Innocent soldiers arent dying unnecessarily

There is only one human right

Hannah Arendt

Editor's note: With the kind permission of the Hannah Arendt Bluecher Literary Trust, we are publishing a scanned version of Hannah Arendt's essay, “There is only a single human right”, published in Die Wandlung, 4th year, autumn issue 1949, December 1949, p. 754-770. We have adopted the line and page breaks from the original and inserted the original page numbers at the end of each page.

The human rights that the 18th century revolutions

solemnly proclaim the principle of all civilized nations

only after the First World War did they become

opportunity of practical politics. The 19th century wore on them

to appeal in all those cases in which the individual is affected by

of the growing state power or of the rising social

Injustice in the age of the industrial revolution too

was obviously threatened. As a result, the almost imperceptible

The idea of ​​human rights itself in a new sense of

context: they became a kind of additional law,

to an exceptional right for the oppressed to rely on

their protectors called as if they represented a minimum of justice

represent for the disenfranchised.

This is related to the concept of human rights

hardly any in 19th century political thought

Played a role, and that even in the 20th century, when for the first time

sometimes large groups of people appeared who

ter way were deprived of all rights, no liberal or

radical party found ready to issue a new human proclamation

to include human rights in their program. When the people

human rights really lay the foundation for everyone's constitutions

civilized countries, then the varied ones had to

Laws of the citizens of the different countries

human right in rem, which in itself is considered by citizenship

and national affiliation was designed independently.

that was, to embody and concretize in oneself. Since all men

were citizens of any political body,

could you expect that she would take care of herself

human rights in different legal

to realize len forms; but should a despotism her

Deprived of human rights, they were in the sense of the political

tical philosophy of the 18th century

revolutionary action to found a new state.

Neither the 18th nor the 19th century knew people who

although they live in civilized countries, none of these

/ 754 /

Countries enjoy citizenship and so in a situation

are forced into absolute lawlessness and defenselessness. First the

Hundreds of thousands of stateless refugees in the twenty

and thirties of our century, to whom mil-

lions of displaced persons in the forties on that

Feet have followed the human rights issue again

put on the agenda of living politics. All

political and social disasters of our time, wars or

Revolutions, in terrifying monotony, have the mass

the absolutely lawless and homeless increased and the problem

such lawlessness in new countries and continents

tows. No other problem returns with the same persistence

and with the same hopelessness for satisfactory

sung at all international conferences of the last twenty

Years again. And contemporary politics is not a paradox

filled with a bitterer irony than the discrepancy between

the efforts of well-meaning idealists who persevere

Establish rights as indispensable human rights, whose

only the citizens of the most prosperous and civilized countries

happy, and the situation of the disenfranchised themselves, who also

so persistently deteriorated until the internment camp that

before the war it was only an exception

for the stateless, to the routine resolution of the

Containment problem has become the displaced persons.

Even that applied to the lawless has worsened

Terminology. With the designation "stateless" was at least

at least recognized that they protect their governments

lorries and to secure their legal status internationally

nal agreements were required. The post-war designation

"Displaced persons" was specifically invented around them

disruptive "statelessness" once and for all simply by ignoring

to get rid of the world. Non-recognition of states

Losing always means repatriation, remittance into one

"Homeland" that either the repatriate does not have

and does not want to recognize it as a citizen or vice versa

wants him back all too badly, namely for the purpose

of the penal system. In this sense, the term dis-

placed persons the only de facto existing international

Agreement. None of the non-totalitarian countries has yet

however, because of the possibility of forced repatriation

Made use and this fact shows that the failure to

recognition of statelessness and the inability to exercise legal

/ 755 /

loose under the umbrella of some sort of legality

bring, not just be ascribed to badwill


The nations of the world have statelessness on a mass scale

World in fact before the inescapable and highly confusing

Asked whether there are any indispensable "human rights"

that is, there are rights that are independent of any particular

political status are and solely the mere fact of

To be human. Wherever people showed up, they did

were no longer citizens of a sovereign state, and

whether this happened even in a country whose constitution

is firmly founded on human rights, there have been

the supposedly indispensable and inalienable human

rights proved to be impracticable and unenforceable. (If

the United States is completely equal to stateless immigrants

treated other foreigners just because

this immigration country par excellence newcomers,

regardless of their previous nationality, in principle

considered as potential citizens of their own.)

In theory, the new attempts have led to a new one

Drafting the Charter of Human Rights proved that no one

knows with some certainty what this general

mean human rights, in contrast to citizenship

ten, actually are. It may therefore be useful to have the

to analyze the legal situation of the lawless oneself in order to see

what kind of rights they lost when they lost their people

human rights lost.

First of all, the lawless have lost their homes, and

that is, the entire social environment into which they were born

and within which they find their place in the world

had created. Such misfortune is not in history

way new; in a broader historical perspective

forced migration for political or economic reasons

changes of individuals or entire ethnic groups such as

daily events. Unprecedented in history is not

the loss of home, but probably the impossibility of one

to find new ones. Suddenly there was no more space on earth

where hikers could go without the sharpest

to be subject to restrictions, no country they assimi-

lied, not a territory on which they have their own community

could build. This was by no means impossible

their reason in overpopulation; deserted countries

/ 756 /

took themselves no differently than overpopulated; it was not a room

problem, but a question of political organization. Never-

someone had noticed that the human race that one is

so long before the image of a family of nations

had reached a stage where everyone who came out of a

excluded from these closed political communities

suddenly became part of the entire "family of nations"

found excluded. *

Together with their homeland, those without rights lost their protection

their government; and that brought the loss of a legal one

Status not only in their own but in all countries

with himself. Reciprocity and international agreements

men have spun a web across the earth, which the state

Citizens of every country allows their legal status with themselves

to carry wherever he may go (which, for example, resulted in

that under the Nazi regime a German citizen on

Due to the Nuremberg Laws, this also applies abroad

could be prevented from entering into a 'mixed marriage'). But who

is no longer included in this network, it is out of it

Thrown out under the legality at all - so that

for example the stateless themselves during the 1st war

consistently in a worse position than that

respective enemy aliens by their governments

indirectly protected through international agreements

could become. The loss of government protection is in the

History is as little unknown as the loss of one's homeland.

Civilized countries have had refugees coming from since ancient times

have been persecuted by their governments for political reasons,

Right of asylum required; and although this practice is never official

was enshrined in some constitution, it has

entire 19th century and even in our own century

works reasonably well. The trouble started when

found that the new categories of persecuted at

were far too numerous to be dealt with by a practice

which was calculated for exceptional cases, could have coped with


* The few reintegration opportunities that refugees

Lingen were open, mostly based on their nationality. Spa-

niche refugees were wanted to some extent in Mexico-

called to come. The United States led the way in the early twenties

Years a quota system, which every national already represented in the country

nality, so to speak, gave the right proportionally to their numerical share

of the total population a number of their former compatriots into the country

bring to.

/ 757 /

nen. In addition, the vast majority of modern

The masses of refugees hardly have their right to asylum

can prove that this right presupposes that the persecuted

has political or religious convictions that are in the asylum

do not end up outside the law. The new refugees

but lings are not persecuted for doing this or that

or thought, but on the basis of what they

mutually - born into the wrong race,

the wrong class, or from the wrong government to the

Weapons taken (as in the case of the Spanish republican

Army). * The need for a new proclamation of the

Human rights has with the fate of real political

Little to do with refugees. Which, necessarily, always little

numerous political refugees still rejoice in many

Countries have the right to asylum, and this right affects, albeit

unofficially, in fact, as a real substitute for national law


It is one of the aporias of modern experience that it is easier

seems to be a completely innocent of its legality

as a man who has a politically hostile hand

has committed a crime or has committed an ordinary crime.

“If I am accused of having taken the towers of Notre Dame

to have stolen, so I flee «- that famous joke of

Anatole France has assumed a terrible reality.

Lawyers who are used to the law in the term of

To formulate punishment, the enforcement of which always has certain rights

deprived, it may be even more difficult to understand than that

Layman that the loss of the entire legal status, the com-

complete disenfranchisement, no longer related to

a true offense.



This situation brings to light the many difficulties that

are included in the concept of human rights. As always she

* How dangerous it can be to be "innocent" in the sense of persecuting

Being a government turned out to be particularly clear than the American

Government during the last war all through the extradition

graphs of the Franco-German armistice agreement threatened

offered German refugees the right to asylum. The refuge had to naturally

to prove that he did something against Nazi rule. This loading

very few German refugees could meet the conditions, and

curiously enough, these were not the ones who were most

were at risk.

/ 758 /

were once defined (as the right to life, freedom and struggle

practice for luck in American, or as equality before

law, freedom, protection of property and national sovereignty

variance in the French version) and how to

seek an ambiguous phrase such as "pursuit of happiness"

or an antiquated such as the unqualified »right to own

tum «- the real situation of those who live in the

20th century out of the framework of the law in general.

failed, clearly shows that the loss is more particular

Rights never result in absolute lawlessness. The sol-

dat is deprived of its right to life during the war,

the criminal forfeits his right to liberty, everyone

Citizens lose their right to seek in an emergency

for luck: but nobody will claim that in any-

in such a case there would be a loss of human rights.

And on the other hand, these rights can be exercised even under the

against fundamental lawlessness continue to function.

The unhappiness of those without rights is not that they

of freedom, the pursuit of happiness, equality before

Are deprived of the law or freedom of expression; their misfortune is

to cover with none of the formulas that were designed to

Solve problems within given communities. Your

Lawlessness arises only from the fact that it does not lead to any

belong to some kind of community. Your condition

is not to be defined with inequality before the law as it is

for them there is no law at all; not that it oppresses

are, identifies them, but that no one even gives them to

wish to suppress. Your right to life will only last

Stage of a lengthy process in question; just

when they remain completely "superfluous" and no one is any more

whoever complains thinks her life is in danger. Even the

Nazis, before they started exterminating the Jews,

first of all their legal status (at that time the status of the state

Second-class citizenship), they have in ghettos and

Concentration camps crammed into them from the world of the living

cut off. So - and this is crucial - a

Situation of complete lawlessness established before the law

on life was in question.

The same is true, in an almost ironic sense, of the

Right to freedom, which is so often considered the very essence of the

Human rights is considered. Without question a

Enjoy greater freedom of movement than a right-wing

/ 759 /

moderately caged criminal, and certainly enjoys one

Stateless person in a democracy internment camp

greater freedom of expression than the citizens of a despotic government

ten country - not to mention totalitarian states. But

neither life security (which is practically due to nutrition

state or private charities)

still freedom of expression can participate in the fundamental situation

to change the slightest thing in lawlessness. The preservation of the

The lawless owe life to charity and not

a right because there is no law that governs the nations

might force them to feed; Freedom of movement as far as they are

they still have, is not based on any right of residence,

as even the imprisoned criminal takes it for granted-

wisely still owns; and their freedom of expression turns out to be

a fool's freedom because what they think for nothing and

nobody matters anymore.

These facts are crucial. First

and above all the robbery of human rights takes place through it

instead of depriving a person of his place in the world

becomes, through which alone his opinions have weight and

his actions effectiveness. *

Something much more basic than the citizenship rights of the

So freedom and justice are at stake when the

Belonging to the community into which one was born

is no longer self-evident and not belonging to

its no longer a matter of choice or when someone is in

a situation is put where - if it is not a crime

commits - his treatment by the others no longer at all

depends on what he does or fails to do.

That there is such a thing as a right to have rights (and that

means: to live in a relationship system where you

actions and opinions are judged), or a

Right to belong to a politically organized community

- We only know that since millions of people

who had lost such rights and according to the

not regain the new global political situation


* This became very clear when the Nazis treated the Jews as enemies

began without first giving them the opportunity to

comments or take sides. From this it immediately followed

that the Jews were never recognized as full enemies of Nazism,

because their resistance is not evident from conviction and action clearly enough.

seemed to have grown. They had been deprived of the ability to do both.


could. This evil had nothing to do with backwardness

still to do with sheer tyranny; it turned out to be the opposite

only so far as incurable because there is none, so to speak

"Uncivilized" patches of earth because we, whether we want

len or not, have already started in "One World"

Life. Only when the human being is fully organized

The loss of one's homeland and the political one could be bad

Status become identical with expulsion from human

is called anyway.

Before anything like this happened, it became what we are today

have learned to regard it as a "human right" rather than

regarded as a general characteristic of being human, that

no tyrant could rob. The loss of the "right to rights"

attracts the loss of relevance and thus the reality of the

Language according to itself (and since Aristotle man has been as a

This has been defined by the power of language and essence

of thinking), and this loss is followed by loss

of all human relationships (and one has the human

called the "political animal", again since Aristotle,

that is, a being defined by community) -

in other words, this is where losses occur that some of the

affect the most essential properties of human life. *

The calamity that an ever increasing number of people

afflicted here, is not the loss of specific rights, but rather

the loss of a community that is willing and able to

to guarantee rights in general - of whatever kind.

It turned out that man all so-called man

can forfeit human rights without its essential human rights

Quality, to lose one's human dignity. Only the

Lust of the political community is what makes the people out

that humanity can throw out.


* It is true that to some extent this was already the case with slaves who

therefore Aristotle did not count them among the people.

But in the light of the latest experience, it can be said that slaves

ven were members of human society rather than the displaced

persons «of an internment camp or the inmates of a concentration

warehouse. Their work was needed, used and exploited, and thereby

they were still included in the framework of humanity. A

After all, to be a slave meant having a certain social character and one

have a specific place in human society.

/ 761 /


These observations look like a belated, bit-

tere and ironic confirmation of the famous arguments that

Edmund Burke of the "Declaration of Human Rights" by the

Countered the French Revolution. Only now fail

n his theses to be supported that it is wiser to be on

to abandon an "inherited inheritance" of rights that

how life itself is passed on to one's children, and that

it is wiser to claim his rights as "the rights of the Englishman"

claim as indispensable human rights. The right,

which we enjoy, according to Burke »from the na-

tion «and need neither the laws of nature nor divine

a human design like Robespierre’s

"Human race as sovereigns of the earth" as their source


It seems besides in the light of our varied experiences

all doubts that Burke’s concept is pragmatically correct.

The loss of national rights did not just happen in all cases

the loss of human rights brought with it, but the

Human rights also have, like the example of the State of Israel

proves so far only by establishing national rights

can be restored. The concept of human

right collapsed just as his

Confessors were confronted with people for the first time,

which in the act all other special qualities and special

had forfeited their relationships so that nothing of them

what was left was just being human. The world has at the

abstract nudity of being human in itself nothing awe-

can find something exciting. And it's given the objective

political situation also difficult to say how the terms

of people on whom human rights are based -

that he was created in the image of God (like the name

rican formula says) - or that he is the representative of the

Of the human race, or that he

of natural law (such as the French for-

mel says) - would have helped to solve the problem


The survivors of the extermination camps, the inmates of the

Concentration and internment camps, even those still

relatively happy stateless persons did not need a bureau

cherish arguments to see that the abstract nude

/ 762 /

being nothing but human was their greatest danger. The

civilized world treated them as undesirable barbarians and

the societies that advocated them were similar in language

and composition all too often animal welfare associations. So

were they all the more vehemently on their nationality, the last

Mark of their earlier nationality than on the last one

remaining and recognized ties that they have to the human

the less rights they became. Your distrust of

Natural and their preference for national rights arises

because of their insight that natural rights also apply to savages

be awarded. Burke had feared that "an-

born "rights only the right of the" naked savage "

confirm and thus civilized nations to the state of the

Would drag down barbarism. Because the savage is the only one

Kind of person who cannot fall back on anything other than

to the bare minimum of the fact of his human origin

jump, precisely because of this, people cling so much

doubt their nationality if they have the rights and the

Have lost the protection it once granted them. Because

only their past with their »inherited inheritance

society "seems to confirm to them that they are still the civilized

belonging to the tenth world.

Let us consider again and more precisely the general human

the conditions of those from all over the political community

are pushed out, Burke's arguments still win

increased importance. Whatever treatment of the lawless

always like to experience, and completely independent of freedom

or oppression, justice or injustice: them

all those references to the world and all those districts have

forfeited existence that is the result of our common

work and are exclusively done by human beings.

originate from the world. When the tragedy of wild peoples

tribes is that they are in an unchanged nature

live that they cannot control and from whose excess

river or barreness their livelihood depends on that they live

and die without leaving a trace and without one

To have made a contribution to our common world, then

are indeed the modern stateless and lawless into one

strange kind of natural state thrown back.

They are certainly not barbarians, some of them even belong to them

to the most highly educated strata of their countries - and

nor do they appear in the midst of a world that is the state of

/ 763 /

Barbarism has almost eliminated as the first messenger of a possible

Regression of civilization.

The more developed a civilization, the more complete it is

the world created by her has become human home

is, the more people become in this artificial structure

Feel at home, the more sensitive they become to everything

what they didn't produce, anything mysteriously

is merely given to them. A normal life understands the whole

Sphere of private life within which we move through

Friendship, sympathy and love more or less

to come to terms with the mere gift of human existence

can. We have known since the Greeks that a highly developed

political life engulfed an ingrained distrust of

this whole private sphere brings with it a deep grudge

against the disturbing wonder of the fact that everyone

is made by us as it is - unique, unique and independent

changeable. This whole area of ​​what is only given, the inner

half of civilized society to the sphere of the private

life-related poses a permanent threat to the

public sphere, because the public sphere is on that

Law of equality as firmly established as the private one

the law of diversity and distinction. Equal-

ness is not given to us, but is given by a prin-

zip human organization guided by justice

dued. We are not born equals, we become equals

we as members of a group only by virtue of our decisions

the aim of guaranteeing each other equal rights. High-

wrapped political communities like the ancient city-states

or that is why modern nations so often insist on ethical

niche uniformity because they hope so that those natural

and always present differences and differences

to eliminate divorces that are inherently stupid hatred,

Generate distrust and discrimination. These differences

attest all too clearly to a sphere where man does not

delt and cannot change, and thus show the limits

of human power. But wherever the public

practice his law of equality to an absolute victory

where a civilization comes to the dark background of the

Differentiation is eliminated successfully or to a minimum

reduced, there it will end in petrification, as it were to

Punishment for forgetting that man is only

is the Lord, but not the Creator of the world.

/ 764 /

When people are forced to work outside the community

to live in the same world, they are based on their natural

hunts, thrown back on their sheer diversity.

They lack the great equalizer of all differences, that

Status of citizenship in a community; Nevertheless

like them because they have no participation in the human

form more is allowed, soon the human race in it

Belonging to a certain species like an animal. in the

Loss of human rights is the paradox that the mo-

ment of their loss coincides with the fact that a person

will probably become an abstract human being in general -

without profession, without nationality, without opinion, without

Achievements through which he can identify and specify himself

could - as well as to an abstract differentiated

at all, who represents no more than his own, absolutely unique

like individuality that has lost all meaning

because they no longer act in a common world

or can express itself in it.

The existence of such a category of people harbors one

twofold danger. First, obviously her forced

abstract existence, its disconnectedness with the outside world,

a constant temptation to murderers and threatens us

on top of that with a dulling of our conscience. For it

it could happen to us - similar to that new type of

Murderers - no longer really penetrates the consciousness that

at all a person has been murdered when he is practical

has ceased to exist before. Second is through

the constant increase in the number of those without rights our human

liches building, our political life, in very similar and

threatened perhaps even more terrifyingly than once

Natural elements threatened people's cities. It is un-

it has become probable that civilization was still outside

a mortal danger. Nature is

mastered, and no barbarians threatened, such as the former

Mongols to destroy everything they don't understand.

Even the rise of totalitarian governments is not one

Phenomenon that approaches our civilization from outside,

but it grows straight out of it. But there is

Danger that a global, consistently interconnected

a civilization made barbarians out of its own midst,

by putting millions of people into living conditions

/ 765 /

that, contrary to all appearances, the living conditions

of barbarians.



The concept of human rights can make sense anew

if, in the light of current experiences and

stands is formulated. We have more thorough than Burke

must learn that all rights are only available within a certain

given political communities realize that they are from

our fellow men and from a tacit guarantee

tie that the members of a community depend on one another

give. But we also know that there is another right

must give besides those so-called "unchangeable" people

human rights - which are actually just citizenship rights

and change according to historical and other circumstances -

a right that does not arise "from the nation" and that one

requires a different guarantee than the national one, namely the law

every person for membership in a political

my being.

One should beware of this right, which is common among human

right was never even mentioned, continues in the

Define 18th century categories. Not least

therefore the whole question of human rights is in their today

Get confused from which philosophically so absurd and

claims that are so politically unrealizable as that

every person with the inalienable right to unemployment

support and old-age insurance was born. Rights exi-

star only because of the multitude of people; right

we only have it because we share the earth with others

People, while both the divine commandment to

is based on the fact that man is created in God's image

be, like natural law, derived from human law

"Nature" would have to remain true even if it was only one

only people in the world.

When human rights were first proclaimed

they were considered independent of history and of the

Privileges that history of certain layers of society

had leaked. They showed in the sense of the 18th century

does not suggest that people benefit from the history that

Gelband had brought up tradition, became independent,

that he had entered the age of his coming of age. These

From the beginning, new dignity was of a questionable nature.

/ 766 /

Historical rights have been replaced by natural rights, »Na-

tur «was pushed into the place of history. It was silent

silently presupposed that nature corresponds to the essence of man

is less alien than history. Even the termino

logic of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration

des Droits de l‘Homme (»indispensable«, »born with

giving "," axiomatic truths ") includes belief in

adhere to a human nature that shares the same growth

laws, like the individual, and that of the human

national rights and laws should be derived. Nobody

could of course foresee that this human "nature"

defined by philosophy for two thousand years and

had been interpreted, unknown and unforeseen possibilities

could contain opportunities, or that mankind nature

one day would get so far under his control that

destruction of the earth by human instruments min-

could at least become possible, nor that the result of one

deeper knowledge of nature precisely the doubt about the

Existence of natural laws at all.

The human being of the 20th century is just like that by nature

emancipated, like the 18th century man from the

history was emancipated. History and nature are alien to us

become, the essence of man is no longer with them

capture. Neither history nor nature offer us an

a comprehensive whole in which we feel spiritually at home

could. On the other hand, however, is humanity, which is

In the 18th century, nothing more than a term and a

The ideal was for us to commit a hard and inescapable act

become a thing; the peoples are no longer through space and

natural obstacles and the associated insurmountable

spiritual walls separated from history and culture.

This new situation in which 'humanity' is in fact the role

begins to play that used to be nature or history

was ascribed, has the immediate consequence that that factual

shared responsibility that the members of each national

national community for the events committed in their [sic] name

or misdeeds, now to enter the sphere of the inter-

national life begins to extend into it. The people

the world have a vague anticipation of this new one

Burden and flee from it in a nationalism that is all the more so

is more violent than its intentions are constantly thwarted.

The peoples feel that they are in danger of being charged for sins.

/ 767 /

to be punished «who are on the other side of the globe

have been walked, but haven't had much opportunity

to learn that every correct

This step will also benefit them.

The rise of humanity as a political one

nity creates a situation in which Justice Jackson's

the term used in the Nuremberg Trials of the

break against humanity «to the fundamental idea of ​​inter-

national law will. But one must understand that the

international right with this thought its present

Sphere exceeds, because this has it only with laws and

Agreement to do what traffic in peace and war

sovereign nations, and in the sphere of a law

that is above the nations. This new one

Type of legislation may include offenses such as wars of aggression, criminal

minelle warfare, breaches of treaty and suppression of the

own or foreign peoples under the present environment

would not make their objects. All such

Exceeding will also have to be encountered in the future.

as it happened in the past, namely through

united action of the nations concerned; you can in contrast

current framework of political organization and under the

suspension of state sovereignty hardly any different than

through international or mutual treaties and alliances

unlawful. These offenses take hold

the rights of citizens, citizenship rights of their own

or a foreign community, which in turn is from

Citizens, states organized in nations or parties

citizens, must be defended; judge such offenses

not actually against human rights. Because man

purely as a human being has only one right over all of his

various rights as a citizen goes beyond: that

Right to never be deprived of one's citizenship,

the right never to be excluded from the rights,

that guarantees his community. (Such an exclusion

is not present when he is locked in prison, but it is,

if he is put in a concentration camp.) Only the

Closure of the community in general pushes people off

from that entire area of ​​legality in which rights are derived

arise from the mutual guarantees which they alone secure


Totalitarian governments have the 'crime against the

/ 768 /

Humanity ‘made their specialty, so to speak. It will

In the long run it will do more harm than good if we top this

and single standing type of crime with a whole

Bring together a number of other crimes ranging from to-

talitarian governments are also committed indiscriminately

den, such as injustice and exploitation, robbery of

Freedom and political oppression. Such crimes

are used in all kinds of tyrannies and despotism.

and will hardly ever be found sufficient,

interfering in someone else's affairs

Justify the country. Soviet Russia's aggressive and

perialist foreign policy has become crimes against many

To make peoples guilty, and that is certainly an

opportunity that concerns the whole world; nevertheless it remains

Matter the subject of ordinary foreign policy in the international

nal scale and can not be considered a concern of humanity

such, not the subject of a possible right over that

Nations become. The concentration camps of totalitarian states

on the other hand, in which millions of people even of the dubious

adhere to benefits are deprived of the laws of their own country,

could and should be the subject of an action,

who no longer respect the rights and rules of sovereignty


One crime against humanity stands for one thing

Against human rights. To the Bill of Rights of the United

Nations * and their [sic] conspicuous lack of a sense of reality

to defend it has sometimes been argued that the

the mere enumeration of rights serves this purpose, the legislation

to spur reactionary countries. This argument would be of

even more valid if the Bill of Rights does not

Claim to be the legal expression of human rights

be. Indeed, the listing and listing

of existing rights result in great advantages, and these

might well be among the blessings that flow from the

growing solidarity among nations

will give. But just as clear is the danger of claiming

that all these rights are no more and no less than

the embodiment of human rights itself: one thing could be us

this melting pot of rights of a highly heterogeneous kind and

Origin is only too easy to overlook and neglect,


* See booklet 4 of III. Volume of this journal, page 851 and following.

Translation of the drafts of the UN commission.

/ 769 /

namely this one right, without that none of the others

Rights is realizable, the right to a political community

belonging to beings.

Like all other rights, this one human

right only through mutual agreement and guarantee each other

realize. As people's right to citizenship

but it transcends the rights of the citizen and is

with the only right that a community of national

nen, and only by it, can be guaranteed.

/ 770 /