SUN Shiyan*

 

Abstract: In 1947, based on a questionnaire survey of luminaries from all over the world, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) put together an expert commission to study the philosophical foundations of human rights. Lo Chungshu (Luo Zhongshu), a Chinese scholar who was part of the commission, contributed an article titled “Human Rights in the Chinese Tradition” to the program. He introduced traditional Chinese human rights concepts and proposed that every person in the world enjoys the rights to subsistence (the right to live), self-expression and happiness (the right to enjoyment). Lo’s exposition of the basic principles underlying hu-man rights and the specific human rights he proposed were eventually embraced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treatises on human rights, a testament to his foresight and vision.

 

Keywords: Lo Chung-shu (Luo Zhongshu)    UNESCO    Universal Declaration of Human Rights    human rights in the Chinese tradition

 

In recent years, Chinese human rights scholars have begun to pay attention to Chinese contributions to the global human rights cause during its infancy, mainly to Peng Chun Chang (Zhang Pengchun) and his contributions.¹ It is true that, as a vice-chairman of the committee formed by the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Chang’s contributions to the Declaration can be said to have been universally recognized, leading some scholars to describe him as “an important architect of the global human rights system”.² However, the contribution of other Chinese nationals to the early global human rights cause should not be neglected, one of whom is Lo Chung-shu (Luo Zhongshu), the subject of the present paper. Lo participated in historically significant research on human rights philosophy carried out by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), where he played an important role in bringing international attention to traditional Chinese views on human rights, making his human rights phi-losophy worthy of exploration and attention. The present paper will briefly summarize Lo’s biography before commenting on the background, process and impact of his research on human rights philosophy for UNESCO. Finally, we discuss Lo’s ideas on human rights in comparison with international human rights standards that were sub-sequently enacted and summarize the lessons that his contributions offer human rights research in China today.

 

 

Lo Chungshu, courtesy name Guanzhi, otherwise known as Zhidao, studied in Nanchong, Guizhong and Chengdu as a teenager. In 1922, Lo enrolled in the West China University in Chengdu and served as executive chairman of the student union. In 1929, he began postgraduate studies at Yanjing University in Beijing and was awarded a master’s degree in philosophy and psychology in 1931. From 1931 to 1937, Lo served as a lecturer, associate professor, professor and Chair of the Philosophy Division, Dean of Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Literature at West China University. From 1937 to 1940, Lo visited Oxford University in England, during which he not only studied Chinese and Western philosophy and introduced Chinese culture to the West, but also travelled extensively in Europe and met a number of world-renowned scholars. In 1940, he returned to China to continue to serve as the Dean of the Faculty of Literature at West China University. In 1946, Lo made another extended trip to Europe and the United States for a study and lecture tour and became a philosophy consultant for UNESCO on the recommendation of Joseph Needham. In 1948, Lo returned to West China University after turning down an offer to teach at Wells College (USA), continuing in his position as Dean of the Faculty of Literature and Chair of the Philosophy Division.

 

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Lo continued his career in higher education. In 1952, the Chinese higher education system was overhauled, and Lo was transferred from West China University to Sichuan Teacher’s College (now Sichuan Normal University) where he became a member of the University Committee and the psychology and public education teaching and research office. Later on, Lo would also teach English classes at the university. After his retirement from Sichuan Teacher’s College in 1977, he became a member of the foreign languages teaching and research office at Chengdu University of Science and Technology and a member of the foreign languages translation and compilation office at Sichuan University. Later, he taught classes to international students at Sichuan Normal University in addition to accepting an appointment as an adjunct professor at the Population Research Institute at Sichuan University. In 1980, he joined the China Association for Promoting Democracy as a consultant to its Sichuan Committee. Lo died in Chengdu in April 1985 at the age of 82.

 

Chinese academia has paid much attention to Lo Chung-shu, where his views on and contributions to liberalism (including academic freedom) during the Republican Period,⁴ the link between education and peace,⁵ and research into cultural exchanges between China and foreign countries⁶ have been discussed. However, there has been little mention of his participation in UNESCO research in Chinese academic circles. To date, this part of Lo’s personal history has only been described by his family.⁷ Even in human rights research, only a tiny minority of Chinese papers have made mention of Lo’s work in and contributions to the field.⁸ In contrast, his views and contributions are more widely known among international human rights scholars, as exemplified by the number of English sources cited in the present paper.

 

 

As an academic researcher, Lo was mainly active in the fields of philosophy, psychology and demography. He contributed only one known paper to human rights research, which was written during his tenure as a philosophy consultant to UNESCO as part of the human rights research he undertook for the organization. Hence, in order to understand the era in which Lo contributed toward human rights research, it is necessary to first explore the background, process and impact of UNESCO human rights research.⁹

 

Although its Charter defined one of the purposes of the United Nations to be the promotion of “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all” in 1945 (when the UN was founded), and also made many references to “human rights and fundamental freedoms”, it did not, for various reasons, define the human rights that were to be respected and safeguarded by the United Nations and its member states. To remedy this, the UN Economic and Social Council passed a resolution in 1946 that established the UN Commission on Human Rights, tasking it with drafting an International Human Rights Charter that would clarify what the UN Charter meant by “human rights and fundamental freedoms” and stipulate mechanisms for their realization. At the first session of the UNESCO General Conference held over two months from November to December 1946, which was before the first meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights was due to be held (in late January 1947), Jacques Havet, head of the philosophy subsection of the UNESCO Sub-commission on Philosophy and Humanistic Studies, proposed that UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Commission jointly hold an international conference before the Commission was due to hold its first meeting, to clarify those principles underpinning a contemporary declaration of human rights would be based.¹⁰ Although this conference was never held, Havet managed to send questionnaires to several world luminaries seeking their thoughts on the theoretical underpinnings of human rights through Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of UNESCO. Havet also proposed that a drafting committee be established to study the written replies received and formulate a plan to be submitted to the UN Human Rights Commission.¹¹

 

Sources indicate that UNESCO received between 50 to 70 written replies to its questionnaire.¹² Replies from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, South Africa, Australia and Canada accounted for more than 80 percent of the total. There were also six replies from socialist countries, including the Soviet Union. In addition, there were three replies from India, two replies from Latin America, and one reply from China (Lo’s reply).¹³ Upon receipt, Huxley and Havet decided to convene the “Committee of Experts Convened by UNESCO on the Philosophical Principles of the Rights of Man” (the “expert committee”) to study these materials and prepare a report for the UN Human Rights Commission. The expert committee was composed of eight members: E.H. Carr as Chairman, Richard McKeon as Rapporteur, Pierre Auger, Georges Friedmann, Etienne Gilson, Harold Laski, Luc Somerhausen and Lo Chung-shu. Seven of the eight members were Western intellectuals. Carr was a British historian and author of the Twenty Years’ Crisis; McKeon was the Dean of the Division of the Humanities at the University of Chicago and consultant to the US delegation to UNESCO; Auger was a French physicist and discoverer of the “Auger effect”; Friedman was a French sociologist, philosopher and Marxist; Gilson was a French Christian philosopher and a scholar of Middle Ages philosophy; Laski was one of the leaders of the British Labour Party and an important Western “democratic socialism” theoretician; Somerhausen was a Belgian philosopher and the author of L’humanisme Agissant de Karl Marx (The Humanist Action of Karl Marx). Lo Chung-shu, a philosophy professor, was the only non-Western member of the Committee.

 

The expert committee met in Paris from June 26 to July 2, 1947 to study the 44 replies that had then found their way to the committee.¹⁴ Based on their conclusions, McKeon compiled a report that was to be sent to the UN Human Rights Commission, titled “The Grounds of an International Declaration of Human Rights”. The UNCHR received this report in August 1947. Regrettably, even though both René Cassin and Charles Malik, who played important roles in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, felt that the report was extremely significant,¹⁵ the UN Commission on Human Rights formally rejected the UNESCO report in a closed meeting in December 1947. It is possible that the Commission believed that they had adequately discussed these topics¹⁶ or felt that UNESCO had overreached by intervening in the drafting of the Declaration.¹⁷

 

In 1949, UNESCO compiled the results of the study in a volume titled Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations that was later published in London and New York.¹⁸ In addition to a short preface written by Havet, the report compiled by McK-een on behalf of the expert committee and the questionnaire sent out in early 1947, the main body of the book comprised 31 questionnaire responses received by UNESCO and an introduction written by Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher and scholar of natural law. In addition to Carr, Somerhausen, McKeen, Laski and Lo, who were members of the expert committee, authors of the 31 replies or articles include Mahatma Gandhi, leader of the Indian national liberation movement, Benedetto Croce, an Italian historian, Teilhardde Chardin, a French philosopher and theologian, Quincy Wright, an American scholar of international relations, John Somerville and F.S.C. Northrop, both American philosophers, Aldous Huxley, a British author and brother of Sir Julian Huxley, Rene Maheu, who later served as UNESCO Director-General from 1962 to 1974, as well as a Polish Professor, a Soviet law professor, a legal adviser to the Brazilian Foreign Ministry, a Bangladeshi Educator, a professor of Indian history and political science.

 

UNESCO’s research should not be underestimated even though it was eventually rejected by the UN Commission on Human Rights. For example, in the UNESCO report, which was based on research undertaken by the expert committee, McKeen said that the expert committee, after surveying the opinions of scholars from various parts of the world, “is convinced that the members of the United Nations share common convictions on which human rights depend, but it is further convinced that those common convictions are stated in terms of different philosophic principles and on the background of divergent political and economic systems.”¹⁹ This accurately predicted, to a very large extent, the challenges and fundamental trends of the international human rights movement over the next 70 years. On the one hand, the United Nations has taken the lead in formulating many human rights provisions, which have been accepted by nearly every country. On the other hand, controversies remain as to the expression of the theories behind these rules and how they should be implemented in different, country-specific situations, which are extremely diverse. The 15 “universal” rules on which “all men are agreed”²⁰ contained within the report were later included

 

— almost in their entirety — into either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in December 1948 or subsequent international human rights instruments, though names and references do differ somewhat. Of particular significance is the fact that economic and social rights, including the right to live, the right to the promotion of health, the right to work, the right to maintenance and the right to education, are listed at the forefront of the report, in stark contrast to the Declaration itself, which first defined civil and political rights before going on to list economic, social and cul-tural rights.

 

UNESCO’s research on human rights philosophy was long neglected.²¹ It took another 50 years before the value of the research — particularly as evidence of the universality of human rights, or at least those human rights espoused in the Declaration — was fully recognized and acknowledged.²² For instance, Mary Ann Glandon, a Harvard professor, is a strong advocator of the importance of this research. In A World Made New, a book that reviews the history of the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a special chapter is dedicated to research undertaken by UNESCO. The chapter also quotes arguments made by several non-Westerners (including Lo) to support the universality of human rights. In her conclusion, Glandon says that UNESCO research proved that the core content of the basic principles have been widely recognized even in those cultures that have not yet adopted human rights instruments or their discourse, which indicates that cultural pluralism has been over-exaggerated with respect to the fundamental human. No one has yet proposed amendments to those answers that UNESCO provided regarding universal conceptions of human rights.²³

 

 

The article (in English), titled “Human Rights in the Chinese Tradition”, that Lo contributed towards UNESCO research was completed in June 1947. The article was not long (approximately 2,500 characters when translated into Chinese — see the appendix for full text, given that UNESCO requested that answers to its questionnaire be between 2,000 and 4,000 words. However, the essay was significant both to UNESCO research and in communicating traditional Chinese views of human rights to the world. In particular, even though Peng Chun Chang’s contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is universally recognized, his writings on human rights are not — if any even exist. Meanwhile, although there was active research into human rights during China’s Republican period,²⁴ such research failed to generate any international impact worthy of mention. Neither did such research have much impact on the early days of the international human rights cause (as represented by the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This can be seen from the fact that there were no Chinese contributions to the proposals and suggestions sent to the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding the drafting of a declaration of human rights.²⁵ Thus, Lo’s essay is particularly significant, even though it was not till much later that it was recognized as such.²⁶ When discussing Chinese contributions from 1947 to 1948 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a French scholar made special mention of three persons, namely Peng Chun Chang (Zhang Pengchun), Ching Hsiung Wu (Wu Jingxiong) and Lo Chung-shu (Luo Zhongshu). Among the three, Lo Chung-shu’s UNESCO essay deserves special attention, even if Lo himself is not particularly well-known.²⁷

 

The significance of Lo’s “Human Rights in the Chinese Tradition” can be considered from two aspects: (1) it elaborates upon the fundamental principles underlying human rights; (2) it touches on how specific human rights are understood (this aspect will be discussed in the following section). The first aspect has garnered more attention. For example, in the book cited in the previous section, Mary Ann Glandon held that UNESCO research proved the existence of human rights traditions in non-Western civilizations. Lo Chung’shu viewpoints were the first to be cited in her supporting references.²⁸ When considering Lo’s exposition on the fundamental principles underlying human rights, one must keep in mind the context of the debates around the universality and relativity of human rights, especially in the contexts of how traditional Chinese conceptions of human rights differ from classical Western perspectives, as well as how these conceptions fit with modern perspectives of universal human rights.

 

It is said that Lo once wrote to George Marshall, then US Secretary of State, saying that he believed in the need for a universal declaration of human rights.²⁹ In his article, Lo also referred to “a declaration on the Rights of Man for the entire world.” In other words, Lo believed in the necessity and feasibility of a declaration of human rights that spanned all regions, countries, nationalities, cultures, historical and religious traditions as well as diverse political, economic and social systems. Lo also believed that the foundation of such a declaration would lie upon those basic claims from which all peoples may infer contemporary human rights, i.e. that some rights “are valid for every person”.

 

As for traditional Chinese views regarding human rights, Lo admitted at the introduction of his article that “the problem of human rights was seldom discussed by Chinese thinkers of the past, at least in the same way as it was in the West” and that even in ancient Chinese, it is difficult to find words that correspond to “rights”.³⁰ However, Lo added that “in fact, the concept of human rights developed very early in China.” Neither did Lo attempt to explore the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western concepts of human rights, in contrast to later Chinese scholars. Instead, he proposed rights that applied to every person, i.e. Lo believed that these rights could eliminate the “respective characteristics of Western and Chinese perspectives on human rights” and possible divergences between these perspectives, thus allowing these rights to comprise a universal standard. Moreover, these universal rights of the individual also have a basis in the Chinese tradition. According to Lo, although traditional Chinese ethical teaching does not stress the concept of rights, it emphasizes a kind of “empathy”, i.e. that “all one's fellow men [have] the same desires, and therefore the same rights, as one would like to enjoy oneself”. Lo’s ideas are entirely consistent with the principles upon which modern human rights institutions are founded: the universality of human rights is based solely on the universality of human nature. With respect to the relationships between individuals and the state as well as the relationship between individuals and society, which form the core of the human rights system, Lo pointed out that the traditional Chinese moral code states that “The people are the root of the country. When the root is firm, the country will be at peace.” He then went on to discuss how this criterion had been distorted by politics. Although the ruling class “should look upon the interest of the people as the primary responsibility of the government” and “regard themselves as the parents or guardians of the people, and protect their people as they would their own children”, the “welfare of the people depends so much on the goodwill of the ruling class, who are inclined to fail in their duties and exploit the people”. From the perspective of modern human rights, the lack of individual subjectivity is the main reason for this contradiction of the truth and reality of Chinese history. The people are always the object of the ruler's benefaction, rather than an “entity” that owns and claims rights. According to Lo, the correct “logic” or principle should be that “each individual is an end in himself, and all social institutions are the means to develop each individual as fully as possible”, i.e. that both the state and society are founded on respect for and protection of individual rights, which is both the purpose and the legitimacy of the state and society. Lo also asserted that every individual “by making the most of himself, can at the same time contribute best to the world at large.” Lo’s ideas echoed the ideas contained in the Communist Manifesto, a great human rights manifesto in its own right that was drafted more than a century before, namely that the free development of every individual is a condition for the free development of all individuals.³¹ Clearly, Lo’s perspective, which places individuals first, is more in line with modern conceptions and standards of human rights, in contrast to the commonly held belief that Chinese conceptions of human rights attach greater importance to the collective.

 

Although he stressed the rights of the individual, Lo did not neglect individual obligations. He pointed out that basic ethical conceptions in Chinese social and political relations spoke of “the fulfilment of the duty to one’s neighbor, rather than the claiming of rights”, that “the idea of mutual obligations is regarded as the fundamental teaching of Confucianism”, and that “by the fulfilment of mutual obligations, the infringement of the rights of the individual should be prevented.” Lo’s emphasis on personal obligations is considered a noteworthy aspect of his article.³² In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been roundly criticized for not adequately emphasizing the obligations of the individual. Out of the 30 articles of the Declaration, Articles 1 to 28 stipulate rights. It is only in Article 29 that duties are mentioned: “Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.” (Section 1) At this point in our discussion, mention must be made of Zhang Pengchun's negative attitude towards personal obligations. Zhang took the initiative in proposing that provisions regarding personal duties to society be listed at the end, instead of the beginning, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also voted against the inclusion of the word “alone” in Section 1, Article 29 during the third session of the United Nations General Assembly (of 42 delegates, only five voted against, with 14 abstaining) ³³. The inclusion of the word “alone” in this paragraph is crucial, because it rejects Western concepts of individualism (which originated in the 18th century) and lends support to an organic connection between individuals and the state (society). The recognition of this relationship is not only in line with Chinese traditions of emphasizing the mutual duties individuals owe to one another, as espoused by Lo, but also in line with a fundamental Marxist principle, that only in the community can individuals obtain the means to develop their talents in an all-round way; that is to say, only in the community can there be individual freedom³⁴.

 

There is also one aspect of the Chinese human rights tradition proposed by Lo that is consistent with modern perspectives regarding human rights. When Lo proposed that “the idea of human rights developed very early in China”, he cited, as an example, that “the right of the people to [safeguard] against oppressive rulers was established [very early on]”. To support his argument, he quoted the replacement of the Xia Dynasty by the Shang Dynasty, and the replacement of the Shang by the Zhou Dynasty as well as ideas contained in the Book of History to argue that it is a long-standing, self-evident right of the people to resist and overthrow tyrants,³⁵ a prop-osition that came to be reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The preamble of the Declaration states that, “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” In other words, resistance to tyran-ny and oppression is an inherent human right when the law fails to safeguard human rights.

 

 

When commenting on the specific human rights that Lo proposed, we must be aware that his article — the entirety of UNESCO research — was completed before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the starting point and grounds for today’s international human rights standards. Therefore, while its concepts and terms are different than those of the Declaration and later standards, Lo’s farsightedness can still be detected from the degree of agreement between his article and the Declaration itself.

 

Regarding specific human rights, Lo proposed three rights that are “valid for every person in the world”, namely, the right to exist, the right to self-expression and the right to enjoyment. These concepts differ substantially from modern references to modern human rights, as represented by the Declaration. These wordings are absent even from international human rights instruments. However, from Lo’s specific elaboration of these rights, we not only find many ideas that were later stipulated in the Declaration, but also many farsighted views.

 

The first right that Lo proposed is “the right to live”. There is a difference between this right and the “right to life” contained in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Section 1, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted in 1966. Because of their conceptual similarities, the “right to live” can be understood as the right to subsistence that China later emphasized³⁶. However, in contrast to China’s emphasis on the collective with regards to the right to subsistence, Lo pointed out that this right is founded upon the individual, as can be seen from his reference to “every person’s right to live”. He expended only 130 words on this topic, which seems somewhat lacking. But, most importantly, Lo mentioned in the last paragraph that “the right to live is on the biological and economic level”, meaning that the rights to life, personal freedom, security, fair trial, work, maintenance (social security), and an adequate standard of living (including food, clothing and housing) stipulated in subsequent international human rights instruments all fell within the scope of the “right to life”.³⁷ What is surprising and admirable is that Lo’s conception of “the right to life” (right to subsistence) encompasses ele-ments of the concepts of sustainable development as well as the right to development, which were only formed decades later. For instance, he proposed that “each individual should be allowed to have his proper share in society… no individual should be allowed to have more than his share”; while Section 1, Article 8, of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development adopted in 1986 states that “States should… ensure equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources…[;] and (eradicate) all social injustices”. Lo also proposed that “the natural resources of the earth, used according to the scientific knowledge at our disposal, should provide plentifully for all the people to live comfortably, yet natural resources are wasted in many ways and are not made accessible to all those to need them”; while the 2005 landmark report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All by Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary General states that mankind “fundamentally depend(s) on natural systems and resources for existence and development” and that the world's re-sources, as long as they can be used to serve the people of the world, can significantly reduce the long-standing gap between the rich and the poor³⁸.

 

At less than 100 words, Lo’s exposition on the right to self-expression is even shorter. Even so, he mentioned that “the right to self-expression is at the social and political level”, in order to allow people to “live with the sense of dignity" and enjoy “the fullest degree of self-expression”.³⁹ This scope can be regarded as including many rights such as those to freedom of expression, association and assembly that were stipulated in later international human rights instruments, or even religious freedom (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulate that people have the “freedom to express their religion or belief”) and minority rights (Article 27 of the International Covenant stipulates that ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities have the “right to use their own language”.) He also proposed that “social progress depends on each indi-vidual’s freedom of expression” but it took more than 30 years before the European Court of Human Rights held, in a judgment, that freedom of expression constitutes “one of the foundations of [a democratic] society” and “one of the basic conditions for [social] progress and the development of every man”.⁴⁰ This view of the European Court of Human Rights has been repeatedly quoted in the field of human rights, while few know that this view had already been proposed by Lo Chung-shu. Additionally, with regards to the right of self-expression, Lo also proposed that “the right of national groups to self-determination is also a form of self-expression”. Regardless of whether it was reasonable for him to classify national self-determination as “a form of self-expression”, his reference to self-determination in the context of human rights is more progressive than the Declaration itself. Although the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, provides for the right of self-determination (in Section 2, Article 1 and in Article 55), one of the major flaws of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it fails to make reference to the right of self-determination. This right, only officially espoused in human rights treaties, was realized only after the adoption, in 1966, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in the first articles of both covenants). Although Lo’s short reference does not clarify what he meant by “national groups”, it is fully aligned with contemporary human rights theories and practices, regardless of whether it refers to all the people or a specific ethnic group within a country.⁴¹

 

Lo spent more time on the right to enjoyment, which he believed to be at an “aesthetic and spiritual” level. Lo uses the word “enjoyment” to refer to those inner aspects of one’s life and a connection with the inner life of an individual. Hence, the right to enjoyment touches on several aspects, including leisure, culture and religion. In itself, the right to enjoyment already encompasses many of the rights that would be later come to be included in international human rights instruments, such as the right to rest and leisure contained in Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 (T) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the cultural rights contained in Article 27 of the Declaration and Article 15 of the Covenant, the right to religious freedom contained in Article 18 of the Declaration and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the right to education contained in Article 26 of the Declaration and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, Lo’s proposal that everyone should “enjoy the right of giving the greatest satisfaction to his emotion and intellect without interfering with what others treasure most in their inner life” also points to a belief that personal rights to privacy and family life should also be respected and protected. These rights were later recognized in Articles 12 and 16 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

 

From Lo’s participation in UNESCO’s research on human rights philosophy and his contribution, we can draw the following conclusions. First, traditional Chinese views of human rights may differ from classical Western perspectives, but they are aligned with modern universal human rights provisions and principles, as represented by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Under the title of “Human Rights in the Chinese Tradition”, Lo proposes a number of rights that “are valid for every person in the world”, and these rights were later echoed in international human rights instruments. This shows that in the study of human rights, there is no need to be caught up in the differences between Chinese and Western views on human rights. Instead, given that Chinese views on human rights are one of the components of the world’s human rights culture, both the similarities between Chinese and universal views on human rights as well as the Chinese contributions to these universal views should be explored. Second, Lo’s extensive exchanges with Western academics and his acute knowledge of both Chinese and Western cultures allowed him to convincingly and foresightedly introduce traditional Chinese human rights views and propose rights that were consistent with later international human rights standards. This shows that the deeper one’s understanding of the world, the better one is able to tell the Chinese “human rights story”. Finally, we note that Lo had already proposed, as many as 70-odd years ago, that “the most powerful nations should also make the most outstanding contributions to academia”. In other words, the Chinese people “must have the resolve to forge a new culture” and show the world “our abundant powers of creativity”.⁴² This should also be the direction and goal of Chinese human rights research in building a new era in the fields of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteris-tics and Chinese style.

 

 

 

LO Chung-shu

 

Before considering the general principles of rights, I would like to point out that the problem of human rights was seldom discussed by Chinese thinkers of the past, at least in the same way as it was in the West. There was no open declaration of human rights in China, either by individual thinkers or by political constitutions, until this conception was introduced from the West. In fact, the early translators of Western political philosophy found it difficult to arrive at a Chinese equivalent for the term "rights". The term we use to translate “rights” now is two words “Chuan Li” (quan li), which literally means “Power and Interest” and which, I believe, was first coined by a Japanese writer on Western Public Law in 1868, and later adopted by Chinese writers. This of course does not mean that the Chinese never claimed human rights or enjoyed the basic rights of man. In fact, the idea of human rights developed very early in China, and the right of the people to safeguard themselves from oppressive rulers was established very early on. “Revolution” is not regarded as a dangerous word to use, but a word to which high ideals are attached, and it was constantly used to indicate a justifiable claim by the people to overthrow bad rulers; the Will of the People is even considered to be the Will of Heaven. In the Book of History, an old Chinese classic', it is stated, “Heaven sees as our people see; Heaven hears as our people hear. Heaven is compassionate toward the people. What the people desire, Heaven will be found to bring about.” ⁴³A ruler has a duty to Heaven to take care of the interests of his people. In loving his people, the ruler follows the will of Heaven. So it says in the same book, “Heaven loves the people; and the Sovereign mast (must) obey Heaven.”44 When the ruler no longer rules for the welfare of the people, it is the right of the people to revolt, against him and dethrone him. When the last ruler Chieh (1818-1766 BC) of the Hsia Dynasty (2205- 1766 BC) was cruel and oppressive to his people, and became a tyrant, Tang started a revolution and overthrew the Hsia Dynasty. He felt it was his duty to follow the call of Heaven, which meant obeying exactly the will of the people to dethrone the bad ruler and to establish the new dynasty of Shang (1766-1122 BC). When the last ruler of this dynasty Tsou (Zhou) (1154-1122became a tyrant and even exceeded in wickedness the last ruler Chieh (Jie) of the former dynasty, he was executed in a revolution led by King Wu in 1122 BC who founded the Chou Dynasty, which in turn lasted over 800 years (1122-296 BC). The right to revolt was repeatedly expressed in Chinese history, which consisted of a sequence of setting up and overthrowing dynasties. A great Confucianist, Mencius (372-289 BC), strongly maintained that a government should work for the Will of the people. He said, “People are of primary importance. The state is of less importance. The sovereign is of least importance.”

 

The basic ethical concept of Chinese social political relations is the fulfilment of the duty to one’s neighbor, rather than the claiming of rights. The idea of mutual obli-gations is regarded as the fundamental teaching of Confucianism. The five basic social relations described by Confucius and his followers are the relations between (1) ruler and subjects; (2) parents and children; (9) husband and wife; (4) elder and younger brother, and (5) friend and friend.

 

Instead of claiming rights, Chinese ethical teaching emphasized the sympathetic attitude of regarding all one’s fellow men as having the same desires, and therefore the same rights, as one would like to enjoy oneself. By the fulfilment of mutual obligations, the infringement of the rights of the individual could be prevented. So far as the relation between the individual and state is concerned, the moral code is stated thus: “The people are the root of the country. When the root is firm, the country will be at peace.” In the old days, only the ruling class, or people who would be expected to become part of the ruling class, received classical education; the mass of the people were not taught to claim their rights. It was the ruling class, or would-be ruling class, who were constantly taught to look upon the interests of the people as the primary responsibility of the government. The sovereign as well as the officials were taught to regard themselves as the parents or guardians of the people, and to protect their people as they would their own children. If it was not always the practice of actual politics, it was at least the basic principle of Chinese political thought. The weakness of this doctrine is that the welfare of the people depends so much on the goodwill of the ruling class, who are much inclined to fail in their duties and to exploit the people. This explains the constant revolutions in Chinese history. It is, however, interesting to compare the different approach to the problem of human rights by the Chinese with the theories of human rights developed in the West by thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

Let me state now what I regard to be the basic claims, the principles, from which all human rights may be derived for all the people of the Modern World. A declaration on the Rights of Man for the entire world should be brief yet clear, broad yet concise, fundamental yet elastic, so that it may be interpreted to suit the needs of peoples in different circumstances. For this reason, I lay down here only three basic claims, valid for every person in the world, namely: (1) the right to live, (2) the right to self-expression and (3) the right to enjoyment.

 

 

The right to live seems to be such a natural thing, yet it is neither properly recognized nor universally enjoyed by all people. The world is big enough for everybody to live in, yet many are deprived of a proper dwelling place. The natural resources of the earth, used according to the scientific knowledge at our disposal, should provide plentifully for all the people to live comfortably, yet natural resources are wasted in many ways and are not made accessible to all those to need them. Each individual should be allowed to have his proper share in society as well as to make his proper contribution to it, and no individual should be allowed to have more than his share or to live idly at the expense of others.

 

 

We want not only to live, but also to live with the sense of dignity and self-reliance. We are social beings. Each individual naturally considers that he has a proper place in society. In order to contribute fully to the society, each individual should have the fullest degree of self-expression. Social progress depends on each individual's freedom of expression. The right of national groups to self-determination is also a form of self-expression.

 

 

By “enjoyment” I refer to the inner aspect of the life of the individual. Our life should be not only materially adequate and socially free but also inwardly enjoyable. That there is an inner aspect of life is undeniable. “Enjoyments” are of different kinds, but they are all connected with the inner life of the individual. The mental satisfaction of the inner life leads to peace of mind, and the peace of mind of the individual is a necessary condition of the peace of the world. The elementary right to enjoyment is to a life free from drudgery; it means that each should bare an adequate amount of leisure and also be able to make good use of that leisure. No one should be constantly overweighed either by work or by social activities. He should have the opportunity to refresh himself and enjoy life. Other ferns of enjoyment are aesthetic, intellectual, cultural and religious. Although not everyone can find enjoyment in the mystical experiences of religion, religion is a form of enjoyment for the inner life of many, which should not be repudiated by alleging it to be mere superstition. There should be religious toleration not only for all religions but also for atheism. Both Should enjoy the right of giving the greatest satisfaction to his emotion and intellect without interfering with what others treasure most in their inner life.

 

The three basic claims of human rights stated above, namely, the right to live, the right to self-expression and the right to enjoyment, can, I believe, cover all the fundamental rights that a modern man should enjoy. The right to live is on the biological and economic level. The right to self-expression is on the social and political level. The right to enjoyment is on the aesthetic and spiritual level. When man can enjoy the rights at all levels, he attains a full life. It is time for all the nations and each individual in the world to be conscious of the following conditions, namely, (1) that the world is an organic whole, so we should work in operation to improve the individual lives of people as a whole; and (2) that each individual is an end in himself, and all social institutions are the means to develop each individual as fully as possible; and (3) that each individual or national group should respect the rights of others to the same degree as we treasure our own; and (4) that each, by making the most of himself, can at the same time contribute best to the world at large.

 

 

 

* SUN Shiyan ( 孙世彦 ), Researcher, Institute of International Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

 

1. Ju Chengwei, “On the Contribution of Confucianism to the New Human Rights Theory: Starting From Peng Chun Chang’s Contributions to the Formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Global Law Review 1 (2011); Huang Jianwu, “Confucian Tradition and the Development of Modern Human Rights: From the Perspective of Chang Peng Chun’s contribution to the Formation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University (Social Sciences Edition) 6 (2012); Sun Pinghua, “Pengchun Chang and the Development of the International Human Rights System”, Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University 4 (2017).

 

2 Sun Pinghua, Pengchun Chang: A Crucial Architect of the International Human Rights System (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2017).

 

3.Wang Hongliang, “The Academic Significance of Studying the Life of Sichuan Scholar Luo Zhongshu”, Jour-nal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) 4 (2017), as well as the Baidu encyclopedia entry for “Luo Zhongshu” (in Chinese).

 

4.Ma Qianli, “On the Ideological Trends of Political Liberalism in the 1940s”, Jiangsu Social Sciences 1 (1995): 82; Wei Chunhui, “Perspectives on Freedom of Scholars of Liberalism in the 1940s”, Gansu Social Sciences 1 (2004): 166; Lin Jianhua and Li Wei, “On the Understanding of the Features of the Liberalism Intellectual in the 1940s”, The Northern Forum 3 (2005): 100; Liu Yamin, “A Discussion concerning the Political Value of Academic Freedom”, Tsinghua Journal of Education 5 (2008): 53; Li Lairong, “Academia and Freedom: A Historical Survey of Academic Independence in the Republican Period”, Social Sciences in Guangdong 5 (2010): 119.

 

5.Zhu Dawei, “Building Peace: The Chinese Intellectual Elites’ Perception of Education Peace around 1945”,

Journal of Shanxi Normal University (Social Science Edition) 6 (2014): 142, 145.

 

6.Ling Xingzhen, “Academic and Cultural Exchanges in Chengdu During the Late Qing and Early Republican Periods”, Journal of Sichuan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 2 (1999): 123.

 

7.Yang Zhixian and Luo Yiyun, “Lo Chung-shu: A Renowned Scholar who Participated in Cultural Exchanges Between East and West”, in A Compilation of Selected Chengdu Historical and Literary Materials, vol. 11, edited by Chengdu Municipal Political Consultative Conference (Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2007). Quoted in Dai Jun, “Lo Chung-shu: An Unofficial Envoy to Europe and America During the War”, Yue Hai Feng 2 (2013): 30.

 

8.Ju Chengwei, “On the Contribution of Confucianism to the New Human Rights Theory”, 144; Huang Jianwu, “Confucian Tradition and the Development of Modern Human Rights”, 172; Sun Pinghua, “Pengchun Chang and the Development of the International Human Rights System”, 35.

 

9.Mark Goodale, “UNESCO and the United Nations Rights of Man Declaration: History, Historiography, Ideology”, Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism and Development 8 (2017): 29 - 47.

 

10.UNESCO, “Proceedings of the First General Conference Held at UNESCO House, Paris from 20 November to 10 December 1946”, UNESCO/C/30, 1947, p. 236.

 

11.UNESCO/Phil/1/1947. Quoted from Mark Goodale, “The Myth of Universality: The UNESCO ‘Philosophers’

Commitee and the Making of Human Rights’”, Law & Social Inquiry 43 (2018): 602-603.

 

12.There is no accurate tally regarding this figure. One scholar has suggested that UNESCO received approxi-mately 70 replies. See Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Dec-laration of Human Rights (New York: Random House, 2001), 73. Another scholar proposed that the correct number is either 56 or 58, depending on how the replies are counted. See Goodale, “The Myth of Universality”, 605.

 

13.Goodale, “The Myth of Universality”, 605.

 

14.For more details, see UNESCO, “Report on the First Meeting of the Committee of Experts Convened by UNESCO on the Philosophical Principles of the Rights of Man”, 31 July, 1947; Jean-Jacques Mayoux, “Declaration of Human Rights”, The Australian Quarterly 21 (1949): 123-125.

 

15.Paul Gordon Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 357, endnote 62. Cassin participated in one expert committee meeting, where he expressed the opinion that the committee’s research would prove very beneficial to the UNCHR. UNESCO, “Report on the First Meeting of the Committee of Experts Convened by UNESCO on the Philosophical Principles of the Rights of Man”.

 

16.Pierre-Etienne Will, “The Chinese Contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1947-1948: A

 

Re-examination”, Academia Historica New 1 (Taiwan, China) (2008): 14.

 

17.Goodale, “The Myth of Universality”, 610.

 

18.UNESCO, Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations, Paris: UNESCO, 1948. The book was reprinted in 1973 by Greenwood Press. In 2018, an anthropologist re-edited and published all its content, as well as other documents (such as other replies and letters rejecting UNESCO’s request) relating to UNESCO’s research that had not been included previously. See Mark Goodale, Letters to the Contrary: A Curated History of the UNESCO Human Rights Survey (Redwood: Stanford University Press, 2018).

 

19.Committee of Experts, “The Grounds of an International Declaration of Human Rights”, in Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations, UNESCO, Appendix II, 2.

 

20.Committee of Experts, “The Grounds of an International Declaration of Human Rights”, 10-15.

 

21.Samuel Moyn, “Foreword”, in Letters to the Contrary: A Curated History of the UNESCO Human Rights Survey, Goodale, XIV.

 

22.Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights, 210-221; Carl A. Grant and Melssa Leigh Gibson, “‘The Path of Social Justice’: A Human Rights History of Social Justice Education”, Equity and Excellence in Education 46 (2013): 87.

 

23.Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

(New York: Random House, 2001): Chapter V, 222. The book was translated into Chinese by Liu Tiesheng

 

(Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press, 2016).

 

24.Liu Zhiqiang, “A Study of the Republic of China’s Research Status for Human Rights”, Science of Law 5 (2015).

25.Will, “The Chinese Contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 18.

 

26.Goodale, “The Myth of Universality”, 608.

 

27.Will, “The Chinese Contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10, 14.

 

28.Glendon, “A World Made New”, 73.

 

29.Lauren, “The Evolution of International Human Rights”, 211.

 

30.Regarding the emergence and use of the phrase “human rights” in China, see Qu Xiangjun, “The Application of the Phrase Human Right at Late 19th Century and Early 20th Century”, Jurists Review 4 (2008).

 

31.Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, Collection of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995), 294

 

32.Grant and Gibson, “‘The Path of Social Justice’: A Human Rights History of Social Justice Education”, 87.

 

33.Johannes Morsink, “The Philosophy of the Universal Declaration”, Human Rights Quarterly 4 (1984): 319.

 

34.Marx and Engels, “The German Ideology (Excerpt)”, in Collection of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, 2nd edition (Beijing: People’s Publishing House: 1995), 119.

 

35.In his report on behalf of the expert committee, McKeen specifically proposed that this right was recognized and established earlier than Western bills of rights (such as those in Britain, the United States and France). McKeen held that “the right to rebel or carry out revolution” as a widely recognized right. Committee of Experts, “The Grounds of an International Declaration of Human Rights”, 3-4, 14. For a Confucian analysis of this right and Lo’s perspective, See Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions of Human Rights”, American Political Science Review 76 (1982): 308; Robert Weatherley, The Discourse of Human Rights in China: Historical and Ideological Perspectives (New York: Macmillan Press, 1999), 52-53.

 

36.China’s first white paper on human rights, “China’s Human Rights Situation”, published in 1991, states that for both a country and its people, the right to subsistence is the foremost human right. Obviously, the people, not the individual, are the subject of this right.

 

37.The “right to live” was listed at the very top of the 15 rights contained in McKeen’s report. The ideas contained within were largely consistent with Lo Chung-shu’s ideas. See Committee of Experts, “The Grounds of an Internationa1 Declaration of Human Rights”, 11.

 

38.UN Doc. A/59/2005 (21 March 2005), paras. 57, 1.

 

39.The “right of self-expression” ranked 9th in the 15 rights listed in McKeen’s report on behalf of the expert committee, though McKeen’s wording differed slightly from Lo’s. Committee of Experts, “The Grounds of an International Declaration of Human Rights”, 13.

 

40.Handyside v. United Kingdom (Application No. 5493/72), Judgment of 7 December 1976, para. 49.

 

41.An ethnic group within a country enjoys only the autonomous rights to freely pursue economic, social and cultural development. It does not enjoy the right to secede from its country. Nihal Jayawickrama, The Judi-cial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 193-198.

 

42.Lo Chung-shu, “Xueshu Ziyou yu Wenhua Fazhan”, The Observer 12, November 16, 1946. Quoted in Li Lairong, “From Europeanization to Localization: Emergence and Maturing of the Concept of Academic In-dependence in the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China”, Academic Research 11 (2011): 122.