• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
116Emporium Current EssaysEmporium Current Essays117£• 'The term "human rights" was first used in 1942, during World Wir II, when 26 alliednations expressed in the Declaration by United Nations their conviction-that "completevictory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence, and religiousfreedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own land as well'as in other lands. "In so affirming, the pledging nations, whose number soon increased by 21,declared that they were "engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forcesseeking to subjugate the world" - meaning the Axis powers by "enemies."This was the time in international political and social history1 that marked a distinct break from the earlier assumption that what a government did to its own people was itsown business. The new perception, that the denial of human rights anywhere in the worldwas a matter of concern for all, emerged from the experiences of the period immediatelyfollowing the World War II witnessing the horrors of the Holocaust and Nazi denials of  basic human rights. That was when nations decided that promotion of human rights oughtto be a principle purpose of the new United Nations Organisation.In the immediate post-World War II period, the United States was also giving humanrights a high place in its foreign policy programmes and was conducting itself as a worldleader in an effort to make human rights a hallmark of the United Nations. Analysts haveexpressed their skepticism regarding the real motive of the United States in making the protection of human rights of others as their foreign policy objective: they suspect thatthe new US enthusiasm for human rights might actually have been an attempt to dealwith the post-1945 conflicts with the Soviet Union, which the US accomplished by placing itself on a morally elevated position in taking the conflict out of the context of agreat power rivalry and putting in into the more sublime struggle between freedom andoppression. In any case, when the then-Secretary of State George C. Marshall spoke onthe subject, a mix of idealism and realism was noteworthy.Systematic and deliberate denials of human rights lie at the root of most of our troublesand threaten the work of the United Nations. It is not onlyfuhdamentally wrong thatmillions of men and women live in daily terror of secret police, subject to seizure,imprisonment, or forced labour without fair trial, but these wrongs have repercussions inthe community of nations. Governments which systematically disregard the rights of their own people are not likely to respect the rights of other nations and other people and arelikely to seek their objectives by coercion and force n the international field.
 
During the 1948 session of the UN's General Assembly, Eleanor Roosevelt, the leadingUS leader of human rights and the US leader of human rights and the US spokespersonon human rights in the United Nation addressed the same theme. Her emphasis was onthe "preservation of human freedom," a topic which she had "chosen to discuss in earlydays of the UN because the issue of human liberty is decisive for the settlement of outstanding political differences."Inspiration for the intensified human rights movement w as also derived from the "four freedoms" as stated by President Roosevelt. In his annual message to Congress onJanuary 6, 1941, the president said that " ..in the future days, which we seek to makesecure we look forward to a world grounded upon four essential human freedoms ...freedom of speech and expression... freedom of every person to worship God in his ownway ... freedom from want ... and freedom from fear." These freedoms were given generalendorsement in the Declaration by United Nations of January 1,1942 and they thus became bases for the anti-Axis coalition during the War. The United Nations' concern for the protection of human' rights around the world may be regarded asone its chief points of difference from the earlier League of Nations. The latter,established 'following the carnage of World V/ar Ho .'prevent future• ..wars, had failed in its primary.purpose wuhin two decades' of its , formation as theworld saw an even more horror some war. When the representatives of the allied nationsmet in San Francisco in1945, close to the end the World War II to contemplate a global move from the League of  Nations to the United Nation, they certainly did not want to repeat the foiled experienceof the League" °f Nations. While the chief purpose of the new global organisation wasstill the maintenance of international peace and security, as in the case of the former one,the United Nations also envisaged a role" for itself of dealing with the problems of non- political nature. With conviction based upon experience of the years immediatelyPreceding the war, the organisation with the primary purpose for mamtaining peace wasgiven the responsibility for dealing with) economic and social problems also. Notunexpectedly, the Soviet Union did not approve of the idea; it saw little reason in globalattempts at achieving international co-operation to maintain the ^•ability x)f an economicsystem the validity of which it refused to acccpt on ideological grounds. Nevertheless, theorganisation's118Emporium Current £ssavs*-ivaal»general purposes were accepted by all. It was realised, that there I exists a strongrelationship between economic discontent and political instability, lending to the establishment of authoritarian regimes, and that statesdenying human rights to the their own citizens would not hesitate to practise aggressionin foreign relations I as well. Thus the Charter of the United Nations assigned the
 
1 organisation a multipurpose role: achievement of international co-operation in dealing with economic and social problems, the promotion of respectfor human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the economic, social, and politicaldevelopment of under developed territories was made a means to achieve the paramount purpose of the organisation, the maintenance of international peace and security. Andsince the Charter deems all these objectives as goals for which appropriate action bymembers and organs may be taken, the organisation has turned out in principle to be /)iiecommitted to the promotion of man's welfare and the fuller realisation of his potentialities.Though the UN Charter had not defined "fundamental human rights," it had providedthajt the UN promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights andfundamental freedoms of all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion"(article 55) ant! that "all Members pledges themselves to take joint and separate action, inco-operation with the Organisation for the achievement of the purposes set forth inArticle 55" (article56). Similarly, though the Charter had not established a specific international machineryfor the enforcement of its human rights provisions, it ha<l, in creating the GeneralAssembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council, organs of widecompetence, provided for the establishment of an unlimited number of subsidiary bodies,including commissions,, in the field of human rights. These three principle organs of-theUnited Nations have from time to time used their powers to intervene in situations suchas violations of political or religious freedom during the cold war period in easternEurope, race conflict in South Africa, and issues like forced labour, infringement of trade union freedom, discrimination against women elsewhere in the world.Particularly note worthy has been the United Nations' contribution to the fight againstcolonialism in the post World War II period; it won the world body greatest recognition asa champion for the cause of human rights, thanks to a general tendency amonggovernments to identify the struggle against colonial domination with struggle for humanrights.In 1948, the UN defined the general human rights in the Declaration of Human Rights.According to this document, the scope of human rights ranges widely from the traditional politicalEmporium Current Essays119and civil rights and freedoms to economic, social, and cultural rights. The representativesfrom many diverse cultures endorsed the rights therein set forth "as a common standardof achievement for all peoples and a,!l nations." But while nation agreed readily -- by avote of 48 to 0, with 8 abstentions and 2 members absent - great differences incultural* philosophical, and legal views posed problems in getting them to agree toa treaty or treaties which would define these rights in legal language, impose upon the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...