19 November 2008
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Sixty
Claude Welch
Claude Welch is SUNY Distinguished Service Professor and professor of political science at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has published 14 books and close to 40 chapters and academic articles in fields including human rights, African politics, and the roles of armed forces in political affairs. In 2006, he received the first-ever Lifetime Achievement Award given by the financial services firm TIAA-CREF and the SUNY Research Foundation.
December 10, 2008, marks an important anniversary: It is 60 years since the United Nations General Assembly ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and opened a new era of international history. Why the UDHR matters, how it came into existence, what it says, and the results it produced are the focus of this article.
Why the Universal Declaration Matters
The Universal Declaration is among the most important documents of the 20th century. It has been translated into 337 different languages. It has become a touchstone for actions by governments, individuals, and nongovernmental groups. It has been ratified by every country in the world. Practically no other international instrument can claim this honor. In short, the UDHR has acquired a moral and political significance matched by few documents.
The Universal Declaration provides both a guide to present action and an evolving set of ideas for future implementation at the national level. Increasingly, the UDHR’s principles have been embodied in what states do, and it serves as the foundation for the International Bill of Rights and of several other crucial human rights agreements. And, not least, the Universal Declaration has proven a remarkably flexible foundation for a continued broadening and deepening of the very concept of human rights. How many treaties can claim such honors?
The UDHR was one response to the horrendous destruction of peoples, lands, and infrastructure during the Second World War. Almost all of Europe had been shattered by conflict. Much of Asia also had been wracked by war. Vast reconstruction was necessary so people could return to “normalcy.” And with the war’s end, nationalist reactions against foreign rule and demands for independence suggested that the new, postwar world would not necessarily be free from conflict. In short, a new beginning was essential. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights resulted directly from this yearning for a new global set of rules.
How the Universal Declaration Came Into Being
Every country in the world had been touched directly or indirectly by World War II. Seventy million people perished. Planning for a future international organization to succeed the League of Nations started during the war. In the spring of 1945, 50 governments and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations met in San Francisco. The states hammered out the “constitution” of a new United Nations. The resulting “charter” embodied both “official” and “unofficial” ideas.
The Preamble to the United Nations Charter includes these famous words:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, …
Much thought, time, and energy went into determining the United Nations’ structure. Many readers will recognize and understand the respective roles and powers of the General Assembly (where all 192 U.N. members sit) and of the Security Council (10 elected and five permanent members). Far less known, however, are parts of the United Nations devoted exclusively to human rights.
The U.N. Charter called for a commission on human rights. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, chaired it. With the help of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the new Commission on Human Rights studied how different cultures, nations, and philosophers viewed human rights. These multiple perspectives deepened the commission’s understanding and improved its work.
In September 1948 the commission sent its draft to the U.N. General Assembly. Lengthy debates clarified the draft language and built increasing consensus. Discussion and approval took two full years, including 81 meetings, 168 amendments to the draft text, and nearly 1,400 votes. The climax came on December 10, 1948. The General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration without a single dissenting vote, although eight states abstained. This was a remarkable conclusion to an extraordinary process.
What the UDHR Says
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets forth a number of objectives, some to be achieved immediately, others as rapidly as feasible. The UDHR also provided the foundation for a series of other international agreements, both global and regional. Finally, the UDHR inspired people around the world to claim their rights, not simply accept the diktat of others.
The UDHR provides “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Every “individual and every organ of society” shall promote “respect for these rights and freedoms … by progressive measures ...” The goal was “to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.”
Underlying the entire Declaration is a basic value. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” Article 1 states. This assertion ran in the face of centuries of practice and widespread beliefs. The Universal Declaration could not by itself reverse or transform popular attitudes. Nonetheless, it pointed in a crucial direction.
Perhaps most important, the clarity and directness of its language inspired millions. An increasing number of translations and conscious efforts to spread the UDHR’s message popularized its principles. Men and women everywhere recognized that they enjoyed rights that no government should take away.
Drafters of the UDHR consciously drew upon several legal and philosophical traditions. Many of its 30 articles deal with civil and political rights, which protect individuals from government and from state-condoned private abuses. Others discuss freedoms common to each individual, such as the right to free expression. Still others set forth economic, social, and cultural rights, such as access to education and the right to work.
Results of the Universal Declaration
Even more significant than the Universal Declaration’s inspirational language have been its results. In international law, several major treaties, ratified by more than 100 countries, trace their origins to the UDHR. They include, in chronological order:
• The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965);
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966);
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966);
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979);
• The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984);
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
When a country ratifies an international agreement, it assumes a legal obligation. Citizens of states signing on to the UDHR and its progeny thus possess rights they may not have fully enjoyed earlier because their government has acknowledged and pledged to respect those rights. Signatories to many human rights treaties must prepare and submit regular reports on their citizens’ freedoms. All these reports go to U.N. specialists who study them carefully and recommend where changes are needed.
Citizens groups increasingly provide their own reports, with additional details. Thus, one of the hopes of the drafters of the Universal Declaration has been increasingly met: People have a voice in their own destiny.
Still other international agreements have stemmed from the Universal Declaration:
• Prosecution of indicted war criminals by the International Criminal Court, functioning as of 2002;
• The “responsibility to protect,” as approved by the General Assembly in 2005, which places a moral obligation on countries to help states wracked by widespread disturbances or civil wars;
• An August 2006 agreement on a draft convention on the rights of the disabled;
• Adoption of a Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights by the United Nations in September 2007;
• Reducing or eliminating the death penalty in much of Europe and elsewhere;
• Giving more attention to how transnational corporations affect human rights where they operate.
These developments required significant discussion. Nearly 20 years passed between adoption of the Universal Declaration and the “entry into force” — in other words, full acceptance into international law — of the two international covenants described above. Twenty-five years of discussion preceded General Assembly acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights. On the other hand, agreement about establishing the International Criminal Court came within four years, and the convention on children’s rights in less than a year. The picture is thus mixed.
What Steps Lie Ahead?
For six decades, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has proven its durability. Yet debates remain.
Cultural distinctiveness continues to arouse discussion about universality, the “U” in UDHR. Although the Universal Declaration’s principles have been reaffirmed time after time, some assert that cultures or regions differ so much that no real global standards can exist.
A second area of controversy swirls around the rights of persons belonging to ethnic groups and national minorities. As individuals, they cannot be discriminated against because of their backgrounds. However, long-term economic or political disadvantages, deeply engrained social attitudes, and the like against the groups to which they belong raise profound questions. Do groups per se have rights?
Additional uncertainty exists with respect to internally displaced persons. They are individuals who cannot live in their usual homes because of conflict, but have not crossed an international border. Internally displaced persons (known as IDPs) confront horrendous, dangerous living conditions. They also exist in a legal no-man’s-land. Had they left their own countries, they would have enjoyed international legal protection. Having remained at home or near home, they continue to be liable to many problems.
A fourth area of controversy centers on how best to settle large-scale civil conflicts. Should the international community intervene for humanitarian reasons? Should peace and reconciliation committees or similar groups to establish the “truth” be set up”? Should negotiations be encouraged between opposing groups by promising amnesty to those accused of war crimes? Or would justice be served better by trying to arrest and try them in the International Criminal Court? How far do the obligations of the “right to protect” extend? Who should take responsibility for any coercive intervention?
Still another area of concern involves apologies and reparations for previous human rights injustices. Earlier violence against large numbers of people of other nationalities can —- and does — sour relations between and among governments and their populations. Hence, this whole area is fraught with political difficulties, irrespective of its importance for human rights generally.
Truth commissions and truth and reconciliation groups provide an additional dimension, showing the evolution and growth of human rights. They investigate previous abuses. Their establishment suggests that previous “human wrongs” cannot be hidden forever.
Serious economic issues undercut how much — and indeed whether — individuals can enjoy full human rights. If human rights “begin with breakfast,” persons must have reasonable chances for employment and schooling. They must be able to break out of the trap of poverty and avoid the debilitating impact of malnutrition and endemic disease. The Universal Declaration speaks about these concerns in general terms. However, serious problems remain in light of economic inequalities within and between nations. Wasteful or corrupt practices by government officials reduce what is available for other needs.
Finally, and in many ways most significant, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be enforced by “traditional” means of coercion. The United Nations has no armed forces of its own, but must obtain parts of other states’ militaries for help. The U.N. agencies directly concerned with human rights, such as the Geneva-based Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, receive little funding.
Looking back to 1948, however, progress has been remarkable. A visionary document has become a living reality. The Universal Declaration should be celebrated for its firm foundation and flexible structure. December 10, 2008, should be celebrated around the world.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
