In Matthew Noah Smith’s article Rethinking Sovereignty, Rethinking Revolution, Smith first presents a consequential and a Kantian challenge towards revolution. The consequentialists argue that as revolutions are so violent that anyone who starts revolution “will unleash a hell on earth”, people should seek change through legal reform. However, revolution also brings people freedom, which may make people much better off in generations to come. The Kantian argument points out that in state of nature, there is no right other than right to live and possession, if we are to “escape the mortal and moral peril of state of nature”, we must admit that legislation is the only way to generate rights. Thus, revolution may only be justified through existing legal system, which it seeks to destroy. Smith concedes that the Kantian objection is hard to dismiss, so he proposes a new approach to the problem: a system where two sovereignties, one global and decentralized and another one national and centralized, coexist and govern the same community, where the global one may grant the right to revolutionize against the national one. Given Smith seeks an organization operated by human beings, rather than God, to provide justification of revolution, he would most likely disagree with the Declaration.
 Smith, Matthew Noah. “Rethinking Sovereignty, Rethinking Revolution.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 36, no. 4 (2008): 405-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212832.