Final Chapter: Summative Conclusions and Suggestions
In a thought-provoking analysis, the relationship between Fichtean political philosophy and the international human rights framework has been explored to evaluate the legal justifiability of major historical revolutions. Although no direct study on this combination was found, the principles derived from Fichte's philosophy, Enlightenment social contract theory, and international human rights law provide a compelling basis for such an examination.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte's philosophy, influenced by Rousseau and Kant, emphasises the autonomy and moral freedom of the nation and individual. Fichte viewed the state as an organic unity of its members and believed in national self-sufficiency (economic and political) and independence as essential for true freedom. He argued that a nation must cultivate a strong, distinct national character and sovereignty free from corrupt foreign influence to preserve its freedom and honour.
Building on Rousseau’s social contract, Fichte's idealism supports the concept that legitimacy is contingent on serving the collective freedom and righteousness of the people. This ties political authority to a moral duty to protect freedom, implying that revolutions aimed at overthrowing oppressive or illegitimate governments may be legally justifiable if they restore the social contract and national autonomy.
Modern international human rights law enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination and protection from tyranny. This framework often views revolutions through the lens of whether a government violates fundamental human rights, including political participation and freedom from oppression.
The analysis applies this framework to four significant revolutions – the English Revolution (1640), the French Revolution (1789-1799), the Russian Revolution (1917-1923), and the Nigerian-Biafran Revolution (1967-1970).
| Revolution | Legal Justifiability (Fichtean + Human Rights View) | |---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **English Revolution (1640)** | Justified as a struggle against monarchic absolutism that violated the social contract by disregarding parliamentary consent and natural rights. The revolution aimed to restore civil liberties and the rule of law, aligning with Locke’s and Rousseau’s principles of political liberalism and the right to resist usurpation. | | **French Revolution (1789-1799)** | Seen as a radical exercise of the general will against a tyrannical monarchy that betrayed citizen freedom and equality. Though violent, it embodied Rousseau’s principle that a broken social contract morally legitimizes rebellion, aiming to establish liberty and equality as rights—themes central to Fichte’s organic national freedom and moral state. | | **Russian Revolution (1917-1923)** | More complex, but from a Fichtean and human rights lens, it can be justified as a revolt against oppressive autocracy and socio-economic injustice denying the masses their freedom and self-determination. The revolution aligned with the desire for a collective national will and sovereignty, although its aftermath raises questions about the protection of individual rights within the new regime. | | **Nigerian-Biafran Revolution (1967-1970)** | Tied to the principle of peoples’ right to self-determination under international law. From a Fichtean perspective, Biafra’s attempt to assert national autonomy and resist domination could be seen as a quest for collective freedom and self-rule. The legal justification hinges on whether the Nigerian state violated the social contract by oppressive means against the Biafran people, thus legitimizing their bid for independence under human rights doctrines. |
In conclusion, the legal justifiability of these major revolutions, according to a synthesis of Fichtean political philosophy and the international human rights framework, rests on the breaking of the social contract by oppressive regimes that fail to uphold collective freedom and the general will, the moral and legal obligation of people to resist and overthrow such illegitimate authority, the restoration or creation of a state that embodies the freedom, equality, and autonomy of its citizens or peoples, and the right to self-determination as a core principle under international human rights law supporting secessionist movements like Biafra.
Thus, revolutions are legally justifiable when they respond to tyranny, restore the social contract, and promote the autonomous freedom of the collective, consistent with Fichte’s idealism and human rights principles. The Fichtean perspective would have supported the Biafran revolution if the Federal Government of Nigeria was truly oppressing the Igbo people and associated minority tribes.
The project observed these revolutions, leading to a comparison of international law and the Fichtean perspective in justifying the legality of the right of revolution. Various scholarly documents were reviewed to discuss the right of revolution against an oppressive government. The study also presented conclusions, implications, recommendations for future research, and limitations of the project.
Dissertation writing services may find the exploration of the intersection between Fichtean political philosophy and the international human rights framework in evaluating the legal justifiability of major historical revolutions an intriguing topic for education-and-self-development. This analysis could further delve into policy-and-legislation implications, particularly in the context of politics, as it discusses the role of revolutions in preserving collective freedom and national autonomy. Online-education platforms may find this subject relevant for general-news discussions and future learning opportunities, as it sheds light on the relationship between historical revolutions and international human rights law.
