Universal Declaration of Human Rights: what are your questions?
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 75 this year. In a new series, we find out why this historic document is so important for the development of democracies, and ask how universal it really is.
What does the Declaration mean to you? What would you like to know about it? Let us know below.
Click on the article below for a look at some key figures and key moments in the adoption of the Declaration:
From the article UN Declaration of Human Rights – the threshold of a great event
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a very important document that has been ratified by the majority of countries in the world in order to protect the dignity of a person during his life. This Declaration highlighted most human rights that must be respected and should not be denied to anyone regardless of their sex, race, religion, color, political affiliation, etc... However, unfortunately, there are some countries that violate the terms of this Declaration, flout them and consider themselves above all laws, and no one can hold them accountable.
الإعلان العالمي لِحقوق الإنسان وَثيقةٌ مُهِمَّةٌ للغايَة صادَقت عليها أغلبية دول العالم من أجل حمايَة كرامَة الإنسان في حياته، و قد ابرَزَ هذا الإعلان مُعظَم حقوق الإنسان التي يجِب احترامُها و عدَم حِرمان أيَّ شخصٍ مِنها بِغضِّ النظر عن جِنسِه أو عِرقِه أو دينه أو لَوْنِه أو انتمائه السياسي و ما إلى ذلك... و لكن، للأسف هُناك بعض الدول التي تنْتهكُ بُنود هذا الإعلان و تَضرِبُ بها عَرضَ الحائط و تعتبِر نفسَها فوق كلّ القوانين، و لا أحدَ يستطيع مُحاسَبَتَها.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a 30-point document that includes all the rights to protect the dignity of all human beings. However, this Universal Declaration is not applied in many countries of the world. Many peoples in the “third” world suffer from extreme poverty, despite the availability of huge wealth in their countries. The peoples of these countries are also deprived of freedom of expression and criticism of the policy of the ruling authorities because these authorities are autocrats who do not believe in democracy, freedoms, social justice or the rights of citizens. People living in poverty, ignorance, non-marginalization and exclusion.
الإعلان العالمي لحقوق الإنسان وثيقة من 30 بنْداً تتضمّن جميع الحقوق الخاصّة بحفظ كرامة جميع بني البشر، إلّا أنّ هذا الإعلان العالميّ لا يُطبّق في العديد من دول العالم، فهُناك شعوب عديدة في العالم "الثالث" ترزح تحت براثِن الفقر المُدقع، رغم توفُّر بلدانها على ثروات هائلة. كما أنّ شعوب هذه البلدان محرومة من حرية التعبير و انتقاد سياسة السلطات الحاكمة لأن هذه السلطات مُستبِدّة لا تؤمن لا بالديمقراطيّة و لا بالحريّات و لا بالعدالة الاجتماعيّة و لا بحقوق المواطنين. شعوبٌ تعيش الفقر و الجهل و عدم التهميش و الإقصاء.
Your questions about responsibilities is great one. But look at the preambles of all three instruments and make up the International Bill of Human Rights (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights). All of these instruments speak about responsibilities of individuals. Unfortunately, they only do so in the non-legally binding preambles. More frustratingly, when the UN drafted what is known as a Human Rights Defenders' Declaration in the 1980s and 1990s, efforts by States like Cuba to introduce individual responsibilities or harshly rebuked by the United States Australia and other Western European and Others Group States. It was unfortunate the Western European and Others Group was so narrowminded as they could have significantly advance the protection of human rights and they adopted an understanding of individual responsibilities that had been suggested by several United Nations experts before the Human Rights Defender's Declaration was adopted. If you want to find the most progressive human and peoples' rights instruments look at some of those adopted in Africa.
Why is the US Constitution so weak in protecting human and peoples' rights? It has few civil and political rights, hardly any economic and social rights, and no peoples' rights? How come the US Constitution is such a poor example for the rest of the world when the USA professes to want to being freedom and liberty to others?
Is it true that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based on mainly on drafts by Cuba and Panama? And that the initial USA draft included only the right to freedom of expression?
Respectfully, the U.S. Constitution is preferrable, imo.
You're joking right? The US Constitution is one of the weakest Constitutions in the world in terms of protecting individuals or peoples' rights. And in terms of protecting democracy, just ask the former President how that has worked. It's not a bad constitution, just too old, out of date, and in disperate need of a refurbishing.
If your point is that the expelled Ramani was working! ... The state contract will be excessive without it. Let the poor enjoy their poverty. regards
ان كان مقصودك ان الرلماني المطرود كان يعمل ! ... ولسوف يفرط عقد الدولة بدونه , فلندع الفقراء ينعمون بفقرهم . تحياتي
How about a new subject???
It should have been a Declaration of Responsibilities. Like the US Bill of Rights, it encourages selfish thinking and a “me first” attitude. If instead the document laid out basic expectations of behaviour towards others by governments and individuals, we may have a society that cares as much about those around us as we do about ourselves.
Remember American Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UN Human Rights Commission that was drafting the UDHR. While she supported human rights she viewed then from the perspective of non-intervention, not responsibility. In other words, She thought that if the state did not interfere with the lives of individuals all individuals would have human rights. We know today, that if the State does not secure some human rights, especially to those who are more vulnerable, they will be denied human rights. Unfortunately, the United States record of promoting human rights, doesn't come close to its actions violating human rights in the last 75 years. Perhaps the more valuable question ask is how can the United States and other countries enhance the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strive to secure human and peoples' rights for people everywhere, today.
The swiss for all the great achievements over the years still annoy me in that one of the basic requirements of humans, the requirement for shelter remains largely an unaddressed in full matter, to clarify the statement I first observe the architectural institutes of zurich and lausanne and also I believe basel that are world class learning institutions but the passive solar design principles are not an inherent requirement in the fundamental urban planning regime which must precede the built environment, given the energy saving and reduced environmental impact that is achievable why is it the swiss or the un cant come out and define a better standard for the built enviroment, lets not forget people spend a large portion of their lives in the pursuit of the shelter/ home?, and lets face it if the swiss where to recount a better standard at least it would recieve a fair review
What are they actually?
Is there a link to them!!!!
I'm sorry but it would make sense to actually let us know what you want us to respond to instead of leaving us in the dark!!
But, whatever THEY are, it seems that most poltiicians dance around them mostly and bring them out like the family heirlooms when it is required to get votes or cover up something that isn't working.
Also, one Party that has power can bring something in and the next government through them out.... that means they are political rather than voted on by all citizens...
Hello and thanks for your comment. If you want to learn more about the universal declaration and how it came to be, we've got this story for you to read:
You can of course also read the actual document on the UN's website:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english
Until everyone in the world treats everyone with respect, until the rich and powerful stop mistreating the poor, until there are no more conflicts or wars, until criminals stop being criminals, until the war on drugs is won, until politicians put their voters first, the Declaration of Human Rights is not worth the paper it is written on.
All I know is that your rights are equal as mine and they end when mine start. Very simple.
In his book 'Islam and Human Rights', Sir Mohammad Zafrullah Khan, President of the UN General Assembly 1963, writes how Islam brought forward Huan Rights more than 1400 years ago. See https://www.alislam.org/book/islam-human-rights/
In February 2023, three "special rapporteurs on minority issues" serving in their personal capacity for the United Nations issued a report claiming that China had "culturally, religiously and linguistically assimilated the Tibetan people through boarding schools, affecting approximately one million Tibetan children ". A number of Western media outlets have retweeted it, attacking boarding schools in China's Tibet Autonomous Region.
Are Tibetan children being forced to attend boarding schools? Do the children face "assimilation education" in the classroom? What are the real conditions of the schools' food and accommodation?
2023年2月，3名以个人身份为联合国服务的“少数族群议题特别报告员”以个人名义发表报告声称，中国通过寄宿学校在“文化、宗教和语言上同化藏族人民，影响了约100万名藏族儿童”。一些西方媒体纷纷转发，抨击中国西藏自治区的寄宿制学校。
藏族孩子们是否被迫参加寄宿制学校？孩子们在课堂中又是否面临“同化教育”？学校的伙食住宿的真实条件到底如何？
"Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
.
What went wrong in all the conflicts in the last 75 years?
What went wrong in the Ukraine and in Sudan?
Excellent questions!
Despite the UN, together with Human Rights, human nature will take time to evolve if the adoption of Human Rights will give it an advantage. Meanwhile the world is still operating on might is right, as attested by American Hegemonic foreign policy. In all fairness, if one contrasts the number of conflicts in the last 75 years to previous 75 years, there is no doubt of progress, however slight that might be. I will let the first question by answered by Ph.D. student's dessertation.
Meanwhile, I certainly learned from Jeffery Sachs' recent article of what went wrong in the Ukraine. Here is his article: https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-provoked-and-why-that-matters-if-we-want-peace Have a read and decide what your agree and/or disagree.
When I get around to dive deep into the case of Sudan beyond just tribal war, I'll return.
The UN declaration of human rights is in a state that needs to be updated and made operational on the approach to refugees in Europe. In particular, the le Dublin III protocol has a praxis that goes against the UN universal declaration of human rights. For example, a country that has become a new member of the European Union, such as Croatia, inflicts all kinds of inhumane ill-treatment and torture on refugees. In the middle of Europe, Croatia is experiencing a great migrant tragedy. Such problems need to be dealt with within the framework of universal law, within the framework of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I wish you success in your work and have a nice day.
Thank you for your comment. NGOs like Amnesty International have indeed reported on abuses against migrants and asylum-seekers in Croatia and other countries. Making sure countries respect the treaties they sign is extremely difficult. Your point about updating the UDHR is interesting – did you have something specific in mind?
There is a saying in Spanish...'papel aguanta todo' ie on paper you can print anything. The original intention is laudable, not so what has become of it - what warring countries, dictatorships have made of it.
Are the homeless, the homeless, and the poor - and those who have been betrayed by luck in rich countries counted on humanity and have the right to a decent life? Just ask.
هل المشردون / الذين بلا مأوى / والفقراء - ومن خانهم الحظ في البلدان الغنية محسوبون على الانسانية ولهم حق في الحياة الكريمة . فقط تسائل .
Are those that have neither the heart or the desire to give a better life to those that come from their own blood, worthy even of the time to consider their position or circumstances?
For some countries, some homeless is a life style choice. For others, it is a mindset of victimhood. There are very few exceptions that I have run across, but plenty of programs that appeared to make the situation worse. It is unfortunate an undesirable outcome of liberal democracy.
Anyone interested in learning more, read the book called San FranSicko, written by an eX Progressive Liberal who studied the failure of programs that have been instituted in San Francisco for more than two decades. SF has not gotten better, but more sick.
In contrast, as UN recognized, that China succeeded in lifting its last 100million citizen from UN's definition of poverty. What an irony?
There is a big difference between people who are homeless because of poverty, and drug addicts. Poverty is not a pathological condition, nor psychological, but a social condition. For example, one parliamentary income in a month is sufficient to support ten homeless people for a full year. If the state can give up one employee, it will appoint and help dozens of poor families with that employee's salary.
هناك فارق كبير بين المشردون بسبب الفقر , والمدمنون على المخدرات . فالفقر ليس حالة مرضية , ولا نفسية بل ظرفا اجتماعيا - ومثالا * مدخول برلماني واحدا في شهر كافيا لاعالة عشرة مشردون لعام كامل . اذا بامكان الدولة التخلي عن موظفا واحدا فتعين , وتساعد العشرات من العوائل الفقيرة براتب هذا الموظف .
Nothing really. It interpreted so differently by politicians all over the world. And new and new things get created which try to legalise itself hence changing the meaning of human right. We still have a gender pay gap, not very humain or we struggle to give non circular definition to a word woman. I mean, this book just does not work or reflect the efforts of the people. It is a fairytale book which no one follows.
The irrefutable fact remains however that the standard is we fight today for a better tomorrow, the issue is that much as we love the ravens of basel to have so many so fat from feeding on the eyes of the dead that they could not fly is a high price for such a small change, the incumbent is often the problem with the better tomorrow
But no one follows this book, any day any president of a country can say that we no longer signed up for this book like Russia did and that's it. What will you do? Send army to capture a president ? It is laughable. I have been a time line notter for un and red cross many time. I no longer donate money to any of thous huge organisations because they are useless. Most money they spend on fancy meeting where half of the delegates don't even speak up, they fly in and we drive them in Mercedes and in the end all their talk is " suggestive".
Join the conversation!