Amending Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Call for the Sovereignty of the Individual
Abstract
This paper argues for amending Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to strengthen the principle of individual sovereignty. While the UDHR is technically non-binding, it holds considerable normative, practical, and ethical significance. Unknown to most people, in its current form Article 29 overemphasizes collective duties and the authority of the United Nations over human rights, undermining the principle of individual autonomy. We propose three specific amendments: (1) affirming that individual rights are inherent and unalienable, not contingent upon community or institutional recognition; (2) restricting permissible limitations on individual rights to those strictly necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others, without compromising personal autonomy; and (3) removing any language that prioritizes institutional objectives over individual rights. These amendments will ensure that the sovereign individual is recognized as the ultimate unit of value under natural law, and that inherent rights always supersede institutional claims to authority.
Introduction
All member states are bound by the UN Charter, which is an instrument of international law due to the powers conferred on it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, is a foundational United Nations document that aims to protect human dignity and freedom globally. However, Article 29, which addresses the balance between individual rights and community duties, contains underlying assumptions that compromise individual sovereignty. Our aim is to present a philosophical and legal argument for amending Article 29, ensuring human rights are grounded in the intrinsic value of the individual, rather than institutional authority. In light of this principle, it is essential to amend Article 29, ensuring that our identity and dignity as human beings are not subordinated to our roles as citizens. In short, we content that we are human beings first, and citizens second, and it should be firmly reflected in our constitutions and international treaties.
Relevance
On September 22nd, 2024, World leaders gathered at UN Headquarters in New York and adopted a "potentially game-changing Pact for the Future" by a majority vote, with a small group of just seven countries holding out. In UN's own words, the Summit of the Future is depicted as "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the multilateral system and steer humanity on a new course to meet existing commitments and solve long-term challenges."
The propositioned Emergency Platform, which would have given the UN Secretary-General unprecedented powers during crises, was not adopted at this meeting, but exemplifies the prevailing worldview how the UN's authority should override national decision-making processes and individual freedoms. One of the countries not to sign the Pact was Argentina. Its President Javier Gerardo Milei, expressed his country's position as follows: "The 2030 agenda, although it's well intentioned in its goals, is nothing but a supranational government programme that is socialist in shape. It purports to resolve the problems of modernity with solutions that afflict the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, right to freedom and property of persons.
Morsink’s Veiled Criticism on Article 29: A Historical and Academic Perspective
Political scientist Professor Johannes Morsink, former Professor of Political Philosophy at Drew University, is renowned for his in-depth analysis of the UDHR. In his book The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent, he highlights the contentious nature of Article 29. Initially proposed as Article 1, it was relegated to the end due to disagreements over its implications. Particularly on 29(3), Morsink highlights the article’s lack of clarity regarding individual duties and permissible limitations, arguing that this vagueness could lead to arbitrary applications and institutional overreach, questioning whether prioritizing institutional goals over individual rights aligns with the UDHR’s founding principles.
WAIT's Perspective of Article 29
Many have and continue to argue in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and understandably so. It is a historic document introduced by an organization whose stated goals are for promoting economic and social development and enhancing global peace and security. Why then do we insist on the need to amend Article 29?
Article 29 reads:
“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.”
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.”
“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
At first glance, Article 29 appears to endorse shared responsibility within a community. However, its language reveals problematic assumptions. The first clause suggests that individual development is contingent upon community context, negating the possibility of personal growth outside institutional frameworks. This inherently paternalistic and authoritarian view implies that each person is, from birth, subservient to the community's charter. Such a premise mirrors the historic and contemporary totalitarian dynamics, where individuals are viewed as subjects of a state. Article 29(1) essentially dictates that the community defines the parameters for personal development, disregarding individual autonomy and freedom of self-determination. This approach not only undermines the concept of the self-sovereign individual but also constricts personal identity within predefined societal roles.
Clause 3 boldly prioritizes the UN’s authority over individual rights, introducing a conditionality that undermines the inherent, unalienable nature of human dignity. The paragraph places institutions above individuals, contradicting the principle that humans, made in God’s image, possess intrinsic value. This philosophical flaw undermines the ethical basis of human rights and necessitates a re-evaluation of Article 29 to ensure that individual dignity is prioritized over institutional authority.
From a theological and moral standpoint, this hierarchy is untenable, as it subordinates the moral agency of the individual to the mutable dictates of international institutions.
The Threat of Institutional Overreach: Freedom of Speech, Privacy, and Bodily Integrity at Risk
The current language allows for potential overreach, particularly in three critical areas::
Freedom of Speech: Subjective terms like "morality" or "public order" can be used to suppress dissent, as seen in recent trends in Western democracies where speech restrictions are justified in the name of public welfare or security. The ambiguity of these terms opens the door for interpretative abuse, undermining the fundamental right to free expression.
Privacy: The broad reference to 'public order' enables state and international actors to justify invasive surveillance under the pretext of security or health, often without adequate legal safeguards. This lack of clarity compromises the individual's right to privacy and personal autonomy, which are essential for maintaining the sanctity of personal life.
Bodily Integrity: Recent amendments to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Organization (WHO) grant international bodies increased authority over health measures, even without consent. Article 29(3) could be used to justify such overreach, undermining personal autonomy and the principle of consent. The erosion of bodily integrity as a sacrosanct human right poses significant ethical and legal dilemmas.
The “Pact for the Future” and its Implications for Sovereignty
The aforementioned "Pact for the Future" boldly proclaims the UN as the sole entity capable of addressing global crises, such as climate change and pandemics, thereby expanding its authority. A notable concern remains the proposed Emergency Platform, which would have granted the Secretary-General extensive crisis powers with minimal input from national governments, potentially threatening state sovereignty and individual autonomy.
The Pact’s focus on controlling misinformation and hate speech, already contentious issues, raises additional alarms. These measures could further institutionalize censorship and surveillance, posing a significant risk to free speech and privacy. A recent example is the extreme censorship tactics seen in Brazil, where a Supreme Court-led crackdown banned social media platform X for non-compliance with state demands, showcasing the dangers of unchecked centralized authority.
In this context, amending Article 29 becomes essential to ensure that individual rights are preserved amidst the expanding reach of global governance.
UN’s Lack of Impartial Mechanisms
The UN's structural framework lacks impartial mechanisms to challenge institutional overreach, allowing minimal disagreement from member states. Most resolutions are voted on when key terms are already decided, leaving dissenters diplomatically isolated and stifling opposition. This dynamic enables institutional agendas to infringe upon state sovereignty. Additionally, many human rights treaties, such as the Nuremberg Code, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are embedded within the increasingly powerful UN system, raising concerns about their impartial enforcement.
This concern is highlighted by David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, regarding controversial amendments to the International Health Regulations earlier this year, noting these will “place the WHO as having rights overriding that of individuals, erasing the basic principles developed after World War Two regarding human rights and the sovereignty of States.” Such developments illustrate the risks of expanding international authority at the expense of individual rights and national sovereignty. These trends indicate a disturbing shift towards centralizing power, potentially at the expense of democratic accountability and individual liberties.
Unalienable Rights and Public Liberty
It is no accident that the US Declaration of Independence references the "laws of nature and of nature’s God," establishing universal principles that should limit governmental power and overreach, as articulated by John S. Schmeeckle in his 2016 article “Cicero, Natural Law, and the Declaration of Independence.” This principle further serves as a foundational argument for amending Article 29. Recognizing the sovereign individual as the highest unit of value under God ensures that individual rights, derived from natural law, remain paramount over institutional authority. The philosophical notion that individuals possess inherent value independent of societal or governmental constructs is crucial for safeguarding personal freedoms against potential overreach.
In fact, the Founding Fathers' understanding of First Principles in relationship to freedom in general is reflected in Benjamin Franklin's observation that "without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech". His warning carries more weight today, due to the centralizing powers in a hyper-digitalized 21st-century, as seen with the global push for censorship.
Amending Article 29: The Sovereign Individual vs the Community
At its core, the tension in the UDHR can be explained by a collectivist worldview versus individualism. This tension is unwarranted. The fundamental unit of any community is the individual, implying that robust individual rights strengthen, rather than weaken, communities. Hence, we propose amending Article 29 to affirm that individuals have duties to their communities, but these duties must not infringe upon their inherent rights.
Clear safeguards are needed to protect individual rights from becoming subservient to shifting institutional priorities. Without such safeguards, there is a risk that the principles of human dignity and personal freedom, foundational to the UDHR, may be compromised under the guise of international governance. Institutions, including the United Nations, exist to serve humanity—not the other way around.
This amendment would reflect the primacy of individual sovereignty, grounded in Enlightenment principles and the liberal Western tradition. Recognizing the intrinsic value of the individual as a moral agent is essential for a just and ethical global order.
Here we present our proposal for a revised Article 29, open to public debate:
1. Individual Sovereignty: Every person possesses inherent and unalienable rights that are independent of societal or institutional frameworks. These rights are paramount and must be respected and upheld.
2. Community Responsibilities: The fundamental unit of communities is the individual, which entails responsibilities to the community. These must align with and support the freedom and self-determination of the individual, without denying obligations to their communities.
3. Limitations on Rights: In exercising their rights and freedoms, individuals may be subject only to limitations that are clearly defined by law and are necessary to protect the rights of others, public order, or general welfare, ensuring that such limitations are not arbitrary and do not violate the fundamental dignity of the individual.
4. Institutional Authority: The rights and freedoms of individuals shall not be exercised in ways that contravene their inherent dignity or that place institutional authority above individual rights. Any application of international law must prioritize the rights of the sovereign individual.
Conclusion
The United Nations has played a crucial role in creating a robust body of international law through conventions, treaties, and standards, which serve as a foundation for governing relations among nations, fostering development, and promoting global peace and security.
However, the UN Charter, while appearing to advocate for global cooperation, also centralizes global power, often at the expense of national sovereignty. The "Pact for the Future," with its provisions for expanded governance and emergency powers, exemplifies how centralized authority can encroach upon the rights of sovereign states and individuals.
In light of these developments, and given their great symbolic value for Western societies, this dynamic forces us to reconsider the framework of Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its current form. To ensure that global governance does not overstep its bounds, a revised Article 29 should firmly establish that individuals' inherent and unalienable rights supersede any institutional mandate. This amendment would prioritize human dignity and safeguard against potential overreach by international bodies, reaffirming that institutions exist to serve humanity—not to dominate it. In essence, we assert that our identity as human beings take precedence over our roles as citizens. The proposed amendments are in line with the fundamental principles of human rights and designed to protect the sovereign individual from momentary impulses and shifts in the light of evolving global challenges.
We call upon scholars, policymakers, and the international community to support this amendment, ensuring that individual rights remain unalienable and protected from arbitrary power.
The World Alliance of Independent Thinkers (WAIT!)
Jeroen Sluiter, founder