The Relation of the Individual to the State in the Era of Human Rights

Abstract

I address the question of the relation of the individual to the state and, in so doing, invoke Hegel, the preeminent philosopher of relationships. As students of international law, we should look forward to achieving the complex synthesis implicit in Hegel's philosophy: to promote the human rights of all persons in the natural context of the unique nation in which they live. Examines a legal problem that highlights this interrelatedness: Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Tags: International Human Rights, Hegel, Legal Norms, Nationality Relationship (Concept), Frolova v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [pg1]** I would like to address the question of the relation of the individual to the state and, in so doing, invoke Hegel, the preeminent philosopher of relationships. Hegel believed that relationships are real and that everything else is a mere consequence of relationships. A few years ago, a legal problem confronted me that highlighted this interrelatedness that Hegel envisioned. I received a call from a former student that her friend, Lois Frolova, needed advice regarding a press conference she wanted to hold. Lois, an American, was going to announce a hunger strike that she was committed to endure to the death, if necessary, unless the Soviet Union allowed her Soviet husband, Andrei Frolov, to emigrate from Moscow and join Lois in Chicago. Andrei and three other "divided spouses" had also recently announced their hunger strikes from an apartment in Moscow, and this announcement had been widely reported in the press. In examining this case, there are several relevant relationships to keep in mind. First is the basic spousal relationship between Lois and Andrei. Next are Lois's relationship with her country of nationality, the United States, and Andrei's relationship with his country of nationality, the Soviet Union. Finally, there is the relationship between the two countries. There are other interesting relationships, such as the attorney-client relationship between Lois and myself, but as you will see as we get into this case, the most interesting and complex relationship turns out to be that between Lois and the United States. The press conference was held the next morning at Northwestern Law School. The reporters were taken by Lois's obvious dedication and sincerity, and a major "divided families" event was launched. [pg2] The next day Lois came to my office, and before we got down to serious business I asked her how her parents reacted to the hunger strike. Her father's reaction was that of a philosophical absolutist: " Are you out of your mind? Do you think you can change the policy of the Soviet Union by threatening suicide? Do you think I’ve spent twenty years raising you so that you could come to an end like this for some crazy Russian in Moscow who wants to get out of his country?" Her mother's reaction, on the other hand, could be characterized as philosophical pragmatism: "Lois, if you must go on a hunger strike, then you must go on a hunger strike. Just be sure to get a little something to eat.'