Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a historic document that was
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its third session on 10 December 1948
as Resolution 217 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the then 58 members of the United
Nations, 48 voted in favor, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.[1]
The Declaration consists of 30 articles affirming an individual's rights which, although not legally
binding in themselves, have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, economic transfers,
regional human rights instruments, national constitutions, and other laws. The Declaration was the
first step in the process of formulating the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in
1966, and came into force in 1976, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified them.
Some legal scholars have argued that because countries have constantly invoked the Declaration for
more than 50 years, it has become binding as a part of customary international law.[2][3] However, in
the United States, the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004), concluded that the
Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." [4] Courts of
other countries have also concluded that the Declaration is not in and of itself part of domestic law.

The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was introduced in its second draft, which was
prepared by René Cassin. Cassin worked from a first draft, which was prepared by John Peters
Humphrey. The structure was influenced by the Code Napoléon, including a preamble and introductory
general principles.[5] Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a
foundation, steps, four columns, and a pediment.
The Declaration consists of a preamble and thirty articles:
• The preamble sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the
Declaration.
• Articles 1–2 established the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, equality, and brotherhood.
• Articles 3–5 established other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery
and torture.
• Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited for their
defence when violated.
• Articles 12–17 established the rights of the individual towards the community (including such things
as freedom of movement).
• Articles 18–21 sanctioned the so-called "constitutional liberties", and with spiritual, public, and
political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, religion and conscience, word, and
peaceful association of the individual.
• Articles 22–27 sanctioned an individual's economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare.
Article 25 states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-
being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services." It also makes additional accommodations for security in case of
physical debilitation or disability, and makes special mention of care given to those in
motherhood or childhood.[6]
• Articles 28–30 established the general ways of using these rights, the areas in which these rights of
the individual can not be applied, and that they can not be overcome against the individual.
These articles are concerned with the duty of the individual to society and the prohibition of use of
rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations Organisation.[7]

During World War II, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom from fear, and freedom from want—as their basic war aims.[8][9] The United Nations Charter
"reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person" and
committed all member states to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".[10]
When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became fully apparent after World War II, the
consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define
the rights to which it referred.[11][12] A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was
necessary to give effect to the Charter's provisions on human rights.[13]

Creation and drafting[edit]

In June 1946, the UN Economic and Social Council established the Commission on Human
Rights, comprising 18 members from various nationalities and political backgrounds. The Commission,
a standing body of the United Nations, was constituted to undertake the work of preparing what was
initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights.[14]
The Commission established a special Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafting Committee,
chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, to write the articles of the Declaration. The Committee met in two
sessions over the course of two years.
Canadian John Peters Humphrey, Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations
Secretariat, was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on the project and
became the Declaration's principal drafter.[15] At the time, Humphrey was newly appointed as Director
of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat.[16]
Other well-known members of the drafting committee included René Cassin of France, Charles Malik
of Lebanon, and P. C. Chang of the Republic of China.[17] Humphrey provided the initial draft that
became the working text of the Commission.
Hansa Mehta of India suggested to add "all human beings are created equal" instead of "all men are
created equal" in the declaration.
According to Allan Carlson, the Declaration's pro-family phrases were the result of the Christian
Democratic movement's influence on Cassin and Malik.[18]
Once the Committee finished its work in May 1948, the draft was further discussed by the Commission
on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, the Third Committee of the General Assembly
before being put to vote in December 1948. During these discussions many amendments and
propositions were made by UN Member States.[19]
British representatives were extremely frustrated that the proposal had moral but no legal
obligation.[20] (It was not until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came
into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.)

Adoption[edit]
The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 on
10 December 1948 in Palais de Chaillot, Paris, as the third United Nations General Assembly was held
there.[21] Of the then 58 members[22] of the United Nations, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight
abstained[23][24] and Honduras and Yemen failed to vote or abstain.[25]
The meeting record[26] provides firsthand insight into the debate. South Africa's position can be seen as
an attempt to protect its system of apartheid, which clearly violated several articles in the
Declaration.[23] The Saudi Arabian delegation's abstention was prompted primarily by two of the
Declaration's articles: Article 18, which states that everyone has the right "to change his religion or
belief"; and Article 16, on equal marriage rights.[23] The six communist countries abstentions centred
around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism. [27]
Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the abstention of Soviet bloc countries to Article 13, which provided the
right of citizens to leave their countries.[28]

Voting in the plenary session:

Green countries: voted in favour; Orange countries: abstained;
Black countries: failed to abstain or vote;
Grey countries: were not part of the UN at time of voting
The 48 countries that voted in favour of the Declaration are:[29]
• Afghanistan
Other countries only gained sovereignty and joined the United Nations later,[31] which explains the
relatively small number of states entitled to the historical vote, and in no way reflects opposition to the
universal principles.

International Human Rights Day[edit]

Main article: Human Rights Day
The Declaration of Human Rights Day is commemorated every year on December 10, the
anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration, and is known as Human Rights Day or
International Human Rights Day. The commemoration is observed by individuals, community and
religious groups, human rights organizations, parliaments, governments, and the United Nations.
Decadal commemorations are often accompanied by campaigns to promote awareness of the
Declaration and human rights. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration, and was
accompanied by year-long activities around the theme "Dignity and justice for all of us".[32]
Significance and legal effect[edit]

Significance[edit]
In 1948, the UN Resolution A/RES/217(III)[A] adopted the Declaration on a bilingual document
in English and French, and official translations in Chinese, Russian and Spanish.[33] In 2009, the
Guinness Book of Records described the Declaration as the world's "Most Translated Document" (370
different languages and dialects).[34][35] The Unicode Consortium stores 431[36] of the 503[37] official
translations available at the OHCHR (as of June 2017).
In its preamble, governments commit themselves and their people to progressive measures that secure
the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration.
Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption of the Declaration as a declaration rather than as a treaty
because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States
Declaration of Independence had within the United States.[38] In this, she proved to be correct. Even
though it is not legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or has influenced most national
constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws,
international laws, and treaties, as well as for a growing number of regional, sub national, and national
institutions protecting and promoting human rights.
For the first time in international law, the term “the rule of law” was used in the preamble of the
Declaration. The third paragraph of the preamble of the Declaration reads as follows: "Whereas it is
essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny
and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."[39]

Legal effect[edit]
While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the
meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations
Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. In addition, many international
lawyers[40][41][42][43] believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law[44] and is a
powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles.
The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that the Declaration
"constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The
Declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants: the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. The principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and many more. The
Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates, and constitutional
courts, and by individuals who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human
rights.

Praise[edit]
The Universal Declaration has received praise from a number of notable people. The Lebanese
philosopher and diplomat Charles Malik called it "an international document of the first order of
importance",[45] while Eleanor Roosevelt—first chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) that drafted the Declaration—stated that it "may well become the international Magna Carta of
all men everywhere."[46] In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the Declaration "one
of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time" but the Vatican never adopted the
Declaration.[47] In a statement on 10 December 2003 on behalf of the European Union, Marcello
Spatafora said that the Declaration "placed human rights at the centre of the framework of principles
and obligations shaping relations within the international community."[48]

Criticism[edit]
Islamic countries[edit]
Turkey, a secular state with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, signed the Declaration in
1948. However, the same year, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration,
[49]

claiming that it violated Sharia law.[50] Pakistan—which had signed the declaration—disagreed and
critiqued the Saudi position.[51] Pakistani minister Muhammad Zafarullah Khan strongly argued in
favor of including freedom of religion.[52] In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations,
Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian
tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.[53] On 30 June
2000, members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation) officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[54] an
alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the
Islamic Shari'ah", without any discrimination on grounds of "race, colour, language, sex, religious
belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations".
Some Muslim diplomats would go on later to help draft other UN human rights treaties. For example,
Iraqi diplomat Bedia Afnan's insistence on wording that recognized gender equality resulted in Article
3 within the ICCPR and ICESCR. Pakistani diplomat Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah also spoke in favor
of recognizing women's rights.[52]
A number of scholars in different fields have expressed concerns with the Declaration's alleged Western
bias. These include Irene Oh, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Riffat Hassan, and Faisal Kutty. Hassan has argued:
What needs to be pointed out to those who uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be
the highest, or sole, model, of a charter of equality and liberty for all human beings, is that given the
Western origin and orientation of this Declaration, the "universality" of the assumptions on which it is
based is – at the very least – problematic and subject to questioning. Furthermore, the alleged
incompatibility between the concept of human rights and religion in general, or particular religions
such as Islam, needs to be examined in an unbiased way.[55]
Irene Oh argues that one solution is to approach the issue from the perspective of comparative
(descriptive) ethics.[56]
Kutty writes: "A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human
rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home ... It is
important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative
conceptions of human rights."[57]
Ironically, a number of Islamic countries that, as of 2014, are among the most resistant to UN
intervention in domestic affairs, played an invaluable role in the creation of the Declaration, with
countries such as Syria and Egypt having been strong proponents of the universality of human rights
and the right of countries to self-determination.[58]
"The Right to Refuse to Kill"[edit]
Groups such as Amnesty International[59] and War Resisters International[60] have advocated for
"The Right to Refuse to Kill" to be added to the Universal Declaration. War Resisters International has
stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from—but not yet
explicit in—Article 18 of the UDHR: the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.[60]
Steps have been taken within the United Nations to make this right more explicit, but—to date (2017)—
those steps have been limited to less significant United Nations documents. Sean MacBride—Assistant
Secretary-General of the United Nations and Nobel Peace Prize laureate—has said: "To the rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It
is 'The Right to Refuse to Kill'."[61]

American Anthropological Association[edit]

The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR while it was in its drafting
process. The AAA warned that the document would be defining universal rights from a Western
paradigm which would be unfair to countries outside of that scope. They further argued that the West's
history of colonialism and evangelism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the
world. They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism: "1.
The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences
entails a respect for cultural differences", "2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by
the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered", and "3.
Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate
postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from
the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole."[62]

Bangkok Declaration[edit]
During the lead up to the World Conference on Human Rights held in 1993, ministers from Asian
states adopted the Bangkok Declaration, reaffirming their governments' commitment to the principles
of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their view
of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and stressed the need for universality,
objectivity, and non-selectivity of human rights. However, at the same time, they emphasized the
principles of sovereignty and non-interference, calling for greater emphasis on economic, social, and
cultural rights—in particular, the right to economic development over civil and political rights. The
Bangkok Declaration is considered to be a landmark expression of the Asian values perspective, which
offers an extended critique of human rights universalism.[63]

Death penalty[edit]
The declaration doesn't take explicit position on death penalty. Its article 5 simply mentions that No
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Organizations promoting the UDHR[edit]

International Federation for Human Rights[edit]

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) is nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and
independent of any government, and its core mandate is to promote respect for all the rights set out in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[64][65]

Amnesty International[edit]
In 1988, director Stephen R. Johnson and 41 international animators, musicians, and producers
created a 20-minute video for Amnesty International to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Universal
Declaration. The video was to bring to life the Declaration's 30 articles.[66]
Amnesty International celebrated Human Rights Day and the 60th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration all over the world by organizing the "Fire Up!" event.[67]
Quaker United Nations Office and American Friends Service Committee[edit]
The Quaker United Nations Office and the American Friends Service Committee work on many
human rights issues, including improving education on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
They have developed a curriculum to help introduce High School students to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.[68][69]

American Library Association[edit]

In 1997, the council of the American Library Association (ALA) endorsed Article 19 from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[70] Along with Article 19, Article 18 and 20 are also
fundamentally tied to the ALA Universal Right to Free Expression and the Library Bill of Rights.[71]
Censorship, the invasion of privacy, and interference of opinions are human rights violations according
to the ALA.
In response to violations of human rights, the ALA asserts the following principles:
“ The American Library Association opposes any use of governmental prerogative that leads to intimidation
of individuals that prevents them from exercising their rights to hold opinions without interference, and
to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas. We urge libraries and librarians everywhere to resist
such abuse of governmental power, and to support those against whom such governmental power has
been employed.
The American Library Association condemns any governmental effort to involve libraries and librarians
in restrictions on the right of any individual to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive,
and impart information and ideas. Such restrictions, whether enforced by statutes or regulations,
contractual stipulations, or voluntary agreements, pervert the function of the library and violate the
professional responsibilities of librarians.
The American Library Association rejects censorship in any form. Any action that denies the inalienable
human rights of individuals only damages the will to resist oppression, strengthens the hand of the
oppressor, and undermines the cause of justice.
The American Library Association will not abrogate these principles. We believe that censorship corrupts
the cause of justice, and contributes to the demise of freedom.[72]

Youth for Human Rights International[edit]

Youth for Human Rights International (YHRI) is a non-profit organization founded in 2001 by
Mary Shuttleworth, an educator born and raised in apartheid South Africa, where she witnessed
firsthand the devastating effects of discrimination and the lack of basic human rights. The purpose of
YHRI is to teach youth about human rights, specifically the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and inspire them to become advocates for tolerance and peace. YHRI has now grown
into a global movement, including hundreds of groups, clubs and chapters around the world.[73]