Unalienable vs. Inalienable – What’s the Difference?

When delving into the world of legal rights, terms like “unalienable” and “inalienable” frequently appear, especially in foundational documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they have subtle yet significant differences that carry important implications in both legal and philosophical contexts. In this article, we’ll explore these terms in-depth, unpack their historical usage, and analyze why understanding their nuances matters today.

What Does “Unalienable” Mean?

Definition and Etymology

The term “unalienable” originates from the Latin word alienare, which means “to transfer or make another person an owner of.” The prefix un- means “not,” so unalienable means something that cannot be transferred or surrendered. This word has deep roots in natural rights philosophy, which asserts that certain rights are inherent and cannot be taken away by any authority, including governments.

In the context of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson used “unalienable” to describe rights that cannot be separated from an individual, no matter the circumstances. These rights are seen as God-given or self-evident, making them inseparable from the human condition.

Key Legal Implications

The Declaration of Independence famously states that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This powerful statement laid the groundwork for the American legal system and the protection of individual freedoms.

The term “unalienable” is often used in the context of natural law, which holds that certain rights are inherent to human beings. These rights are not dependent on laws or governments but are seen as universal and timeless.

Examples in Context

One of the most well-known uses of “unalienable” is in the Declaration of Independence itself:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This phrase encapsulates the moral philosophy of the early United States, emphasizing that certain rights cannot be surrendered or transferred, even by agreement.

What Does “Inalienable” Mean?

Definition and Etymology

“Inalienable” comes from the same Latin root as “unalienable,” but with a slight twist in meaning. The prefix in- means “not,” and alienare means “to transfer.” Thus, “inalienable” means not transferable or not subject to being surrendered.

While the two words share a similar root and essentially convey the same idea, “inalienable” is more commonly used in international law and modern legal contexts.

Legal and Philosophical Usage

Inalienable rights are those that cannot be taken away or given up, regardless of the individual’s will. This concept is deeply embedded in the modern human rights movement and is a key principle in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948.

Unlike unalienable rights, which often have a more philosophical or moral undertone, inalienable rights are legally protected under national and international laws. They are often associated with rights that are intrinsic to being human, such as the right to life, the right to freedom, and the right to be treated with dignity.

Examples in Context

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations states:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Here, the term inalienable is used to highlight rights that are inseparable from human beings. The language reflects a global understanding of rights that cannot be surrendered by an individual, even in circumstances such as imprisonment or political oppression.

Are “Unalienable” and “Inalienable” Synonyms?

Core Similarities

At their core, both unalienable and inalienable describe rights that cannot be given up or transferred by an individual. They refer to the idea that certain rights are intrinsic to human beings and cannot be separated from their identity or humanity. In the context of law, both terms protect the individual’s fundamental freedoms, especially when facing oppressive governments or unjust systems.

Subtle Differences in Nuance

Although the two terms are often used interchangeably, there are nuanced differences in how they are applied:

• Unalienable: This term is more often associated with philosophical discussions, particularly in American history. It was famously used by Thomas Jefferson to emphasize that rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are given by a higher power and cannot be taken away.
• Inalienable: This term has broader international use, particularly in global human rights frameworks. It conveys the same idea of inseparable rights but is often found in legal documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where it applies to all people regardless of nation or culture.

Why the Choice of Word Matters

The choice between “unalienable” and “inalienable” can matter in specific legal contexts. For instance, while both terms may refer to the same rights, originalist legal scholars in the United States tend to favor “unalienable” when discussing the intent of the Founding Fathers. Meanwhile, international law tends to lean more heavily on the term inalienable due to its universal application across borders.

Historical Usage – Why Did the Founders Say “Unalienable”?

Jefferson’s Draft of the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson’s choice of “unalienable” over “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence was deliberate. At the time, Jefferson was influenced by natural rights philosophy, particularly the works of John Locke, who used the term inalienable to describe the rights of individuals.

However, Jefferson’s use of “unalienable” emphasized that these rights were God-given or derived from nature, not simply a legal construct that could be taken away. This word choice reflected a philosophical foundation for the American Revolution, asserting that rights are self-evident and cannot be denied by any government or monarch.

Typographical and Printing Conventions of the 18th Century

The 18th century saw varied spellings and uses of words due to printing conventions. The term “unalienable” was more commonly used in the early texts of the U.S. while “inalienable” was still in circulation. This led to a bit of confusion regarding their proper usage, but Jefferson’s work solidified the use of unalienable in the context of the American founding.

Later Usage by Legal Scholars and Presidents

Over time, both terms became common in U.S. legal discourse. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to unalienable rights in speeches, while modern legal scholars sometimes prefer inalienable in discussions about human rights, particularly in international law.

Which Term Is More Common Today – Unalienable or Inalienable?

Corpus Analysis and Frequency of Use

A quick glance at usage trends shows that “inalienable” has become more common in modern legal texts and international agreements. Tools like the Google Ngram Viewer reveal that the term unalienable peaked in the 18th century but has steadily declined in frequency over time.

Usage Trends in Academic and Legal Texts

• Inalienable: Frequently used in human rights documents, UN resolutions, and international treaties.
• Unalienable: Primarily found in historical discussions of U.S. political texts, especially in relation to the American Revolution and natural law philosophy.

Global vs. American Preference

While both terms are used worldwide, inalienable tends to be the preferred term in global legal contexts, such as the United Nations. Unalienable, on the other hand, is more often associated with American heritage and the historical foundation of U.S. law.

Usage in Legal Documents and Political Texts

Both terms play crucial roles in legal and political discourse:

• U.S. Declaration of Independence: The Declaration explicitly refers to “unalienable rights,” making it one of the most iconic examples of the term.
• U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights: While the words “unalienable” and “inalienable” are not directly mentioned in these documents, the principles of unalienable rights are central to the Bill of Rights and constitutional protections.
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The UN uses “inalienable” to stress the universality of human rights, emphasizing that they are inherent to all people regardless of culture, race, or religion.

Common Misconceptions About These Terms

Myth: They Mean Different Things

While unalienable and inalienable both refer to inseparable rights, they are often treated as synonyms. The key difference is mostly historical and contextual rather than one of substance.

Myth: “Unalienable” Is Obsolete

Although unalienable may not be used as widely today in legal texts, it is still relevant in American history and philosophical discussions. The term holds symbolic importance and is often used to reflect the natural rights ideals upon which the U.S. was founded.

Myth: “Inalienable” Is Always Preferred in Legal Writing

While “inalienable” is more commonly found in international and human rights law, both terms are still used in legal contexts. Their usage depends on the historical or philosophical focus of the document.

When to Use “Unalienable” vs. “Inalienable” in Your Own Writing

• Context Matters: If you’re writing about the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, or U.S. constitutional law, unalienable is your go-to term. For discussions about global human rights, inalienable is more appropriate.
• Audience and Intent: For a philosophical or historical focus, use “unalienable.” For a legal or international rights perspective, “inalienable” is the better choice.

Final Verdict: Does the Difference Really Matter?

In many cases, the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable” is subtle and context-dependent. Both terms reflect the idea that certain rights cannot be taken away or given up, but the choice of term may reveal something about the historical or philosophical context. By understanding these differences, you can better navigate legal, philosophical, and historical discussions.

FAQs About Unalienable and Inalienable

Is there a legal difference between the two?

• While both terms are often used interchangeably, inalienable is more common in international law, while unalienable is historically tied to U.S. foundational texts.

Why did Jefferson choose “unalienable”?

• Jefferson’s choice reflects his philosophical belief in natural rights granted by a higher power, which is emphasized in the language of the Declaration of Independence.

Are both words still used today?

• Yes, although inalienable is more common in modern legal documents and international human rights discussions, both terms are still relevant.

What’s the best term to use in academic writing?

• For American history or natural law philosophy, use unalienable. For international law or human rights, inalienable is preferred.

Related Terms You Should Know

• Alienable: Refers to rights or properties that can be transferred or surrendered.
• Transferable Rights: Rights that can be given away or transferred.
• Natural Rights: Rights inherent to all human beings, often linked to the idea of unalienable rights.
• Human Rights: Fundamental rights and freedoms that are inalienable according to global agreements.
• Constitutional Rights: Rights guaranteed by a nation’s constitution, often tied to unalienable concepts.

Sources and Further Reading

• U.S. National Archives: Declaration of Independence
• Cornell Law: Legal Information Institute
• Google Books Ngram Viewer