G. van Del Tang, Written Constitutions: A Computerized Comparative Study (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, 1978), 191-195 as cited in Janis, M. W., The Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the Bill of Rights (Book Review), Human Rights Quarterly, 1992, 14:4, pages 478-484; page 6

Rights adopted in 1948. Still, the Universal Declaration added and altered its basis in many

respects. The major additions were the new Second-Generation of Human Rights, that

were so important to the communist and leftist countries. The Western and North-Atlantic

countries with majorly capitalistic state approaches saw these Economic, Social and

Cultural rights as less important compared to Civil and Political rights. Interestingly, the

countries opting for these new rights were those that were rather poor compared to the

other group54.

In the end, one document remains. One document, that has its origin in the 18th

century and has set a basis for today‘s human rights. The 4th of July in the US thus, should

not only be celebrated as the date of separation from a motherland. It should also be seen

as a commemoration of one of the most important dates in history for securing and

manifesting the rights and the power of the people.

21

54 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

VI. Bibliography

i. Printed Media

• Machan, T., Individual rights reconsidered - Are the Truths of the U.S. Declaration of Independence Lasting?, Stanford, California, Hoover Institution Press, 2007

• Armitage, D., The Declaration of Independence, A Global History, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2007

• Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010

• Morsink, J., The Philosophy of the Universal Declaration in Human Rights Quarterly, 1984, 6:3, 209-334

• Janis, M. W., The Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and the Bill of Rights (Book Review), Human Rights Quarterly, 1992, 14:4, pages 478-484

• Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp (see appendix, my emphasises)

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly 1948; http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (see appendix)

ii. Internet Sources

• http://www.spotlight-online.de/blogs/eamonn-fitzgerald/no-taxation-without-representation• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h644.html• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h646.html• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h650.html• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1284.html• http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h656.html• http://www.nationalcenter.org/1775DeclarationofArms.html• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/arms.asp• http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116901• http://www.constitution.org/civ/comsense.htm• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/lee.asp• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence• http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2006-01/artikel-2006-01-kann-mal-einer-amnesty-helfen-

bitte.html• http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/udhr/meetings_1948_3rd_3c_ga.shtml• http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Definitions.pdf• http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en• http://www.bayefsky.com/docs.php/area/ratif/node/1• http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=18874&flag=news; • http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm• http://mattbrundage.com/publications/jefferson-equality/• http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/ • http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/paine.htm• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html• http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/udhr/docs_1948_3rd_3c_ga.shtml

iii. Images

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_colored.jpg• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reproduction-of-the-1805-Rembrandt-Peale-painting-of-Thomas-

Jefferson-New-York-Historical-Society_1.jpg• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Declaration_independence.jpg• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/EleanorRooseveltHumanRights.png• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_court_of_human_rights.JPG

22