France and the Birth of Universal Human Rights: A Philosophical and Legal Legacy

This article examines the philosophical and legal foundations of universal human rights through the lens of French intellectual and revolutionary history. It delves into the evolution of the approach of human rights from natural law theory to their codification during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. A particular emphasis is placed on France’s unique role in universalizing these ideas through the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The article outlines how 19^th century ideals such as liberty, equality and the rule of law challenged absolutist monarchy and inspired a new conception of State’s organisation based on constitutional rules. It concludes with a consideration of the relevance of these principles in the current pluralistic and globalized legal context and affirms the legacy of France in promoting a rights-based political order.

Keywords. Human rights; natural law; Enlightenment; French Revolution; social contract; Declaration of the Rights of Man; liberty; equality; sovereignty; Rousseau; Montesquieu; Diderot.

Франция и рождение универсальных прав человека: философское и юридическое наследие

Аннотация: В этой статье рассматриваются философские и правовые основы всеобщих прав человека через призму французской интеллектуальной и революционной истории. Она углубляется в эволюцию подхода к правам человека от теории естественного права до их кодификации в эпоху Просвещения и Французской революции. Особое внимание уделяется уникальной роли Франции в универсализации этих идей посредством Декларации прав человека и гражданина 1789 года. В статье описывается, как идеалы 19 века, такие как свобода, равенство и верховенство закона, бросили вызов абсолютистской монархии и вдохновили новую концепцию организации государства, основанную на конституционных правилах. Она завершается рассмотрением актуальности этих принципов в современном плюралистическом и глобализированном правовом контексте и подтверждает наследие Франции в продвижении политического порядка, основанного на правах.

Ключевые слова: Human rights; natural law; Enlightenment; French Revolution; social contract; Declaration of the Rights of Man; liberty; equality; sovereignty; Rousseau; Montesquieu; Diderot.

1.Introduction

The existence of human rights as a branch of international law deals with the UN Charter and other instruments that followed. However, their philosophical origins and underlying concepts have a long history. The modern conception of human rights and their recognition in positive law are the result of a long process: first their discovery, then their affirmation, and finally their imposition as the foundation of a given society. Initially developed at the domestic level, they gradually established themselves as a fundamental element of international relations and a condition for peace. Thus, the sources of human rights can be traced back to the very beginning of human existence, notably in religions and ancient philosophy. Nevertheless, as it is widely accepted in laws doctrine, modern political thought as it emerged in Europe—beginning with the Magna Carta (1215)—is now considered the starting point for the modern understanding of human rights. From English Revolutions, to American independence, and ultimately to the French revolutionaries who universalized these ideas, the conception of natural human rights as a political foundation based on a constitution gradually took root as a core principle of the modern state.

Therefore, this article seeks to review the key philosophical concepts that made this new conception possible. The theory of natural law, as well as the ideas developed by Enlightenment philosophers and their appropriation by the French revolutionaries as a justification for a new form of government, will be examined.

2. The theory of Natural Law

The theory of natural rights must be mentioned first. Indeed, it started to develop before the century of the Enlightenment and was then tackled numerous times by philosophers of the 18^th century. For modern philosophers such as Jean-Fabien Spitz, the theory of natural right exercised a profound influence on the political philosophy of the Enlightenment as a whole.^[1] Although the various theorists at the origin of the natural law school were not French, it remains essential to mention their ideas, as the founders of this school had a considerable influence on French thinkers.

This theory asserts the existence of a law superior and transcendent to political power. This law should guide both legislation and judicial authority. Its principles must be discovered by the reason through the study of the nature as it was created by God. Positive law thus gains its legitimacy through conformity with natural law. This vision implies a transcendent moral order that each individual must seek to understand, as it offers the ethical foundation for recognizing and respecting human rights. In this framework, the individual is conceived as an autonomous being who exists prior to society. Social organization is not natural but rather the result of a voluntary agreement. In the state of nature, individuals possess inherent rights that precede any political structure. When individuals choose to form a society, it is to protect and realize these pre-existing rights. Natural law, composed of rational principles, forms the basis from which political institutions must be derived. Since all humans share the same inherent rights, legitimate political authority stems from the collective will of those governed, a power delegated by individuals to ensure the protection of their rights.

Traditional societies, by contrast, view the individual as fundamentally social. The society was considered as the natural states of any human being which were naturally inclined to live in community; individuals have no reality independent of the group. These societies reject the notion of a state of nature in which the man is considered as free. Instead, freedom is understood as the absence of moral barriers and disharmony with others due to a lack of consideration. They also reject the idea that society is formed by contract. Instead, social order reflects a transcendent natural order that preexists human will. The principles of natural law are not fully knowable but may be discerned through certain observable realities, such as the complementarity of male and female leading to procreation, from which social institutions like marriage are abstracted. In such societies, law must echo these higher principles. This traditional conception is exemplified in the work of classical philosophers like Plato^[2] and Aristotle and the jusnaturalist tradition. Aristotle, for instance, recognized that political regimes could degenerate into tyranny.^[3] Resistance becomes legitimate when rulers violate the moral order and abandon their rightful mandate. A government that fails to respect divine principles loses its legitimacy and may justly be overthrown.

The modern form of guarantee of rights owes much to the thinkers of the natural law school. These theorists, mostly Protestant and from Northern Europe, approached law and politics through reason and subjectivity. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), a Dutch diplomat, is often credited as the pioneer of modern natural law theory. He advanced the idea that natural law is independent from divine law, introducing a secular understanding of legal and moral norms. For Grotius, sociability is a natural inclination; human beings are driven by reason to live peacefully with one another.^[4] From this, several moral imperatives arise: to respect property, honor agreements, and repair harm. Natural law is thus rooted in human reason and sociability, reflecting a more individualistic and secular perspective. Grotius paived the way for Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694), who developed a more comprehensive version of modern natural law.^[5] Drawing from Grotius principle of sociability discovered by the reason alone, as well as Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature as a condition of insecurity and conflict, he sees natural law as the rational pursuit of self-preservation, which in turn obliges humans to recognize each other’s equality and cooperate. This laid the foundation for viewing political society as emerging from natural rights and the voluntary formation of a social contract.

This modern perspective sees political legitimacy as rooted in the natural rights of individuals, which precede any social or political order. While drawing on shared concepts like the state of nature and the social contract, thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau reached divergent conclusions. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), in Leviathan (1651)^[6], sought to resolve the legitimacy of power in the midst of English civil revolution (1640-1649). Observing the chaos caused by competing allegiances, to church, state, and conscience, Hobbes concluded that unity was essential. He argued for a sovereign authority wielding absolute power, justified through a social contract in which individuals surrender their natural liberty in exchange for security and peace. The Leviathan (the holder of power) bases his absolute power on democratic legitimacy: power established by the consent of all members of the social body who entrust this power with their own individual sovereignty. In the state of nature, humans are free and equal, but this condition results in a war of all against all. The fear of death compels them to unite under a single authority—the Leviathan—who holds absolute sovereignty. Though Hobbes’s system justifies absolute power, its foundation remains democratic: the power derives from the collective consent of the governed.

John Locke (1632–1704), in his Two Treatises of Government,^[7] rejected the absolutist doctrine and championed individual liberty and equality. Unlike Hobbes, Locke did not view the state of nature as chaotic; instead, it is governed by natural law, discoverable through reason, which commands respect for others. Political society arises through two successive contracts: an agreement to form a society, and a second to establish a government with limited powers. For Locke, the legitimacy of political authority is conditional as it must serve the public good and respect natural rights. If the government violates its mandate, the people have the right to resist and revoke its power. His reasoning stands on the theory of civil government. The works of Hobbes and Locke are frequently cited when discussing natural law, as each drew upon the ideas of the other, modifying and adapting them to their own perspectives. However, the concept of the state of nature and the resulting organization of political and legal society was also addressed by other 17th-century philosophers, such as the Dutch thinker Spinoza.^[8]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), particularly in The Social Contract (1762),^[9] proposed a return to freedom through the establishment of a truly collective political order. He is the author that had the most important influence on the thinking of French philosophers, not only because he was French himself, but also for the theory that he developed. Moreover, these ideas earned him exile for part of his life, in order to avoid a death sentence. According to Rousseau, while humans were originally free in the state of nature, inequality and private property corrupted this freedom as it broke the natural equality. This marks the entrance into the social state. The goal of political association is not to preserve natural freedom of the man, but to restore it in the form of civil freedom. Rousseau’s theory rests on the idea of the general will, a collective authority that represents the common good. In obeying the law shaped by the general will, individuals obey themselves. Rousseau’s thought differs from others in its civic idealism and its emphasis on transforming individuals into citizens through law and participation. Though he acknowledged the utopian nature of his project, Rousseau’s ideas heavily influenced the French Revolution—particularly the notion that law is the expression of the general will, as enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

3. The spirit of the Enlightenment

The ideas embodied in the 1789 Declaration mainly derive from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, especially the theory of natural rights. During this eighteenth century philosophical movement, which represents a major event in the reform of Western thought, newly ideas were put forward and adopted. Immanuel Kant defines this period of time as one of the emancipation of the human spirit.^[10] The reason was the main element of this emancipation as it was used to reject, or put in question, the existing ideas and dogmas. In France, the use of the reason is a legacy of René Descartes (1596-1650) and its rationalists principles. But those later have been extended to every dimension of the nature and of the social world. That’s why, during the Age of Enlightenment, the principles of the absolute monarchy, rules of the moral, dogmas of the catholic faith have been the object of a critical analysis by the reason that tends toward the discovery of what could contribute to the wellness of the individual and of the society. From a metaphorical point of view, the term “enlightenment” refers to the faculty for an individual to think and discover the truth. This light can be divine, according for instance to Nicolas Malebranche (1638 – 1715), as it is provided by God to the individuals. For some other authors, this enlightenment is “natural”, with or without a divine origin. Pierre Bayle (1647 – 1706) states that the light will always serves the individuals to discover the truth and that it leads to the submission of the theology to the philosophy.^[11] A strong will of fight against obscurantism and development of critical thinking skills circulated and took roots during this period. As Michel Foucault put it so clearly in his essay titled “What is the Enlightenment?”, the phenomenon of the Enlightenment includes “elements of social transformation, types of political institution, forms of knowledge, projects of rationalization of knowledge and practices, technological mutations that are very difficult to sum up in a word.”^[12]

In France, the beginning of the 18^th century corresponds with the end of Louis XIV’s reign and a hardening of the absolute monarchy. For instance, the monarch revoked in 1685^[13] an act that since 1598 guaranteed to Protestants the freedom of conscience and of worship, an event that led to a massive protestant emigration outside of France. Some authors have thus revendicated a right of freedom of conscience and condemned all kind of fanaticism.^[14] The philosophers, on the initiative of Denis Diderot and under his and d’Alembert’s supervision, undertook the construction of The Encyclopédie, published between 1750 and 1772. The aim was to compile and disseminate Enlightenment ideas, including those related to human rights. Discussions of philosophical, political and economic issues in private circles, such as the Entresol club, where ideas were exchanged and circulated. And the ideas used to be put into circulation through different means, such as epistolary correspondences, newspapers and journals, pamphlets or other publications. For instance, Voltaire helped to popularize and disseminate Locke’s thought with his Philosophical letters in 1734.^[15] As a result, French thinkers began to focus on the individual, with the state, or collectively, no longer at the center of political thought, but rather on the individual, whose protection must be considered. As this example shows, the circulation of ideas and the discussions on different themes, combined with a tendency towards criticism and the search for reason, led this period to the wealth of concepts and ideas we know today. The results of these debates and discussions will be reflected in the discussions of the Constituent Assembly, and in the Declaration and Constitution that France will have after the Revolution.

It is interesting to dwell on certain notions that were developed and used within the French Declaration. First, the idea of “happiness of all”, which was laid in the Preamble of the Declaration as one of the ends of the new society that was about to exist, was recurrent in the philosophical topics of the Enlightenment. Found in the Constitution of Virginia,^[16] it was seen as a rule and life and an ideal that should be pursued by any human being, as Denis Diderot saif “There’s only one duty: to be happy”^[17]. Second, the notion of equality, which became later a fundamental principle, went from a metaphysical speculation to a social revendication and was particularly advocate for in France by Etienne-Gabriel Morelly^[18] and Jean Jacques Rousseau.^[19] The first one defended the idea that the individual are perfectly equals in the state of nature and any inequality is one of condition or appearance. Rousseau pushed the idea to the point that in the state of nature, the property creates inequality that end in a new one between the powerful and the weak in A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality among Mankind (1754) and the law that rules in the social state must guarantee equality among citizens. In his thought, some limits and difference to make between citizens are admitted, the law can divide them in branch but not grant privilege to an individual as such. Third, the notion of liberty is very wide and discussed on several aspects in philosophy, especially during the period of the Enlightenment that was impregnated of the “spirit of freedom.”^[20] Regarding the principle of liberty, Professor Jean Imbert, aggregated professor of history of law and specialist in human rights issues, divided it into four components:^[21] political freedom, economic freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of press. Indeed, these four freedoms gave rise to a lot of writing and debates among French thinkers. The theory of political liberty is embodied in the French philosophy by Montesquieu, and later by Rousseau, with the very known separation of powers. In the view of Montesquieu, liberty cannot exist if the executive, legislative and judicial powers are in the same hands and the political regime has no importance. Indeed, in Esprit des Lois, II, 1), he states that « A single person, without law and without rule, drives everything according to his will and whims” defining despotism.^[22] In other words, the regime of democracy does not systematically lead to political freedom, this also means that another form of government is not necessarily tyrannical if the separation of powers is guaranteed by law. He also affirmed that the freedom of religion, leading to a multi confessional state, was a source of richness for a State.^[23] Jean-Jacques Rousseau applies the notion of political freedom to the social contract; as the individuals freely decided to grant a part of their individual will to the general will, it is possible to use force when the latter uses its particular will against society. The freedom of religion is a topic that was tackled for centuries and that lead to the tolerance for believers. During the Age of Enlightenment, although some thinker where anticlerical, the necessity for tolerance has been defended a lot, especially by Voltaire,^[24] Rousseau, Babeyrac^[25] (described intolerance as “a disgrace to human nature” as early as 1728), Turgot^[26] (Letters on tolerance 1753 and 1754), Vattel^[27] (Droit des gens 1758; “freedom of conscience is a natural and inviolable right. It is a shame for humanity to have to demonstrate this”). The freedom of press developed as a reaction to some kind of censorship that appears under the old order, for instance, the author of the paper states the seizure of brochure or the condemnation to burn certain writings by French courts as well as theatre. The freedom of press as notably been developed in articles of The Encyclopédie “libelle” and “presse”. Fourthly, the notion of safety must be tackled. It referred mainly to what is nowadays called the protection of the physical integrity of the individuals and arbitrary arrests, detentions and sentences, i.e. the protection of the safety against the States’s actions. The philosophers protested it with force. For example, Mirabeau, an important face of the French Revolution, wrote an essay during a stay in prison which is a critic of arbitrary imprisonment^[28]. The lack of precision in the definition of offences and their punishment as also been tackled, leading to the principle of legality of punishments that state that the law shall clearly define them. Regarding the guarantee of the safety individual against other individuals, the issue is to conciliate a public force capable of ensure the protection of individuals while preserving their personal liberty. To this question, Rousseau’s explanation asserted that each individual gives their consent to a superior force that ensures the protection of all the rights on an equal basis. This means that if one individual’s actions infringe upon the rights of others, it is legitimate for them to be held accountable and punished for such acts. Finally, the qualification of the property as a natural right of the man is the legacy of John Locke, who considered that the individuals enter society to protect their property. The Professor Imbert identify only few thinkers that considered that the property was not a natural right, he especially mentions Gabriel Bonnot de Mably. Indeed, the latter, although a heir to Lockean philosophy, criticized some aspect of it especially by affirming that the private property is the cause of the increase of inequalities within a given society in his work on Le Droit Public de l’Europe (Public law of Europe – 1776).^[29]

Eventually, the Age of Enlightenment is a concentration of ideas that led to the emergence of important social changes within the European society. In France, the philosophical developments and the observance of the English and American societies led to the first French revolution. The ideas that triumphed then are the ideas of natural rights of the man. The principal contribution in terms of philosophical conception, is the idea of universality. Indeed, each human being is born with inherent rights that shall always be guaranteed.

4. The revolutionary context of the drafting and adoption

As already mentioned, France was undergoing a revolutionary crisis, mainly due to the state of the kingdom’s finances and the desire to impose new taxes. In reality, the tightening of the absolute monarchy based on divine right and the unjust feudal system imposed on the people deeply influenced and nourished the philosophical ideas calling for a form of political legitimacy grounded in natural rights. The ideas of Enlightenment philosophers circulated among the various estates and elites of the kingdom, notably through pamphlets, which praised the virtues of liberty but also denounced the injustices that could arise within the kingdom—particularly the soaring prices.^[30]It was in this context that, in June 1789, the representatives of the three estates of the Kingdom of France—summoned by the King to confront the crisis—declared themselves to be the National Assembly, representative of the nation. The Constituent Assembly then took upon itself the mission of drafting a new constitution for the kingdom, built on solid foundations of national sovereignty and justice.^[31] In the Tennis Court of Versailles, 1 318 deputies took this oath. Among them were legal professionals such as Maupeou, former president of the Parliament of Paris and a leader of the Revolution, as well as notaries like Frochot and Camus. The question of a Declaration of Rights to precede the constitution was raised early in July. Certain deputies stood out in this endeavor, such as Jean-Joseph Mounier, who was among the first to emphasize the necessity of drafting a declaration and who submitted a proposal.^[32] Several drafts were presented, notably by Lafayette,^[33] known for having take part in the American independence war, and Sieyès,^[34] a member of the clergy and also the author of a pamphlet titled “What is the Third-Estate?”.^[35]

It was decided after a three-day discussion, on 4 August 1789, that the Constitution would be preceded by a declaration of the fundamental principles from which it would be derived.^[36] The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen^[37] was thus drafted over the course of approximately 25 days. The entire debate is recorded in France’s parliamentary archives and reflects the differing views held by members of the Constituent Assembly. The work on the Declaration was carried out based on the presentation of several drafts, including one prepared by a committee of five members, the Comité des Cinq, of which Mirabeau served as the rapporteur. The debates, held publicly in the presence of over 1,300 deputies, were based on a 24-article draft described as simple and concise, avoiding any contentious principles.^[38] Indeed, the diversity of viewpoints among the deputies, their large number, and the public nature of the debates required a text built on compromise and consensus.

On August 26, 1789, a text composed of a preamble and 17 articles was finally adopted, clearly reflecting the previously outlined ideas, though in a rather heterogeneous form, reflecting the spirit of the century and the philosophical and ideological divergences of its drafters.Right from the preamble, the goals of the Declaration are stated: to solemnly proclaim pre-existing rights. The ignorance, neglect, or contempt of these natural rights is identified as the sole cause of “public misfortunes and the corruption of governments.” Therefore, the protection and recognition of the “inalienable and sacred rights of man” becomes the purpose of every political institution. This marks the transposition of the theory of natural rights into the social and political order: these rights are to be ensured within the social state and protected by its institutions. In the body of the text, the principles of equality among all human beings and of liberty are enshrined in Article 1, which affirms that men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Thus, the aim of any society, when human beings choose to associate and leave the state of nature, is solely to preserve the natural and inalienable rights of man (Article 2). For the drafters, these rights are liberty, property, security, and the right to resist oppression—clearly reflecting the influence of John Locke. The Declaration also sets out principles for the organization of society with the goal of preserving natural human rights, in particular through national sovereignty, which is reflected in the law as the expression of the general will—an idea that clearly echoes Rousseau. Of course, the separation of powers must also be ensured as a guarantee of individual liberty. These liberties are listed, along with the possible limits that may be placed upon them. Are particularly mentioned the freedom of opinion, , the corollary of which is freedom of the press. Natural liberty is absolute, but civil liberty is governed by law: each citizen must relinquish a part of his natural rights to ensure their enjoyment by all. Restrictions of the natural liberty are reduced to what is strictly necessary to guarantee the benefits of society. Then, few articles are consecrated to particular dispositions, that at the time were important in the context of the crisis of the absolute monarchy. These principles nevertheless are today recognized as civil and political rights in many Constitutions as well as in International Conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These principles are the presumption of innocence, the prohibition of arbitrary arrest, the legality of offences and penalties along with the necessity for penalties to be «strictly and obviously necessary».

5. Conclusion

The ideas developed by the natural law school and its successors, in their search for a legitimate foundation for government, were later taken up and expanded upon by 18th-century philosophers as a means of opposing arbitrary power. The idea that every human being possesses inherent rights to freedom and equality simply by virtue of being human—rights that exist in the state of nature and must be preserved by society—was used to justify the foundation of a new form of government. The sole purpose of the State, therefore, is to guarantee these natural rights in an equal manner, through the law. The law must be the expression of the general will, as each citizen, as a member of society, has delegated a part of their sovereignty to that society. The principles of natural law must be enshrined in the Constitution, and the government is bound to respect them, or else risk becoming corrupt—and thus illegitimate. These principles, abstractly formulated in the 1789 Declaration, are universal in scope. That is, they are meant to apply to all individuals, in every society, at any time.

For this reason, the Declaration is regarded as a cornerstone of modern human rights. It is one of the key texts upon which the drafters of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights based their work. However, the historical significance and modern relevance of this text must be reassessed in light of today’s pluralistic and global legal context. Over two centuries old, the individual rights it proclaims remain among the most fundamental in terms of civil and political rights, but they have since been complemented by other legal dimensions. Economic, social, and cultural rights have gradually been added, along with third-generation rights such as the right to a healthy environment. Taken together, these rights form an interdependent framework that defines the conditions for a just and human rights–respecting society, both at the national and international levels.

Bibliographical references.

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Paris.
2. The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and the Citizen, 26 August 1789, Paris, available at https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citiz
3. Mardellat P. Cahiers d’Economie Politique – Political Economy Papers No 84 : Numero Varia, Editions Hermann, 2024, 274 pages, , available at https://unr-ra-scholarvox-com.sid2nomade-1.grenet.fr/book/88953837
4. Plato. The Republic. Translated by Desomond Lee, 2nd ed., Penguin, 2007;
5. Platon, Lois, III
6. Neschke-Hentschke A. Platonisme politique et jusnaturalisme européen : Du « juste par nature » (to phusei dikaion) à l’Etat de droit, Philosophie antique, 7 | 2007, pp. 219-256, available at http://journals.openedition.org/philosant/5790
7. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, V, VI.
8. Grotius H. De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, 1625
9. Pufendorf S. De iure naturae et gentium, 1699
10. Hobbes T. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, 1651
11. Locke J. Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government, 1689
12. Spinoza B. Theological-Political Treatise, 1670.
13. Rousseau J-J. Du Contrat Social ou Principes du droit politique, 1762
14. Rousseau J-J. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes, 1755
15. Liste des signataires du Serment du Jeu de Paume (20 juin 1789), archives parlementaires, Tome VII – Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789
16. t I., An Answer to the Question: What is the Enlightenment ? 1784, Hackett Publishing, 1992, available at https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlightenment.pdf
17. Martin C., L’esprit des Lumières, Cursus, Ed Armand Colin, 2017, xx
18. Dellemotte J. Ferrand J. Gabriel Bonnot de Mably et le droit naturel moderne : un essai de réévaluation. Cahiers d’économie politique, 84(1), 2024, pp. 7-50
19. Voltaire, Lettres philosophiques, par M. de V…, 1734, available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k72251b.image
20. The Constitution of Virginia, 1776, available at https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/the-constitution-of-virginia-1776/
21. Morelly, Code de la nature, 1755 ;
22. Roza S. Une filiation clandestine ? De Morelly au Discours sur l’origine de l’inégalité, Philonsorbonne, vol. 5, 2011, pp. 47-62
23. Mirabeau H-G. Des lettres de cachets et des prisons d’Etat, 1782, 211 pages, available at https://books.google.ru/books/about/Des_Lettres_de_Cachet_et_des_Prisons_d.html?id=C97TxKxtqvEC&redir_esc=y
24. Diderot D., Letter to the Princess Dachkov, 1771 « every century has its own distinctive spirit. The spirit of ours seems to be that of freedom”, available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspondance_(Diderot)/56
25.  Rousseau J-J, Lettres à M. De Malherbes, 1762 « cet indomptable esprit de liberté que rien n’a pu vaincre », available at : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Lettres_%C3%A0_Malesherbes
26.  Lapeyre A., De Tinguy F., Vasak K., Les dimensions universelles des droits de l’homme : volume 1. Les dimensions spirituelles et intellectuelles des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles : Bruylant, 1990, pp. 25 – 50.
27. Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des Lois, 1748
28. Pluen O., Wolff N. La Déclaration des droits de l’homme : 1789-2023, Les Lumières à l’épreuve du temps, Lefebvre Dalloz, novembre 2023, 326 pages
29. Voltaire, Traité sur la Tolérance à l’occasion de la mort de Jean Calas, 1763, 183 pages, available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_sur_la_tol%C3%A9rance/%C3%89dition_1763/Texte_entier
30. Babeyrac J. Traité de la morale des Pères de l’Eglise…, 1728 
31. Daireaux L. De la tolérance à la liberté de religion : les pouvoirs face à la questions protestante, France, 1685-1791, Annales de Bretagne et Pays de l’Ouest, 125 – 1 | 2018, pp. 59-70. https://journals.openedition.org/abpo/3772#quotation
32. Turgot, Lettres sur la tolérance, Œuvres de Turgot, texte établi par Eugène Daire, Guillaumin, 1844 (tome II, p. 675 – 687), available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/%C5%92uvres_de_Turgot_(Daire,_1844)/Lettres_sur_la_tol%C3%A9rance
33. Vattel E. Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqué à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations par des souverains, Tome I, Londres, 1758, available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k865729.r=Le+droit+des+gens,+ou+Principes+de+la+loi+naturelle.langES
34. Dellemotte J. Ferrand J. Gabriel Bonnot de Mably et le droit naturel moderne : un essai de réévaluation. Cahiers d’économie politique, 84(1), 2024, pp. 7-50
35. Mounier J-J. Rapport de M. Mounier chargé de préparer le travail de la constitution, lors de la séance du 9 juillet 1789,  Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 214-217.
36. La Fayette G-M, marquis de, Motion de M. le marquis de Lafayette relative à la déclaration des droits, lors de la séance du 11 juillet 1789. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 221-222.
37. Mémoire préliminaire à la Constitution, lu le 21 juillet 1789 : exposition des droits de l’homme et du citoyen par Sieyès. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 256-261.
38. Siéyès E-J. Qu’est ce que le Tiers état ?, Editions du Boucher, 2002, 87 pages, available at https://www.leboucher.com/pdf/sieyes/tiers.pdf
39. Question préalable, lors de la séance du 4 aout 1789 : la Constitution sera précédée de la déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. p. 341.

Information about the author:

Jade Delmire Voituret, Postgraduate student, Department of International Law, People’s Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow, Russian Federation,

Информация об авторе:

Жаде Дельмир Вуатюре, аспирант кафедры международного права Российского университета дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы, г. Москва, Российская Федерация,

---

^[1] Mardellat P. Cahiers d’Economie Politique – Political Economy Papers No 84 : Numero Varia, Editions Hermann, 2024, p. 12

^[2] Plato. The Republic. Translated by Desomond Lee, 2nd ed., Penguin, 2007; Platon, Lois, III ; Neschke-Hentschke A. Platonisme politique et jusnaturalisme européen : Du « juste par nature » (to phusei dikaion) à l’Etat de droit, Philosophie antique, 7 | 2007, pp. 219-256, available at http://journals.openedition.org/philosant/5790

^[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, V, VI.

^[4] Grotius H. De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, 1625

^[5] Pufendorf S. De iure naturae et gentium, 1699

^[6] Hobbes T. Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, 1651

^[7] Locke J. Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government, 1689

^[8] Spinoza B. Theological-Political Treatise, 1670.

^[9] Rousseau J-J. Du Contrat Social ou Principes du droit politique, 1762 ; Rousseau J-J. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes, 1755

^[10] Kant I., An Answer to the Question: What is the Enlightenment ? 1784, Hackett Publishing, 1992, available at https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/kant_whatisenlightenment.pdf

^[11] Martin C., L’esprit des Lumières, Cursus, Ed Armand Colin, 2017, p 9.

^[12] Foucault, Michel. “What is Enlightenment?” In The Foucault Reader, by P. Rabinow, 32-50. Pantheon Books, 1984. Available at https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.whatIsEnlightenment.en/

^[13] Edit de Fontainebleau revoking l’Edit de Nantes, signed by Louis XIV on 18 October 1685, available at https://museeprotestant.org/notice/ledit-de-fontainebleau-ou-la-revocation-1685/

^[14] Martin C., L’esprit des Lumières, Cursus, Ed Armand Colin, 2017, p.13

^[15] Voltaire, Lettres philosophiques, par M. de V…, 1734, available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k72251b.image

^[16] The Constitution of Virginia, 1776, available at https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/the-constitution-of-virginia-1776/

^[17] Lapeyre A., De Tinguy F., Vasak K., Les dimensions universelles des droits de l’homme : volume 1. Les dimensions spirituelles et intellectuelles des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles : Bruylant, 1990, p. 32

^[18] Morelly, Code de la nature, 1755 ; Roza S. Une filiation clandestine ? De Morelly au Discours sur l’origine de l’inégalité, Philonsorbonne, vol. 5, 2011, pp. 47-62

^[19] Rousseau J-J. Du Contrat Social ou Principes du droit politique, 1762 ; Rousseau J-J. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes, 1755

^[20] Diderot D., Letter to the Princess Dachkov, 1771 « every century has its own distinctive spirit. The spirit of ours seems to be that of freedom”, available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspondance_(Diderot)/56 ;

Rousseau J-J, Lettres à M. De Malherbes, 1762 « cet indomptable esprit de liberté que rien n’a pu vaincre », available at : https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Lettres_%C3%A0_Malesherbes

^[21] Lapeyre A., De Tinguy F., Vasak K., Les dimensions universelles des droits de l’homme : volume 1. Les dimensions spirituelles et intellectuelles des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles : Bruylant, 1990, pp. 25 – 50.

^[22] Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des Lois, 1748

^[23] Pluen O., Wolff N. La Déclaration des droits de l’homme : 1789-2023, Les Lumières à l’épreuve du temps, Lefebvre Dalloz, novembre 2023, p. 24

^[24] Voltaire, Traité sur la Tolérance à l’occasion de la mort de Jean Calas, 1763, 183 pages, available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Trait%C3%A9_sur_la_tol%C3%A9rance/%C3%89dition_1763/Texte_entier

^[25] Babeyrac J. Traité de la morale des Pères de l’Eglise…, 1728 ; Daireaux L. De la tolérance à la liberté de religion : les pouvoirs face à la questions protestante, France, 1685-1791, Annales de Bretagne et Pays de l’Ouest, 125 – 1 | 2018, pp. 59-70. https://journals.openedition.org/abpo/3772#quotation

^[26] Turgot, Lettres sur la tolérance, Œuvres de Turgot, texte établi par Eugène Daire, Guillaumin, 1844 (tome II, p. 675 – 687), available at https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/%C5%92uvres_de_Turgot_(Daire,_1844)/Lettres_sur_la_tol%C3%A9rance

^[27] Vattel E. Le droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle appliqué à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations par des souverains, Tome I, Londres, 1758, available at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k865729.r=Le+droit+des+gens,+ou+Principes+de+la+loi+naturelle.langES

^[28] Mirabeau H-G. Des lettres de cachets et des prisons d’Etat, 1782, 211 pages, available at https://books.google.ru/books/about/Des_Lettres_de_Cachet_et_des_Prisons_d.html?id=C97TxKxtqvEC&redir_esc=y

^[29] Dellemotte J. Ferrand J. Gabriel Bonnot de Mably et le droit naturel moderne : un essai de réévaluation. Cahiers d’économie politique, 84(1), 2024, pp. 7-50

^[30] Pluen O., Wolff N. La Déclaration des droits de l’homme : 1789-2023, Les Lumières à l’épreuve du temps, Lefebvre Dalloz, novembre 2023, p. 26

^[31] Liste des signataires du Serment du Jeu de Paume (20 juin 1789), archives parlementaires, Tome VII – Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789

^[32] Mounier J-J. Rapport de M. Mounier chargé de préparer le travail de la constitution, lors de la séance du 9 juillet 1789,  Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 214-217.

^[33] La Fayette G-M, marquis de, Motion de M. le marquis de Lafayette relative à la déclaration des droits, lors de la séance du 11 juillet 1789. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 221-222.

^[34] Mémoire préliminaire à la Constitution, lu le 21 juillet 1789 : exposition des droits de l’homme et du citoyen par Sieyès. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. pp. 256-261.

^[35] Siéyès E-J. Qu’est ce que le Tiers état ?, Editions du Boucher, 2002, 87 pages, available at https://www.leboucher.com/pdf/sieyes/tiers.pdf

^[36] Question préalable, lors de la séance du 4 aout 1789 : la Constitution sera précédée de la déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. In: Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 — Première série (1787-1799) Tome VIII — Du 5 mai 1789 au 15 septembre 1789. Paris : Librairie Administrative P. Dupont, 1875. p. 341.

^[37] The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen, 26 August 1789, available at https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-declaration-of-the-rights-of-man-and-of-the-citizen

^[38] Pluen O., Wolff N. La Déclaration des droits de l’homme : 1789-2023, Les Lumières à l’épreuve du temps, Lefebvre Dalloz, novembre 2023, p. 36.