See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340236754

THE 'DECLARATION' IN UDHR

Research · March 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32864.64003

CITATIONS READS
0 2,898

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Legal Insights View project

Doctoral Thesis: GDPR and Its impact on EU SMEs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Syed Hassan on 27 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SYED MP IHRL PAGE 1

THE ‘DECLARATION’ IN UDHR1

1) INTRODUCTION
Every human rights book, article or commentary refers to the United Nation (UN)

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as the ‘cornerstone’ of international human rights

law (IHRL). UDHR adoption in December 1948 marked a major ‘milestone’ in the

geopolitical events of the world at the time which was slowly emerging from the horrors

of the second world war.

The Anglo-American heritage of the UDHR cannot be ignored. Literature shows

that UDHR was drafted by the UN Commission on Human Rights that was chaired by the

widow of the United States (US) President Franklin Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt

compared UDHR to the British Magna Carta, calling UDHR as the “humanity’s Magna

Carta”.

Lady Eleanor Roosevelt recalled a discussion amongst the committed members

drafting the UDHR concerning pluralist ideologies of humanity which could also include

non-western ideologies. She recalled that,

“Dr Chang was a pluralist and held forth in charming fashion on the proposition that there

is more than one kind of ultimate reality. The Declaration, he said, should reflect more than simply

Western ideas and Dr Humphrey would have to be eclectic in his approach. His remark, though

addressed to Dr Humphrey, was really directed at Dr Malik, from whom it drew a prompt retort

as he expounded at some length the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Dr Humphrey joined

1
SYED Hassan, P.Engg, LLB (Hons), GDL, PhD Email: h.syed2@my.bpp.com
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 2

enthusiastically in the discussion, and I remember that at one point Dr Chang suggested that the

Secretariat might well spend a few months studying the fundamentals of Confucianism!”2

The drafting history of UDHR sheds important light on how the UN human rights

instrument became a non-binding ‘declaration’ and not a ‘convention’ or a codified legally

binding instrument of international law. The minutes of the first session of the drafting

committee meeting held on 1 July 1947 documents the discussion about the nature of the

document that would become the cornerstone of IHRL. In Chapter III, paragraph 19, the

minutes state that “the Drafting Committee acted on the assumption that the international

community must ensure the observance of the rights to be included in the International Bill

of Human Rights”.3

The 1 July 1947 drafting committee minutes are recorded and archived as

E/CN.4/21 in the UN Archives.4 The minutes do not state the names of the State parties

that objected to the draft human rights instrument becoming a binding legal instrument of

IHRL. It simply states in Part III, para 19(1)(a) that “that a Declaration of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms in a resolution of the General Assembly would in itself have

considerable moral weight.” This observation reveals the tensions between the diverging

geopolitical views concerning human rights at the time of the framing of the UDHR in

1947.

2
UDHR History, “History of the Document,” 2015, https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-
declaration/history-document/.

3
Hersch Lauterpacht, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Brit. YB Int’l L. 25 (1948): 354.

4
Nicoleta Voinea, “Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” travaux préparatoires (United
Nations. Dag Hammarskjöld Library, 1947), //research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee/1.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 3

Two countries were allowed to propose and submit drafts for consideration by the

committee drafting the UDHR. The countries were the US and the UK.5 The UK’s draft

was presented by Lord Dukeston.6 The draft submitted by the UK concealed in its language

in its comments for Article-II, the UK’s constitutional principle of the supremacy of UK

Parliament. It states that “No enactment can be given any greater authority than an Act of

Parliament, and one Act of Parliament can repeal another Act of Parliament.”

Thus the foundational document for the IHRL moved away from the possibility of

an internationally enforceable legal instrument of IHRL to a mere ‘declaration’ of human

rights that is non-enforceable and non-binding on UN member states. UDHR is an

aspirational document that seeks to appeal to the UN member states on the ‘moral plane’

the necessity to uphold and respect human rights.

This paper examines the non-binding nature of UDHR in light of UDHR being

framed as a ‘declaration’ as against its framing as a binding international convention or a

treaty under international law. The United States of America (US) was one of the key states

behind the framing of UDHR in 1947. The US has come under severe criticism by the

international community for pulling out of many UN human rights instruments. The US

criticism of the UN including the mocking of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and

the International Criminal Court (ICC) also undermines the effectiveness of UDHR as an

5
Johannes Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent (university
of Pennsylvania Press, 1999).

6
E/CN.4/AC.1/4, “UK Draft E/CN.4/AC.1/4,” June 5, 1947, https://undocs.org/E/CN.4/AC.1/4.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 4

international human rights document of significance.7 The US violations of human rights

since 9/11 have also attracted much criticism from the international community.8

2) WITHOUT OBLIGATION
The contemporary world has seen the normative human rights move from the legal

enforcement to the moral plane through the use of social media ‘trials’ determining the

‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’ of those involved in human rights violations. Social media and

Main Stream Media (MSM) fueled movements such as the #MeToo Movement have

propelled human rights such as the women’s rights in the workplace and community to be

a topic of great importance.

Most of these social media and MSM driven rights movements are based on

‘surface’ understanding of the IHRL and at times cause pubic presumption of ‘guilt’

without the due process of law. The questionable extradition trial of Julian Assange within

the Belmarsh prison precinct is a case in point. The MSM has been screaming the UK

government’s overt desire to support the US request to extradite Assange for his leaking

of US war crimes in Iraq through Wikileaks.9

7
Stefan Talmon, “The United States under President Trump: Gravedigger of International Law,” Chinese
Journal of International Law 18, no. 3 (2019): 645–68.

8
Muhammad Aziz Shukri, “Will Aggressors Ever Be Tried before the ICC?,” in The International
Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (Routledge, 2017), 33–42.

9
Natsu Taylor Saito, “Beyond Civil Rights: Considering" Third Generation" International Human Rights
Law in the United States,” The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 1996, 387–412.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 5

Literature supports the conclusion that the broader application of human rights

under IHRL is still subject to the pleasure of the States.10 It is the States that are signatory

to various international human rights instruments and responsible for the incorporation of

human rights within the domestic legal systems through acts of parliament. European

Union (EU) is an exception where the doctrine of supremacy of EU law over the member

states lends the EU treaties regulations and directives to be directly applicable to domestic

laws without any legislation on part of the EU member states.

The non-binding and without the burden of obligation UDHR has made a

significant impact on the development of domestic human rights regimes within the UN

member states. The sovereignty principle still gives the States, powers to derogate from

any of their domestic and international obligations of human rights. The right to life is

‘guaranteed’ under Article 3 of UDHR. The right to life is also enshrined in Article 6 of

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966. Article 3 UDHR

states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 6 ICCPR

states “Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital

punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.”11

Literature proves that the most valuable right of life to a human is not absolute in

contemporary law. There are derogations used by the States using the legal doctrine of jus

bellum to kill humans using remote lethal strike programs such as the US CIA Drone

programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Yemen. These extra-judicial strikes

10
Ruth Wedgwood, “R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Bennett,” American Journal of
International Law 89, no. 1 (1995): 142–44.

11
Right to Life, “Right to Life - Definitions UDHR & ICCPR,” 2020,
http://claiminghumanrights.org/right_to_life_definition.html.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 6

sometimes result in human casualties such as women, children and old people that are

collateral damage justified under the doctrine of jus bellum.

Any arbitrary right to life, such as the present practices of the US government drone

programs, makes this right neither absolute nor enforceable under the UDHR. Right to life

for certain communities is then illusionary at best and defeats the notion of universality

under the UDHR principles. Media has reported the US drones strikes on innocent civilians

resulting in the killing of those that had nothing to do with the conflict is a blatant violation

of UDHR right to life.12 Simple verbal apologies seem to work when such killings of

innocent humans take place as is highlighted in the New York Times report of 2013.13

Taking the discussion slightly further into the realm of international law and human

rights, the ‘declaration’ of universal human rights under UDHR may point to the moral

plane of reference for the normative understanding of human rights. Simply put, the

‘declaration’ with its non-binding and proclamatory ambitions under the UDHR placed it

further from the legal certainty that might have caused difficulties in getting the UN

member states to agree on a common set of human rights under a more restrictive and

obligatory instrument. The voluntary and non-binding nature of UDHR reflects the

perceived flexibility provided to the Westphalian Sovereignty principle in the

constitutional law of western powers that led the drafting of UDHR in the 1940s.

Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT 1969) provides

that there is no derogation from jus cogens norms and Article 53 VCLT can be invoked

12
Rod Nordland, “U.S. General Apologizes After Afghan Drone Strike - The New York Times,” 2013,
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/world/asia/drone-strike-in-afghanistan.html.

13
Nordland.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 7

when a treaty breaches the norms of jus cogens.14 Jus cogens norms or ‘compelling law

norms’ is defined as the “peremptory norm” are mandatory norms of international law that

do not permit derogation. Since these norms are mandatory, they can only be modified by

equivalent norms of international law.15 The Academy is divided if the doctrine of jus

cogen provides any certainty to human rights obligations away from the normative

demands and closer to the legal principles of any binding nature arising from UDHR. It is

an entirely different debate on how to identify the peremptory norms of human rights under

the doctrine of jus cogen that are universal in nature and apply to the entire international

community.

A positivist view suggests that jus cogens norms concerning human rights develop

through customary international law. Customary international law is generally understood

to be based on the principles of state consent and opinio juris. It would then follow by

analogy that customary international law for human rights heavily relies upon the States

consent to restrict sovereignty to accommodate ‘international human rights’ under the

norms of jus cogens. This theoretical explanation tends to give way to opposite practices

under the contemporary human rights derogations by states in this heightened international

environment of security and fight against terrorism.

The legal doctrine of erga omnes gives rise to obligations owed to the entire

international community. Human rights under the doctrine of jus cogen norms carry the

scope of erga omnes principle for creating a positive obligation on part of the States to

14
VCLT 1969, “Refworld | Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” Refworld, 1982,
https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html.

15
Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent, “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens,” Yale J. Int’l L. 34 (2009):
331.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 8

uphold international human rights. Thus any violation of international human rights by a

State under jus cogen would constitute a violation of human rights against the entire

international community under the erga omnes principle.

The US Supreme Court does not seem to agree with these norms of international

human rights. The US Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Saudi Arabia v. Nelson upheld

the Sovereignty immunity principle against the use of torture by Saudi Arabia and allowed

the sovereign immunity to prevail over the UDHR principle of the right to protection from

torture.16

The UK’s judiciary took an exceptional stand against the UK government’s

unlawful rendition of a person to stand trial in the UK the 1994 R v Horseferry Road

Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Bennett case.17 The UK House of Lords (now UK Supreme

Court) held that there was an ‘abuse of process’ when the defendant was ‘abducted’ by the

UK government and halted his criminal trial due to the international abduction of the

defendant. Lord Bridge at para 71 stated that “Torturing or mistreating prisoners…is not

inherent in the use of armed force abroad. Not only is such a practice contrary to

international humanitarian law but it is also incompatible with article 3 of the European

Convention and therefore unlawful in English law pursuant to section 6 of the Human

Rights Act.” It remains to be seen how the UK is going to abide by IHRL since it has

broken away from the EU. It also remains to be seen how the UK is going to reconsider its

Everett C. Johnson Jr, “Saudi Arabia v. Nelson: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in Perspective,”
16

Hous. J. Int’l L. 16 (1993): 291.

17
Wedgwood, “R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Bennett.”
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 9

international obligations towards human rights outside of the confines of the EU’s human

rights law.

3) THE WEST V THE REST

The western governments consider human rights as an extension of their foreign

policy priorities. In the UK, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) monitors the EU

Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.18 In the US, the

State Department decides the US responses to their various ‘humanitarian’ interventions

by using military force most recently in countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc.

The US ‘interventions’ in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Surinam and various other

countries were directly related to the US State Department’s assessments of various

geopolitical interests of the US regardless of the State sovereignty principles enshrined in

the international law against the threat or use of force.19

The economic history of the UK rests on the colonisation of the global south. The

drafting of UDHR showing deference to the sovereignty principle and the formation of the

earliest European Steel and Coal Community right after the second world war highlight the

UK’s protection of its geopolitical interests. Going back a litter further, the 1917 UK’s

Belfour Declaration to allow the European Zionist colonisation of the Palestinian people’s

18
Peter Albrecht and Paul Jackson, “State-Building through Security Sector Reform: The UK Intervention
in Sierra Leone,” Peacebuilding 2, no. 1 (2014): 83–99.

19
Marina Ottaway and Bethany Lacina, “International Interventions and Imperialism: Lessons from the
1990s,” SAIS Review 23, no. 2 (2003): 71–92.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 10

land was a result of the British desire to receive financial support from the European Jewish

banking community.20

The geopolitical dominance of the US and the UK within the western polity is

visible by the echoing of the US and UK condemnation of those nations that may pose a

threat to their interest by the leaders in the EU and the rest of the western world. The 2003

invasion of Iraq came at the heels of the infamous and fabricated ‘Iraq dossier’ prepared

by the UK’s FCO and intelligence community. The EU along with Canada, Australia and

New Zealand lined behind the US and the UK to invade Iraq without any evidence of the

alleged Iraqi links with Al Qaida or having any weapons of mass destruction.21

Libya, Yemen and Syria are suffering at the hands of the US and UK complicity in

providing weapons and training to various factions that might yield regime changes that

are suitable for their geopolitical interests. Collectively, these western powers are

responsible for creating one of the worst humanitarian crisis since the second world war.

Refugee camps are now located along the borders of these war-torn countries that are

unable to sustain their populations. As the world’s leading manufacturers of small arms

and ammunition, the US and UK manufactured arms and ammunition are further fueling

the war in the Middle-East and North Africa.22

20
Branislav Gosovic, “Global Intellectual Hegemony and the International Development Agenda,”
International Social Science Journal 52, no. 166 (2000): 447–56.

21
Doctor Adam Jones, Genocide, War Crimes and the West: History and Complicity (Zed Books Ltd.,
2013).

22
Sandra Halperin, “The Political Economy of Anglo-American War: The Case of Iraq,” International
Politics 48, no. 2–3 (2011): 207–28.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 11

The shamed UN Oil-for-Food programs in Iraq is another example of how the

economic and social development of the country was undermined while its natural

resources were robbed by the US-UK combined oil and gas corporations in Iraq following

the 2003 invasion.23 The US and UK consistently whip the rest of the world with ‘human

rights violations’ but consistently ignore the gross violations of human rights and

systematic erosion of civil and political liberties in their domestic human rights policies.

The erosion of civil liberties, freedom of expression and dissent punishment are

now part of the growing human rights violations in the US and the UK. The US and UK’s

global covert mass surveillance programs were exposed by the CIA Contractor Edward

Snowden in 2013.24 The response from the western governments and the UN was silence

and subservience. On the other hand, the US, UK and the rest of the western countries are

accusing China of ‘trying’ to infiltrate their ‘sensitive’ networks using its 5G technology.25

While the US and UK mass covert surveillance of the global community is an evidenced

fact, the western government have been able to provide no proof of their allegations against

China. This marked hypocrisy in applying IHRL rules to the detriment of the global south

and to the advantage of the global north provides a glimpse of the contemporary state of

IHRL under the UDHR.

Philippe Le Billon and Fouad El Khatib, “From Free Oil to ‘Freedom Oil’: Terrorism, War and US
23

Geopolitics in the Persian Gulf,” Geopolitics 9, no. 1 (2004): 109–37.

24
Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State
(Macmillan, 2014).

25
Stacie Hoffmann, Samantha Bradshaw, and Emily Taylor, “Networks and Geopolitics: How Great Power
Rivalries Infected 5G,” n.d.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 12

4) CONCLUSION
The Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently released its World Report 2019.26 The

report on the state of human rights within the US paints a very bleak picture. The report

states that the US has one of the largest prison population in the world at 2 million people.

There are 4.5 million people serving parole conditions in the community due to the

overcrowding in the US prisons. The prison total population of the US comprises of 15%

of its total population of 350 million people.

The women population in US prisons has increased by 700% since 1980. 30 States

within the US still carry out the death penalty using either the lethal injection or

electrocution that causes extreme pain and torture on the person dying due to this cruel

form of capital punishment that is not carried out in any other country of the world. There

are 25,000 children under the age of 15 in the US prison, some of them are housed with

adults and are exposed to extreme sexual and physical violence. Most of the prisons in the

US are privately run by corporations for profit. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme

Poverty and Human Rights severely criticised the US for its treatment of the poor

Americans.27

The UK parliament compiled two reports in 2018 on the complicity of the UK in

illegal torture and inhumane treatment of persons subjected to international illegal rendition

operations and management of covert torture cells operated by the UK intelligence

26
Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth HRC 20/16, 34th Floor | New York, and NY 10118-3299 USA | t
1.212.290.4700, “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in the United States,” Human Rights Watch, 2019,
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/united-states.

27
OHCHR US Report, “OHCHR | Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights,” 2019,
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/SRExtremePovertyIndex.aspx.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 13

agencies. 28 The UK parliament found the behaviour of the UK government tolerated such

actions of unlawful torture, rendition and other forms of human rights violations between

2001 and 2010 to be “inexcusable”. No conventions nor any legal actions were ever taken

against those responsible for these reprehensible violations of UDHR, ECHR and other

international human rights charters.

In 2015, the UN’s universal review process of human rights conditions in the UK

found that racism accounts for 82% of hate crimes in England and Wales.29 The 2016 UK

government triggered Brexit vote coincided with a surge in hate crimes against immigrants

and non-white British population.30 British prisons are now run by private companies for

profits. As of 2018, the prison population of England and Wales was 83000 inmates. The

UK government ‘projects’ a steady increase in its prison population of about 3,200 new

prisoners each year according to the UK’s Ministry of Justice.31 A ‘projection’ of rise in

prison population seems to suggest that the UK’s criminal justice system has already

assumed the ‘guilt’ of over 3000 persons each year. No one seems to pick up its bizarre

projection of rise in the UK’s ‘for-profit’ and privatized prison system corporations.

28
Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth HRW UK Report, 34th Floor | New York, and NY 10118-3299 USA | t
1.212.290.4700, “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in United Kingdom,” Human Rights Watch, 2018,
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/united-kingdom.

29
Hannah Corcoran, Deborah Lader, and Kevin Smith, “Hate Crime, England and Wales,” Statistical
Bulletin 5 (2015): 15.

30
Daniel Devine, “The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union as a Trigger Event for Hate
Crimes,” Available at SSRN 3118190, 2018.

31
Jamie Grierson, “Prison Population Set to Rise despite Overcrowding Crisis,” The Guardian, 2018, sec.
Society, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/prison-population-set-to-rise-despite-
overcrowding-crisis.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 14

The UDHR since its proclamation in 1948 aimed to aspire for a world that would

shake out of the European fascism which led to the horrors of the second world war. It

seems that the framing of the UDHR as a ‘declaration’ conveyed the future intentions of

the western powers that were mainly involved in the chosen language of the UDHR. The

illusionary human rights that are proclaimed internationally and often breached

domestically will remain an aspiration away from the realization. Human rights do not need

legislation nor do they need recognition within a legal order. These rights are intrinsic to

the human agency. Till a reform of the global geopolitical balance of power between the

global north and the global south does not take place on the principles of equality, the

UDHR will remain an aspiration only. History has proven it as such.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Albrecht, Peter, and Paul Jackson. “State-Building through Security Sector Reform:
The UK Intervention in Sierra Leone.” Peacebuilding 2, no. 1 (2014): 83–99.
2. Corcoran, Hannah, Deborah Lader, and Kevin Smith. “Hate Crime, England and
Wales.” Statistical Bulletin 5 (2015): 15.
3. Criddle, Evan J., and Evan Fox-Decent. “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens.” Yale
J. Int’l L. 34 (2009): 331.
4. Devine, Daniel. “The UK Referendum on Membership of the European Union as a
Trigger Event for Hate Crimes.” Available at SSRN 3118190, 2018.
5. E/CN.4/AC.1/4. “UK Draft E/CN.4/AC.1/4,” June 5, 1947.
https://undocs.org/E/CN.4/AC.1/4.
6. Gosovic, Branislav. “Global Intellectual Hegemony and the International
Development Agenda.” International Social Science Journal 52, no. 166 (2000):
447–56.
7. Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US
Surveillance State. Macmillan, 2014.
8. Grierson, Jamie. “Prison Population Set to Rise despite Overcrowding Crisis.” The
Guardian, 2018, sec. Society.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/prison-population-set-to-rise-
despite-overcrowding-crisis.
9. Halperin, Sandra. “The Political Economy of Anglo-American War: The Case of
Iraq.” International Politics 48, no. 2–3 (2011): 207–28.
10. Hoffmann, Stacie, Samantha Bradshaw, and Emily Taylor. “Networks and
Geopolitics: How Great Power Rivalries Infected 5G,” n.d.
SYED MP IHRL PAGE 15

11. HRC 20/16, Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth, 34th Floor | New York, and NY
10118-3299 USA | t 1.212.290.4700. “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in the
United States.” Human Rights Watch, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-
report/2019/country-chapters/united-states.
12. HRW UK Report, Human Rights Watch | 350 Fifth, 34th Floor | New York, and
NY 10118-3299 USA | t 1.212.290.4700. “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in
the United Kingdom.” Human Rights Watch, 2018. https://www.hrw.org/world-
report/2019/country-chapters/united-kingdom.
13. Johnson Jr, Everett C. “Saudi Arabia v. Nelson: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act in Perspective.” Hous. J. Int’l L. 16 (1993): 291.
14. Jones, Doctor Adam. Genocide, War Crimes and the West: History and Complicity.
Zed Books Ltd., 2013.
15. Lauterpacht, Hersch. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Brit. YB Int’l
L. 25 (1948): 354.
16. Le Billon, Philippe, and Fouad El-Khatib. “From Free Oil to ‘Freedom Oil’:
Terrorism, War and US Geopolitics in the Persian Gulf.” Geopolitics 9, no. 1
(2004): 109–37.
17. Morsink, Johannes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins,
Drafting, and Intent. university of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
18. Nordland, Rod. “U.S. General Apologizes After Afghan Drone Strike - The New
York Times,” 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/world/asia/drone-
strike-in-afghanistan.html.
19. OHCHR US Report. “OHCHR | Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and
Human Rights,” 2019.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/SRExtremePovertyIndex.aspx.
20. Ottaway, Marina, and Bethany Lacina. “International Interventions and
Imperialism: Lessons from the 1990s.” SAIS Review 23, no. 2 (2003): 71–92.
21. Right to Life. “Right to Life - Definitions UDHR & ICCPR,” 2020.
http://claiminghumanrights.org/right_to_life_definition.html.
22. Saito, Natsu Taylor. “Beyond Civil Rights: Considering" Third Generation"
International Human Rights Law in the United States.” The University of Miami
Inter-American Law Review, 1996, 387–412.
23. Shukri, Muhammad Aziz. “Will Aggressors Ever Be Tried before the ICC?” In The
International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression, 33–42. Routledge,
2017.
24. Talmon, Stefan. “The United States under President Trump: Gravedigger of
International Law.” Chinese Journal of International Law 18, no. 3 (2019): 645–
68.
25. UDHR History. “History of the Document,” 2015.
https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/.
26. VCLT 1969. “Refworld | Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” Refworld,
1982. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html.
27. Voinea, Nicoleta. “Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Travaux préparatoires. United Nations. Dag Hammarskjöld Library, 1947.
//research.un.org/en/undhr/draftingcommittee/1.
 SYED MP IHRL PAGE 16

28. Wedgwood, Ruth. “R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex Parte Bennett.”
American Journal of International Law 89, no. 1 (1995): 142–44.

View publication stats